|
|
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) I don't think you're going to find such a thing, because "vile and contemptuous" isn't something that makes something art or not. If a thing is truely vile and contemptuous, it might be something that, as you say, no one ever should be exposed (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Isn't there a difference of _depth_ as well? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| I'm sure to regret getting into this at all, but... (...) why stop at art? -S (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) I'm not so sure (see my post above). Can't I come up with an idea so obscene that every normal, decent human being will say, "That's sick!" -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) No, I am waving around the term because I'm searching for something so vile and contemptuous that it is an example of something that art isn't. And I'm not talking about photos of nude, newborn babies. I'm talking about depictions of sexual (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
