 | | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
Frank said it, better than I've had time to say. Very nicely done. What a great running dog lackey I've created here... (go back to very early in the history of this group and read some of Frank's stuff and you'll find he wasn't nearly as right as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
<387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <slrn8796nm.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's my point, you see. I'm saying that such things (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Good. So do I. Fortunately, that wasn't what I said. What I said was that if you are not willing to suffer for your art, you are not a worthy ARTIST, not that your art isn't worthy. I would say that to be true for any endeavour. If you expect (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
<FnvKu0.A5C@lugnet.com> <38742759.42A175DD@uswest.net> <Fnx470.15I@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) YES! We cannot float on the sea of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Scott: In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes: **snip** (...) Maybe part of the dilemma is coming from confusion between the "right to health care" and the "right not to be prevented from obtaining health care." Certainly there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
One thing I'd like to toss in here is the possibility that it is ok for local government to spend money on social programs (including art and schools). This is subject to the limitation that state and national governments don't control the local (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
|
(...) who (...) "decent" (...) How about this one - a parent eating his child! Sick! Cannibalism! Disgusting. Certainly Not Art! And certainly on paper, this really seems like a candidate. Goya's "Saturn Devouring one of his Children". (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something together from the two debates we have going on. ASSERTIONS: 1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional response. 2. The VALUE of art is something (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
|
(...) art is (...) artist (...) everything? (...) Bad art is usually consigned to the Not Art category, but only over time. Unless it's an illustration, in which case it is Not Art immediately. :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I think this is a pointless argument, simply because a national defense was FOUNDED in the Constitution. The NEA was not. Artists have somehow survived since the beginning of time, and somehow, we seem to be in a notion that the federal (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
|
(...) Not everyone agrees with you on that, and the proportions that do or don't will change dramatically from culture to culture. (...) else (...) A reasonable desire, but again, "child pornography" means different things to different people. For (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I disagree with the sentiment that suffering creates better art, or that worthy art can only be created by those willing to suffer a bit for it. Are some of the amazing LEGO creations and sculptures on LUGNET not examples of worthy art created (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) I am not for the leftist view of government taxing us to death for everyone's ability to have health care, education, etc. I work two jobs, I am starting my own business, and I think the left's view of these being rights is both absurd and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.)
|
|
<3874A8CA.59FCB9A3@voyager.net> <slrn879jb5.6vn.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fair enough. I'll try to root out the cogent thread but if you want to dig, use "life affirming" as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<3874CFB7.C78E8E40@voyager.net> <slrn879jtn.95s.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'm not sure. I haven't carried out an exhaustive analysis of the rights involved. I would tend to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) From a rights basis (the utilitarian basis is clear) does it follow that the inventor has the right to prevent other people from coming up with the exact same idea on their own? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) OK, go ahead and invent away. I don't invent for free. (...) So let me see here, what you're proposing is that I go out and invent something, someone else steals my idea, gets it to market first, and makes a pile from the users, and I don't (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You're against health care, housing, and education? My goodness, in that case I'm certainly proud to be a leftist. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to define what art is, it is based (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.)
|
|
(...) I don't understand the basis for the assertion that property rights are the basis for all other rights. Where do property rights come from? What makes that a privledged right above any other I can imagine? Arguments for this I've seen that I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) No, in other words, you're not moving this discussion forward because you're not doing what you committed to do, accept my premise and try to refute this particular point using it. We have a fundamental disagreement about rights. I happen to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Matt, (...) Yes, but without the Declaration, we would have no Constitution, or Bill of Rights. Clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers is here.. but this isn't what I was talking about. (...) I think that the Constitution outlined the concept of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yes. And I proceeded to tersly show that even if you buy ends justify the means you still fail, because you get bad ends. all government programs produce bad results is my utilitarian thesis. So I have him both ways. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Just for the record, I fully agree. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) In other words, "neener neener, I can't hear you?" Whatever. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) No. (...) I'm not saying you can't judge it. I'm saying you can't say it isn't art, but that doesn't at all preclude you from saying it's _bad_ art. (...) The definition doesn't exist, short of an inclusive data base. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) "utilitarian" == "ends justify the means", no? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You discredit yourself completely in the first sentence. Nice going. "coined by the founding fathers" == "god-given". Whatever. (...) So now it's a bad idea to strive for utopia? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) They don't get incented. (...) Noone. Except possibly, oh, I don't know, how about those people who could actually benefit from the invention? You know, just like roads should be financed by the users. And please don't come shouting about how (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) He also spoke against slavery, but didn't even free his slaves in his will. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yes. The Declaration of Independence is very much not the Constitution. In fact, interesting to consider that this language, so obvious in the declaration, is so conspicuously not in the constitution. (...) Yes. Foundationalism is nice, when (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) I'm not saying anything about justifying anything. "Ends justify the means" implies some sort of need for justificiation, and as I said, I'm assuming neither a totally evil government nor totally evil capitalists. (...) Not true. They may not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<387424BA.8AA8A11@voyager.net> <slrn8797ta.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, this doesn't narrow it down a lot, because the entire thread is still 400+ posts, but if you (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Well, it speaks (Looking at my CATO supplied Constitution & Bill of Rights) , "the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...." for one (In the Declaration of Independence). The concept of natural law, in (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<38741B0A.4F62FC4B@c...anweb.net> <slrn879752.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Yes. Unless you're a big fan of "the ends justify the means". Good outcomes do not justify (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) But this, too, is circular, since your question implies that a human being who doesn't say "That's sick!" is not normal and decent. Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Fair enough -- I admit to joining the debate in progress. There's several thousand posts in this newsgroup; discussing them all becomes an ever-increasing burden to entry. Could you point me to several in particular that you'd like me to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yeah. But I disagree. The founding fathers may have had this belief, but they very carefully didn't write it into the constitution. (...) So if the government does something good, it's still evil? I guess I'm concerned with making things work. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Although I agree with Kevin (how could I not, he's agreeing with me) I am honor bound to point out: (...) that the starving artists I see on TV (you know, on those 1/2 hour ads and such) seem to produce mostly Elvis on velvet... :-) Not that there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I don't follow you. There isn't a difference except in style of expression-- both are saying the same thing. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<38741A57.AE0161C3@voyager.net> <slrn8787ug.nkk.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, if you don't know the difference, or don't know that some of us feel there is a difference, and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) So are you saying that we can only recognize art in retrospect? And since we cannot know how the future will deem our (the present) work, then we shall not try and judge it now? (...) I'm searching for a definition, not an inclusive data (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Why??? This statement seems more lazy than profound. Try. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude. *What* the nude is doing or how it's being portrayed are important considerations. When I refer to child pornography, I am referring to portrayals of sexual acts by (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Mine as well! (...) Amen, brother! :) Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Not to mention on shaky accuracy ground! The Constitution doesn't speak of either god or rights. And the first ten amendments don't attribute the rights they speak of to any specific external source. The Declaration of Independence mentions (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Hear, Hear!!! Time to vote. Who is in favor of un-funding all federal art subsidies?? It sure gets my vote. I prefer starving artists who have to work a little bit at their trade and thus, create much better art. If private individuals wish to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Very shaky ground, my eyes certainly are! (...) Yes sir. Larry has the unique ability to clean up what rambling I have, and make it a clear and concise point. All hail Larry! Scott "losing the ability to type" S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) OK, I just got back from Meijer, as I was pushing carts for five hours in the frozen tundra of Michigan (I could use those Arctic Minifig hoods! :) ), and I am tired. My apologies. Alright, The founding fathers concluded, when they wrote the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) OK, what's your proposal, then? If they're not property, what are they? and how do the people that come up with them get incented? I ain't gonna invent stuff for you for free, you know... and neither is anyone else. Those 20,000 failed light (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) And thank goodness he WASN'T state funded. Free money spoils people. If you don't want to suffer a bit for your art, you're not much of an artist, now are you? Note, that's a utilitarian argument against state funding... the art it produces is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<38741109.CEDCCCFC@c...anweb.net> <slrn87862s.nkk.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Insert an "under" in front and you should be able to parse it, although it may still be on shaky (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) This sentence doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Can you rephrase/explain what you're saying? (...) Ok. So if they're good ideas in a perfect world, is there a problem with saying that those are things we want to strive for as a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Van Gogh *was* bankrolled by his brother Theo. It just took a little time for the market to appreciate Vincent as well;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) The US Constitution and Bill of Rights, coined by the founding fathers, all rights are God given. As in the "rights" of health care, etc., in theory, all are good ideas, in utopia. In reality, there is a difference. What does the market do? (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Many rights are things we as a society make up. (As opposed to being somehow natural or god-given.) That doesn't mean that they're not good ideas! Why isn't it good to say that all people deserve be taken care of when they're sick? (...) Oh (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Oh my, I have not seen this in awhile. Horrid. As an example: Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his Family, including food, clothing, housing and medical (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I am not really interested in how the NEA, NEH, etc. work. I don't think they should be there, period. Any funding to the arts should be through private organizations. Artists have somehow survived and thrived before the advent of socialistic (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) there are nude chidren in brian froud's work. ( the stunning "fairies", "lady cottington's pressed fairie book", good fairies; bad fairies", etc.) anyone who would consider these paintings child pornography is themselves morally decayed. julia (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ITYM "It's Modern Art". Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Does a photograph of ~ count? (...) How many is "some"? (...) Mona Lisa. Why is she smiling? (...) And of a naked 14 year old? And 13? And 12? And 11? And photographs of ~? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) A nude _child_. Duh. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Define "people". For any given piece, there will be at least one person who thinks it is art[1]. Jasper [1] The artist is usually the first. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Yes, Van Gogh was such a bad artist. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yes. But it won't be a useful definition. Picasso was not considered art in his time. Van Gogh wasn't. (let alone _good_ art, of course). Now will you argue that a definition of art that changes continually with time can be a useful one? The (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) I don't see how you can support ideas as property at all. Remember that this means that if a person happens to have the exact same idea, independently of the other guy (and this has happened before - see Gutenberg and the others as a canonical (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P (...) have (...) I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Here's my definition of pornography-(in jest, a little) pornography- the word a prude uses to describe media which portrays folks who are having more fun than he is. I guess my point here is that words like "obscene" "pornography" and "decent" (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Possibly. "Makes people think" isn't the sole definition of art, though. (See my earlier post.) Part of the issue is that "what art is good art" (good for people, good for society, good as art for its own sake, whatever) should be seperated (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yikes! We risk lumping The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa in with Larry Flynt's latest offerings if we hide behind the "make people think" shield with no other back-up. Dave! (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) "Pornography!" is a useful label if you're a reactionary who is frightened by art that might make people think. (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) That's pretty good, but I think a real Minimalist would've called it "Cherry on Crap #7" or something similar. 8^) (...) Oh no! You've opened a whole new lithographed soupcan of worms with this one! If the artist has to stand beside the work (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) they (...) is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", (...) that a (...) jar (...) IMHO (...) to (...) minded (...) OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount importance to me..... This is the brilliant thing about art, what (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which it, having limited funds, must inevitably do). It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Lindsay: Thanks for some great insights on the topic, in the following quotes and elsewhere: (...) Just to dispel some of my own ignorance here, how "Christian" is the artist in question? And what kind of ties to Catholicism does he have? I mean, my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) to (...) Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no "inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Does that really capture the difference between the two? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ You're making unwarranted leaps in your logic. (...) That they're illegal - and rightly so - doesn't prohibit them from being art. BTW, what's your definition of child pornography? Anything with a naked person under (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: NELUG Castle Display at TCS Brainstorm...
|
|
(...) I thought they were the lords of the manor, actually. But it's been a long long time since I saw it, and that show never rises above mindless unmemorable timekiller anyway. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) <crassness> Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :) </crassness> I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Random paranthetical aside: (...) Coke's formula really wasn't a secret. Pepsi long had the knowledge and ability to replicate Coke's formula. They just never bother to duplicate the formula, because they thought their own formula tasted better. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) To state this another way: it's extremely useful to have the word "art" have the broader definition. If Guernica is a political statement, what makes it different from: "Corrupt government is bad." That's a political statement too. But it's (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I think that what you're doing is creating a restricted redefinition of what art is. Historically, art has had a much broader meaning than the one you'd like to assign to it. (People even say this sarcastically: "Oh, that doesn't have to be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Well, it's certainly a political statement about a horrible event. On that level no, although one can marvel as to how Picasso's fracturing, cubist style creates a mood of chaos and tension. It is arguable either way. -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Because art has a much wider scope than that. Would you say that Picasso's Guernica is not art? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Why not? (...) By whom? (...) What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine or a Madonna with feces for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
My capitalist running dog lackey Frank Filz answered most of this append faster and better than I could. However a few points remain... (...) You can do that if you wish. Coke did, seems to work for them. However if someone else susses it out, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Something which sums up all of this is, and a definition I use, is: "art is expression which communicates at an emotional level". (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Welcome! The more opinions, the better, IMO (...) Ahh. I was an art major in college. (...) Interesting. Although I think that a lot of beautiful things have been created since the end of the abstract expressionists, perhaps the concept of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
