Subject:
|
Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:57:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > Again, your bias shines through.
>
> I certainly won't argue that point... at least not at this time.
>
> > IMO, the holocaust sets are nowhere near art.
>
> but I would assert that there are at least two competing definitions of art:
>
> "art is in the eye of the beholder"
This is a hot button issue for me, because I really dislike a definition of art
to be "anything"-- it's useless IMO.
> "art is what the artist says is art"
An artist can call the sky pink, but that doesn't make it so. More hot
buttons:-)
>
> Under the first definition, some beholders find that work to be art and some
> do not. Under the second definition, it's clearly art because the artist
> said it was.
>
> I tend to favor the first definition myself but did want to point that out.
>
> (oh, and the Brick Testament is indeed mockery! That's the intent, in my
> view. And a fine piece of artistic work it is, too. At least to this beholder.)
I'd bet BPS wouldn't agree with you that he's mocking... He probably *thinks*
his work is above that, but I'm merely speculating.
-John
>
>
> > Your defensive attitude towards your perceived ideas of Dan's intentions also
> > betrays your bias. Typical Liberal-- hypocrisy and double standards.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) I certainly won't argue that point... at least not at this time. (...) but I would assert that there are at least two competing definitions of art: "art is in the eye of the beholder" "art is what the artist says is art" Under the first (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
