Subject:
|
Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:02:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1309 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I agree with this, but I think he meant it to be rather negative.
>
> That is a result of your pre-conceived notions. You sympathize with PLO
> terrorists and so you feel it comes off negative. I abhor PLO terrorists and
> not coincidently, I found it amusing.
>
> In the same way, I find mockery in the Brick Testament. You
> probably find the BT hilarious.
> >
> > For the record, I think Scott was not quite correct. In my opinion, the
> > Holocaust sets can be considered to be "art", whereas I feel Dan's intention
> > was a jest.
>
> Again, your bias shines through. IMO, the holocaust sets are nowhere near art.
> Your defensive attitude towards your perceived ideas of Dan's intentions also
> betrays your bias. Typical Liberal-- hypocrisy and double standards.
>
>
> -John
Oh what was that quote from West Wing--Republicans being 'small-minded,
xenophobic, anti-choice, gun worshipping...' oh I can't remember--going to
have to watch a tape tonite! :)
Yes, in *your* opinion, the holocaust set were not art. In *my* opinion, a
black canvas with a red stripe down the middle isn't art either, but the
Canadian government and the Art Gallery thereof, obviously disagreed with
me, buying the painting for 1.3 million dollars (this was years ago). I
didn't care for it, but in the *general* definition of art, it was art. You
cannot say 'This is art and this isn't'. The artist who made it can say, 'I
made this. It is my representation. It is art.' It doesn't matter if it
was made out of cow paddies and tuna fish. The *only* critique I would
offer is that artists can make whatever they want--that does *not* mean we
have to buy it or appreciate it. Public art galleries should be acquiring
art that could be appreciated by the people for it is funded *by* the
people. Be risque to push the envelope a bit, for that causes growth.
Don't jump across the line 'just because it is there' however. Private
galleries, on the other hand, can do whatever they plese for it's their own
money.
I like the Brick Testament. I'm a Bible believing, church going Christian
and I *like* the Brick testament. I don't care if it's made by a
non-believing person. Rev. Smith has crossed no lines as far as I'm
concerned. He reads the Bible passages, literally (almost to a fault) and
makes scenes. He actually interpreted some scriptures with his scenes and
got across the ideas better than some of my Sunday School teachers could.
If this was made by a bona-fide upstanding 'pillar of the church community',
would it make any difference at all? Not to me. Mayhaps to those that are
'offended' that someone outside the church circles took their 'good book'
and actually read it literally.
I really have said enuf here.
As usual, as clear as mud.
Dave
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) Well, I don't watch TV much, so I wouldn't know... (...) So you are comfortable calling a image depicting child molestation art, merely because the slime who created it says it is? So what use is art, if it's anything and everything anyone (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) That is a result of your pre-conceived notions. You sympathize with PLO terrorists and so you feel it comes off negative. I abhor PLO terrorists and not coincidently, I found it amusing. In the same way, I find mockery in the Brick Testament. (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
