Subject:
|
Art? (Was: Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:21:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1220 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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 says it is? It becomes, literary,
> *meaningless*
I think I'll try at a definition I can live with:
Art is that which is created/performed/presented with the intent of invoking
an emotional reaction from those to whom it is presented.
Child porn - Art? Only if it's the intent of the presenter/photographer to
be such. *LEGAL* art? Nope. Cruel art? Yep. Art I can appreciate? Nope.
> But why not!!! That *IS* "art" today! Who can be the most perverse, the most
> shocking. It's a disgrace.
I agree to some extent. More and more art has focused on being distinct and
memorable. The problem being that most art has 'been done', and lots of
people out there want to do something new so that it's distinct and
memorable. Take Andy Kaufman for example, and Howard Stern who more or less
followed in his footsteps. The Fox network. South Park. New and memorable?
Sure. Appreciable? Certainly a lot of people don't think so. Some do. Art?
I'd say so.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
