Subject:
|
Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:39:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
612 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes:
> Well, John, maybe you just don't understand art ?
That's a tricky accusation, and it's circular reasoning besides! There
are many examples of "art" that I "understand," but I still find them to be
garbage.
> Don't forget that not so long ago, many great artists were considered doing
> filth and obcenity too... These artists are now the great ones that we
> study in art school. Artists, in my opinion, are often a hundred years
> ahead of those who don't understand their art.
Although in the broad sense your statement can be true, but it is at least
as likely that artists whom people don't "understand" are simply producing
garbage and hiding behind the shield of alleged inscrutability!
> Of course, there are things that are obviously NOT art, so your statement,
> in some cases, could be right, but generally not. Since you were so vague,
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about it and I'll simply consider
> that you meant it in very specific cases, like pedophiles and such.
Should the works of Lewis Carroll be suppressed because many of them
centered on a young girl with whom Carroll had what would today be called an
inappropriate relationship? Even apparently straightforward examples such
as pedophiles must be considered very carefully and should not be summarily
dismissed.
> There is also the "obscenety" issue on which I am very sensitive. What is
> obscene anyway? Apart from the obvious (children in sexual/nude scenes,
> murder scenes, etc), I consider almost nothing as obscene.
Again, I'd caution against the use of "obvious" as a descriptor in this
argument, because what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others,
and vice versa. To use a classical example, a depiction of the burning of
Joan of Arc could be considered child murder, but it could also be a
poignant statement about martyrdom (the martyr merrier, as it were).
Likewise, Romeo and Juliet were young teenagers depicted at the center of a
mature, romantic conflict culminating in their double suicide; is that
obscene? Are Anne Geddes photos of bare newborns obscene?[1] What about
"The Exorcist" in which a 12 year old girl is possessed by the devil?
The point is that you can't simply declare something "obviously" obscene
or "obviously" not obscene, since the application of the word depends on the
context in which it is used.
> And even there, in a hundred years, we will not see things as we see them
> now, a fact that I always try to keep in mind. For me, the most obscene
> thing there is are children in churches. So this word is very different from
> a person to another, which makes your statement even more vague.
Why are children in churches obscene, by the way?
Dave!
[1] No, but they *are* terribly corny and over-popular.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
| (...) Well, John, maybe you just don't understand art ? Don't forget that not so long ago, many great artists were considered doing filth and obcenity too... These artists are now the great ones that we study in art school. Artists, in my opinion, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
