Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:16:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
444 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> I'll summarize what I think are (so far) your strongest points, but I'm happy to
> amend this list:
>
> 1. She's making a profit (however small) on HD's property, and HD is within
> its rights to restrict such activity
> 2. She's deliberately creating more work for HD employees, thereby causing
> a loss of wage value
> 3. She's creating a disturbance/obstacle/disruption to other customers while
> she's creating her "art."
> I'd add the potential for injury to herself or others, but I'm not sure
> if you mentioned that already.
>
> Is this the meat of it? I'm not as keen on the "social mores" angle, because
> that doesn't seem germane to the issue. Likewise, the "anti-corporate" swipe at
> NPR seems off-point, though neither is an invalid argument in its own right.
I am pressed for time, lots of LEGOWORLD prep I gotta do, so... briefly... (if
such is possible)
The original post I made sort of took as a given (because it was stunningly
obvious to me, anyway) that what she's doing is morally wrong, and was talking
about the fact that NPR didn't even touch on that in its puff piece (review the
subject line, it does try to show what I'm getting at...).
What I was getting at is a larger (and to me more worrisome than some pedestrian
artist's pavers) trend in society, not the simple mechanics of this particular
person's activities which are just one example.
We've subsequently been bogged in minute detail about whether what she did WAS
wrong or not. If we can move beyond that (and I think I see you your summation a
glimmering of acknowledgement that it was wrong) then the social mores stuff and
the swipes at NPR that follow IS/ARE on point.
In fact they ARE the point, once the premise is established.
Again color me black and white but I didn't (when I first posted) even think
that it was a matter of dispute that she was doing something wrong... (after
all, "guerilla art" carries the connotation that the artist knows what they are
doing is wrong or at least illegal (there's a distinction), or at least in my
view it does carry it anyway).
But then I'm often surprised at what premises get questioned here and which get
blithely accepted.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
26 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
|
|
|
|
