Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:54:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
517 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I am pressed for time, lots of LEGOWORLD prep I gotta do, so... briefly...
> (if such is possible)
Take your time with a response, if any. LEGOWORLD understandably takes
precedence over OT ruminations...
> 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...).
>
> 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.
The bogging appears to focus on *how wrong* her act was/is, rather than on
whether or not it is wrong in some absolute sense. To that end, I think in the
abstract I'd agree that what she did is wrong, but I don't think it's as big a
wrong (or as symptomatic of a larger wrong) as you seem to think it is. That
may be just a difference in the weight we ascribe to this particular item.
I'm also not too worried about this piece as an indication that "NPR is
damaged." "All Things Considered" is a daily program dealing in a variety of
current issues, many of which are wholly ignored by the mainstream media. This
"art" piece was likely covered in the closing minutes of a single episode of All
Things Considered, during which time the program usually touches on a
lighthearted story. You may disagree that this is a lighthearted issue, but
it's apparent that the "artist" and HD think it is, at least to the extent that
HD hasn't barred the "artist" from their property.
> 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).
I may be mistaken, but I think "guerilla art" also implies art that consciously
but subtly works against established artistic convention. That definition
doesn't really seem to apply here, but if that's the "artist's" perception of
her work, then maybe that's another matter.
> But then I'm often surprised at what premises get questioned here and which
> get blithely accepted.
Not sure about "blithely," but I'd agree that different issues are subject to
differences in questioning here in OT.Debate. Among them, the idea that "under
God" is an endorsement of religion, or that "all rights are property rights."
Maybe that's the essence of this group, to illuminate the differences between
what some people question and other people accept.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
