 | | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) would that be classified as a 'fence sitter'?--right in the middle of all things?? Or a moderate? Dave K (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) Or "perfectly centered"? :-) Yeah, I was surprised, because I don't consider myself a "moderate" at all. I did mark a lot of "strongly" answers; I'd bet that my libertarian responses softened my conservative ones, and viola. Of course, that is (...) (17 years ago, 17-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) Thats my job. THIS poll was FLAWED!!! (URL) me) and my favorite question: Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all. man, i wish there was an option greater than STRONGLY AGREE I would have checked that (...) (17 years ago, 23-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Magno wrote: snip (...) If it were up to me, I'd tell all them artiste types that they have to go get real jobs!! Artists--baah! What have they done for anyone?? Dave K (17 years ago, 23-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) Okay... I am officially "grrrrring" at my favourite rtlers. Darn geeks! Grrr and Grrr... I think I will go make an abstract painting that represents my disillusionment with you both! Or I may have my untrained monkey do it for me. Janey "If MY (...) (17 years ago, 23-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, C. L. GunningCook wrote: snip (...) So if you had an infinite number of monkeys flinging an infinite amount of monkey-poo around, would you get a picasso? One wonders... Dave K (17 years ago, 24-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) NO dave, Everyone knows with an infinite number of monkeys you get the works of Shakespear. NOT Picasso. Once again, proving that Janey, and her monkey abstract art is NOT art. but really, just a pile of monkey SH-- (1) Chris 1. not at all (...) (17 years ago, 24-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) Why, exactly, must art represent anything? Dave! (17 years ago, 24-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) Exactly? I feel, that art should be something that is admired by "the common" man; and not be reproducible by the commoner. To me, art is something I would not be able to do. I can not paint a Mona Lisa, or carve "The Thinker." That is art. (...) (17 years ago, 25-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
|
(...) This reminds me of a debate loooong ago on RTL (search LEGOdeath, IIRC) about art. The rub is in the defining of "art". What is art? Because if art is anything, then art is everything, and therefore nothing-- that is, the term is meaningless. (...) (17 years ago, 25-Aug-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
