 | | Re: To No One's Big Surprise... —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) 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... —Chris Magno
| | | | | | (...) 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... —John Neal
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | |
