| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > Christopher Lannan wrote:
> > You really can't tell people not to be "obscene", "vulgar" "profane" or
> > "indecent" and expect them to follow those instructions exactly unless they
> > have been very well coached to know what is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane",
> > and "indecent" to you. Everyday in the news there is an art exhibit that a
> > great many people feel is all of the above. A crucifix submerged in a jar
> > of urine or a Madonna with feces for nipples come to mind.
>
> Ah, one of my favorite debate topics - what is art, or more specifically,
> where is the line between pornography and art? Your examples of "art" IMHO
> aren't really art, but are (very intentionally) vulgar, obscene attempts to
> offend particular groups. The artists who create such things are weak-minded
> non-Christians who are too lazy or dim to come up with anything profound.
> Their work says more about their own ineptitude than their subject matter.
>
> <Donning flame suit and beaming to .debate> John
Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us is
qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem attacks
against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own
credibility and do nothing to discredit their targets.
I'm concerned, though, that some of your points might be untenable. Why,
for instance, can't art be obscene? Does one condition preclude the other?
If so, why? Can art not be created intentionally to offend certain groups?
Does this, too, preclude a work from being art?
Guilianni (sp?) made an interesting observation during the whole obscenity
debacle last year when he noted that, had the work slandered a Star of David
or a rendition of Muhammed, it would likely have been reviled as Hate Speech,
followed by public outcry for its removal.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) I am working on a definition of art that enlightens through beauty. Obscene "art" which tries to offend or elicit certain thoughts I would say is a form of political speech. I am trying to distinguish the two. (...) Exactly. When art is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Dave Schuler wrote: Dave & All, (...) I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Art is whatever you can convince people is art. Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to drive art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie and the Impressionist movement). There isn't a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) While that is true, it is still wrong. If we were to prohibit things simply because they offended some group of superstitious primitives or another, there would be precious few things in the world. Music, technology, freedom of expression, art (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Ah, one of my favorite debate topics - what is art, or more specifically, where is the line between pornography and art? Your examples of "art" IMHO aren't really art, but are (very intentionally) vulgar, obscene attempts to offend particular (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
