Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:04:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@SPAMLESSuswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
1672 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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?
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.
> 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.
Exactly. When art is *used* to manipulate rather than simply express the
artist's creativity I think it ceases to be art. I am not totally clear on this
"working" definition, but it stems from an attempt to combat the idea that
"everything is art" which is where one goes pretty quickly in these discussions.
And in my mind, everything is *not* art, such as child pornography or depictions
of graphic violence for instance. I hate it when "artists" create such filth and
hide behind the "But it's art" curtain. Not in my book.
-John
>
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes, in response to my questions: (...) Interesting. Without reducing this debate to equivocation, I'm still concerned that "beauty" is too nebulous a term to use as a benchmark for definitions of obscenity. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
