| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes, in response to my questions:
> 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.
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. It might be argued, for example, that one viewer's
beauty is another viewer's obscenity.
On a more laid-back note, what about things which are beautiful but which
don't enlighten? Do they exist? Do they fit somewhere on an art spectrum?
> > 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.
Boy-oh-boy! I can't tell you how delighted I am to read that! I am _sick to
death_ of that Postmodernist "all is art" nonsense! Such a definition seems
to imply that anything requiring or allowing interpretation is art, and is by
extension roughly equivalent to saying that nothing is art.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) I agree that the term beauty is nebulous, but I wonder if beauty is so subjective as to be *only* in the eyes of the beholder. Is there something (can there be something) that is beautiful outside of what is thought of it? I like to think of (...) (27 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer. Jasper (27 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (27 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
|
|
|
|
