 | | Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) 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 (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) to (...) Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no "inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes. But it won't be a useful definition. Picasso was not considered art in his time. Van Gogh wasn't. (let alone _good_ art, of course). Now will you argue that a definition of art that changes continually with time can be a useful one? The (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) So are you saying that we can only recognize art in retrospect? And since we cannot know how the future will deem our (the present) work, then we shall not try and judge it now? (...) I'm searching for a definition, not an inclusive data (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) No. (...) I'm not saying you can't judge it. I'm saying you can't say it isn't art, but that doesn't at all preclude you from saying it's _bad_ art. (...) The definition doesn't exist, short of an inclusive data base. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Why??? This statement seems more lazy than profound. Try. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Mark Rendle
|
| | | | "All art is utterly useless" - Oscar Wilde -- Mark Rendle rendle99@hotmail.com "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message news:38764671.535053...net.com... (...) to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | Mark Rendle wrote in message ... (...) This is basically what I said in my post concerning art and artwork. Perhaps there is a more suitable word for my definition of the word art - anything a man creates. If so, then that eliminates the need for (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
