To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3201
3200  |  3202
Subject: 
Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:52:02 GMT
Viewed: 
1651 times
  
Dave Schuler wrote:
Dave & All,


  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!

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
NEA (National Endowment for the Arts), this is another example of
government waste. We can go on and on in terms of what art is and isn't,
in which I agree with both of you, but I don't think public funding for
any projects like this are needed. If you want to make it, fine, but
don't expect me to pay for the tab.

Scott S.

P.S. I think we are all artists in some ways. Our medium? The brick! :)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Scott: Wow! We're agreeing (mostly)! How did that happen? Wasn't part of Guiliani's problem that the state-funded museum was also charging admission? I seem to remember that, but I could easily be wrong. I don't think the NEA should be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) <crassness> Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :) </crassness> I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the (...) (25 years ago, 5-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR