| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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 convenient hard line between "art", "social commentary", and
"political op/ed". Some art is intended to be provocative. Some may truly be
art, but Really Bad Art, nevertheless. I haven't seen any art as obscene as
subsidizing cigarettes, but hey, I'm sure it's not for want of trying!
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) So what you are saying is that everything is art? Would you call child pornography art? How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider art. Why is (...) (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
|
|
|
|
