Debate : 3205


Off-Topic / Debate / 3205

Re: Swearing? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) the (...) be (...) What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not. Would you call child (...) That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might have a whole different definition of what constitutes "child (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-) (...) ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere! (...) It would qualify under many people's definition. 1. Art is subjective....check 2. Art is thought (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P (...) have (...) I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude. *What* the nude is doing or how it's being portrayed are important considerations. When I refer to child pornography, I am referring to portrayals of sexual acts by (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art. Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to define what art is, it is based (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Art and Property ZRights —Frank Filz

(...) I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something together from the two debates we have going on. ASSERTIONS: 1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional response. 2. The VALUE of art is something (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Larry Pieniazek

Frank said it, better than I've had time to say. Very nicely done. What a great running dog lackey I've created here... (go back to very early in the history of this group and read some of Frank's stuff and you'll find he wasn't nearly as right as (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Some art is intended to create an intellectual response, not emotional, or as an aid to meditation (Mark Rothko's "glowing squares"), or.... (...) Each will assign their own unique value. (...) When Libertarians are the majority party, I'll (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Start worrying. We are. If you go by sentiment, anyway. (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Dave Schuler

(...) Yowza! Sort of, maybe, but I don't think that too many of that majority think its goals are currently realistic, for some of the reasons already addressed in the various Libertopia posts! Dave! (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Then call a vote on it in congress while you can! :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yah. Right. Show me election results and appropriate laws, then. Maybe you want to dilute your viewpoint to the point where it is acceptable to enough people that you can have a good share of votes, just like the two major parties, but it (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art and Property ZRights —Frank Filz

(...) You may have a point there, although I would argue that is still an emotional response. (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) The people looking at it. (...) Yes... and? Okay, so it's a mostly semantic difference, but it does exist. Jasper (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) art is (...) artist (...) everything? (...) Bad art is usually consigned to the Not Art category, but only over time. Unless it's an illustration, in which case it is Not Art immediately. :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Not everyone agrees with you on that, and the proportions that do or don't will change dramatically from culture to culture. (...) else (...) A reasonable desire, but again, "child pornography" means different things to different people. For (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) A nude _child_. Duh. Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Craig Hamilton

(...) there are nude chidren in brian froud's work. ( the stunning "fairies", "lady cottington's pressed fairie book", good fairies; bad fairies", etc.) anyone who would consider these paintings child pornography is themselves morally decayed. julia (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) Just for the record, I fully agree. Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) Define "people". For any given piece, there will be at least one person who thinks it is art[1]. Jasper [1] The artist is usually the first. (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Craig Hamilton

(...) ok, you guys have drawn me in... as an artist and drawing teacher, i do feel somewhat qualified to define some terms here. ;-) my favorite definition of art (which is like trying to define "love", or "god", anyway) comes from my art teacher (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) Welcome! The more opinions, the better, IMO (...) Ahh. I was an art major in college. (...) Interesting. Although I think that a lot of beautiful things have been created since the end of the abstract expressionists, perhaps the concept of (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler

(...) That's pretty good, but I think a real Minimalist would've called it "Cherry on Crap #7" or something similar. 8^) (...) Oh no! You've opened a whole new lithographed soupcan of worms with this one! If the artist has to stand beside the work (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Christopher L. Weeks

Hi all, (...) I spent six years and 30 college credits taking art classes and spent a fair amount of time thinking about this issue. To my mind, some, but possibly not all, of the criteria are: 1. It must be intentional. (a beautiful sunset is not (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) Something which sums up all of this is, and a definition I use, is: "art is expression which communicates at an emotional level". (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) Agreed. (...) Why not? (...) By whom? (...) What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine or a Madonna with feces for (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) Because art has a much wider scope than that. Would you say that Picasso's Guernica is not art? (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) Well, it's certainly a political statement about a horrible event. On that level no, although one can marvel as to how Picasso's fracturing, cubist style creates a mood of chaos and tension. It is arguable either way. -John (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) I think that what you're doing is creating a restricted redefinition of what art is. Historically, art has had a much broader meaning than the one you'd like to assign to it. (People even say this sarcastically: "Oh, that doesn't have to be (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) To state this another way: it's extremely useful to have the word "art" have the broader definition. If Guernica is a political statement, what makes it different from: "Corrupt government is bad." That's a political statement too. But it's (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) Does that really capture the difference between the two? (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) "Pornography!" is a useful label if you're a reactionary who is frightened by art that might make people think. (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler

(...) Yikes! We risk lumping The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa in with Larry Flynt's latest offerings if we hide behind the "make people think" shield with no other back-up. Dave! (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) Possibly. "Makes people think" isn't the sole definition of art, though. (See my earlier post.) Part of the issue is that "what art is good art" (good for people, good for society, good as art for its own sake, whatever) should be seperated (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Christopher Lannan

(...) Here's my definition of pornography-(in jest, a little) pornography- the word a prude uses to describe media which portrays folks who are having more fun than he is. I guess my point here is that words like "obscene" "pornography" and "decent" (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) I'm not so sure (see my post above). Can't I come up with an idea so obscene that every normal, decent human being will say, "That's sick!" -John (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler

(...) But this, too, is circular, since your question implies that a human being who doesn't say "That's sick!" is not normal and decent. Dave! (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) who (...) "decent" (...) How about this one - a parent eating his child! Sick! Cannibalism! Disgusting. Certainly Not Art! And certainly on paper, this really seems like a candidate. Goya's "Saturn Devouring one of his Children". (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Jeff Thompson

(...) like (...) And even more frightening if the academnic speculation is true that the painting was modified from its original form, with Saturn originally having a very erect phallus while he devours the child. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Modified by Goya or some later censor? I presume that he may have thought it went over the line into "that's just plain sick" (and not justified by the myths) or it simply is a delusion by some scholar. It certainly starts to edge over the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Dave Schuler

(...) Wasn't this painting found on the wall of Goya's hovel after his death? It doesn't seem likely to me that Goya would've censored his own painting to avoid offending himself. Additionally, I studied this painting in an Art History course, and I (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Art! or Not Art! —Jeff Thompson

(...) Perhaps. If you'd like to check on the reference, find "No Go the Bogeyman" by Marina Warner in your library, and look up the painting in the book's index. I think I recall the book being well-documented with footnotes and references, and if (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) I don't follow you. There isn't a difference except in style of expression-- both are saying the same thing. -John (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) Isn't there a difference of _depth_ as well? (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

(...) No, I am waving around the term because I'm searching for something so vile and contemptuous that it is an example of something that art isn't. And I'm not talking about photos of nude, newborn babies. I'm talking about depictions of sexual (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller

(...) I don't think you're going to find such a thing, because "vile and contemptuous" isn't something that makes something art or not. If a thing is truely vile and contemptuous, it might be something that, as you say, no one ever should be exposed (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Craig Hamilton

(...) john ~ there are better ways to define something than to say what it is not. it's like trying to describe an elephant by saying it's not a mouse. in your search for a definition of art has gotten off track with this pornography thing. have you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

<FnvKu0.A5C@lugnet.com> <38742759.42A175DD@uswest.net> <Fnx470.15I@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) YES! We cannot float on the sea of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: ] You know, the 1st degree kind with no extenuating circumstances: "you have a (...) Well, 'round these parts you might find a jury willing to acquit you on that defense! Dave! (who doesn't have a 4558 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

<387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <slrn8796nm.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's my point, you see. I'm saying that such things (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John Neal

<387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <Fny1z1.DHn@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You are correct, Craig. What I was trying to do was in reaction (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: defining art (was "Swearing?") —Craig Hamilton

(...) john ~ and what subject matter would exclude a painting or sculpture from being art, pray tell? child pornography? there are countless pieces of undeniable art that address the subject of child sexuality in forms both subtle and gross. from (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: defining art (was "Swearing?") —John Neal

<387579FF.F0AA7C07@uswest.net> <FnyJnI.5L8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit craig hamilton wrote: <snip> (...) Ah, this is an excellent point (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: defining art (was "Swearing?") —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) morals are flawed (...) subjective (...) insight to me. (...) that person than (...) Everything isn't art, but those *you deem* to have flawed morals will accept certain works you consider obscenities. See the difference? You make the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) ITYM "It's Modern Art". Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I actually thought it was possible that someone might claim that a sunset was God's art. (...) As Matthew or someone said, because art handles a wider scope of issues. (...) Exactly! I think that the artist's ability to explain it aims us (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) Does a photograph of ~ count? (...) How many is "some"? (...) Mona Lisa. Why is she smiling? (...) And of a naked 14 year old? And 13? And 12? And 11? And photographs of ~? Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yes. Photography is a method by which a 2D image is fixed of a scene. And, photographic technology can be used to create abstracts. It's really just like painting...but different. (...) Well, I guess one. But the more people for who this is (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yup. I agree. The problem is, when does something have a victim? For adults this quite clear -- only when there is not consent. For non-adults, this gets very blurry very fast. Does a photographer have the right to publish a photograph of, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Frank Filz

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38bfb403.278198521@...et.com>... (...) Where are the parents when this is happening? I certainly would limit the permission I gave a photographer to publish a picture of my nude child if I thought the picture might (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not convinced that it's all that clear cut. I have observed age-peers of mine who are markedly less worldly and make stupid decisions about their lives. At what magic age is one fully capable of making decisions such that we can (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) Exactly. That's why I used "adults" rather than "18+". (...) Ethical. I'm for the moment entirely uninterested in anything legal that may or may not coincide. (...) I probably agree. (...) Indeed. (...) By, or for? (...) Yes. And I would like (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Okay, I'll chime in here--I feel very strongly about this issue, because I'm a member of that "other" group, the ones who never said anything (as children) or went to counseling or to court or anything after instances of sexual abuse. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen

(...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ You're making unwarranted leaps in your logic. (...) That they're illegal - and rightly so - doesn't prohibit them from being art. BTW, what's your definition of child pornography? Anything with a naked person under (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —Rachel Kingston

(...) they (...) is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", (...) that a (...) jar (...) IMHO (...) to (...) minded (...) OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount importance to me..... This is the brilliant thing about art, what (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Swearing? —John DiRienzo

Rachel Kingston wrote in message ... (...) Its nice to find someone new to read, who happens to think (at least in this instance) a little like I do! (...) this (...) My definition of art: Art is that which man creates. Creation is a reflection of (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)