Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 23:24:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net*Spamless*
|
Viewed:
|
1675 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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
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 that? What is it about certain things that make them not art? I think
there is a working definition somewhere. And instead of calling *everything* art,
let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, Bigotry,
Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
-John
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
