| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > 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?
What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not.
Would you call child
> pornography art?
That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might have
a whole different definition of what constitutes "child pornography". Some
people in this country (USA) believe a simple nude constitutes child
pornography.
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.
These are crimes also. It would make for a very short art career. Good luck
qualifying under my definition of art in any case.
> Why is that? What is it about certain things that make them not art?
And what is my definition of art? If people are not convinced that something
is art, it isn't!
I think
> there is a working definition somewhere.
Yes. There is. Trouble is, there are a LOT of definitions, none of them the
same. Mine is simply one that is designed to challenge art historians.
And instead of calling *everything*
art,
> let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, Bigotry,
> Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
>
> -John
Whoa there. Let's not burst a blood vessel! Straw men are easy to knock down,
especially ones you set up yourself, not me.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
