| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> 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
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 from the age of twelve. he used to
say, "i know it when i see it!" it's not as flippant as it sounds.
art, both in it's creation and appreciation is a series of value
judgements, and thus very personal.
art as been dead ever since the end of the abstract expressionist movement
ofthe forties and probably died with the great mattisse. then there was a
very horrible thing that happened in the late seventies and early eighties
called "warhol-ism". it filled the void left by art's passing with, for
lack of a better word, CRAPP. much like the loathed juniorization of lego
systems, "warhol-ism" juniorized art. there is a subjective nature to art,
but interpretted irresponsibly, becomes the whole "it's art if i say it's
art" line of CRAPP.
michaelangelo's sistene chappel was deemed obsene! sargent's madame x was
deemed obscene! imho, anyone who deems any sculpture, painting or drawing
obscene, can't be trusted. art is not capable of being obscene: only people
are!
we as a society have neglected art for so long, it's no wonder there are
people passing off lithographed soupcans and urine suspende crucifixes as art.
one fundamental distinction that shold be made is between art and
illustration. i've done both in my day. it's a subtle gray line (value
judgements, again) but it's there.
to use lego examples:
the notorious nazi death camp made of lego (which has sparked this art
debate before) is not a piece of art. ( and boy do i get steamed when i see
it reffered to as such!) it's a low craft, in-bad-taste illustration. yes,
it has some artistic value, but not much. it was created to illustrate text,
and not to express the artist's soul.
i call eric harshbarger's alice in wonderland sculpture an elegant piece
of art. eric says no, it's just craftsmanship. but that craftsmanship is
exactly what makes it have so great an artistic value. it is obviously a
piece of work that was truly inspired both in concept and execution.
sculpture by definition is one of mankind's primal artforms.
subject matter has nothing to do with it. if it was a boy scout camp just
as poorly built as the concentration camp and alice was nude and just as
well sculpted, things would'nt change. (well, except no one would notice
the boy scout camp, and people would be screaming "child pornography" every
time they saw alice.)
to end, i'd like to state for the record, that the only diffrence between
pornography and art is....
.... the lighting!
late ~ craig~
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
