| |
Hi all,
John Neal wrote:
> So what you are saying is that everything is art?
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 art)
2. It must provoke emotion in some/most viewers. (it need not be a
pleasant response)
3. It must be explainable. (this is pretty fuzzy)
So I wouldn't say that everything is art, but I do seem to have a more
liberal definition than you do. You earlier say "the artists who create
such things are weak-minded non-Christians who are too lazy or dim to
come up with anything profound." This brings a few things to my mind.
You seem to be claiming that Christians have some kind of monopoly on
art. I doubt that's what you meant, so I'm wondering what it was that
I've missed. Do you believe that all things profound are equally so to
everyone? If so, how do you explain the varied reaction to your
religious beliefs? If not, how do you know that a urine washed crucifix
isn't profound to some?
> Would you call child pornography art?
What would you call child pornography? I could be convinced that a
drawing of a naked 16-year old was art.
> How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human?
It's quite a stretch for me to consider this art, but I wouldn't rule it
out as a possibility. What have you got against killing animals?
> [snip] And instead of calling *everything* art,
> let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, Bigotry,
> Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
What about an artistic rendition of those things? There are numerous
famous paintings of Christ's death. Such a killing is certainly
sadistic, murder, and probably racism. Are those paintings those
things, or are they art?
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Something which sums up all of this is, and a definition I use, is: "art is expression which communicates at an emotional level". (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (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
|
|
|
|
