Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:41:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@ANTISPAMuswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
3643 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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.
Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-)
>
>
> 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.
??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere!
> 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.
It would qualify under many people's definition.
1. Art is subjective....check
2. Art is thought provoking.....check
3. Art is controversial.....check
4. Art is the expression of an artist....check
5. Art is blah blah blah....
>
>
> > 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!
Too subjective for me.
>
>
> 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.
lol I guess it may *seem* that I'm getting all worked up, but I'm really just
trying to learn:-)
-John
>
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (27 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (27 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
|
|
|
|
