Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:59:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest*AntiSpam*.net
|
Viewed:
|
1902 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> 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)
Agreed.
> 2. It must provoke emotion in some/most viewers. (it need not be a
> pleasant response)
Why not?
> 3. It must be explainable. (this is pretty fuzzy)
By whom?
> 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.
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 nipples come to mind." I am not claiming
anything on behalf of Christians, only myself (although I happen to be a
Christian). What I meant was that these (I'm assuming here) non-Christian
"artists" thought it would be somehow profound to defile Christian icons and
somehow that would be considered art. To whom? Non-Christians? Why would they
care about Christian icons? Unless it is some form of religious persecution,
which I think it very well might be.
> 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?
To whom would it be profound?! What a load of crap! It is only profound in its
vicious attempt to mock Christians and their religion. Please explain any other
interpretation.
> > 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.
Well, the *point* is that I could describe a drawing or photo or whatever
involving children and adults which would be considered by any *decent* human
being as offensively pornographic.
> > 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?
As performance? As "art"? Why wouldn't you rule it out?
> > [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?
Don't know if that's possible.
> 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?
Depictions of Christ's death are not meant to convey sadism, murder, or certainly
racism. They are about suffering and pain and love. You can say they are about
shopping in Springtime if you want, it's a free country.
-John
>
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) I actually thought it was possible that someone might claim that a sunset was God's art. (...) As Matthew or someone said, because art handles a wider scope of issues. (...) Exactly! I think that the artist's ability to explain it aims us (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
