 | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | (...) Well, it's certainly a political statement about a horrible event. On that level no, although one can marvel as to how Picasso's fracturing, cubist style creates a mood of chaos and tension. It is arguable either way. -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) I think that what you're doing is creating a restricted redefinition of what art is. Historically, art has had a much broader meaning than the one you'd like to assign to it. (People even say this sarcastically: "Oh, that doesn't have to be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) To state this another way: it's extremely useful to have the word "art" have the broader definition. If Guernica is a political statement, what makes it different from: "Corrupt government is bad." That's a political statement too. But it's (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) Does that really capture the difference between the two? (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) "Pornography!" is a useful label if you're a reactionary who is frightened by art that might make people think. (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yikes! We risk lumping The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa in with Larry Flynt's latest offerings if we hide behind the "make people think" shield with no other back-up. Dave! (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Possibly. "Makes people think" isn't the sole definition of art, though. (See my earlier post.) Part of the issue is that "what art is good art" (good for people, good for society, good as art for its own sake, whatever) should be seperated (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | | | (...) Here's my definition of pornography-(in jest, a little) pornography- the word a prude uses to describe media which portrays folks who are having more fun than he is. I guess my point here is that words like "obscene" "pornography" and "decent" (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm not so sure (see my post above). Can't I come up with an idea so obscene that every normal, decent human being will say, "That's sick!" -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) But this, too, is circular, since your question implies that a human being who doesn't say "That's sick!" is not normal and decent. Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art! or Not Art! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) who (...) "decent" (...) How about this one - a parent eating his child! Sick! Cannibalism! Disgusting. Certainly Not Art! And certainly on paper, this really seems like a candidate. Goya's "Saturn Devouring one of his Children". (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art! or Not Art! —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) like (...) And even more frightening if the academnic speculation is true that the painting was modified from its original form, with Saturn originally having a very erect phallus while he devours the child. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art! or Not Art! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Modified by Goya or some later censor? I presume that he may have thought it went over the line into "that's just plain sick" (and not justified by the myths) or it simply is a delusion by some scholar. It certainly starts to edge over the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art! or Not Art! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Wasn't this painting found on the wall of Goya's hovel after his death? It doesn't seem likely to me that Goya would've censored his own painting to avoid offending himself. Additionally, I studied this painting in an Art History course, and I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art! or Not Art! —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Perhaps. If you'd like to check on the reference, find "No Go the Bogeyman" by Marina Warner in your library, and look up the painting in the book's index. I think I recall the book being well-documented with footnotes and references, and if (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't follow you. There isn't a difference except in style of expression-- both are saying the same thing. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Isn't there a difference of _depth_ as well? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) No, I am waving around the term because I'm searching for something so vile and contemptuous that it is an example of something that art isn't. And I'm not talking about photos of nude, newborn babies. I'm talking about depictions of sexual (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I don't think you're going to find such a thing, because "vile and contemptuous" isn't something that makes something art or not. If a thing is truely vile and contemptuous, it might be something that, as you say, no one ever should be exposed (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Craig Hamilton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) john ~ there are better ways to define something than to say what it is not. it's like trying to describe an elephant by saying it's not a mouse. in your search for a definition of art has gotten off track with this pornography thing. have you (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | <FnvKu0.A5C@lugnet.com> <38742759.42A175DD@uswest.net> <Fnx470.15I@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) YES! We cannot float on the sea of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: ] You know, the 1st degree kind with no extenuating circumstances: "you have a (...) Well, 'round these parts you might find a jury willing to acquit you on that defense! Dave! (who doesn't have a 4558 (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | <387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <slrn8796nm.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That's my point, you see. I'm saying that such things (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | <387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <Fny1z1.DHn@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You are correct, Craig. What I was trying to do was in reaction (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: defining art (was "Swearing?") —Craig Hamilton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) john ~ and what subject matter would exclude a painting or sculpture from being art, pray tell? child pornography? there are countless pieces of undeniable art that address the subject of child sexuality in forms both subtle and gross. from (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: defining art (was "Swearing?") —John Neal
|
| | | | | | <387579FF.F0AA7C07@uswest.net> <FnyJnI.5L8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit craig hamilton wrote: <snip> (...) Ah, this is an excellent point (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: defining art (was "Swearing?") —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) morals are flawed (...) subjective (...) insight to me. (...) that person than (...) Everything isn't art, but those *you deem* to have flawed morals will accept certain works you consider obscenities. See the difference? You make the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) ITYM "It's Modern Art". Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
