Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 04:02:51 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm&IHateSpam&.org
|
Viewed:
|
2059 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote:
> 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.
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 pretty/funny/meaningful -- it's Art". That doesn't mean this is
necessarily good, but it's what the word means.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
