Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 04:07:49 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{mattdm@mattdm.}stopspam{org}
|
Viewed:
|
2170 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> 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
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 certainly a very different sort
of political statement! Isn't it a lot easier, if nothing else, to say that
Guernica is art that expresses a political statement?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
