| |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:25:13 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:
> Boy-oh-boy! I can't tell you how delighted I am to read that! I am _sick to
> death_ of that Postmodernist "all is art" nonsense! Such a definition seems
> to imply that anything requiring or allowing interpretation is art, and is by
> extension roughly equivalent to saying that nothing is art.
Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is
art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) to (...) Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no "inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| "All art is utterly useless" - Oscar Wilde -- Mark Rendle rendle99@hotmail.com "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message news:38764671.535053...net.com... (...) to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes, in response to my questions: (...) Interesting. Without reducing this debate to equivocation, I'm still concerned that "beauty" is too nebulous a term to use as a benchmark for definitions of obscenity. (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
