 | | Re: Swearing? —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) 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? —Jasper Janssen
| | | | | (...) Yes. But it won't be a useful definition. Picasso was not considered art in his time. Van Gogh wasn't. (let alone _good_ art, of course). Now will you argue that a definition of art that changes continually with time can be a useful one? The (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
| | | | | (...) So are you saying that we can only recognize art in retrospect? And since we cannot know how the future will deem our (the present) work, then we shall not try and judge it now? (...) I'm searching for a definition, not an inclusive data (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Jasper Janssen
| | | | | (...) No. (...) I'm not saying you can't judge it. I'm saying you can't say it isn't art, but that doesn't at all preclude you from saying it's _bad_ art. (...) The definition doesn't exist, short of an inclusive data base. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
