To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3240
3239  |  3241
Subject: 
Re: Swearing?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:58:15 GMT
Viewed: 
1872 times
  
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:02:24 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:

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 defined for discourse in a useful way.
As I've mentioned previously in this thread, I'm not qualified to posit such
a definition, but that doesn't mean a definition cannot be put forth.

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 moment
you set it down, it will be outdated.

Besides that, any definition will, by the definition, likely exclude
some works that are considered art, and vice versa.

Short of a grand listing of all works that are considered art, no real
definition can be made. Thus no useful definition can be made.

Jasper



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Swearing?
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR