Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:05:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@&nomorespam&uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
1916 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > > So what you are saying is that everything is art?
> >
> > > What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not.
> >
> > Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-)
>
>
> An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Would you call child
> > > > pornography art?
> > > That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might • have
> > > a whole different definition of what constitutes "child pornography". Some
> > > people in this country (USA) believe a simple nude constitutes child
> > > pornography.
> >
> > ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere!
>
> I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too
> clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered "child
> pornography" by some.
Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude. *What*
the nude is doing or how it's being portrayed are important considerations. When
I refer to child pornography, I am referring to portrayals of sexual acts by
adults upon children. I am after something which is so deviant that it acts as a
benchmark from which we can all say, Yeah, that's not art, it is something else
(in this case child pornography).
What I find interesting is the reluctance to try and attempt to pin down a
definition of art. Why is everyone so eager to accept a definition that art is
completely subjective? Every generation in the past decided what they thought art
was or wasn't. Today we are afraid to label anything and so we include
everything. How odd, and how destructive. I think the current art scene today is
evident of that.
> >
> > > How about performance art where the artist kills an animal--
> > > or
> > > > a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider
> > > art.
> > >
> > > These are crimes also. It would make for a very short art career. Good • luck
> > > qualifying under my definition of art in any case.
> >
> > It would qualify under many people's definition.
> >
> > 1. Art is subjective....check
> > 2. Art is thought provoking.....check
> > 3. Art is controversial.....check
> > 4. Art is the expression of an artist....check
> > 5. Art is blah blah blah....
>
>
> Go find these people who are claiming murder is art and get back to me. They
> actually have to say murder is art. No convoluted "proofs" please: Straw men
> are always easy to knock down.
When I hear people not being willing to define art and thus in essence say art is
everything, I try and provide things that I think art isn't. If some moron artist
actually thinks this is some sort of performance art, _on what basis_ can we
respond "You are an idiot and a charlatan" if we concede that art is everything?
Appeal to laws? Do the laws of men define art?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why is that? What is it about certain things that make them not art?
> > >
> > > And what is my definition of art? If people are not convinced that • something
> > > is art, it isn't!
> >
> > Too subjective for me.
>
>
> I'm not arguing what I feel the definition of art should *be*, just what it
> works out to be in practice.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think
> >
> > > > there is a working definition somewhere.
> > >
> > > Yes. There is. Trouble is, there are a LOT of definitions, none of them • the
> > > same. Mine is simply one that is designed to challenge art historians.
> > >
> > > And instead of calling *everything*
> > > art,
> > > > let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, • Bigotry,
> > > > Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
> > > >
> > > > -John
> > >
> > > Whoa there. Let's not burst a blood vessel! Straw men are easy to knock • down,
> > > especially ones you set up yourself, not me.
> >
> > lol I guess it may *seem* that I'm getting all worked up, but I'm really just
> > trying to learn:-)
> >
> > -John
>
> And working out a certain amount of annoyance at the whole
> silly system (understandable but futile).
>
> Okay, why do I say art is whatever you can convince people is art? During the
> 1800's, if you graduated from the French Academy of Art (by doing your "master"
> piece, demonstarting you have mastered art), what you did was art (as long as
> you stuck to their style)! Conversely, if you hadn't gone through that process
> and forced down the academy's definition of art, it wasn't art. Their opinion
> on what art was and what wasn't art was pretty much followed by the public.
> Along came the Impressionists. What they did Was Not Art! The public agreed:
> Impressionism Wasn't Art! You want Real Art: see the Academic paintings. That
> was Art!
>
> Now, of course, Impressionism is the most loved and sought after Art on the
> face of the planet. Critics love it. The public loves it. Academic
> paintings? Vapid, empty, sterile, vacuous: Not Art!
>
> Conclusions? Were the people in the 19th century that unknowledgable? Are we
> really that much more clever today? I don't believe so.
>
> Or were they simply too close to the art in the 19th century? Was it too new
> and challenging and just plain different? I think this is closer to the truth.
> But then, won't our opinions on art be judged 100 years down the line, and
> won't that generation's opinion become the standard for what is and isn't art?
> Art is this wiggily little beast that is extremely difficult to pin down. The
> lesson learned from the Impressionism movement is not to be quite so quick on
> claiming something is or isn't art.
>
> The trouble is we have come to something of a full circle. The abstracts of
> the 20th century were done by classically trained artists: this was the way
> they wanted to paint - they could have done a traditional landscape if they
> wanted to. As the century wore on, too many artists couldn't. ALL they could
> do was argle-bargle. But ANYONE could do argle-bargle ("My kid can paint
> better'n that!"). So what did galleries require? Why, a Master's Degree to
> prove that the work was done by a Certified Artist! The skill of the artist
> was often in convincing people that what he/she did was Art! and what the other
> person did was unoriginal, hackneyed, and Not Art! Why? Because (all together
> now): Art is what ever you can convince people is art!
I like your analysis. I think you are on to something here. Artists of the late
20th century climbed on the backs of their predecessors without taking the effort
of achieving their positions. So I agree that to produce art one must possess
certain knowledge and skill in order to earn the right to produce art. I can put
a band-aid on an ouchie, but does that make me a nurse? Anyone can argle-bargle,
but does that make them an artist and thus their work art?
Perhaps you are right that art is whatever I can convince you is art. And what
I'm saying is that everything shouldn't be considered art. Certain skills,
credentials, etc. should be present in an artist before we deem their work art.
Every other generation did it, so why are we so against doing it?
> I TOLD you it was a cynical definition aimed at art historians (drives 'em
> nuts, too). To fill out the definition properly:
>
> Art is whatever you can convince people is art, but tastes may change. What is
> art today, may not be tomorrow. Conversly, what is not art today may be
> accepted as art tomorrow.
Well.... if today we say everything is art, we pretty much have the bases covered.
> Yes, I KNOW it isn't a satisfying definition and is entirely subjective. My
> solution is not to argue whether something is art or not, but to simply say,
> "Hey, it may be art, but it still stinks!"
Am I crazy for trying to distinguish that statement thusly: "Hey that painting
stinks; it's not a work of art."
-John
> Not that that doesn't have its dangers, since it comes close to saying, "I may
> not know what art is, but I know what I like." Trouble is, you only THINK you
> know what you like (I'm just as guilty of this as the next guy), and you may
> find out that you have changed your mind - and your definition of art -
> tomorrow.
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
| (...) Not everyone agrees with you on that, and the proportions that do or don't will change dramatically from culture to culture. (...) else (...) A reasonable desire, but again, "child pornography" means different things to different people. For (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P (...) have (...) I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered (...) (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
|
|
|
|
