 | | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to define what art is, it is based (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
|
(...) art is (...) artist (...) everything? (...) Bad art is usually consigned to the Not Art category, but only over time. Unless it's an illustration, in which case it is Not Art immediately. :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something together from the two debates we have going on. ASSERTIONS: 1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional response. 2. The VALUE of art is something (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
Frank said it, better than I've had time to say. Very nicely done. What a great running dog lackey I've created here... (go back to very early in the history of this group and read some of Frank's stuff and you'll find he wasn't nearly as right as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) Some art is intended to create an intellectual response, not emotional, or as an aid to meditation (Mark Rothko's "glowing squares"), or.... (...) Each will assign their own unique value. (...) When Libertarians are the majority party, I'll (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) Start worrying. We are. If you go by sentiment, anyway. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) You may have a point there, although I would argue that is still an emotional response. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) Yowza! Sort of, maybe, but I don't think that too many of that majority think its goals are currently realistic, for some of the reasons already addressed in the various Libertopia posts! Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) Then call a vote on it in congress while you can! :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) The people looking at it. (...) Yes... and? Okay, so it's a mostly semantic difference, but it does exist. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
|
(...) Yah. Right. Show me election results and appropriate laws, then. Maybe you want to dilute your viewpoint to the point where it is acceptable to enough people that you can have a good share of votes, just like the two major parties, but it (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
