Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:12:45 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETihatespam
|
Viewed:
|
1762 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> 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 you set it down, it will be outdated.
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?
> 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.
I'm searching for a definition, not an inclusive data base.
-John
>
>
> Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
