 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | Although I agree with Kevin (how could I not, he's agreeing with me) I am honor bound to point out: (...) that the starving artists I see on TV (you know, on those 1/2 hour ads and such) seem to produce mostly Elvis on velvet... :-) Not that there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Lindsay Frederick Braun
| | | | | (...) Interestingly, that's a case of your almighty market defining what art is meritorious. When we get a black-velvet Rembrandt analogue, I'll concede it as a good development--until then, I'm firmly in the corner of mixed-source funding. The (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) I certainly question it. Fortunately it's not what I've been saying. What I have an issue with is rather the artist who is not willing to suffer, but instead feels the world owes him funding as his due, for deigning to have decided to be an (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
