 | | Re: Swearing? —John Neal
| | | | (...) No, I am waving around the term because I'm searching for something so vile and contemptuous that it is an example of something that art isn't. And I'm not talking about photos of nude, newborn babies. I'm talking about depictions of sexual (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Matthew Miller
| | | | | | (...) I don't think you're going to find such a thing, because "vile and contemptuous" isn't something that makes something art or not. If a thing is truely vile and contemptuous, it might be something that, as you say, no one ever should be exposed (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Swearing? —Craig Hamilton
| | | | | (...) john ~ there are better ways to define something than to say what it is not. it's like trying to describe an elephant by saying it's not a mouse. in your search for a definition of art has gotten off track with this pornography thing. have you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
