Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:39:02 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDM.spamcakeORG
|
Viewed:
|
2259 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote:
> 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
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 to, and yet at the same time it still could be art.
(Of course, it might not, as well. Being vile and contemptuous isn't
required or even wanted.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
