| |
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:05:06 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
wrote:
> When I hear people not being willing to define art and thus in essence say art is
> everything, I try and provide things that I think art isn't. If some moron artist
> actually thinks this is some sort of performance art, _on what basis_ can we
> respond "You are an idiot and a charlatan" if we concede that art is everything?
> Appeal to laws? Do the laws of men define art?
Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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!
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
