Subject:
|
Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:27:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4160 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
> 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
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
