Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:01:04 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@%Spamcake%uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
4304 times
|
| |
|
|
<387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <slrn8796nm.341.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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.
That's my point, you see. I'm saying that such things are not art BY DEFINITION.
Said another way, I am attempting to define art that excludes such garbage from
being called art. We would then call that garbage "garbage".
-John
> 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?
|
| (...) It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art. (...) Well, one is expressed in writing and the other is expressed in a painting. (...) How about Guernica is a painting that expresses a political statement? -John (...) (27 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
