Subject:
|
Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:08:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2159 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something
> together from the two debates we have going on.
>
> ASSERTIONS:
>
> 1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional
> response.
Some art is intended to create an intellectual response, not emotional, or as
an aid to meditation (Mark Rothko's "glowing squares"), or....
>
> 2. The VALUE of art is something which can only be determined by the
> viewer OR the entity displaying the art (which could be the artist).
Each will assign their own unique value.
>
> 3. "Public" funding of art is wrong because of both 1 and 2.
When Libertarians are the majority party, I'll worry about it.
(Joke! Joke, joke, joke...)
The rest was all interesting reading. I have no comment beyond I enjoyed
reading it.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Art and Property ZRights
|
| (...) I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something together from the two debates we have going on. ASSERTIONS: 1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional response. 2. The VALUE of art is something (...) (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
|
|
|
|
