To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3352
3351  |  3353
Subject: 
Re: Swearing?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 02:37:49 GMT
Viewed: 
2093 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:


Matthew Miller wrote:

John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote:
It's useful if you are a pervert trying to pass off obscenities as art.

"Pornography!" is a useful label if you're a reactionary who is frightened
by art that might make people think.

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 perversions involving children and adults, for example.  Yeah, being
exposed to that kind of filth (not saying I have because I haven't and should
not *ever* be exposed to such things) would make one think, but who needs those
thoughts and images floating around in one's brain forever?  No one.

-John



--
Matthew Miller                      --->                  mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us                       --->             http://quotes-r-us.org/


  john ~

  there are better ways to define something than to say what it is not. it's
like trying to describe an elephant by saying it's not a mouse.

  in your search for a definition of art has gotten off track with this
pornography thing.  have you ever seen (what you'd consider) explicit child
pornography being passsed of as art?  i can't say that i have.

  there have been very insightful posts regarding definitions of art and
none of them have anything to do with a painting or sculptures's subject
matter. (or medium, for that matter)  subject matter is irrelevant in art's
definition!

  later ~ craig~



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 (...) (24 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR