Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:30:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net&spamless&
|
Viewed:
|
2215 times
|
| |
|
|
<387426AC.7833B0B8@uswest.net> <Fny1z1.DHn@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
craig hamilton wrote:
> 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.
You are correct, Craig. What I was trying to do was in reaction to those who
believe that "everything is art". I just wanted an example of something that I
think *isn't* art.
> have you ever seen (what you'd consider) explicit child
> pornography being passsed of as art? i can't say that i have.
Of course not. I'm speaking conceptually here.
> 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!
I disagree.
-John
>
>
> later ~ craig~
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")
|
| (...) john ~ and what subject matter would exclude a painting or sculpture from being art, pray tell? child pornography? there are countless pieces of undeniable art that address the subject of child sexuality in forms both subtle and gross. from (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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 (...) (25 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
