Subject:
|
Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:59:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2229 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> <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~
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 egon schiele's frankly explicit portraits of child prostitutes
to bouguereau's lovely and delicate painting, "the broken pitcher".
i'm in total agreement with you that "everything/ anything can be/ is art"
is a falsehood. it is a greedy manipulation of art's inherent subjective
nature, and idicative of the ignorance and moral decay present in modern
society. (i blame warhol-ism for propogating this ideaology, btw)
VALUES is the key word when defining art. this has been reflected well in
other posts here, and is part of the teachings of nicolaides, one of the
greatest drawing instructors of all time. (author of "the natural way to
draw" he taught at the art students' league of new york in the twenties and
thirties. i highly reccomend his book.)
art is a continual process of value judgements, both in it's creation and
appreciation.
as a drawing teacher, myself, this is a close as i'd ever dare get to
defining art. just like "love" and "god", art is one of those things that
cannot be fit into a seamless defined box, or have limitations put on. to
put restrictions on art's definition simply is'nt a workable solution. if
you insist on putting limitations on what is or is'nt art, you end up as far
off base as someone who claims everything is art.
later~ craig~
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| <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 (...) You are correct, Craig. What I was trying to do was in reaction (...) (25 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
