| |
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:17:11 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art.
>
> How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode
The people looking at it.
> of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be
> futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to
> define what art is, it is based on each person's value system to make
> the determination", which is not the view that John Neal has. But you've
> just traded the "is it art?" question for a similar one "is it bad art?"
> which is just as dependent on internal values of the observer.
Yes... and? Okay, so it's a mostly semantic difference, but it does
exist.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to define what art is, it is based (...) (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
|
|
|
|
