Subject:
|
Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:30:10 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@ihatespamUSWEST.NET
|
Viewed:
|
2101 times
|
| |
|
|
<387579FF.F0AA7C07@uswest.net> <FnyJnI.5L8@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
craig hamilton wrote:
<snip>
> > > 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)
Ah, this is an excellent point here. Everything isn't art, but those whose morals are flawed
will deem certain works which I would consider obscenities. Still it's a very subjective
definition, and nothing new to this discussion but it has been a very helpful insight to me.
Another person earlier said that what one determines as art says more about that person than
about the art itself, which I also can see.
My frustrations with what the world today calls art is related I guess to the frustrations I
feel towards the moral plight of our society right now.
My last hope at some objective qualification would teeter on the notion that a morally prefect
person's idea of what art is would be an absolute definition. Any other assertions would be
incorrect due to the flawed nature of the viewer. This doesn't get us any closer to an answer,
but it helps me anyway.
> 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.
Your insight has been helpful:-)
-John
>
>
> later~ craig~
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")
|
| (...) morals are flawed (...) subjective (...) insight to me. (...) that person than (...) Everything isn't art, but those *you deem* to have flawed morals will accept certain works you consider obscenities. See the difference? You make the (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
