| |
John Neal wrote:
> > 1. It must be intentional. (a beautiful sunset is not art)
>
> Agreed.
I actually thought it was possible that someone might claim that a
sunset was God's art.
> > 2. It must provoke emotion in some/most viewers. (it need not be a
> > pleasant response)
>
> Why not?
As Matthew or someone said, because art handles a wider scope of issues.
> > 3. It must be explainable. (this is pretty fuzzy)
>
> By whom?
Exactly! I think that the artist's ability to explain it aims us toward
Bruce's definition. Critics' explanations also go a long way to helping
people believe in a work of art. As a serious art student, I was judged
in part on my ability to explain what was behind my work: why I did it,
what I was expressing, what technique I was working to master/explore,
etc. I think explainability matters a great deal, but the who issue is
a good question. I suppose the total answer is that most people, in
order to designate some work 'art' feel that they have to be able to
'explain' something about it. I feel that way about my own work.
> > You seem to be claiming that Christians have some kind of monopoly on
> > art. I doubt that's what you meant, so I'm wondering what it was that
> > I've missed.
>
> What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who
> created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar
> of urine or a Madonna with feces for nipples come to mind." I am not claiming
> anything on behalf of Christians, only myself (although I happen to be a
> Christian). What I meant was that these (I'm assuming here) non-Christian
> "artists" thought it would be somehow profound to defile Christian icons and
> somehow that would be considered art. To whom? Non-Christians? Why would they
> care about Christian icons? Unless it is some form of religious persecution,
> which I think it very well might be.
The artist who used the dung of elephants in his depiction of the
blessed virgin is a Catholic African-Brit IIRC and was combining a
sacred material from his tribal background with his modern mythology.
And it was around the location of one breast, not used to depict both nipples.
Maybe the artist who immersed the crucifix in urine is a reformed
catholic and was making a statement about his negative feelings
regarding what the church has done to him and others. Or maybe he's
devout but he really hates the political nature of the Holy Roman
Church. Or maybe you're right that it's a mild religious persecution.
I don't know or care. And it doesn't appeal to me, but I happen to
think that it is art. It is making a statement that is both emotional
and intellectual in nature and I'm willing to dignify it as bad art. My
main reason for thinking it's bad is not that it's offensive, but that
it is trite. It was too easy.
> > Do you believe that all things profound are equally so to
> > everyone? If so, how do you explain the varied reaction to your
> > religious beliefs? If not, how do you know that a urine washed crucifix
> > isn't profound to some?
>
> To whom would it be profound?!
Given the possible definitions that I came up with, it could be profound
to viewers that are in the same boat WRT church relations as the artist.
It's not profound to me, but maybe it is to others.
> What a load of crap!
Is crap on the hit list? I was suspended for 2+ weeks from posting here
for using a similar word because someone told on me. ;-)
> It is only profound in its
> vicious attempt to mock Christians and their religion. Please explain any
> other interpretation.
Done. See above.
> > > Would you call child pornography art?
> >
> > What would you call child pornography? I could be convinced that a
> > drawing of a naked 16-year old was art.
>
> Well, the *point* is that I could describe a drawing or photo or whatever
> involving children and adults which would be considered by any *decent* human
> being as offensively pornographic.
Everyone driving faster than you is a maniac while everyone slower is
senile. Similarly, everyone who thinks something you call pornography
is pleasant is indecent and everyone who calls pornography something you
think is nice is a crazy prude. That said I agree with you. Anyone who
disagrees with me is indecent. But that doesn't make them bad...necessarily.
> > > How about performance art where the artist kills an animal-- or a human?
> >
> > It's quite a stretch for me to consider this art, but I wouldn't rule it
> > out as a possibility. What have you got against killing animals?
>
> As performance? As "art"? Why wouldn't you rule it out?
Do you believe that cinema is (or can be) art? What about a movie that
depicts the slaughter of an animal? What's the difference if "no
animals were hurt in the making..."?
> > > [snip] And instead of calling *everything* art,
> > > let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, Bigotry,
> > > Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
> >
> > What about an artistic rendition of those things?
>
> Don't know if that's possible.
Well, I point to an artistic rendition of murder with the crucifixion of
Christ below, but you say they weren't meant to convey murder. They
seem to have quite accidentally succeeded, then. They are art. They
depict murder. Artistic depictions of murder must therefore be possible.
> > There are numerous
> > famous paintings of Christ's death. Such a killing is certainly
> > sadistic, murder, and probably racism. Are those paintings those
> > things, or are they art?
>
> Depictions of Christ's death are not meant to convey sadism, murder, or certainly
> racism. They are about suffering and pain and love. You can say they are about
> shopping in Springtime if you want, it's a free country.
So, what's that supposed to mean? You seem a little testy. If you have
in any way construed my post as an attack on you or your beliefs, I
apologize. That was never meant.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Why not? (...) By whom? (...) What you missed was that I was specifically referring to those "artists" who created the works described by Christopher Lannan: "A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine or a Madonna with feces for (...) (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
|
|
|
|
