Text 14604, 91 rader
Skriven 2007-05-15 19:47:36 av Carl (1016.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
lizardgirl wrote:
> On May 14, 6:10 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> lizardgirl wrote:
>>> On May 13, 9:26 am, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>  lizardgirl <gab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip>
>
>>
>>> the ideas that find their way into controversial art are usually the
>>> ones that seem to divide us.  take the chocolate jesus sculpture
>>> that was taken down after folks started running around with their
>>> arms on fire.  i can't tell you how many times i've heard people
>>> thank 'sweet jesus' for this or that.  the piece was a literal
>>> interpretation of an everyday remark.  would people have been less
>>> offended if the artist had provided him with a comfit loincloth to
>>> cover the holy push pop? what exactly was offensive and to whom?  i
>>> think this is a conversation worth having.  while it may on the
>>> surface seem to burn bridges it can actually build them.
>>
>> As with many things, I think intent is (or should be) the key.
>
> absolutely
>
>>
>> I've heard people claim that art *must* be controversial.  I always
>> considered that statement manure, but not considering myself an
>> artist I hold a part > of my opinion back as unqualified.
>
> you shouldn't.  art is very much about what the viewer brings.  which
> is why controvercial art without intent/focus is, in fact,
> manure.   :^)

The factors by which one judges art are (as Amy and others have
pointed out) not completely subjective, and I don't consider
myself qualified to judge art other than as it conforms to my personal 
taste.

I've looked at paintings in galleries and in museums and have to confess
that I don't "get" it.  That's fine.

>
>>
>> That attitude though, has caused artists to go out of their way to
>> create something that was intenionally offensive so that they
>> could benefit from the publicity.  (I am not discussing the chocolate
>> Jesus right now).  If you go out of your way to offend someone,
>> things will
>> immediately divide into those that are offended, and those that
>> don't care (much) if the others are offended.  The crucifix in urine
>> is an example of
>> this.
>> I don't find it a surprise that such art is divisive.  Get one set
>> of people
>> emotionally charged and lines are going to be drawn.
>
> agreed.  i can't figure out what the current fascination with
> religious icons and bodily functions is about.  are the artist just
> playing off of each other trying to generate, as you say, publicity at
> all costs, or is there some other, deeper freudian thing going on
> here.

I think that many people that do not believe in a Creator have a certain
disdain towards those that do believe.


> its all garbage to varying degrees.  if the point is to gross me out,
> i'm a mother, try again. if the point is to shock and awe.  sorry,
> i will not be lead by the nose.

> which (since we have to guess) may be the point.  get people all in a
> huff, then conveniently cry wolf when things get hot (perhaps its a
> metaphore for government/authority :^).   "i didn't intend to offend,
> sir."

Or the contrary... "I must be controversial to be true to my art!"
and have those that agree with the artist come to their defense.
I suppose it increases the price of the work.

BTW, I've never quite understood that phrase "Be true to my art."
It's right up there with the phrase "I want to express my truth."

Carl

"It is amazing how many people act as if the right to free speech includes
the right to be free of criticism for what you say -- which means that other
people should not have the same right to free speech that they claim
for themselves."
-- Thomas Sowell
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)