From Zenon M. Feszczak Sent Fri, Oct 1st 1999, 21:07
From Zenon M. Feszczak Sent Fri, Oct 1st 1999, 21:07
Tom Millar wrote: > >Quite frankly I don't understand why adults, and arguably >more-intelligent-than-average adults at that, should be having these >complaints at all. I can understand how a parent might...but for >those of you who don't have such extenuating circumstances to excuse >yourselves, this one's for you! Odd distinction. Why are parents alone justified in having concerns over obscenity? I know quite a few non-parents who are object to vulgarity. > > >You would think that none of you had ever: >I mean, universal human experience is universal human experience, right? Universality of certain experiences does not imply appropriateness for discussion in all circles and circumstances. In some cases this is a matter of shame, in others a matter of discretion or modesty, in others a sense that something is rather too sacred to discuss so casually, or at all. >But this has been going on for almost the >entirety of twentieth century art, especially the visual arts. It's just now >catching up to music- Historical precedent justifies nothing. Anyway, the traditional visual arts have not had a particularly brilliant track record of late, and the "puerile" works even less so. If the work's only intent is to annoy, shock, offend, then with all due respect, this is not art. >Art itself >is gratuitous by nature anyway- Is it? Some art surely Other art may be very concerned to express certain views or ideas - social, political, spiritual, metaphysical. Other art may attempt to communicate some sort of transcending experience. And son. >nobody ever said it had to be pretty. "Not being pretty" does not imply "gratuitous". Anselm Kiefer's work is hardly pretty, but neither is it gratuitous. > >Back to fucking with shit, fucking shit up, whatever. Fuck it. Enjoy yourself, then. Best, 3