Comments on: Just Because it’s “Art” Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Art

By: Bret

Bret — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:50:35 +0000

Cheryl,
Your comment was exactly what I was thinking before I got to it. Especially with music. I think of Marilyn Manson as someone whom I think is very creative and intelligent in how he has gained his popularity and works a crowd, but I sure don’t respect him or what he;s done. Most tyrants of history were geniuses.

KyleM,
Lol. Exactly.

By: Walter Kobasky Sierra

Walter Kobasky Sierra — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:30:28 +0000

Hey que ondas, parece que estas vivo, el mail es es wa007ko@hotmail.com, son dos ceros antes del 7, write me plz.

Saludos

By: Rusty

Rusty — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:19:07 +0000

Sierra,
¡Que me des un email que functiona!

By: Walter Kobasky Sierra

Walter Kobasky Sierra — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:56:41 +0000

Rosty, que te has hecho, no se si te va ha llegar este mensaje pero ha sido lo unico que he encontrado para localizarte, espero todo este bien con tigo.

please if do you want sand me your cell phone number.

Regars

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:16:09 +0000

KyleM-
Thank you! That’s what I was alluding to in my last sentence. (is that how you spell “alluding”? Oops. I mean, alluding.) ;)

By: KyleM

KyleM — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:08:26 +0000

Most people I know will say bad art, or cheap hotel art. “Art” is reserved for what they think is porn.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:44:05 +0000

I will agree with you, Rusty, although reluctantly, because of an experience I had:

I hated 12-tone row (music-speak here). I thought it was insanity and didn’t sound pleasing to the ear. I called it “music”. My professor was aghast that I would insult the 20th century genre with such distaste, and so he said something to me that I will never forget:

“Just because you do not find it pleasing to the ear does not mean it isn’t genius. You don’t have to like it, but you need to learn to respect it.”

After that, I did learn to appreciate 12-tone row. I still don’t like to listen to it, but I now appreciate the genius that it takes to compose something original out of a dire formula.

Art is the same way. Yes, some of it is crap (literally), and we can hate it all we want. But there should still be some appreciation.

[By the way --I have to admit here that I still believe there are some forms of "art". I don't think all art warrants the respect it seeks...]

By: Lamonte

Lamonte — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:24:05 +0000

OK, here’s a pretentious, and arrogant thought for you. When people say anything with “quotes” it usually means they don’t understand it. When someone, whether they are Mormons or otherwise, says “art” it usually means it doesn’t fit into there limited scope of what art is. Is art a painting that accurately depicts a scene in nature or is it an abstract vision of that same scene. I like Jackson Pollack’s work, not because I understand it but because it appeals to me from an aesthetic perspective (is that an ambiguous statement or what?). It doesn’t necessarily mean that I understand Pollack’s work but I’m not about to call it “art”. Likewise, the “quotes” can be used in similar ways to describe something we don’t undertsand or don’t believe like “science” or “truth”.

Bennet Brauer was using the quotes to signify terms that he didn’t believe or didn’t think were as imprtant as other people think they are. That’s what made that sketch so funny. And in its own way, that sketch was art (without quotes).

By: Kurt

Kurt — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:56:32 +0000

So, this “blogging” thing, is it really the best means of discussing “art”?

By: cj douglass

cj douglass — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:16:50 +0000

BTW,
DId you actually read my comment in #6?:) or just every other word?