:
Originally posted by SeaRex
If you view art in the same "liberal" respect that I do, than yes, it does make good propaganda... considering that's what it's intended to be. When you said "bad art is..." you didn't say that you meant "art" in the same context that I use it. Your "bad art" comment seemed to be nothing more than a tie-in for your "Sacrilegious Sentiments" statement, and in that sense it would be the kind of art that general public is not usually exposed to.
Oh PUH-lease, Statikk! First off, the word "snooty" couldn't even come close to describing any of my personality traits! You can't just assume that just because you're selective and snooty, that a love for art equals 'snootiness'. Secondly, you don't have to be smart to enjoy art... Just look at the examples you listed above. Or have we stopped talking about "liberal" views of art? Is that it? We're talking about "museum" art, now?
Yes, by all means, lets ALL just agree with Statikk for no good reason other than he is telling us to. OK, when you say "most" art, are you speaking of these liberal views again? Or are you saying that all of those lovely paintings, sculptures, and skethches should be tossed away as they are nothing more than trash? Jeebus, man. Every once in a while you'll get some crazy that sells his shit to famous museum, but that is a definite minority in the art world. And if you are still talking about art in the liberal sense, than yes, most TV is absolute crap. Happy?
|
If you view art in the same "liberal" respect that I do, than yes, it does make good propaganda...
So what "liberal" respect do you view art in?
it does make good propaganda...
Um.. doesn't that depend on the individual piece of art itself?
considering that's what it's intended to be.
Ahh, so you immediately assume that it's
intended to be propoganda. And furthermore, you state that if it is so intended then that it must
be.
When you said "bad art is..." you didn't say that you meant "art" in the same context that I use it.
You cannot put the word "art" into a context.
Your "bad art" comment seemed to be nothing more than a tie-in for your "Sacrilegious Sentiments" statement, and in that sense it would be the kind of art that general public is not usually exposed to.
And what in the world would be wrong with that, might I ask?
Oh PUH-lease, Statikk!
Aren't we getting all bedevilled!
First off, the word "snooty" couldn't even come close to describing any of my personality traits!
Just from that sentence you make yourself sound snooty. Snootball!
You can't just assume that just because you're selective and snooty, that a love for art equals 'snootiness'.
He never said that, so stop putting words into his mouth.
Secondly, you don't have to be smart to enjoy art...
No, you can be scruffy and still retain a certain amount of pleasure from it.
Just look at the examples you listed above. Or have we stopped talking about "liberal" views of art? Is that it? We're talking about "museum" art, now?
Wow! You really are confusing yourself, aren't you!
Yes, by all means, lets ALL just agree with Statikk for no good reason other than he is telling us to.
Sounds good to me.
OK, when you say "most" art, are you speaking of these liberal views again? Or are you saying that all of those lovely paintings, sculptures, and skethches should be tossed away as they are nothing more than trash?
Shut up. Stop creating this bullcrap repetition of "liberal" art. You sound like John Kennedy. skethches. ha.
Jeebus, man. Every once in a while you'll get some crazy that sells his shit to famous museum, but that is a definite minority in the art world.
You consider it "crazy" to make money out of giving you excrement to a museum? Oh well. As it's a minority in "the art world" let's just conveniently put the issue aside and ignore it.
And if you are still talking about art in the liberal sense, than yes, most TV is absolute crap.
You're the only retarded moron farting on about liberal this and liberal that. And most TV
you watch is crap.
Happy?
Ecstatic I'm sure.