PDA

View Full Version : Maybe why we don't understand liberal art.....



Deeman3
04-28-2008, 12:56 PM
Newsweek

A German artist wants to install a terminally ill patient in a gallery as an exhibit. In Nicaragua last year, an artist displayed a starving dog, tethered just out of reach of food, as conceptual art. In New Haven, Conn., an artist claims to have made multiple attempts to impregnate herself and then induce miscarriages as a work of art. All these artists say their projects are intended to start conversations. But apart from all the shouting about indecency and insensitivity, are any ideas actually being exchanged?



Maybe it is art, but I struggle to see that or it's value to mankind.

SKennedy
04-28-2008, 03:31 PM
Art? No. It's just a sick and extreme form of self-indulgence!

Bobbyrx
04-28-2008, 03:40 PM
I think it would have been art if the ARTIST had been starving and tethered just out of reach of food........and then the dog.....no, I better just leave it at that... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

Deeman3
04-28-2008, 03:43 PM
Of course, if it was an image of Jesus covered in filth, it would be o.k. and supportable by the National Endowment for the Arts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

wolfdancer
04-28-2008, 11:34 PM
could you define liberal art for me? Would that be art that appeals only to the left, like that of Dali, Mapplethorpe, Rockwell, or Grandma Moses?

LWW
04-29-2008, 02:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">could you define liberal art for me? Would that be art that appeals only to the left, like that of Dali, Mapplethorpe, Rockwell, or Grandma Moses? </div></div>
My definition of liberal art is art that nobody would actually buy but liberals insist that the taxpayer should.

LWW

Deeman3
04-29-2008, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">could you define liberal art for me? Would that be art that appeals only to the left, like that of Dali, Mapplethorpe, Rockwell, or Grandma Moses? </div></div>


Wolfdancer,

I was hoping you'd catch me on that one. I do know the defenders of open expressional art supported by the liberal media contains this type of "art". However, like you, I know that the political bent of the artist is often much different than the group that supports it. So, liberal art has not a lot to do with liberal politics although they do seem to hang in the same circles.

My problem is that these same art patrons would be over the moon if the depiction was of Muslim rather than Christian icons and that if it were the splattering of the brains of an abortion doctor on a white canvas, it would be deemed not art, while a fetus or aborted baby is safe territory.

Atr does, in fact, immitate life.

sack316
04-29-2008, 10:03 AM
uh oh, I actually attend what is technically considered a Liberal Arts College. Do I need to transfer? In their defense, they have started to sway away from it and head more the football/money making route... so many of the arts programs that were there when I first attended a decade ago are now gone. But it is still technically a Liberal Arts school.

Just thought about it... only I would shell out fourty grand to a high profile LA college to get my business management degree... is that wasteful spending? I guess I really am a republican /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

LWW
04-29-2008, 01:26 PM
Good points.

The taxpayer is expected to pay for "PISS - CHRIST" and if they object they are racists.

At the same time you can't print a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban or else you are a racist.

LWW