Date: 2003-08-19 03:03 pm (UTC)
Quite a thought-provoking post!

It's a tricky subject, at best, is Art. We've evolved enough to understand that it can convey a message, and that it need not always be beautiful.

But how do you distinguish between the conveyance of a message, and propaganda? How can you be sure of the distinction between a simple presentation of something as-is, and ugliness that is offered in the guise of art but is intended merely to offend?

I am reminded of the late Mapplethorpe(sp?) and the controversial work that made him a household name, Piss Christ. I vividly recall the uproar over the very notion of putting a crucifix, a symbol that is holy to millions of people throughout the world, into a bottle of urine and calling it Art. I also vividly recall seeing a photograph of the actual object: Jesus suffering on his cross, bathed in an almost magical-looking ocean of gentle gold. Seen as itself, it was truly beautiful.

I don't consider myself a Christian. Yet I was moved by that object of art.

There's no actual point I'm trying to make, here. It's just the best comparison I can think of. :-)
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

kellinator: (Default)
kellinator

July 2013

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617 181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 6th, 2026 03:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios