I am not an artist but would like to ask a few questions.
Supposed after an artistic enoounter ones emotions are moved and he either resosnds positively or negatively i.e.the experience is pleasant or unpleasant and based on this we would say his spirit has been moved. But this very movement of spirit is what ives me problems.
My argument is that this so called movement of the spirit is dependent on ones state of mind hence the intellect. Watching people burn in gas chambers probably amused Hitler and his friends, moved his spirit, and made him quite happy - and they probably thought it was a work of art. In a similar way we have exhibitions in London where a soiled bed is considered a workof art. The very same exhitbion could make majority of us (one would hope) physically sick. Hence, the definition of what is art should not be based on only what move the spirit.
Art should go with moral values into what is acceptable - infact what brings us joy speaks volume to what values we hold on to. Any reasonable dignified individual, with a working mind would not be freely willing to expose his/her nakedness. Public display of nakedness goes hand in hand with metal disfunction however mild or subtle it may be. And the people who enjoy viewing it are those who are feeding their own sickness of the soul in the form of uncontrolled sexual passions. It is one thing to watch such things and realise that it is wrong to do so and keep the shame concealed but it is a totally different ball game to make it ocially acceptable through the use of words such as arts etc.
Displayersof nudity are sicks, its viewers are sick, and this sickness is of many levels. The biggest sickness is that of denial.
Regards
lol flow-unclever
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by check_check
If an image, product or artefact stimulates the intellect, spirit and senses then it may de defined as artin the cultural life of a people (Check_Check 2007).
about the nude:
If it stimulates just the senses,but not theintellect or spirit then it might be ****ography.
If it stimulates the senses and the spirit, it might be just beauty
If you hold that beauty can stimulate the intellect then we are in very choppy waters than candrag us over the niagara thats fascism.
I say lets divide up nudes into either beauty or ****ography and leave it at that. No talk of art, unless we are into blackpower/whitepower/brownpower/mixed race powerpolitics.
|