Here's Wikipedia's take on it "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions."
Encyclopedia Britannica: "a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination."
He deliberately arranged that shopfront from an unbroken glass window into a pile of glass shards thereby forming a visual experience. To consider that as art took some (although limited) imagination. And the baboon-grunts of "HOW WOULD HE FEEL IF I CAME AND PUNCHED HIS MOM IN THE OVARIES" (paraphrased) has proven that it certainly elicited an emotional response. = ART
LOL I love the hysterical housewife flank of Neatorama. Where any question, however restrained, can be parried with the deft use of: "!!1!!1 OH YEah, how'd u like if he wuz raping YOUR childerns!!1"
Oh, and to anyone irritated by the fact that the definition of "art" has been thrown wide open in the last 100 years or so, if art is not simply whatever someone does with an artistic intent or claims is art, then what is it? How should it be defined and who should be allowed to define it? Should all of us cast votes each time? Or just the people in the area where the alleged art is being committed?
I don't like how the question was framed, "vandalism" is a loaded word. Let's say "destructive act" and yes, of course it can be art. It's not terribly original, but if he says it's art then it's art.
Deconstructionists, cut-up artists, graffiti artists, ready-mades, artists making cracks in the floor of The Turbine Room, artists filling the space with shredded phone books and lying there, artists urinating on stage as part of their stage act...etc, etc.
This is old hat and a storm in a teacup. It's not very good art but it's certainly art.
And I realize that the priest is talking from an English standpoint and I have no idea if you're American or not. I was simply taking the U.S. as an easy example.
Charities and social services aren't working, that's his point. They serve to whitewash the issue, cleanse the middle-class guilt over how they molest the poor on a daily basis. The situation the way it is now is not acceptable. So we need radical solutions for radical problems - maybe not stealing, but at least he's giving the dialogue some urgency.
Ok, it's wrong to steal. What would you call the hundreds of billions that have been stolen from the American people over the last few decades, whether from corrupt businesses or their collaborators in government. Those men did not have an urgent need to steal, and yet they did and, in most cases, got away with it. It seems the U.S. government has given its blessing to these business practices - why should the starving be exempt from the right to profit from the work of others?
And if you want to get more "philosophical" about it, aren't all English people thieves already? They have museums full of stolen artifacts reminding of us of that history. The rampant consumption on display over the holiday is another good reminder of how we, at this very moment, are exploiting developing nations, wasting resources and generally manipulating and destroying things that "are not ours to take".
You say stealing is stealing regardless of size. If a a industrial country pollutes the waterways of a developing country on the other side of the globe, robbing people of their livelihood, is that any different? When a government forces you to bail out thieves is that any different? Have you ever downloaded a song illegally, Melissa? So on and so on.
I'm not asking you to agree with what the priest is saying, but at least allow for the fact that stealing takes many forms and right now small-scale shoplifting for sustenance is hardly the most pressing kind.
This is an issue that requires you to address the idea of property, capital, right-of-ownership, and several other key ideas. It simply isn't as cut-and-dried as it's made out to be.
Let's not get the tired old Dawkins vs. Religion dungball rolling again. Let's stick to the issue. The church has been consistently devoted to the poor and needy from its foundation and a lot of heart-warming humanitarian work has been done in Christ's name - the Church has also behaved with remarkable avarice and callousness and ignored those in need throughout the ages. But that's beside the point. This is about one priest and his "radical" idea (although an idea that has been expounded within the Church numerous times before)
I like this priest. He's preaching illegalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegalism). Predictable knee-jerk reaction from the public: "Yo. Break the law do the time, bro". But it's easier to dismiss him than to take it in.
It never hurts to revisit one's opinions: a) What might the priest be accomplishing by opening up this dialogue? b) What are you accomplishing by laughing it off? c) Whom does it benefit when you dismiss what he suggests? d) Do you think this is a simple publicity stunt or is the priest genuinely committed to the welfare of the poor. Could it be both? e) What are you doing for the poor this Christmas? Is it a token gesture around the holidays? Or are you helping us find long-term/large-scale solutions?
At first I thought the steps leading up to the entrance where the lines on a highway and my mind was trying to wrap itself around someone blowing a house out of the ground in the middle of the street...looking closer its marginally less interesting but still absolutely gorgeous. I'd live there.
Before you accuse scientist of being mad islamic marxist out to abort your babies and let gays into your pantry, please remember that scientists base their work on empirical evidence. That means that they may not get it right all the time but at least their default position is "I'm probably not right". Can the denialist blow-hards say the same?
It's fine to debate the specifics of global warming, how it's affecting us, in what ways, and at what rate. But at this point I treat the "logic" of the "global warming is pure bunk" crowd with the same respect as I would Holocaust deniers. Let's focus on working out a solution together and stop wasting time.
"Seriously??? Ew....... If stanky aftersex smell and BO is what is appealing... no thank you."
Cheese can taste like socks, wine can have hints of gasoline, chili peppers are a mild form of neurotoxin, hot dogs are ground-up offal and gristle, oysters taste and feel like you-know-what (I can't say it or the mods will have a hissy-fit) and both genders are attracted to pheromones released with BO.
The human taste bud is a complex thing, Lisa. But if this scares you - you are free to stick to TGI Fridays
"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions."
Encyclopedia Britannica:
"a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination."
He deliberately arranged that shopfront from an unbroken glass window into a pile of glass shards thereby forming a visual experience. To consider that as art took some (although limited) imagination. And the baboon-grunts of "HOW WOULD HE FEEL IF I CAME AND PUNCHED HIS MOM IN THE OVARIES" (paraphrased) has proven that it certainly elicited an emotional response.
= ART
Case closed.
LOL
I love the hysterical housewife flank of Neatorama. Where any question, however restrained, can be parried with the deft use of:
"!!1!!1 OH YEah, how'd u like if he wuz raping YOUR childerns!!1"
Oh, and to anyone irritated by the fact that the definition of "art" has been thrown wide open in the last 100 years or so, if art is not simply whatever someone does with an artistic intent or claims is art, then what is it?
How should it be defined and who should be allowed to define it? Should all of us cast votes each time? Or just the people in the area where the alleged art is being committed?
Deconstructionists, cut-up artists, graffiti artists, ready-mades, artists making cracks in the floor of The Turbine Room, artists filling the space with shredded phone books and lying there, artists urinating on stage as part of their stage act...etc, etc.
This is old hat and a storm in a teacup. It's not very good art but it's certainly art.
Charities and social services aren't working, that's his point. They serve to whitewash the issue, cleanse the middle-class guilt over how they molest the poor on a daily basis. The situation the way it is now is not acceptable. So we need radical solutions for radical problems - maybe not stealing, but at least he's giving the dialogue some urgency.
Ok, it's wrong to steal. What would you call the hundreds of billions that have been stolen from the American people over the last few decades, whether from corrupt businesses or their collaborators in government. Those men did not have an urgent need to steal, and yet they did and, in most cases, got away with it.
It seems the U.S. government has given its blessing to these business practices - why should the starving be exempt from the right to profit from the work of others?
And if you want to get more "philosophical" about it, aren't all English people thieves already? They have museums full of stolen artifacts reminding of us of that history. The rampant consumption on display over the holiday is another good reminder of how we, at this very moment, are exploiting developing nations, wasting resources and generally manipulating and destroying things that "are not ours to take".
You say stealing is stealing regardless of size. If a a industrial country pollutes the waterways of a developing country on the other side of the globe, robbing people of their livelihood, is that any different? When a government forces you to bail out thieves is that any different? Have you ever downloaded a song illegally, Melissa? So on and so on.
I'm not asking you to agree with what the priest is saying, but at least allow for the fact that stealing takes many forms and right now small-scale shoplifting for sustenance is hardly the most pressing kind.
This is an issue that requires you to address the idea of property, capital, right-of-ownership, and several other key ideas. It simply isn't as cut-and-dried as it's made out to be.
I like this priest. He's preaching illegalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegalism). Predictable knee-jerk reaction from the public: "Yo. Break the law do the time, bro". But it's easier to dismiss him than to take it in.
It never hurts to revisit one's opinions:
a) What might the priest be accomplishing by opening up this dialogue?
b) What are you accomplishing by laughing it off?
c) Whom does it benefit when you dismiss what he suggests?
d) Do you think this is a simple publicity stunt or is the priest genuinely committed to the welfare of the poor. Could it be both?
e) What are you doing for the poor this Christmas? Is it a token gesture around the holidays? Or are you helping us find long-term/large-scale solutions?
At first I thought the steps leading up to the entrance where the lines on a highway and my mind was trying to wrap itself around someone blowing a house out of the ground in the middle of the street...looking closer its marginally less interesting but still absolutely gorgeous. I'd live there.
It's fine to debate the specifics of global warming, how it's affecting us, in what ways, and at what rate. But at this point I treat the "logic" of the "global warming is pure bunk" crowd with the same respect as I would Holocaust deniers. Let's focus on working out a solution together and stop wasting time.
Tough call.
85% of the world's scientists vs. a deaf Ron Burgundy with an agenda.
If stanky aftersex smell and BO is what is appealing... no thank you."
Cheese can taste like socks, wine can have hints of gasoline, chili peppers are a mild form of neurotoxin, hot dogs are ground-up offal and gristle, oysters taste and feel like you-know-what (I can't say it or the mods will have a hissy-fit) and both genders are attracted to pheromones released with BO.
The human taste bud is a complex thing, Lisa.
But if this scares you - you are free to stick to TGI Fridays