RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Good?, A burgeoning ethical issue< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3281
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2011,11:50   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 11 2011,11:32)
"Graffiti is done neither for financial reward or personal acclaim, therefore is the purest form of art. Discuss!"

Louis (Not at all derailing his own thread)

No.  Logical fallacy dude.  False dichotomy.  Other forms of art can be done for neither financial reward or personal acclaim.

Further graffiti is often done to mark gang territory and is therefore a form of communication rather than pure art (which judging by some of the shows I've been too involves flinging paint onto a canvas from more than 10 meters away or giant penises).

Considering all the money my wife is putting into her Master of Fine Arts in studio art degree... her art process is negative in terms of reward.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  46 replies since Mar. 11 2011,06:13 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]