"purple" <purple@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d43b4515-10e2-44e4-83a6-c8913ea745e9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 17, 10:55 pm, nenslo <nen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <HfgDj.85641$FO1.76091@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>
>
> MistySteele <live_long_and_prosp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > purple wrote:
> > > On Mar 16, 2:02 pm, "SODDI the Unclean" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> The media IS art.
>
> > > blabbity blabbity blab
> > > Re****t on Project in Understanding New Media, Part VII(Exhibits),
p.i,
> > > 1960.
>
> > Interesting. One could say that art is only defined as such because it
> > is what people see. Shakespeare, Dickens, and Da Vinci are all famous
> > only because their works were, and are, seen by the m*****. Now that
the
> > media is seen by the m***** as well, it has become a new form of art.
> > So, in my opinion, the media is not "killing" the Arts, only replacing
> > some of them with something else. Whether this is good or bad is up to
> > individual preference.
>
> Personally, I don't think a forty-eight year old quote has anything to
> do with "new media." I don't remember what 1960 was like, but I
> remember 1962 pretty well, and I assure you it was a different world
> entirely from this one now.
And why is the present world so different from 1962?
Because shut up, dean.
|
