Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Personally, I assumed the headline was about buying lumps of delicious pastry-wrapped beef.
-
Rodney maintains the opening of various losses for tax purposes will more than make up for CCO tax
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00376.htmAs an aside, it always amuses me when press releases attribute quotes to two people at once.
-
My opponents in this argument are taking the essentialist and universalist lines
One can be subjectivist or intersubjectivist without agreeing with you.
I don't know if it's worth trying to clarify my argument from earlier; I'm confident it won't advance things. But what the hell.
The thing that sounded flawed wasn't that things that weren't art before are art now. It's that, if we reasses them retrospectively, they can go from not having been art to having been art.
I actually kind of feel like Paul has a point, at least in a capital-A Arts sense, though some of the resulting exculsions seem unhelpful. I just think it works more as a description than a definition.
-
This is where the further problems with the maths kick in. Within the discussion document, the estimated value of the main ingredients of the mineral wealth of New Zealand are said to amount to $194 billion. Yet, as Brownlee has said, the allegedly surgical exploitation (the access roading and millions of tons of toxic waste? Why, you won’t even notice them!) of this tiny Schedule 4 area to be infringed is estimated to be worth $60 billion – which is nearly one third of the estimated value of the mineral wealth of the entire country.
-
The practices we regard as art (painting, dancing, acting, etc) existed long before they were recognised as art
So - re the historical events - they weren't art then but they are now?
And the art world is temporally prior to art? Actually I'm imagining some co-evolutionary thing invloving thresholds, which is quite possible.
And I don't really want to perpetuate my part in the argument, except to note that I disagree that (what I'll call) the academy is necessary to a definition.
-
Okay, make that 'practically' possible.
-
It's not precisely circular but it seems like a first instance of art wouldn't be logically possible.
Around this point in the debate I tend to say (or agree) the question isn't normally significant anyway; I think when people ask whether something's art they normally want to know if it's, as art, too crappy to bother with.
-
It looked like David was having fun so I thought I'd play too.
-
Either the person doing the telling or me may have been confused. For all I know it was about this dropped lawsuit.
Though looking at unprotected files can get you rejected from Harvard Business School.
-
I forget what all the events were that lead me to this conclusion, but it seems like 'hacked' now means 'made public in a way that involves computers'.
Though I'm told a US court decided fiddling with the URL in search of something interesting constituted hacking.