(Page 5 of 9)
For thousands of years, everyone knew what art was whether it was looked at or listened to. For the last forty years the Left has warped and distorted the definition of art to the point that any degenerate, irreverent, dehumanizing action, word, or picture can be considered art. On the contrary Mr. Gaul, we conservatives have been trying to make the distinction between art and "intentionally disturbing" acts for a long time, only to be ridiculed and shouted down by the Left.
p>Conservatives know history well, even the use of sex and military violence. The point of Mr. Neumayr's article is that in our "deconstructed" culture, these immoral, degrading acts can now be considered art. The only "willfully obtuse" people are those on the Left who refuse to take responsibility for or even fail to recognize the consequences of their actions, as they deconstruct our culture and our social institutions. br> -- Regis Dansdill /p> p> In his "The Abu Ghraib Collection," the usually astute Neumayr may have missed an important dimension to the soldier-sex-pic flap. The left, I believe, is sincerely outraged by the behavior of the MPs, not because they contain sexual content, but because the POW participants have been forced to engage in behavior about which the only legitimate purpose is to have pleasure. Therein lies the evil for the left -- sex without pleasure is criminal. But there is another less noticeable (but no less important) emotion too in their display, and it is pity. The left secretly pities the Moslem victims who, in their upbringing, have been denied the joys of gay sex. br> -- Richard Cross /p> p> TAMING ISLAM br> Re: Angelo M. Codevilla's Heresy and History : /p>
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.