2007-10-28 16:35:12 · 5 answers · asked by Rondingo 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
~Oscar was not trying to be clever. He would be the last person to call his work "art". If one bothers to read, and understand, that which he wrote, one would have to agree that, a.) his work was not intended to be 'art', and b.) art, for art's sake, is truly useless.
Quite right, bcptm: neither of us would prevaricate, especially for simply for the amusement of the hoi poloi.
2007-10-29 13:07:01 · answer #1 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oscar was a very clever dude, He said lots of things, things like, "I can resist almost anything, except temptation" I think when he said this he may have been referring a a certain type of art, for he wasn't as stupid as that statement would make him seem to be, It is now known that a culture without art is doomed, Art enlightens the senses and brightens our lives, we do have some terrible o called art', but then 'that' is not art. "If it doesn't burn like fire and has the power of the storm, it is not art". I admire Mr. Wilde, all the way to his sad end, and I do not, repeat, do not think he meant what he said in the way you take it.
2007-10-29 00:00:03 · answer #2 · answered by Roberto 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From a strictly pragmatist point of view I suppose you could argue that. I don't know the context of that statement, but Wilde said a lot of things just to sound clever.
2007-10-28 23:49:37 · answer #3 · answered by injanier 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
~Oscar wouldn't lie.
Oops. Never mind.
Wrong Oscar.
2007-10-28 23:47:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A witty saying proves nothing.
2007-10-28 23:52:54 · answer #5 · answered by violinagin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋