No description available.
That's it, internet! I'm going to bed right now.Spoiler:And I'm really hoping I don't have any nightmares tonight. :shaking:
Ah, good to see the emperor's-new-clothes aspect of modern art is still as vibrant as ever.
If you guys have ever seen any David Lynch (you should!) or horror films like Jacob's Ladder, there is all kinds of really cool stuff that can be done with dance-type choreography.
e: to cause unease and **** I mean
I'll have provocative before beautiful any ****ing day.
And for anyone who doesn't, then don't have it. Is anybody forcing you to have it? No. So why bother?
Why bother indeed with what other people find interesting and provocative?
So you're one of those guys...
This video is an example of everything wrong with modern art. My opinion. It's stupid, ugly, and tries way too hard to be provocative. I prefer the good 'ol days where art was meant to be beautiful, not this BS where our society's "progressive" culture allows us to do any damned thing under the guise of art.
On the note of what you call "forcing"... There's art museum here. Full of beautiful works from many cultures and time periods. Littered among all the most incredible works of art in there are things like this little number... There's two light builds plugged into a wall made from hardware from Home Depot. That's it. There's a little blurb next to it explaining how the light bulbs represent the love of two gay men and how one will inevitably die (burn out) before the other. Wat. The museum paid money for that exhibit. That does not belong next the most elaborate paintings from the 16th century. It just doesn't. But some dude who wanted to be provocative to people like me made it happen.
The whole point of being provocative is to get under people's skin... I find it just dumb.
Of note, I'm not surprised that Luis is taking a single post where I stated it was my opinion and is trying to start an argument
Yeahno. After a second viewing, I am still of the opinion that this is, at heart, masturbating in public. While it may be fun for the, ahem, "artist," it is pretty rude to inflict it on an unsuspecting audience.
I'm baffled that people don't think this is saying anything. You've got crutches, hair implants, Viagra...
I'm baffled that people don't think this is saying anything. You've got crutches, hair implants, Viagra...
I'm not. It quite nicely demonstrates my earlier point about failure in meaning conveyance as a failure of the art piece.
You would all fail my course. :colbert:
In art, your audience is typically everyone - the idea being to invoke a response in as wide a group a possible, and to have them understand your piece in order to evoke said response. If your message is so obscure or inaccessible that it's obscured by visceral reaction, you've failed by any objective measure.
To me personally, I think the raw skill required to create a particular piece goes a long way toward defining its artistic merit, even putting any questions of expression or meaning aside. For example, I could spend a thousand years picking away at innumerable slabs of granite, but I couldn't come close to capturing even 1% of the emotion being displayed in the Pieta. On the other hand, if you gave me a couple of paint cans and a brush, I could produce something nearly identical to your average Jackson Pollock piece. Any meaning therein becomes lost in the ridiculous nature of the medium. Or even better, take a look at Piet Mondrian's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian) famous works. If a first-grader with a pair of scissors and construction paper could produce something identical to what you're doing, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your choices in life. The worst part of it is that the guy started out his life doing some really cool Impressionist work...and then he devolved into drawing straight black lines with red squares.
This all reminds me of a (most likely false) anecdote about an exhibit at a modern art museum that consisted of multiple bags full of garbage. Supposedly, the staff came in one morning to find the exhibit had vanished...because a janitor had mistook it for the trash that it was. :D
This is the most frustrating attitude for me because it misses so much of what art is about. Haven't you ever considered that this is intentional? Do you think Piet Mondrian just hit his head one day and got stupid? He realized things that shaped his art.Honestly, I think he must have. When you take away essentially all of the skill inherent in creating art, the term "art" loses all of its meaning, and you're just left with intellectual masturbation. It'd be like trying to find some deep structure in the random snowy noise of an old rabbit-ear TV. If art, at its core, is supposed to convey some message, and a certain piece has a message which is clear only to the artist, it's pretty much failed.
But why does that actually make it *worthwhile*? OK, there's an obfuscated analogy, but... what does it do that a more overt satire wouldn't?An important characteristic of postmodernism is its acknowledgement of the audience's reaction to the work as an integral part of the art. If this piece's themes were communicated in a way that the average viewer was totally comfortable with (such as satire), it would have missed the point completely. I think generating that reaction of revulsion and confusion at the prostheses (and the disabilities they are supposed to fix) is integral to its success. There are plenty of people (myself included) who like to think of themselves as good hearted types who don't have issues with seeing life in its less overtly beautiful forms, but when they are confronted with "ugliness", they feel the urge to look away. This piece reminded me of that fact and raised the broader issue of our cultural bias against the old and disabled.
It has been proven because Battuta himself has already said he was influenced by **** you most probably despise.
I dunno, your position seems to require that for every viewer of every piece of art, in no case has the artist been influenced positively by another artist the viewer dislikes.
I can't really see that.
It has been proven because Battuta himself has already said he was influenced by **** you most probably despise.
See, this is dumb on several levels.
You're assuming I despise whatever the hell it was that influenced Batts (I probably don't). You're assuming that I have this particular threadstarter in mind (I certainly don't).
Why you'd make these assumptions I'm not entirely sure.
Actually, I'm challenging that secondary effects from any particular piece of art are necessarily going to happen and necessarily going to reach the viewer as recognizable secondary effects from another work and these secondary effects will necessarily reach the viewer any better than the work that was the influence and couldn't. These are all assumptions without obvious foundation that are required to make Battuta's counterargument to MP.Ryan and Mongoose work, and at least two of them can be easily dismissed.
Fourth, if the original work was incomprehensible to or disliked by a viewer, references to it may also be incomprehensible to or disliked by the viewer, and thus any secondary transfer benefit is lost.
I... :wtf:
Uh... :wtf:
Hmmm...................
. . .