Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SuvsareRetarded · 12:21 PM

Okay, well, Tooki said art can be posted here, so here goes:

http://www.lilithgallery.com/gallery...ndyke-2001.jpg

More here:

http://www.lilithgallery.com/gallery...a_vandyke.html

Weird.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Tooki said art can be posted here

Then what are you doing?

Kevin · Dec 9, 2005, 12:20 PM

Image link is broken. Probably a good thing.

As to what he is doing, he is trying to be "cool" by posting questionable material.

Like he always does.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:21 PM

Posting Art... albeit really weird art.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 12:21 PM

I'm all for art. I'm fine with nudes. This is just tasteless, talentless junk.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:23 PM

Hey, I agree. The compositions are lame, the subject is gross, and I'd give it a D. That doesn't mean that someone else might think it's nice though. Art is subjective.

I just posted it because I'd never seen a girl about to cut her own floppy boob off before.

Shaddim · Dec 9, 2005, 12:26 PM

Teen angst is so tired.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Hey, I agree. The compositions are lame, the subject is gross, and I'd give it a D. That doesn't mean that someone else might think it's nice though. Art is subjective.

I just posted it because I'd never seen a girl about to cut her own floppy boob off before.

How about interpreting it as a personal commentary on body modification, objectification of female bodies, personal loathing and sacrifice, making the private public (boundary crossing), taboo imagery and practices, mortality and control, etc. ? I could go on and on.

But all you saw were lame compositions. Art isn't just subjective, it takes effort to understand what someone else's intentions are, and some people just aren't cut out for making more than juvenile assumptions.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

How about interpreting it as a personal commentary on body modification, objectification of female bodies, personal loathing and sacrifice, making the private public (boundary crossing), taboo imagery and practices, mortality and control, etc. ? I could go on and on.

You could, but it would be silly to waste any time interpreting these shoddy works.

All of these subjects have been covered in better manners.

Kevin · Dec 9, 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

How about interpreting it as a personal commentary on body modification, objectification of female bodies, personal loathing and sacrifice, making the private public (boundary crossing), taboo imagery and practices, mortality and control, etc. ? I could go on and on.

But all you saw were lame compositions.

I wouldn't call them anything more than a cry for help.

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 12:32 PM

You scared the hamster !

-t

OB1 · Dec 9, 2005, 12:33 PM

You posted it because you think some people will be shocked and offended. Tedious. The pictures, and the post.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

But all you saw were lame compositions. Art isn't just subjective, it takes effort to understand what someone else's intentions are, and some people just aren't cut out for making more than juvenile assumptions.

All I see is very poor photography and a lot of cliche subject matter. I'd have to say the freshman who are into photography at my school are way beyond this lady.

And how is art 'not' subjective? Right now, I'm thinking I won't even talk to you anymore, because that's jsut an incredibly assinine statement. Care to back it up? I don't even think I need to back up my position.... everyone can have their own opinion on art, so it is subjective. There. Refute it.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

You could, but it would be silly to waste any time interpreting these shoddy works.

Exactly. However, I have never seen a picture of a girl about to saw off her floppy boob.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by OB1

You posted it because you think some people will be shocked and offended. Tedious. The pictures, and the post.

And you posted because you can read my mind from miles and miles away to see my true intentions for posting. Then you must also know what I think about you. Give you a hint: "OB1 is a ____ing m_r_n."

pathogen · 12:46 PM

Most everything's been done better before by other people: doesn't mean people shouldn't try or hide their opinions and art because close-minded cynics get grumpy that it doesn't connect with them.

PS. Just because it seems like a freshman's attempt at trying to create something doesn't mean it's not somebody with a sense of dignity that you obviously think invites disrespect because she's made it public. I'll bet you've never taken an art class in university and made any effort to understand performance art history, but you consider yourself a big enough expert to criticize her because it seems facile to you. You also objectified her body in precisely the way that the work invites thought to second guess... but you didn't respect that either.

I don't care if you don't respond, you're acting like an attention whore, but I'm glad I followed you're link because I thought it was interesting.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

Most everything's been done better before by other people: doesn't mean people shouldn't try or hide their opinions and art because close-minded cynics get grumpy that it doesn't connect with them.

Look, friend, I can appreciate art that has some form of talent behind it. I can appreciate novelty in art, a la Duchamp. That doesn't mean I like all of this art, but I can appreciate it.

I don't, however, appreciate tired delvings into subject matters that the art world has already explored at length and with more thoughtful composition.

Kevin · Dec 9, 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

And you posted because you can read my mind from miles and miles away to see my true intentions for posting. Then you must also know what I think about you. Give you a hint: "OB1 is a ____ing m_r_n."

He doesn't need to read your mind Rob. It simply was THAT transparent.

Kevin · Dec 9, 2005, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I don't, however, appreciate tired delvings into subject matters that the art world has already explored at length and with more thoughtful composition.

Anything can be called art now. You just have to get a pretentious mindset.

"Uh, that is a piece of paper with a dot on it"

"No no zaat is a work of ART! You don't know vat your talking about!"

residentEvil · Dec 9, 2005, 12:47 PM

Opinions. Assholes.

Art critics, forum critics, road sign critics, sports critics, etc.

Doofy · Dec 9, 2005, 12:47 PM

Anyone else think it's amusing that her surname is "Dyke"?

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Look, friend, I can appreciate art that has some form of talent behind it. I can appreciate novelty in art, a la Duchamp. That doesn't mean I like all of this art, but I can appreciate it.

I don't, however, appreciate tired delvings into subject matters that the art world has already explored at length and with more thoughtful composition.

So it may not belong in the Whitney, but you sound as if you're discriminating against it just because it's not as good as you'd like it to be.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Anything can be called art now. You just have to get a pretentious mindset.

"Uh, that is a piece of paper with a dot on it"

"No no zaat is a work of ART! You don't know vat your talking about!"

When suprematists and non-objective artists like Malevich and Mondrian first defied artistic conventions by drawing shapes, it made a novel impact that exceeded the reaches of the art world. The problem is that "art" is such an abused term (now and certainly always). True art perseveres over time. This "art" will not.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

So it may not belong in the Whitney, but you sound as if you're discriminating against it just because it's not as good as you'd like it to be.

I'm discriminating against it because it's not good or even new in any way. It's not even self-aware enough to realize that it's not either.

You might be satisfied poring over LiveJournal poetry. I prefer something with a little thought or substance.

OB1 · Dec 9, 2005, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

And you posted because you can read my mind from miles and miles away to see my true intentions for posting. Then you must also know what I think about you. Give you a hint: "OB1 is a ____ing m_r_n."

Ooo, hit a nerve did I?

You started this thread to provoke others, I guess that backfired. Call me more names.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

Most everything's been done better before by other people: doesn't mean people shouldn't try or hide their opinions and art because close-minded cynics get grumpy that it doesn't connect with them.

PS. Just because it seems like a freshman's attempt at trying to create something doesn't mean it's not somebody with a sense of dignity that you obviously think invites disrespect because she's made it public. I'll bet you've never taken an art class in university and made any effort to understand performance art history, but you consider yourself a big enough expert to criticize her because it seems facile to you. You also objectified her body in precisely the way that the work invites thought to second guess... but you didn't respect that either.

I don't care if you don't respond, you're acting like an attention whore, but I'm glad I followed you're link because I thought it was interesting.

>sigh<

Actually I'm a student at a pretty substantial art school, and I've been studying art history and have taken many university art classes. So there goes that theory. If you wanted me to blabber on about contrapposto, focal point, implied line, texture, balance, contrast, contour, movement, etc etc etc, I could have, but I'm honest enough to say it sucks. I have noticed that one PROBLEM in the art arena is that artists are generally too nice to each other, and some people have a hard time with criticism. Some of my classmates have put forth almost zero effort in some projects, and it shows. I'm not afraid to tell them that it sucks, and say WHY it sucks. It's been a good thing. I'm not a total dick, but by not pointing out problems or telling people how you really feel you're only doing a disservice to the artist themself, because then they don't know how to improve.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Look, friend, I can appreciate art that has some form of talent behind it. I can appreciate novelty in art, a la Duchamp. That doesn't mean I like all of this art, but I can appreciate it.

I don't, however, appreciate tired delvings into subject matters that the art world has already explored at length and with more thoughtful composition.

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 12:59 PM

-t

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

He doesn't need to read your mind Rob. It simply was THAT transparent.

You too? Wow! Jesus gave you the gift of ESP! I actually posted it becuase I thought it was an amusing image, and maybe someone like yourself would make a funny internet picture out of it like OMG you make me want to cut off my boob!!1!!1!" or something.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

>sigh<

Actually I'm a student at a pretty substantial art school, and I've been studying art history and have taken many university art classes. So there goes that theory. If you wanted me to blabber on about contrapposto, focal point, implied line, texture, balance, contrast, contour, movement, etc etc etc, I could have, but I'm honest enough to say it sucks. I have noticed that one PROBLEM in the art arena is that artists are generally too nice to each other, and some people have a hard time with criticism. Some of my classmates have put forth almost zero effort in some projects, and it shows. I'm not afraid to tell them that it sucks, and say WHY it sucks. It's been a good thing. I'm not a total dick, but by not pointing out problems or telling people how you really feel you're only doing a disservice to the artist themself, because then they don't know how to improve.

Dude, you didn't even criticize, you just turned up your nose. If you were really a half decent student, you'd have a better argument than ridiculing her "floppy" boobs.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Anyone else think it's amusing that her surname is "Dyke"?

Heh. That's how I found it actually. I was responding to your post about females needing big thick necks to be fighter pilots, so I typed in "dyke" in google image search, and it was one fo the first few pictures that showed up.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Anyone else think it's amusing that her surname is "Dyke"?

Heh. That's how I found it actually. I was responding to your post about females needing big thick necks to be fighter pilots, so I typed in "dyke" in google image search, and it was one fo the first few pictures that showed up.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I'm discriminating against it because it's not good or even new in any way. It's not even self-aware enough to realize that it's not either.

You might be satisfied poring over LiveJournal poetry. I prefer something with a little thought or substance.

This whole need for "substance" thing is bizarre. You're being elitist. The context of any art creates pretense, but it's up to the viewer to help create the context. I happen to like the context of issues of identity and the internet and public/private spaces, and outsider art, and so this appeals to me as interesting. Not all interesting dialogues in photography need to be perfect or by celebrities like Cindy Sherman to be valid.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

The problem is that "art" is such an abused term (now and certainly always). True art perseveres over time. This "art" will not.

Ding ding ding!

Doofy · Dec 9, 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Heh. That's how I found it actually. I was responding to your post about females needing big thick necks to be fighter pilots, so I typed in "dyke" in google image search, and it was one fo the first few pictures that showed up.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

Dude, you didn't even criticize, you just turned up your nose. If you were really a half decent student, you'd have a better argument than ridiculing her "floppy" boobs.

I did. I said the composition was poor. Apparently you read that, attacked me for it in your response and said I probably haven't taken any university art classes (which I have), and are now choosing to ignore the fact that I did have problems with her work on artistic merit.

I'm guessing you were probably in the 'fine arts'. Hrm. So high and intellectual! Yes! Everything is art! Tell you what, why don't you type out a 2 page essay about the context about the space and interaction between the viewer and this piece of art:

wdlove · Dec 9, 2005, 01:14 PM

I agree that the picture quality isn't the best. She is apparently proud of her body. It is still art, just her way of expression.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

This whole need for "substance" thing is bizarre. You're being elitist. The context of any art creates pretense, but it's up to the viewer to help create the context. I happen to like the context of issues of identity and the internet and public/private spaces, and outsider art, and so this appeals to me as interesting. Not all interesting dialogues in photography need to be perfect or by celebrities like Cindy Sherman to be valid.

I don't know why it's "bizarre." Substance fuels the art world. So does novelty—looking at the world in a new light (the photonic endeavors of Seurat, the reconstructionist cubism of Braque), or using existential awareness to rewrite the history of art or reveal a dirty secret of its past (the extremely talented Bacon is a shining example of this—see his crucifixion triptychs and his version of Pope Innocent X—though, to be honest, I don't really like his work...I can still appreciate it, however).

I'm not against amateur art. Art became increasingly amateur from the time of the Impressionists and the decline of the Salon. Amateur art, however, needs some kind of substance to live and breathe.

Art of the kind linked to in this thread has already breathed up all the air. This "art" suffocates on its on staleness and naivete.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I did. I said the composition was poor. Apparently you read that, attacked me for it in your response and said I probably haven't taken any university art classes (which I have), and are now choosing to ignore the fact that I did have problems with her work on artistic merit.

I'm guessing you were probably in the 'fine arts'. Hrm. So high and intellectual! Yes! Everything is art! Tell you what, why don't you type out a 2 page essay in response to this piece of art:

I practically have responding to your awesome posts. Tell you what, I'm glad you think you're hot sh*t and that flipping me the bird and talking about the word "dyke" is your cup of tea. In the future I won't get so defensive and I'll just leave you alone.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by wdlove

I agree that the picture quality isn't the best. She is apparently proud of her body. It is still art, just her way of expression.

The model in the photographs is not the artist.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

I practically have responding to your awesome posts. Tell you what, I'm glad you think you're hot sh*t and that flipping me the bird and talking about the word "dyke" is your cup of tea. In the future I won't get so defensive and I'll just leave you alone.

Whatever. God I hate fine arts majors.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

I practically have responding to your awesome posts. Tell you what, I'm glad you think you're hot sh*t and that flipping me the bird and talking about the word "dyke" is your cup of tea. In the future I won't get so defensive and I'll just leave you alone.

Whatever. God I hate fine arts majors.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

I practically have responding to your awesome posts. Tell you what, I'm glad you think you're hot sh*t and that flipping me the bird and talking about the word "dyke" is your cup of tea. In the future I won't get so defensive and I'll just leave you alone.

Whatever. God I hate fine arts majors.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Whatever. God I hate fine arts majors.

I find it hard to believe that an arts major with a good education would get as defensive as pathogen.

wdlove · Dec 9, 2005, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

The model in the photographs is not the artist.

She deserves credit also. It's possible that it was done at her direction.

wdlove · Dec 9, 2005, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

The model in the photographs is not the artist.

She deserves credit also. It's possible that it was done at her direction.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by wdlove

She deserves credit also. It's possible that it was done at her direction.

If that were true I'm sure her name would be on the page too.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Art of the kind linked to in this thread has already breathed up all the air. This "art" suffocates on its on staleness and naivete.

That's still elitist. "Low art" doesn't need to invent new spaces, it occupies them as personal rhetoric for small communities. Which is why it shouldn't be held to the same model, but is still communication from one person (whether you want to condemn her as naive, bland, retreading misfit, that's up to you) to the outside world.

But I'll say this: It's cool for her to be getting at least a few complete strangers to argue over her photos.

Railroader · Dec 9, 2005, 01:24 PM

Every post I make is a work of art.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I find it hard to believe that an arts major with a good education would get as defensive as pathogen.

I don't. I know a lot of them. Funny, the people that act that way are usually in the fine arts program. They get ultra defensive about things even when people are discussing other people's works. I think it's the "I don't want to upset anybody or be mean" mentality. Maybe we should just all sing Kumbaya instead of having an actual critique.