Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:26 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.

Believe it. : ) I have time to kill today and hoped at least one person might be be tempted to look again at those photos and see something there that they didn't see before.

But I'm done now.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 01:27 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.

Actually... wait. Why is it you get to dismiss my art as thinking that I'm hot ****? I want you to discuss my art. Ya know... negative space, balance, movement, etc. Come on! If you can call her crapy photographs 'art' and see all this contextual crap between the viewer and the piece, surely you could do that with one of my self portraits.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

That's still elitist. "Low art" doesn't need to invent new spaces, it occupies them as personal rhetoric for small communities.

But it's the "low art" that HAS invented or reinvented the spatiotemporal in art that perseveres. I am appreciative of these especially, but I can also appreciate smaller community projects, but more for possible aesthetic quality than anything else—possibly for community-based value, as well (though I can't see such value in the "Saw" series).

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.

Why create two models, anyway? Influential art can travel from small community to world.

The existence of communication does not designate artistic status.

With your final point, I find myself agreeing.

OB1 · Dec 9, 2005, 01:30 PM

Keep trying. Keep telling yourselves, that if you keep studying and learning about art, that if you learn to pick up on common themes and learn how to reference them against each other, that if you really know art that you too could be that good. Keep telling yourselves that you too can learn how to communicate in a way that no language ever could. Keep trying.

Doofy · Dec 9, 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

Believe it. : ) I have time to kill today and hoped at least one person might be be tempted to look again at those photos and see something there that they didn't see before.

Nope, still only one nip visible. No matter how long I look at it.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Actually... wait. Why is it you get to dismiss my art as thinking that I'm hot ****? I want you to discuss my art. Ya know... negative space, balance, movement, etc. Come on! If you can call her crapy photographs 'art' and see all this contextual crap between the viewer and the piece, surely you could do that with one of my self portraits.

I've never seen your work, I'm just reacting to how you argue with me in this thread.

So, yeah, I think there's more to a photo than composition. Granted, all art is hard work. People put time and effort into things and so it counts for something eve when it doesn't come out that great. If you want me to respond to something you've done, I'll give you a quick and honest impression. Point me to something.

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by OB1

Keep trying. Keep telling yourselves, that if you keep studying and learning about art, that if you learn to pick up on common themes and learn how to reference them against each other, that if you really know art that you too could be that good. Keep telling yourselves that you too can learn how to communicate in a way that no language ever could. Keep trying.

Prattling condescension. Do you have anything that would actually add to this discussion?

SuvsareRetarded · 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

I've never seen your work,

Yes you have. I posted a photo of myself flipping off the camera. It took a few shots to get my smirk correct and the composition about right, and honestly I find it has more artistic merit than a lot of those pieces by that "dyke" woman. Also, one could argue that a piece is effective if it communicates to the viewer the artist's intended feeling or idea. Considering how you initially responded, I'd have to say that at least my picture is getting the intended response.

pathogen · Dec 9, 2005, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Why create two models, anyway? Influential art can travel from small community to world.

The existence of communication does not designate artistic status.

With your final point, I find myself agreeing.

My personal feeling is that there are probably countless models upon which sharing artwork creates a dynamic of thoughtful interpretation with a viewer, but it's sticky to only endorse those models which ascribe status, influence, $$$.

There may not be artistic status in all communication, but in all art there is communication. If you set the context up large enough, like many poets do, all communication is worth analyzing and framing as examples of life. But that's going ultra-meta ontological. My crumbs for thought.

Yeah, I get picky about this stuff, and try to get really inclusive, and in that way I'm a softee for art-babble.

Doofy · Dec 9, 2005, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

all art is hard work.

Rubbish. I once lived with a modern artist. The hardest thing was coming up with a name and backstory for the pieces which didn't sound like BS.

The good thing was it was really easy to get her friends to walk around with their boobs out - just start a discussion about how blokes are oppressing women by making them cover up and how they should do a play to protest about this. A quick trip to the fridge for some Buds and a few clicks on the lay-z-boy later and hey there's a month straight looking at eight chicks with their boobies out. :guffaw:

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I posted a photo of myself flipping off the camera. It took a few shots to get my smirk correct and the composition about right, and honestly I find it has more artistic merit than a lot of those pieces by that "dyke" woman.

-t

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 01:48 PM

Revenge of the hamster... (a.k.a. dp)

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

My personal feeling is that there are probably countless models upon which sharing artwork creates a dynamic of thoughtful interpretation with a viewer, but it's sticky to only endorse those models which ascribe status, influence, $$$.

There may not be artistic status in all communication, but in all art there is communication. If you set the context up large enough, like many poets do, all communication is worth analyzing and framing as examples of life. But that's going ultra-meta ontological. My crumbs for thought.

Yeah, I get picky about this stuff, and try to get really inclusive, and in that way I'm a softee for art-babble.

Points taken. I guess we'll have to agree on disagreement. I guess I'll just have to settle for elitism

wallinbl · Dec 9, 2005, 02:00 PM

Art sucks. No, really, it sucks. All of this crap arguing about good art and bad art and who is more elite and substance and all this junk is just posturing by some chest puffing fools. You either like looking at it or you don't. It's that simple. You guys are no different than wine snobs or any other kind of fool that gets so caught up in becoming an expert that they forget to enjoy life.

Here's something to chew on: art is so bad today that the government has to waste tax dollars funding artists. You know what that means? The art was so damned bad that no one wanted to by it. It the business world, you go out of business when you have a product no one wants. In the art world, you collect other people's tax dollars because you're an "artist". If your art was any good, people would buy it and you wouldn't need the government to feed you.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by pathogen

. People put time and effort into things and so it counts for something eve when it doesn't come out that great.

Disagree. It only counts for something when they try again and don't make the same mistakes.

wallinbl · Dec 9, 2005, 02:12 PM

ddd

Stradlater · Dec 9, 2005, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Art sucks. No, really, it sucks. All of this crap arguing about good art and bad art and who is more elite and substance and all this junk is just posturing by some chest puffing fools. You either like looking at it or you don't. It's that simple. You guys are no different than wine snobs or any other kind of fool that gets so caught up in becoming an expert that they forget to enjoy life.

Here's something to chew on: art is so bad today that the government has to waste tax dollars funding artists. You know what that means? The art was so damned bad that no one wanted to by it. It the business world, you go out of business when you have a product no one wants. In the art world, you collect other people's tax dollars because you're an "artist". If your art was any good, people would buy it and you wouldn't need the government to feed you.

"that simple"

Some people appreciate the complexities of life. No one's making you join them, though many would suggest you at least give it a try.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

-t

Oh so my photo doesn't count? Does it have to be in nancy prancy black and white with an old camera and a light meter? Okay. Here's a few of my artsy photos:

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Art sucks. No, really, it sucks. All of this crap arguing about good art and bad art and who is more elite and substance and all this junk is just posturing by some chest puffing fools. You either like looking at it or you don't. It's that simple. You guys are no different than wine snobs or any other kind of fool that gets so caught up in becoming an expert that they forget to enjoy life.

Dude. I said it sucked. Then I moved on. Then someone accused me of being some ig'nant fool who hasn't ever been educated in art, so I had to prove his ass wrong. I am with you. I don't htink you need to babble on about a bunch of art terms in order to deem a piece worthwhile or not.

Here's something to chew on: art is so bad today that the government has to waste tax dollars funding artists. You know what that means? The art was so damned bad that no one wanted to by it. It the business world, you go out of business when you have a product no one wants. In the art world, you collect other people's tax dollars because you're an "artist". If your art was any good, people would buy it and you wouldn't need the government to feed you.

This, I disagree with. What the **** are you even talking about? Are you talking about the government purchasing artwork to display on streets? What's wrong with that? Would you prefer they employ federally funded artists? Or are you referring to some sort of artist assistence program? If so, let me know about it. I consider myself an artist, and I'd like to collect some of this tax money also. So would a lot of my friends.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Art sucks. No, really, it sucks. All of this crap arguing about good art and bad art and who is more elite and substance and all this junk is just posturing by some chest puffing fools. You either like looking at it or you don't. It's that simple. You guys are no different than wine snobs or any other kind of fool that gets so caught up in becoming an expert that they forget to enjoy life.

Dude. I said it sucked. Then I moved on. Then someone accused me of being some ig'nant fool who hasn't ever been educated in art, so I had to prove his ass wrong. I am with you. I don't htink you need to babble on about a bunch of art terms in order to deem a piece worthwhile or not.

Here's something to chew on: art is so bad today that the government has to waste tax dollars funding artists. You know what that means? The art was so damned bad that no one wanted to by it. It the business world, you go out of business when you have a product no one wants. In the art world, you collect other people's tax dollars because you're an "artist". If your art was any good, people would buy it and you wouldn't need the government to feed you.

This, I disagree with. What the **** are you even talking about? Are you talking about the government purchasing artwork to display on streets? What's wrong with that? Would you prefer they employ federally funded artists? Or are you referring to some sort of artist assistence program? If so, let me know about it. I consider myself an artist, and I'd like to collect some of this tax money also. So would a lot of my friends.

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 02:29 PM

^^^ Well, that is actually good stuff. Kudos.
Why can't you stick to posting things like that ?

-t

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

^^^ Well, that is actually good stuff. Kudos.
Why can't you stick to posting things like that ?

-t

Because of the large number of people around here that don't know what they're talking about. Take for example, the newspaper I posted. It was funny. Then 15 people attacked the layout. That wasn't the point. It'd be like you attacking the lack of orange in my black and white photos.

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Take for example, the newspaper I posted. It was funny.

You think ?
I tought it was retarded. The layout was the only part that made me laugh.

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Then 15 people attacked the layout. That wasn't the point.

I never attacked the layout for its lack of funniness.

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

It'd be like you attacking the lack of orange in my black and white photos.

-t

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:39 PM

Maybe your idea of funny differs from mine, but I find satire (poking fun of things using truth, just worded in a blunt or humorous way) funny.

turtle777 · Dec 9, 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Maybe your idea of funny differs from mine, but I find satire (poking fun of things using truth, just worded in a blunt or humorous way) funny.

Maybe your idea of satire differs from mine, but I don't find all satire funny. Some is just plain dumb.

-t

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 02:51 PM

I like your sig.

wallinbl · Dec 9, 2005, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Or are you referring to some sort of artist assistence program? If so, let me know about it. I consider myself an artist, and I'd like to collect some of this tax money also. So would a lot of my friends.

http://www.arts.gov/grants/apply/index.html

Go get some.

From the National Endowment for the Arts:

The financial statistics differ by art form and change from year to year, but in general terms about one-half the income American arts organizations receive is earned from box office or sales.

It goes on to say that 10% comes from the government and the rest from private interests. So, it looks like if you're going to do art, you're going to need some help because people aren't buying enough.

macaddict0001 · Dec 9, 2005, 03:23 PM

Art is anything created with the intent of being different being art, it is anything that makes people think about the world, philosophy or religion. It is anything imaginative, anything that makes you take a double take. This is most definitely art, especially considering how much some people are thinking about it.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

Art is anything created with the intent of being different being art, it is anything that makes people think about the world, philosophy or religion. It is anything imaginative, anything that makes you take a double take. This is most definitely art, especially considering how much some people are thinking about it.

I don't think that was every an issue. The issue was if it was decent or shoddy.

wallinbl · Dec 9, 2005, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

Art is anything created with the intent of being different being art.

I believe there is an art to the smell of my farts. My wife disagrees, but I think I'm much better at it than most.

(Yes, I really do, and no, I haven't grown up)

wdlove · Dec 9, 2005, 03:30 PM

Your pictures are beautiful SuvsareRetarded.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 03:35 PM

Thanks.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 03:35 PM

Thanks.

Kevin · Dec 9, 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I saw that movie. It wasn't till the end did I figured out "The Ring" was actually a water welll.

Kevin · Dec 9, 2005, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Because of the large number of people around here that don't know what they're talking about. Take for example, me talking about religion.

Well we agree there.

the newspaper I posted. It was funny. Then 15 people attacked the layout. That wasn't the point. It'd be like you attacking the lack of orange in my black and white photos.

Now you know how most of us feel when you respond to 90% of the threads in here.

SuvsareRetarded · Dec 9, 2005, 03:38 PM

Never saw that one.

wdlove · Dec 9, 2005, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Thanks.

Your welcome. I appreciate you sharing.