:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
You havn't been here long have you?
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 04:53:26 PM
You havn't been here long have you?
Well, neither have you, truth be told.
Syko, I don't see any reason why the two labels would be contradictory.
Quote from: Cain on March 14, 2009, 04:57:50 PM
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 04:53:26 PM
You havn't been here long have you?
Well, neither have you, truth be told.
Syko, I don't see any reason why the two labels would be contradictory.
Point taken.
Art is subjective.
If you think a pile of rotting corpses looks pretty then it's art.
Hm. This brings the Tao to mind.
Without a concept of Ugliness, there would be no Beauty.
Likewise, if we didn't have a concept of Artlessness, there would be no Art.
What is artlessness?(what sort of things..)
That's where subjectivity turns it's ugly head.
anything done for art's sake is art. some of it suck, though.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 14, 2009, 05:57:34 PM
anything done for art's sake is art. some of it suck, though.
:lulz:
let it be known!
well, I think "art" is quite a made-up concept, ant thus an empty word.
I mean, what's art?
If it's meaning, why great essayists are seen as intellectuals but not artist?
If it's aesthetics (not only in a visual meaning of the term), why isn't a bull-eye-hitting merchandise packaging art?
If it's skill, why isn't shuffling a card deck spectacularly art?
Defining "art" is futile.It has to be meaningful ( though not neccessairly in a rational way), aesthetic ( though horrormirth exist and may be art), and "well-done", the latter obviously being a very subjective and context-defined characteristic...
And so on
Also, some things are art if you are the genius who does it first,while is lame if you do afterwards, no matter how much soul and brains and skill you put in it.What would mean a "better" Monna Lisa nowadays? Wahrol? Seen better visual memes on the net. And so on
My idea: "art" is not only subjective, but really context-related. I just can't define it and relate to "artistic" stuff just thinking, in a quite instinctual way, about what it gives and mean to me, and, in a more rational way, about what it means in its time-space-society-culture-politics made context.
That's Art, the RJJB way
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on March 14, 2009, 07:40:25 PM
well, I think "art" is quite a made-up concept, ant thus an empty word.
I mean, what's art?
If it's meaning, why great essayists are seen as intellectuals but not artist?
If it's aesthetics (not only in a visual meaning of the term), why isn't a bull-eye-hitting merchandise packaging art?
If it's skill, why isn't shuffling a card deck spectacularly art?
Defining "art" is futile.It has to be meaningful ( though not neccessairly in a rational way), aesthetic ( though horrormirth exist and may be art), and "well-done", the latter obviously being a very subjective and context-defined characteristic...
And so on
Also, some things are art if you are the genius who does it first,while is lame if you do afterwards, no matter how much soul and brains and skill you put in it.What would mean a "better" Monna Lisa nowadays? Wahrol? Seen better visual memes on the net. And so on
My idea: "art" is not only subjective, but really context-related. I just can't define it and relate to "artistic" stuff just thinking, in a quite instinctual way, about what it gives and mean to me, and, in a more rational way, about what it means in its time-space-society-culture-politics made context.
That's Art, the RJJB way
Hm, so the prognosis: Art is a visual representation of a cultural meme?
I like it. Very fresh idea. It sums up any work of art now to think of it, especially in the realms of Dada and Pop Art.
Symbolism at it's finest!
Well, not only visual, of course.
For example, Rn'R was quite light-hearted in the beginnng, it was quite a revolution because it embodied a lot of social cultural and so on stuff.
But ( I think ) not as a representation of it - it was linked, in a net(or blob)-like structure ( don't take structure as a synonim of system ) to other expressions, behaviours, knowledges, and so-ons...
Coexisting, not in a side-by-side meaning, but in a co-existing meaning, ya know, existing together, cooperating at existence...
Maybe art is some kind of chord made up of different cultural, memetic, ( or else ) notes.When the chord hits the bulleye, we call it art. What do you think?
i thought art was that illegitimate bastard of subjectivity and objectivity. Perhaps the one concept that has no opposite.
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on March 14, 2009, 08:17:57 PM
Well, not only visual, of course.
For example, Rn'R was quite light-hearted in the beginnng, it was quite a revolution because it embodied a lot of social cultural and so on stuff.
But ( I think ) not as a representation of it - it was linked, in a net(or blob)-like structure ( don't take structure as a synonim of system ) to other expressions, behaviours, knowledges, and so-ons...
Coexisting, not in a side-by-side meaning, but in a co-existing meaning, ya know, existing together, cooperating at existence...
Maybe art is some kind of chord made up of different cultural, memetic, ( or else ) notes.When the chord hits the bulleye, we call it art. What do you think?
Bach wasn't a genius to everyone.
That is, when the chord is right, but the listener is hard of hearing, it won't be art.
Likewise, if the composer doesn't know the formula, he will be less understood.
This is where you have frames of reference for art:
What an Expressionist called art isn't the same thing a Cubist called art.
It's the same practice, can create some of the same effects on the sencitive viewer, but is "heard" in a different way.
Art is a subjective reaction. The critics can piss around and try to make out it isn't but art is an effect which something has on you. It might have the same effect on someone else but it's just as likely to have the complete opposite on someone else or even no effect whatsoever.
Art is like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.
(http://api.ning.com/files/UtmAmLRQwHg-04lqyFDGPXBwL4T*-YusrqCBcZ-QDr7xPqNbxiA9*-nUTpsmBBIVIOHd1RRmGvEdrImglDTIJfbbpKoly0Po/beholder.jpg)
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Then you must be one of those 'cool' folks.
Quote from: Burns the Bastard on March 14, 2009, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Then you must be one of those 'cool' folks.
I suppose, but I have no clue what you mean. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Please to read again. Art is
like beauty [in that] it's in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Please to read again. Art is like beauty [in that] it's in the eye of the beholder.
Oh! Yes, yes, like beauty, (but not centered around it).
Mostly having to do with the viewer's opinions on the ideas portrayed in the piece.
BTW nice Monster Manuel graphics :lol:
Art is anything created specifically to appeal to the senses. Whose senses those are are not specified.
At least, that is my opinion.
Quote from: Urraco on March 14, 2009, 10:14:25 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Please to read again. Art is like beauty [in that] it's in the eye of the beholder.
Oh! Yes, yes, like beauty, (but not centered around it).
You are stretching my patience gland to shitting point! :argh!:
my point:
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
art is in the eye of the beholder
therefore art is like beauty, in this sense. The sense of being in the eye of the beholder.
It was a fairly simple statement with a very limited scope - the tendency of beauty to be in the eye of the beholder is a tendency shared by art.
Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 11:52:02 PM
Art is anything created specifically to appeal to the senses. Whose senses those are are not specified.
At least, that is my opinion.
Art is a title you give to something shit you want people to consider, or something meaningful you want people to protect. Politics is art.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 11:56:55 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 14, 2009, 10:14:25 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Beauty? Oh please, that is so last century.
Please to read again. Art is like beauty [in that] it's in the eye of the beholder.
Oh! Yes, yes, like beauty, (but not centered around it).
You are stretching my patience gland to shitting point! :argh!:
my point:
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
art is in the eye of the beholder
therefore art is like beauty, in this sense. The sense of being in the eye of the beholder.
It was a fairly simple statement with a very limited scope - the tendency of beauty to be in the eye of the beholder is a tendency shared by art.
Relax. I agreed with you.
The part with the parenthesis was only restating my misinterpretation.
No shitting nesissary.
Can't relax, I'm drunk. Need to go outside and find someone to kick the shit out of.
BRB...
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Best of luck to you in your endevors.
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
I laugh when madness makes art.
(Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, etc.)
Quote from: Urraco on March 15, 2009, 12:37:32 AM
Best of luck to you in your endevors.
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
I laugh when madness makes art.
(Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, etc.)
and sometimes in madness the art is found in the process of making the masterpiece. don't you agree?
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
An artist that kills for art's sake is a murderer. Only this, and nothing more.
And don't lecture us about Discordia, kid.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:50:05 AM
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
An artist that kills for art's sake is a murderer. Only this, and nothing more.
And don't lecture us about Discordia, kid.
Oh, snap!
You gonna take that shit from some guy with IBS and a pipe full of frop? you gotta lay down some
dominance when you walk into a house like this, buddy!
Dooo eet.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 15, 2009, 04:08:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:50:05 AM
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
An artist that kills for art's sake is a murderer. Only this, and nothing more.
And don't lecture us about Discordia, kid.
Oh, snap!
You gonna take that shit from some guy with IBS and a pipe full of frop? you gotta lay down some dominance when you walk into a house like this, buddy!
Dooo eet.
WHY MUST THEY TEST, IPTUOUS?
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 15, 2009, 02:12:04 AM
Quote from: Urraco on March 15, 2009, 12:37:32 AM
Best of luck to you in your endevors.
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
I laugh when madness makes art.
(Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, etc.)
and sometimes in madness the art is found in the process of making the masterpiece. don't you agree?
Tru dat
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
I know of artists who do artistic things with dead stuff, but may we have an example of an artist who kills for 'art-sake'?
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 16, 2009, 02:03:16 AM
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
I know of artists who do artistic things with dead stuff, but may we have an example of an artist who kills for 'art-sake'?
A person who kills is a murderer, whether it is artistic or not.
A person who arranges corpses in an aesthetic manner is an artist, however eccentric.
Lighting corpses on fire is cremation.
Lazy corpses rot.
Lazy people dystrophy.
Rotting is different from dystrophy in very few ways. If at all.
A person who arranges lazy people is called a celebrity.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:50:05 AM
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
An artist that kills for art's sake is a murderer. Only this, and nothing more.
And don't lecture us about Discordia, kid.
Oh yeah, this. This is good too.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 02:12:22 AM
A person who kills is a murderer, whether it is artistic or not.
A person who arranges corpses in an aesthetic manner is an artist, however eccentric.
to me this sounds like a murderer with OCPD.
Quote from: potato on March 16, 2009, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 02:12:22 AM
A person who kills is a murderer, whether it is artistic or not.
A person who arranges corpses in an aesthetic manner is an artist, however eccentric.
to me this sounds like a murderer with OCPD.
:lulz:
I dislike the word Art because it refers to a class of things. sometimes I don't want what I do to be neatly categorized like that.
Like I put up posters all over my neighborhood. Sometimes someone sees me putting them up and asks what I'm doing.
if I say "I'm making art", every time they see a confusing poster, instead of living with that confusion, now they'll say, "Oh, it's art", and the matter will have been resolved.
Someone introduced me as "an artist" recently, which took me aback because I've never formally studied art, nor do I consider what I do "art". Even the digital images I create, I wouldn't call Art. When you call it art, people will compare it with other art they've seen. The piece will be mentally indexed very neatly. They'll squint to see who I'm influenced by and whom I'm referencing. And I don't want any of that baggage cluttering up my work.
Unfortunately, as soon as it's out there, your work is no longer yours to pidgeonhole.
Roll with it
Quote from: Cramulus on March 16, 2009, 06:21:06 PM
I dislike the word Art because it refers to a class of things. sometimes I don't want what I do to be neatly categorized like that.
Like I put up posters all over my neighborhood. Sometimes someone sees me putting them up and asks what I'm doing.
if I say "I'm making art", every time they see a confusing poster, instead of living with that confusion, now they'll say, "Oh, it's art", and the matter will have been resolved.
Someone introduced me as "an artist" recently, which took me aback because I've never formally studied art, nor do I consider what I do "art". Even the digital images I create, I wouldn't call Art. When you call it art, people will compare it with other art they've seen. The piece will be mentally indexed very neatly. They'll squint to see who I'm influenced by and whom I'm referencing. And I don't want any of that baggage cluttering up my work.
I know where you're coming from. I think the same way on some level in relations to my music. I don't really think of myself as a "musician" in the usual sense because I've only really been trained musically on one instrument, which I can't really play very well anymore. The rest I've just kind of picked up here and there. I tend to think of myself as more of a "sound sculptor" than a musician. Of course, now I sound even more pretentious so I'll shut up now. :lol:
Quote from: Cramulus on March 16, 2009, 06:21:06 PM
I dislike the word Art because it refers to a class of things. sometimes I don't want what I do to be neatly categorized like that.
Like I put up posters all over my neighborhood. Sometimes someone sees me putting them up and asks what I'm doing.
if I say "I'm making art", every time they see a confusing poster, instead of living with that confusion, now they'll say, "Oh, it's art", and the matter will have been resolved.
Someone introduced me as "an artist" recently, which took me aback because I've never formally studied art, nor do I consider what I do "art". Even the digital images I create, I wouldn't call Art. When you call it art, people will compare it with other art they've seen. The piece will be mentally indexed very neatly. They'll squint to see who I'm influenced by and whom I'm referencing. And I don't want any of that baggage cluttering up my work.
I can understand/ relate to that, but I think 'art' works well in regards to certain things, just as an operative term. If you create stuff, at some point it will beckon for itself, a name. Or at least, others will want to refer to it as something. When being an 'artist' gets a negative shade for me, is when people insist on the label because they think they're special. It can be uncomfortable when I read a review of my music say, and the writer compares it to this or that, but it needs to be related somehow, so I just have to let it go. Not taking what you do seriously, although you NEED to do it for sanity & you enjoy it, is the metaphysical (heavy!) pleasure of "art". I once had someone introduce me to a small group of people as a "producer" (of music) and I had the same reaction, inwardly, as you did when you were introduced as an "artist". However, I thought about it afterwords and considering the audience being addressed, that label helped them get a general idea of what I did, so I thought, whatever, to them I'm a "producer". I don't really refer to myself with a label or title. I hate describing the sound I make musically when someone asks, but they do ask. One of my favourite music distributors/ labels is called "you don't have to call it music".
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is
hilarious.
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 16, 2009, 02:03:16 AM
I know of artists who do artistic things with dead stuff, but may we have an example of an artist who kills for 'art-sake'?
I know of a guy who killed a guy by sneaking up on him and using a knife vice just easily shooting him. Some people got upset over it, but ultimately he didnt get in trouble.
Why else would they call 'em con artists?
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
Is fraud art?
Tricking people is always an art, but not always a science
Science is an art; conning is sometimes an art; so some art is a mix of science and conning.
It's science, trickery, or hoopla.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
Is fraud art?
Tricking people is always an art, but not always a science
Science is an art; conning is sometimes an art; so some art is a mix of science and conning.
It's science, trickery, or hoopla.
Hoopla? Are you calling Hoopla a con man? THAT'S A RACIST STATEMENT AGAINST CANADIANS! :argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
Is fraud art?
Tricking people is always an art, but not always a science
Science is an art; conning is sometimes an art; so some art is a mix of science and conning.
It's science, trickery, or hoopla.
Hoopla? Are you calling Hoopla a con man? THAT'S A RACIST STATEMENT AGAINST CANADIANS! :argh!:
Damn right I'm racist.
Gaddomn Canadians and their... their...
Wow, you know, I never realized how hard it is to work up some guff against Canadians.
They never done nuttin' to nobody, to my knowledge.
Damn hippies.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Damn right I'm racist.
Gaddomn Canadians and their... their...
...Tim Hortons. You're welcome.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Wow, you know, I never realized how hard it is to work up some guff against Canadians.
They never done nuttin' to nobody, to my knowledge.
Damn hippies.
Balls. There's that time they shamelessly attacked us, back in 1812. Portions of New Mexico are still devastated after the passage of their cannibal Inuit hordes all those years ago.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Damn right I'm racist.
Gaddomn Canadians and their... their...
...Tim Hortons. You're welcome.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Wow, you know, I never realized how hard it is to work up some guff against Canadians.
They never done nuttin' to nobody, to my knowledge.
Damn hippies.
Balls. There's that time they shamelessly attacked us, back in 1812. Portions of New Mexico are still devastated after the passage of their cannibal Inuit hordes all those years ago.
1812! Shit can't believe I missed that. For some reason I can't connect Canada with 1812.
There is like a metal block for me.
Deceptive ice-mexicans, looking all peaceful until they burndown the White House.
Quote from: Urraco on March 17, 2009, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Damn right I'm racist.
Gaddomn Canadians and their... their...
...Tim Hortons. You're welcome.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Wow, you know, I never realized how hard it is to work up some guff against Canadians.
They never done nuttin' to nobody, to my knowledge.
Damn hippies.
Balls. There's that time they shamelessly attacked us, back in 1812. Portions of New Mexico are still devastated after the passage of their cannibal Inuit hordes all those years ago.
1812! Shit can't believe I missed that. For some reason I can't connect Canada with 1812.
There is like a metal block for me.
Deceptive ice-mexicans, looking all peaceful until they burndown the White House.
Canadians are very sly. They will try to point out that Canada has only existed as a political entity since 1867.
But WE know the truth, don't we?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 17, 2009, 12:02:36 AM
Quote from: Urraco on March 17, 2009, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Damn right I'm racist.
Gaddomn Canadians and their... their...
...Tim Hortons. You're welcome.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Wow, you know, I never realized how hard it is to work up some guff against Canadians.
They never done nuttin' to nobody, to my knowledge.
Damn hippies.
Balls. There's that time they shamelessly attacked us, back in 1812. Portions of New Mexico are still devastated after the passage of their cannibal Inuit hordes all those years ago.
1812! Shit can't believe I missed that. For some reason I can't connect Canada with 1812.
There is like a metal block for me.
Deceptive ice-mexicans, looking all peaceful until they burndown the White House.
Canadians are very sly. They will try to point out that Canada has only existed as a political entity since 1867.
But WE know the truth, don't we?
TIME TRAVELING CANADIANS (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/Emoticon.gif)
Quote from: Cramulus on March 17, 2009, 12:06:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 17, 2009, 12:02:36 AM
Quote from: Urraco on March 17, 2009, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Damn right I'm racist.
Gaddomn Canadians and their... their...
...Tim Hortons. You're welcome.
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 11:52:08 PM
Wow, you know, I never realized how hard it is to work up some guff against Canadians.
They never done nuttin' to nobody, to my knowledge.
Damn hippies.
Balls. There's that time they shamelessly attacked us, back in 1812. Portions of New Mexico are still devastated after the passage of their cannibal Inuit hordes all those years ago.
1812! Shit can't believe I missed that. For some reason I can't connect Canada with 1812.
There is like a metal block for me.
Deceptive ice-mexicans, looking all peaceful until they burndown the White House.
Canadians are very sly. They will try to point out that Canada has only existed as a political entity since 1867.
But WE know the truth, don't we?
TIME TRAVELING CANADIANS (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/Emoticon.gif)
(http://trendliest.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/news_canadian-flag-640.jpg)
(http://www.cisci.net/movies/film_260/scene_0/Back_to_the_Future_II.jpg)
... hmmmmmmm... There must be a connection...
look, a belgian boy saluting us... canadians...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMzHlkB-Yg
Thanks to Urraco, I will henceforth be referring to Canadians as "Ice Mexicans"
This thread just took a turn for the awesome.
:suu:
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
even though your reply seems to have nothing to do with my post, I'm still curious as to why you find fraud hilarious, in particular? I don't run into too many people who find it entertaining. is there a particular context in which you enjoy fraud? or is it just in general?
fitty posts! :lol: alright, I'll give it a go
Quote from: potato on March 17, 2009, 05:57:02 PM
even though your reply seems to have nothing to do with my post,
he's saying that fraud is a means by which art makes people mad.
QuoteI'm still curious as to why you find fraud hilarious, in particular? I don't run into too many people who find it entertaining. is there a particular context in which you enjoy fraud? or is it just in general?
I think he's using horrormirth, ":horrormirth:" the local brand of cynical humor. Fraud is awesome in the same way that falling down the stairs is awesome.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
Is fraud art?
Tricking people is always an art, but not always a science
Science is an art; conning is sometimes an art; so some art is a mix of science and conning.
It's science, trickery, or hoopla.
Hoopla? Are you calling Hoopla a con man? THAT'S A RACIST STATEMENT AGAINST CANADIANS! :argh!:
If I'm not, I've certainly been wasting a LOT of time for the last few years... dammit.
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
Both. Next question...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
Is fraud art?
Tricking people is always an art, but not always a science
Science is an art; conning is sometimes an art; so some art is a mix of science and conning.
It's science, trickery, or hoopla.
Hoopla? Are you calling Hoopla a con man? THAT'S A RACIST STATEMENT AGAINST CANADIANS! :argh!:
You mean
Ice Mexicans?
Quote from: Cramulus on March 17, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Fraud is awesome in the same way that falling down the stairs is awesome.
:lulz: yes, it is totally that awesome!
I seriously just wanted automaton to explain its response to my post, as if I were the one who said art=fraud. while I do consider that the statement may have been facetious, I should not assume so until automaton explains its apparent agreement with my statement while it simultaneously and obviously imbued my statement with meaning it does not have. automaton's post is confusing. was it trying to be really deep? cuz I wasn't.
If "Art is what you can get away with", the it stands to reason that the artist is "getting away with something".
Of course, since you haven't deliniated between commercial art and some ineffable aesthetic, then I am able to use either interchangably.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 17, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
he's saying that fraud is a means by which art makes people mad.
I looked at this again and it struck me how idiotic it is. is that really what he's saying? because seriously, I can be artistically forthright and piss lots of people off.
Quote from: LMNO on March 17, 2009, 06:38:50 PM
If "Art is what you can get away with", the it stands to reason that the artist is "getting away with something".
whose logic is this?
The first half is Warhol. The other half is "logic".
Quote from: LMNO on March 17, 2009, 06:48:36 PM
The first half is Warhol. The other half is "logic".
saying "if art is what you can get away with, then the artist is getting away with something" seems like an attempt at logic, possibly cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
but thank you for citing your source, I wasn't aware (and I admit this with some shame) that warhol said that.
You realize, I am just ribbing you.
The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.
For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset. It is a fraud.
Go rent "F For Fake".
Good call, hoops.
Quote from: Nigel on March 17, 2009, 06:16:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2009, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Urraco on March 16, 2009, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 16, 2009, 07:59:44 PM
Quote from: Automaton on March 16, 2009, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: potato on March 15, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
I laugh when art makes people mad.
Yeah, fraud is hilarious.
Is fraud art?
Tricking people is always an art, but not always a science
Science is an art; conning is sometimes an art; so some art is a mix of science and conning.
It's science, trickery, or hoopla.
Hoopla? Are you calling Hoopla a con man? THAT'S A RACIST STATEMENT AGAINST CANADIANS! :argh!:
You mean Ice Mexicans?
:lulz:
That chimp in your avatar is drinking Ice Mexican beer, so show some goddam respect.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on March 17, 2009, 07:52:07 PM
That chimp in your avatar is drinking Ice Mexican beer, so show some goddam respect.
Neat. I got nothing against Los Mexicanos Frios. Especially if that beer is good.
Quote from: LMNO on March 17, 2009, 07:07:29 PM
You realize, I am just ribbing you.
The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.
For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset. It is a fraud.
duh, I know that! just like a dollar bill isn't really money, dude. but, automaton's reply to my post still doesn't make any sense, especially if cramulus has interpreted his meaning correctly.
because if we put it all together:
all art is fraud
fraud pisses people off
therefore all art pisses people off
that wasn't at all where I was going when I said I laugh when art makes people mad. however, it's even better than what I had in mind.
btw, F for Fake looks interesting. it's now in my queue.
Quote from: potato on March 17, 2009, 09:00:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 17, 2009, 07:07:29 PM
You realize, I am just ribbing you.
The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.
For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset. It is a fraud.
duh, I know that! just like a dollar bill isn't really money, dude. but, automaton's reply to my post still doesn't make any sense, especially if cramulus has interpreted his meaning correctly.
because if we put it all together:
all art is fraud
fraud pisses people off
therefore all art pisses people off
that wasn't at all where I was going when I said I laugh when art makes people mad. however, it's even better than what I had in mind.
btw, F for Fake looks interesting. it's now in my queue.
Haha! Fraud doesn't piss people off if they are the ones being fooled!
Oh, and I agree with you, I think.
This art thingy has gotten out of hand.
Q <-- ART
Lemme break it down. The circle is a symbol of infinity and perfection. The dash protruding from it's side embodies finity, or a glitch in it's perfection: the chaos within order: the rebel in the flock, acting as a thorn in the toe of authority.
Boom. Art. It's not hard. All it takes is a mind for abstraction and
a way to portray it.Which I suppose is the part that makes it art.
Quote from: Saint Syko the confused on March 14, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
:troll: Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.
ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!
Who gives a fuck?
Rest of Post for PD Platinum Members only:Is a troll who flames n00bs for art sake an artiste or just a dumbass with a too much time on his hands (I usually like hands but only if they don't flame what do you think.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 18, 2009, 11:25:47 AM
Rest of Post for PD Platinum Members only:
Is a troll who flames n00bs for art sake an artiste or just a dumbass with a too much time on his hands (I usually like hands but only if they don't flame what do you think.
I think you're having some punctuation issues.
Quote from: LMNO on March 18, 2009, 11:48:56 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 18, 2009, 11:25:47 AM
Rest of Post for PD Platinum Members only:
Is a troll who flames n00bs for art sake an artiste or just a dumbass with a too much time on his hands (I usually like hands but only if they don't flame what do you think.
I think you're having some punctuation issues.
You're having humor issues.
Reread OP.
Dammit, now I have to start a pention.
i want to start a pention to ban artists from murdering people for arts sake
or
:?
Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2009, 12:00:55 PM
i want to start a pention to ban artists from murdering people for arts sake
or
:?
You could start a petition too.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 18, 2009, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2009, 12:00:55 PM
i want to start a pention to ban artists from murdering people for arts sake
or
:?
You could start a petition too.
Behold, the birth of a PD.com in-joke:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18303.0
Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 18, 2009, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 18, 2009, 12:00:55 PM
i want to start a pention to ban artists from murdering people for arts sake
or
:?
You could start a petition too.
A wizard never misspells, he types precisely what he means to.
But what about a Wizzard?
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 17, 2009, 07:07:29 PM
You realize, I am just ribbing you.
The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.
For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset. It is a fraud.
(http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Images/Paintings/Magritte_pipe.jpg)
Ceci N'est Pas Muhammed
Quote from: Kai on March 19, 2009, 09:31:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 17, 2009, 07:07:29 PM
You realize, I am just ribbing you.
The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.
For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset. It is a fraud.
(http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Images/Paintings/Magritte_pipe.jpg)
This piece should have effectively ended art. Everything after it was superfluous.
Oh, I don't think it should have ended art. Humans are predisposed to making art.
What it should have been an end to is high art, museum art, the idea that art is something apart from the general human experience. To most people, art is something that someone else does that you look at (or listen to, or taste, if you broaden that enough) which someone else decides for you; they don't take part in it. I take the broader idea, that art is anything that humans create or manifest that is greater than just simple use for survival and reproduction. Everyones an artist, not just someone who does it for a living. If you aren't creating art, then you're missing out. For goddsakes, make some food thats more than just caloric intake, draw something, write something, make some joyful noise, act some shit out, dance, sing, sew clothing, design, whatever. Do it. Quit waiting.
Not that I need to tell you people that. Ya'all are one of the most artistically inclined groups I have ever come in contact with.
Quote from: Kai on March 19, 2009, 09:58:39 PM
Oh, I don't think it should have ended art. Humans are predisposed to making art.
What it should have been an end to is high art, museum art, the idea that art is something apart from the general human experience. To most people, art is something that someone else does that you look at (or listen to, or taste, if you broaden that enough) which someone else decides for you; they don't take part in it. I take the broader idea, that art is anything that humans create or manifest that is greater than just simple use for survival and reproduction. Everyones an artist, not just someone who does it for a living. If you aren't creating art, then you're missing out. For goddsakes, make some food thats more than just caloric intake, draw something, write something, make some joyful noise, act some shit out, dance, sing, sew clothing, design, whatever. Do it. Quit waiting.
Not that I need to tell you people that. Ya'all are one of the most artistically inclined groups I have ever come in contact with.
Um, that's not what Magritte was trying to do with that piece and I don't see how that follows.
What follows is that I was replying to Hoopla and riding my own thought wave. The great thing about art is that its not locked away in some historical context, I can choose (fancy that!) to interpret things differently, and to ride a thought train from one idea to the next, and furthermore, I can come here and post about it, and luckily for me I haven't been kicked out yet.
It follows like this: the treachery of images is about how we are deceived by representation through symbols, and how that representation does not equal the real thing, or the real experience. You can take that one step further, in a meta-sense, that observing art in a museum is just a representation of art, whereas the real art is in the process. Something that all people should share in.
It's an interesting perspective, actually, and I can see how you could take Magritte's subversive message to museums now.
I was entirely too kneejerky in my response. My bad.
I definitely agree with you about the experience of creating art being one of the most important things about it, and that everyone should get in on it.
It seems to me that people's expectations and mental schemas about what art is and where to find it plays a powerful role in their perception and experience of it. Most people expect to see it in museums and galleries so that's where they give themselves the okay to go into that headspace. The authority of the gallery directors also seems to help people shift their perception, unfortunately.
Quote from: Automaton on March 19, 2009, 10:32:34 PM
It's an interesting perspective, actually, and I can see how you could take Magritte's subversive message to museums now.
I was entirely too kneejerky in my response. My bad.
I definitely agree with you about the experience of creating art being one of the most important things about it, and that everyone should get in on it.
It seems to me that people's expectations and mental schemas about what art is and where to find it plays a powerful role in their perception and experience of it. Most people expect to see it in museums and galleries so that's where they give themselves the okay to go into that headspace. The authority of the gallery directors also seems to help people shift their perception, unfortunately.
And professional artists who want to sell their art. :lol: Not only for sale too. Theres so much bullshit mystique and prestige hypnosis surrounding artistic pursuits. Its in the interest of artistis to make museums special, so that museums = art = power and money. It seems that way less with classical art and more with modern visual arts these days. Be the first person to paint an entire canvas red and give it a back story and something special to it and suddenly its a museum. How is that more special and artistic than me painting my walls? If people figured that out, who would go to a modern art exibit with canvases of solid color? Its in the interest of the few to keep the many thinking that art is something out there in a special place. If anyone can create art, why should someone get payed for doing something anyone could do?
Actually, Rothko's color field paintings are more than just solid color. But if you only see them in a book they appear to be that way. There is incredible subtlety in his work which requires you to see the original, not tiny reproductions that are halftoned to pieces..
I suppose some people get paid for it because artists also like to eat. Why shouldn't people find some art more desirable and valuable than others? Anybody can make lots of things but that doesn't mean that anybody can make things that are remarkable, insightful, and valuable.
I don't think it's necessarily in the interest of the few to keep art exclusive. Like I mentioned before, people defer to authorities for many things in life, so why should it be any different when it comes to art? Is it even possible to not be influenced by people you respect in terms of aesthetic choices?
I also wouldn't call the mystique that surrounds art "bullshit." It IS mysterious. No one seems able to pin it down and define it, even for themselves. Once you think you have it nailed, it spurts out a hole you failed to consider. The only thing most can heartily agree about art is that it is a very nebulous idea. It shouldn't be surprising that most people outright defer to authorities and elites in the face of such a confusing and inscrutable concept. Knowledgeable art people can help put art pieces in historical context so that viewers can apprehend it in a way that goes beyond their initial reaction.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've found that many art experts I've had as teachers have given me entirely new dimensions to look at art. It's when people start shutting themselves off from the multitude of perspectives, regardless of the group, that art suffers.
I don't think art is...wait, never mind.
I totally agree with you.
PM incoming.
Quote from: Automaton on March 19, 2009, 11:48:57 PM
I also wouldn't call the mystique that surrounds art "bullshit." It IS mysterious. No one seems able to pin it down and define it, even for themselves. Once you think you have it nailed, it spurts out a hole you failed to consider. The only thing most can heartily agree about art is that it is a very nebulous idea. It shouldn't be surprising that most people outright defer to authorities and elites in the face of such a confusing and inscrutable concept. Knowledgeable art people can help put art pieces in historical context so that viewers can apprehend it in a way that goes beyond their initial reaction.
this is exactly why I hate the word "artist" and think the whole elitist "artist" system is pretentious bullshit. knowledgeable art people (gag) take the fun out of art.
now if you're talking about cultural historians, yeah they have their place but a lot of them aren't as smart as they think they are. art history is stupid. it's cultural history, people. set the so-called artistic achievements of a culture within its own context, then you can analyze it. otherwise stfu about it because it's art for fuck's sake.
i dunno.
Think about the Beastie Boy's Paul's Boutique. Sure, it can be listened to with the blind ear of the musically ignorant, and it can be enjoyed.
But it would seem to me that someone who knew that there were stacks of samples five deep of classic and incongruous samples (beatles/curtis mayfield/mountain/yes), seamlessly integrated, would have a more broad appreciation of the music.
Knowledge of art doesn't necessarily detract the appreciation of art.
The bone of contention for me is when someone would feel superior because of the "breadth of appreciation" they have. That's where the whole "pretentious art critic" stereotype comes into play. Maybe it is a case of pearls before swine but if the little piggies like playing with the pretty little shiny balls why should it be a problem?
The "artist" creates but his creation is not the art. The art is human reaction to that creation, however broad the level of appreciation.
So again, it's a smug attitude, and not what they're being smug about.
Protip: FIX THE CAUSE, NOT THE SYMPTOM.
Catch 22 - the Smug, self satisfied art establishment makes you think you can't be an artist.
Solution: Hunt down people in cravats and set fire to them, in the name of art?
If you care what other people think, you'll never create art.
Yes, and start with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Quote from: LMNO on March 20, 2009, 07:40:37 PM
If you care what other people think, you'll never create art.
There are other reasons I'm not an artist.
Lack of talent and short little span of attention being only two :wink:
That didn't stop Andy Warhol.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 20, 2009, 07:44:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 20, 2009, 07:40:37 PM
If you care what other people think, you'll never create art.
There are other reasons I'm not an artist.
Lack of talent and short little span of attention being only two :wink:
I think Baby Jesus would disagree.
Funny thing is I actually felt like I was an artist for a while when I was doing that but then the short little span of attention thing took over and now, looking back, being an artist (or imagining I was) really wasn't all that great. Almost a million youtube viewers preferred me when I wasn't trying to be one anyway :D
Man, who cares? Just do stuff. Try not to kill anybody though.
I much prefer being an audience than an artist. I think maybe there's just two types of people.
I just mean in general... do your thing, let other people worry about what to call it.
Quote from: Nigel on March 20, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
I just mean in general... do your thing, let other people worry about what to call it.
Quoted For Tao that can't be spoken
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 20, 2009, 08:10:45 PM
I much prefer being an audience than an artist. I think maybe there's just two types of people.
I think you're an artist. I know you don't want to be labeled it (for good reason) but you are.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 05:03:06 PM
Art is subjective.
If you think a pile of rotting corpses looks pretty then it's art.
Oh, I don't know. I've found many things artistic that I didn't think at all pretty. Art is more than pretty. I've also seen some pretty things that were...fairly un-artistic, though that is probobly a failure of my perception, and not of the things themselves.
Point is, even if I found the pile of rotting corpses ugly as hell, I think there's a chance I might still find it artistic.
Sometimes I like to contextualize L. Ron as an artist in the same sense I would consider The Joker to be one.
Isn't every artist a con artist? This is why I'll never do well, too damned honest.
Anyways, as far as killing goes, it really depends at what scope or who, and how.
Like inducing a heart attack in Nancy Grace while she is dressed up like a dirty old man, hunched over the raped corpse of Chris Hanson while in a lolita outfit would be kind of awesome.
But killing a random unknown and carving shit in their belly like gee whiz Im a crazy murderer, its been done. Its old hat, and thus, not art.
Hmm.
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
To repeat:
(http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Images/Paintings/Magritte_pipe.jpg)
Oui, il est!
Non!
Da!
Voulez vous coucher avec moi, ce soir?...
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
They belong in prison.
Not to mince words, artists are out to gain your confidence just long enough to steal your money.
IT'S A FAIR COP!
\
(http://www.sciencegallery.com/files/u15/andy_warhol.jpg)
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on April 23, 2009, 02:29:43 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
To repeat:
(http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Images/Paintings/Magritte_pipe.jpg)
We believe in God!*flounce*
Quote from: NeT@uNGr0t on April 23, 2009, 04:21:16 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
They belong in prison.
Not to mince words, artists are out to gain your confidence just long enough to steal your money.
I know I am.
Quote from: potato on April 23, 2009, 05:38:06 PM
Quote from: NeT@uNGr0t on April 23, 2009, 04:21:16 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
They belong in prison.
Not to mince words, artists are out to gain your confidence just long enough to steal your money.
I know I am.
Let's go bilk the elderly out of their life savings.
Quote from: NeT@uNGr0t on April 23, 2009, 06:29:55 PM
Quote from: potato on April 23, 2009, 05:38:06 PM
Quote from: NeT@uNGr0t on April 23, 2009, 04:21:16 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: chaoflux on April 23, 2009, 04:52:40 AM
Isn't every artist a con artist?
Can you elaborate on this please. I'm not quite sure I get your angle.
They belong in prison.
Not to mince words, artists are out to gain your confidence just long enough to steal your money.
I know I am.
Let's go bilk the elderly out of their life savings.
WORD.
In some way, everyone is selling themselves. You go on a date, you're selling yourself. The farmer with his produce, the carpenter with his woodwork, the prostitute with his teenage asshole - all are trying to "convince" someone into wanting what they're selling, and that their product is better than all the other produce, wood, assholes on the market.
So if that's how you define "con artist", we are all con artists.
Hey, you got the phone number of that teenager?
Speaking French & Andy Warhol in 1 thread!!!
uh oh cara mia