Before You Can Accomplish Anything...

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But that isn’t just “art”…and very often you can see what has potential to be “great” and what doesn’t.
You had idiots in 1980 claiming rap was just a fad. 30 years later, Hip Hop dominates the globe. Those of us following the music, however, were never surprised by this.
The truth is, I try my hand at art as well. I’ve drawn in pencil since I was a little kid, wrote music and complete songs. This isn’t a discussion with someone who does not have an open mind…which is why the insults from Schwarz as if we just can’t understand the ART is ridiculous.
Did you watch his “RANT”?
Were you moved?
His words don’t even bring out any emotion. The only reason it is worth a discussion now is because I am waiting for someone to show me the ART.[/quote]

…And sometimes you don’t see potential but the guy turns out just fine.
So by your standard in thirty years, if Frank is a respected artist, you’d be mentioned as an “idiot” for not seeing potential.

There is respected and insanly priced art that doesn’t speak to me at all. It’s ok.

Sometimes it’s a question of living in a certain era.

It’s still art.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But that isn’t just “art”…and very often you can see what has potential to be “great” and what doesn’t.
You had idiots in 1980 claiming rap was just a fad. 30 years later, Hip Hop dominates the globe. Those of us following the music, however, were never surprised by this.
The truth is, I try my hand at art as well. I’ve drawn in pencil since I was a little kid, wrote music and complete songs. This isn’t a discussion with someone who does not have an open mind…which is why the insults from Schwarz as if we just can’t understand the ART is ridiculous.
Did you watch his “RANT”?
Were you moved?
His words don’t even bring out any emotion. The only reason it is worth a discussion now is because I am waiting for someone to show me the ART.[/quote]

…And sometimes you don’t see potential but the guy turns out just fine.
So by your standard in thirty years, if Frank is a respected artist, you’d be mentioned as an “idiot” for not seeing potential.

There is respected and insanly priced art that doesn’t speak to me at all. It’s ok.

Sometimes it’s a question of living in a certain era.

It’s still art.[/quote]

What is ART about the vid I commented on?

“My second daughter will be born a nonvirgin” is art to you?

Hell, if that is art, then everything else on youtube should be art as well.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, you are talking out of your ass.
Who here has said sex itself can not be art?
Anyone?
Didn’t think so.
So why are you typing so much?[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is nothing to interpret from being screwed in the ass by a hobo…unless this is some study in how to get AIDs the fastest way possible.
[/quote]

well, it’s pretty self explanatory.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, you are talking out of your ass.
Who here has said sex itself can not be art?
Anyone?
Didn’t think so.
So why are you typing so much?[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is nothing to interpret from being screwed in the ass by a hobo…unless this is some study in how to get AIDs the fastest way possible.
[/quote]

well, it’s pretty self explanatory.

[/quote]

?

Sodomy with a homeless person qualifies as a definition of “sex itself”?

Who here has stated that no sex act can be considered art?

Kid, if you are any older than 17 you may want to type less.

The usual semantics bs from you.

Fine, I assert that “Sodomy with a homeless person” can be art.

Arguing with you is needlessly tiresome.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But that isn’t just “art”…and very often you can see what has potential to be “great” and what doesn’t.
You had idiots in 1980 claiming rap was just a fad. 30 years later, Hip Hop dominates the globe. Those of us following the music, however, were never surprised by this.
The truth is, I try my hand at art as well. I’ve drawn in pencil since I was a little kid, wrote music and complete songs. This isn’t a discussion with someone who does not have an open mind…which is why the insults from Schwarz as if we just can’t understand the ART is ridiculous.
Did you watch his “RANT”?
Were you moved?
His words don’t even bring out any emotion. The only reason it is worth a discussion now is because I am waiting for someone to show me the ART.[/quote]

…And sometimes you don’t see potential but the guy turns out just fine.
So by your standard in thirty years, if Frank is a respected artist, you’d be mentioned as an “idiot” for not seeing potential.

There is respected and insanly priced art that doesn’t speak to me at all. It’s ok.

Sometimes it’s a question of living in a certain era.

It’s still art.[/quote]

Would you care to explicate to us simpletons what deeper meaning you’ve abstracted from Frank Yang getting butt fucked by a hobo? We can all appreciate someone who challenges the status quo with new, even controversial, ideas.

On the other hand, this guys work has no purpose, no theme, no meaning. Its just weird for weirds sake.

All I see is a narcicisstic sociopath who wants people to think he’s a genius.

art.

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But that isn’t just “art”…and very often you can see what has potential to be “great” and what doesn’t.
You had idiots in 1980 claiming rap was just a fad. 30 years later, Hip Hop dominates the globe. Those of us following the music, however, were never surprised by this.
The truth is, I try my hand at art as well. I’ve drawn in pencil since I was a little kid, wrote music and complete songs. This isn’t a discussion with someone who does not have an open mind…which is why the insults from Schwarz as if we just can’t understand the ART is ridiculous.
Did you watch his “RANT”?
Were you moved?
His words don’t even bring out any emotion. The only reason it is worth a discussion now is because I am waiting for someone to show me the ART.[/quote]

…And sometimes you don’t see potential but the guy turns out just fine.
So by your standard in thirty years, if Frank is a respected artist, you’d be mentioned as an “idiot” for not seeing potential.

There is respected and insanly priced art that doesn’t speak to me at all. It’s ok.

Sometimes it’s a question of living in a certain era.

It’s still art.[/quote]

Would you care to explicate to us simpletons what deeper meaning you’ve abstracted from Frank Yang getting butt fucked by a hobo? We can all appreciate someone who challenges the status quo with new, even controversial, ideas.

On the other hand, this guys work has no purpose, no theme, no meaning. Its just weird for weirds sake.

All I see is a narcicisstic sociopath who wants people to think he’s a genius.

[/quote]

Actually if you read his video descriptions on youtube and read his blog (Xanga 2.0 is Here!), there’s an underlying theme and meaning to most of his work. Including this: Facebook

And come on guys, the hobo pictures and his “rant” aren’t even part of his work. If you ask him I’m sure he’ll tell you that they aren’t art either.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
While a lot of artsy stuff is crap (eg that girl who pees with spaghettis and dirt, saw that, it was weak and half hearted) there are a lot of queer artists who redefine things you can take for granted.

You can look at zoos as being pointless.
There are already pictures of animals, right, and lots of it?

But seeing the real thing is a completely different experience.

Exactly the same with provocative art.

Seeing a real dick or a pussy right before you triggers reliably a very strong, measurable reaction in one’s brain.
Strange that people don’t find it particularly offensive to alter their brain chemistry via alcohol to enter a different state of mind, even when it’s to blame for thousand of beatings and trillions of dead brain cells every week.
Queer art is essentially the same, sans the violence.

In theory, we can pretty much do anything.

A guy in my former hometown did this:
he stripped, clipped his finger- and toenails, shaved himself, pissed, shat and ejaculated on a canvas and finally proclaimed, somewhat exhausted: “that is me”.
All this on the most prominent central plaza (a historical no-car, shopping area) with mostly unsuspecting pedestrians watching.

I still think most literally COULDN’T do this if they tried.

There was a lot of outage, especially with the conservative dipshits. As a teenager, that was pointless and wierd to me.
Today, I know it’s good for society and for the mind. [/quote]
But people want to see live animals. They don’t want to see freaks exposing themselves in public and doing disgusting things. I think there lies the difference.

What is good art or not is decided by so called art critics, not the common sense of the common man. If some wealthy jew wants to promote decaying heads of cows as arts, then he has the power to do that. Or if someone splashing paint around like an idiot is to be taken seriously. See Jackson Pollock.

The average person has a more objective perception of art that is based on reasonably inclusive understanding of aesthetics in line with people’s natural perception. There was a news article lamenting how black female artists win awards in the UK but do not sell records very well. This is the kind of gap that exists between people’s understanding of art and the egalitarian view forced on them from higher above.

pathetic rant.

It needs the uncommon men to drive society forward. Art is only one example here.
With common men, we would still sit in caves, with fingerpainting as a highlight.

[quote]
But people want to see live animals. They don’t want to see freaks exposing themselves in public and doing disgusting things.[/quote]

the opposite is true.
the first zoos were founded by not very common men, kings and rich guys.

Also: if this evening there will be two spectacles where one will be a display of cows and the other consists of really bizarre, human freaks, I know which one will be crammed with people.

[quote]Alffi wrote:
What is good art or not is decided by so called art critics, not the common sense of the common man. If some wealthy jew wants to promote decaying heads of cows as arts, then he has the power to do that. Or if someone splashing paint around like an idiot is to be taken seriously. See Jackson Pollock.

The average person has a more objective perception of art that is based on reasonably inclusive understanding of aesthetics in line with people’s natural perception. There was a news article lamenting how black female artists win awards in the UK but do not sell records very well. This is the kind of gap that exists between people’s understanding of art and the egalitarian view forced on them from higher above. [/quote]

You know, it’s a funny thin about Pollock. I had always like his stuff and didn’t know why.

Then there was an article in Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=order-in-pollocks-chaos about his work. After an analysis of some of his pieces, they were found to contain a natural flow and density of fractal patterns which almost exactly mimics the bare wooded landscapes of a forest in the winter, which turns out to have a very soothing effect. Turns out that in the method of his madness, he managed to incorporate a very natural aesthetic quality that is extraordinarily difficult to replicate.

A similar fractal pattern can be found in an original Tiffany Lamp which is part of the Kaufman estate at Falling Water, an architectural masterpiece done by Frank Lloyd Wright, which I like to visit sometimes for its very calming and serene atmosphere.

Sometimes the value of effect of a persons work is not obvious at first. It takes a while to permeate your mind, but never quite registers in the what, where, why, sense.

Or maybe he was just some idiot.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
What is good art or not is decided by so called art critics, not the common sense of the common man. If some wealthy jew wants to promote decaying heads of cows as arts, then he has the power to do that. Or if someone splashing paint around like an idiot is to be taken seriously. See Jackson Pollock.

The average person has a more objective perception of art that is based on reasonably inclusive understanding of aesthetics in line with people’s natural perception. There was a news article lamenting how black female artists win awards in the UK but do not sell records very well. This is the kind of gap that exists between people’s understanding of art and the egalitarian view forced on them from higher above. [/quote]

You know, it’s a funny thin about Pollock. I had always like his stuff and didn’t know why.

Then there was an article in Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=order-in-pollocks-chaos about his work. After an analysis of some of his pieces, they were found to contain a natural flow and density of fractal patterns which almost exactly mimics the bare wooded landscapes of a forest in the winter, which turns out to have a very soothing effect. Turns out that in the method of his madness, he managed to incorporate a very natural aesthetic quality that is extraordinarily difficult to replicate.

A similar fractal pattern can be found in an original Tiffany Lamp which is part of the Kaufman estate at Falling Water, an architectural masterpiece done by Frank Lloyd Wright, which I like to visit sometimes for its very calming and serene atmosphere.

Sometimes the value of effect of a persons work is not obvious at first. It takes a while to permeate your mind, but never quite registers in the what, where, why, sense.

Or maybe he was just some idiot.

[/quote]

No idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Good post, SkyzykS.

Pollock’s random quotes:

Abstract painting is abstract. It confronts you. There was a reviewer a while back who wrote that my pictures didn’t have any beginning or any end. He didn’t mean it as a compliment, but it was.

Bums are the well-to-do of this day. They didn’t have as far to fall.

I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own.

It’s like looking at a bed of flowers–you don’t tear your hair out over what it means.

It doesn’t make much difference how the paint is put on as long as something has been said. Technique is just a means of arriving at a statement.

Painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is.

The modern artist is working with space and time, and expressing his feelings rather than illustrating.

The modern artist… is working and expressing an inner world - in other words - expressing the energy, the motion, and other inner forces.

The strangeness will wear off and I think we will discover the deeper meanings in modern art.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
The strangeness will wear off and I think we will discover the deeper meanings in modern art. [/quote]

Maybe.

But, to paraphrase (and pervert) Freud’s words: “Zum timez getting zee dick in zee azz iz juzt getting zee dick in zee azz.”

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
The strangeness will wear off and I think we will discover the deeper meanings in modern art. [/quote]

Maybe.

But, to paraphrase (and pervert) Freud’s words: “Zum timez getting zee dick in zee azz iz juzt getting zee dick in zee azz.”[/quote]

Like a cigar. SD you crack me up.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
The strangeness will wear off and I think we will discover the deeper meanings in modern art. [/quote]

Maybe.

But, to paraphrase (and pervert) Freud’s words: “Zum timez getting zee dick in zee azz iz juzt getting zee dick in zee azz.”[/quote]

Dude, you were nowhere near this deep or this comedic years back. What the fuck happened to the REAL SD?

I… I… I was reading the “LSD Thread”, and, I, I went to lick a postage stamp… post… count… increased… no… recollection…

Wait, what thread am I in again?

Wow… spirals.