Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/5/2001 12:58:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2001 12:51:47 PM EDT by AcidGambit]
Seven vials of semen forms art show CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - So this is art -- for seven days Mexican performance artist Israel Mora ejaculated, in private, into seven glass vials. After this and presumably after Mora, 33, had rested, the vials of semen were put in a white, refrigerated box, and strung up for exhibit between two trees at the Banff Centre, a cultural institution in the Rocky Mountain resort of Banff. Titled "Level 7", the exhibit has been on display for the past six days. Thursday is the seventh, and last, day. Banff Centre spokeswoman Connie MacDonald said the performance is part of Mora's seven-week residency. The cost, about C$4,000 (1,800 pounds), is being picked up by the centre and the Mexican government. The residency, called "SloMo", has time as its theme and a number of artists are involved. Mora's cooler bears the label: "Warning: Contains 6 ml of semen extracted through masturbation, distributed among seven glass tubes." MacDonald said the exhibit had gone mobile one day as Mora "did an walk downtown with his cooler as part of the performance. (The temperature) was about minus 25, and a group of artists from the centre went along with him, and he was fairly discreet and he wasn't trying to make a big show." The vials represent the cycle of life in Mora's family. "'Level 7' aims to examine the concepts of privacy and intimacy within contemporary society," the centre says. Sherri Zickefoose, editor at Banff's Crag and Canyon newspaper, said the exhibit hasn't caused much of a fuss in town, a ski destination at this time of year. "Everybody knows about it but nobody is saying much."
View Quote
What a "jerkoff." "Cum" to think of it, we should, perhaps, rethink our "deposits" to Mexico if they have the money to waste on this. Art like this just "rubs" me the wrong way. It is "vile."
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:06:01 PM EDT
Hey, some guy stuck two shop vacs in a plexiglass case and sold it for $30,000, calling it "Vacuum of Space". This is another waste of time and money on the part of their stupid government. Too much money, not enough brains. I think I am going to sell my feces 3 glass jars representing the 3 branches of wasteful government with no useful purpose but fertilizer, because I am an artist and you don't understand me.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:15:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2001 1:23:48 PM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Yes it's art. And Ice, you're wrong. [b]Artist: Jeff Koons Vacuum Cleaner: [red]$365,500[/red]. New Hoover Deluxe Shampoo Polishers, vacuum cleaners in Plexiglas boxes with fluorescent lights, unique, 56 inches by 22 inches by 14 inches, 1980 (Sotheby's, November 1999). [/b] [img]http://www.d.umn.edu/~rroslak/art1304/unit27_pic/229.jpg[/img] That's some art.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:20:18 PM EDT
Hey I have a brother that can paint like a 5 year old, looks just like Picasso....
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:22:38 PM EDT
I think I am going to sell my feces 3 glass jars .
View Quote
It's been done: [img]http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/artshit.jpg[/img] "Piero Manioni's excrement was packed in tin cans and sold at the current value of gold in 1961. In 1999 one of the Merda d’Artista was auctioned for $ 24,425"
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:27:14 PM EDT
If one's concept and execution and intent is sound, it is art. You might not like it, but it is. You might think it's stupid, but it's not. Anyone who can sell a small can of their shit for $25,000 isn't stupid. The funny thing is, that if you know the art market, the buyer's not stupid, either.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 1:49:13 PM EDT
Artist Carl Andre arranged 122 fire bricks on the floor in the shape of a rectangle. Called it "Bricks". Recently sold at auction for $500,000.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:02:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:05:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2001 2:01:36 PM EDT by Major-Murphy]
If the buyer then sells it for $40k, are they stupid? No. There's no one stupid involved in this at all. (they've since sold for $50k and $75k...)
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:06:31 PM EDT
hmm i have been looking for something to major in.... maybe i can major in useless art... now what college would have that...
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:10:49 PM EDT
Yale has the best program in the East.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 2:42:40 PM EDT
Art chicks... They would try new things.
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 3:00:35 PM EDT
Entartete Kunst
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 3:07:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AcidGambit: Art chicks... They would try new things.
View Quote
I used to take art classes at a community college when i was a high school senior. it was part of a program in which you could receive college credits while attending high school. They were easy 'A's and easy women. I never failed to get laid in each class. Art girls are great. [;)] Shawn
Link Posted: 12/5/2001 4:36:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2001 4:32:42 PM EDT by ErickM]
isn't there something in the communist manifesto about making "art" completely senseless? I assume this is to make people learn to appreciate "less than mediocrity". I can appreciate buying stupid shit and making a profit reselling it, and the "artist" making it as he laughs, because that is making people pay for their stupidity/bad taste. But why would the [b]end owner[/b] actually desire any of this modern art stuff? is their life that void of achievement other than monetary that buying a can of shit or vacuums in glass just because it was assembled by someone "famous" (who doesn't bathe, or shave and weighs approximately 40% less than what is healthy) makes them feel all fuzzy? I don't understand. Ever hear of "noise art" if you want to make some, get an old tv, the old kind that doesn't blue-screen and go mute when you turn it to a dead channel, so you get that nice PFFFFFFFFFFFF sound, turn it up full blast. Hold microphone plugged into a recorder next to the dynamic oval shaped full-range cardboard speaker, hit record, bang the microphone randomly every 1 to 5 minutes against the grill a few times (important, bang without any rhythm) loop the tape. Sell it. I used to know this chick who was a photographer, well not a REAL photogrpaher who captures pictures of important events or inspiring things/places in ways never done before. She took black and white (of course) pictures of shit like an ashtray full of butts or dirty laundry piled on the floor or a bunch of picked-clean cars at a salvage. AND SHE GOT A SCHOLARSHIP FOR IT! WTF??? WHY??? Society is going down the toilet, crap like this helps it get there. These "mods" appreciation of this crap will be passed along to their kids and on and on and it gains strength each time. Before you know it, everyone's wearing gray jumpsuits plowing fields and working in tractor factorys. 10 bucks says anyone who knows about this shit owns depeche mode cds. 10 more says they can tell you of at least 2 places you can dine "al fresca" within walking distance of a "day spa"
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 4:57:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 5:27:44 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Eric, just because someone knows, understands, or appreciates Fine Art, does not make them a Merlot sipping, beret wearing sissy, any more than knowing about firearms makes someone a knuckle-dragging redneck, Klansman. That's ignorance. [b]"But why would the end owner actually desire any of this modern art stuff?"[/b] The reason people buy this seemingly pointless art, is that it is part of art history. If you take your time, and open your mind, you may grow to understand it, even appreciate it. The history of Western Art is linear. Like it or not, that can of shit is the direct descendant of Michealangelo's Sistine Ceiling. You can't just stop Art History in the 19th Century, and pretend that all that [b]"modern art stuff"[/b], never happened. Norman Rockwell, near the end of his life, said that he wished he had not wasted so much of his life making pretty illustrations... ...he wished he had painted "more like Picasso". The Nazis and the Communists both insisted that art be "realistic", "inspiring", and "puposeful". Social Realism. Pictures of smiling farmers, workers. All of the "Abstract" and "modern" art was considered to be "Degenerate Art", and was burned. They were really afraid of the freedom, and of what they did not understand (it is difficult to control that which you can't understand). Who do you identify yourself with more, as an art critic? After WWII, America became the leader of the Art World. Jackson Pollack was the point man, here. His giant canvases of splattered paint represented the "bigness", ambition and freedom that the world had come to associate with the United States. Be proud of this, even if you don't understand it. Classical music sounds beautiful. Heavy Metal does not. They're both music.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:14:46 AM EDT
"The cost, about C$4,000 (1,800 pounds), is being picked up by the centre and the Mexican government." This is the biggest problem I have with "art". Governments (including our own) support these loons with cash, all the while we have REAL PROBLEMS to solve. It is disgusting. The next time some commie lib complains about the starving children, medicare shortfalls, or how Social Security is bankrupt I'm just going to tell them to take money from the art endowment for it. "'Level 7' aims to examine the concepts of privacy and intimacy within contemporary society," the centre says. Ha, ha, ha, ha. That is hilarious. What a load of crap. I don't know what is funnier, the fact that these so-called "artists" take themselves so seriously or the fact that idiots pay a lot of money for worthless junk.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:21:52 AM EDT
That doesn't sound like a problem with "art". THAT sounds like a problem with the governments that support it. I agree 100%.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:29:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 5:22:25 AM EDT by Golgo-13]
Art, it was explained to me by an art major, is anything made by a human with the intent of provoking an emotional or intellectual reaction. Note that being "beautiful" isn't necessarily a factor. At the time, I thought that sounded kind of bullshyttey, but with time and maturity I have come to see that she was absolutely right. Major Murphy is correct, canned shytte is the lineal descendant of the Sistine Chapel frescoes.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:35:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 5:26:54 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
On a side note (that will make many of you happy): One of the Cans of Shit (there were 80 of them, originally), was purchased by a very rich art collector, who lived in a massive Penthouse on Central Park, and kept the can, prominently displayed, on a pedestal in the living room. Apparently, this Can of Shit had developed a little Botulism... it swelled and exploded one day, splattering shit all over the sprawling, loft-like penthouse (which, I am told, was decorated all in white).
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:46:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: That doesn't sound like a problem with "art". THAT sounds like a problem with the governments that support it. I agree 100%.
View Quote
I'm glad we agree on something. Hey, if some moron wants to shell out outrageous cash for a couple of vacuums in plexiglas, then what the hell do I care? A fool and his money...
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:50:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 5:42:23 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Just remember, the first "moron" who bought the first of Koons' "Vacuum" sculptures, bought it for $15k. That "moron" sold it a few weeks ago for close to a Million$. I wish I could be that much of a moron.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:54:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Art, it was explained to me by an art major, is anything made by a human with the intent of provoking an emotional or intellectual reaction.
View Quote
Really? How does the vacuum qualify? I think this definition of art is a very low standard. It used to be that art at least require some level of talent and/or training in one discipline or another. Now, any crack pot who can get government cash is an "artist", regardless of their lack of talent. If only other fields of human endevour had such low standards. Think of the kind of world that would produce.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:56:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 5:48:09 AM EDT by soylentgreen]
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Just remember, the first "moron" who bought the first of Koons' "Vacuum" sculptures, bought it for $15k. That "moron" sold it a few weeks ago for close to a Million$. I wish I could be that much of a moron.
View Quote
I see your point. I guess somebody has to start the cycle. If no one bought the thing to begin with, then the artificial "demand" for the item would have never been created.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 5:57:56 AM EDT
Exactly!
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:27:12 AM EDT
Oh... all of you are such knuckle-dragging Philistines! <> [:)] Actually, I think the real "ART" is the ability to make kilobuck$$$$ off of bodily secretions. If I thought I could get away with something this stupid, I'd be wearing a beret and shitting on mimes in a San Francisco park. And change my name to Weisel du Spoire. Or something.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:29:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By soylentgreen: Really? How does the vacuum qualify? I think this definition of art is a very low standard. It used to be that art at least require some level of talent and/or training in one discipline or another. Now, any crack pot who can get government cash is an "artist", regardless of their lack of talent. If only other fields of human endevour had such low standards. Think of the kind of world that would produce.
View Quote
Look at the reaction it has provoked in you. You've spent time thinking about it, an intellectual reaction, and you have some rather definite emotional reaction to it. Remember, it doesn't have to "beautiful" and you don't have to "like" it for it to be art.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:31:28 AM EDT
Also, for those who look at a work and think "anybody could do that!", why didn't you do it, then?
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:47:10 AM EDT
If that is Art, then this is super art. [url]http://www.crappybobandnicbig.com/kidneyfailure[/url] Its a band called kindey failure, they have songs that go like: "I saw barney masterbait, in the kitchen on his plate," and so on. Go download thier songs and you will see what I mean.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 6:56:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 6:57:54 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
In my opinion, these three men are the most important artists of the 20th Century: 1. [b]Marcel DuChamp...[/b] [img]http://www.sfmoma.org/images/ma/collections/recent_detail/duchamp_fountain.jpg[/img] "Fountain", 1917, urinal. 2 [b]Jackson Pollack...[/b] [img]http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/02/mhirsch/images/autumn.jpg[/img] "Autumn Rhythm, #30" 1950. oil on canvas, 105 X 207 in. 3. [b]Andy Warhol...[/b] [img]http://www.mamfw.org/collect_jpg/gun_b.jpg[/img] "Gun", 1968, big silkscreen All three of these guys have the "I could do that" factor. Pollack even has the "a monkey could've done that" thing going for him. You may not realize it, but what these guys did is evident everywhere, if you just try to look.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 7:11:34 AM EDT
Sometimes a can of crap is just a can of crap.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 7:12:13 AM EDT
Exactly!
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 7:20:17 AM EDT
The only reason someone would buy modern art is to impress others that they own "it" or on speculation that some other dumbass will pay more for it later. Period. Just like the academy awards where how "good" the movie was has no bearing on its awards. Is the artist working to please the viewer or himself? That is the difference between a can of crap and a Chapel ceiling. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 7:33:17 AM EDT
Major-Murphy, Yes, I was wrong, I was going low because I couldn't remember the price. As to this guy selling it to the government, I think we are preaching to the choir, cause generally, conservative gun owners are the last people that want to see the gov. waste money or be extravagant. As to the art, I guess anything could fall under that definition, so a better question would be, Is this not art? Oh well, and the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, in my book is a major accomplishment and labor of love, while crapping in a can or jerking off, any teenage boy can do. If you want to call that art, so be it. Anybody want to buy some guns that have been blown because we purposely jammed and fired them? They are art.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 7:51:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Planerench: The only reason someone would buy modern art is to impress others that they own "it" or on speculation that some other dumbass will pay more for it later. Period. Just like the academy awards where how "good" the movie was has no bearing on its awards. Is the artist working to please the viewer or himself? That is the difference between a can of crap and a Chapel ceiling. Planerench out.
View Quote
Which means what? If planerench likes it, it's art? Who was Michaelangelo working to please on the Sistine Chapel? Do you know? (Hint: he considered himself a sculptor.)
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 7:54:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 7:48:43 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Originally Posted By Planerench: The only reason someone would buy modern art is to impress others that they own "it" or on speculation that some other dumbass will pay more for it later. Period.
View Quote
Some people understand "modern art", appreciate it, and like it. Just because you don't, doesn't mean others aren't capable of it. Or are wrong for doing so. Statements like these are often made by those who could not define the phrase, "modern art". The sentiment is similar to when ignorant people speak of why only psycho, gun-nuts would buy an "assault weapon".
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:06:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 8:04:14 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
The Sistine Ceiling is undoubtedly a better work of art than the "Can of Shit". That doesn't mean the "Can of Shit" isn't art. Believe it or not, many in the art world do not consider this to be art: [img]http://jeffwilkie.com/shop/images/IT18_CMyDocumentsMyWebswilkiethcave_explorers.JPG[/img] or this: [img]http://www.richthistle.com/OpenWaterNottawasagaRiver.jpg[/img] I don't. they're pretty, but not challenging in any way. Not for the artist and not for the viewer. It's decoration, illustration. They're shit. Art should be more than just a soothing image to decorate the space above your couch.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:09:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Some people understand "modern art", appreciate it, and like it. Just because you don't, doesn't mean others aren't capable of it. Or are wrong for doing so. Statements like these are often made by those who could not define the phrase, "modern art". The sentiment is similar to when ignorant people speak of why only psycho, gun-nuts would buy an "assault weapon".
View Quote
Ok, when I was a kid my grandma took me to the KC Art museum, there was a piece of art there that was a a piece of wood or something formica'ed in plain white with a symmetrical green 2" square in the center of it. Explain that, how is that art? how do you appreciate it? how do you appreciate even the work or thought that went into it? I can begin to rationally understand how a liberal mind works, what makes them feel the way they do about hugging trees and throwing money at self-destructive people, I can even start to understand how the mind of a heroin junky who wonders "why not just double up on the next shot and end it all" works better than that of someone who would appreciate the "green square" or the artist who thought he was achieving something by making it. This frustrates me. How??? help us out here, we just might learn or at least better understand something.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:12:23 AM EDT
I think I got a puzzle of that somewhere. Back to the art talk, that isn't art to me, but it evokes emotion, so ...? I saw a lot better paintings and sculptures on Pier 39 in SF. I guess my statement should be, Yeah, its art, but don't expect me to buy it or like it. Ever seen the Remington paintings? How about that memorial to the Pony Express? The guy who did that horse for the statue studied the bones and muscle structure of horses, and you can see the bronze skin bulge in the right places.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:17:05 AM EDT
[img]http://members.tripod.com/~Newt_Livesay/titanium2s.JPG[/img] I think this is art, look at the grind lines.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:19:54 AM EDT
I don't. they're pretty, but not challenging in any way. Not for the artist and not for the viewer. It's decoration, illustration. They're shit.
View Quote
Ah, but those images [b]did[/b] evoke an emotional response from you, ergo, they're art. [:)]
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:22:47 AM EDT
Much of modern "art", (and I use the term loosely,) is garbage. It is shock value kitsch. The so-called "experts and artsy types" fawn over every bit of chicken scratching or fecal deposit as though it was some great "statement." Then they have the balls to tell folks that recognize it as crap, "Oh, you just don't understand real art! You don't have the art background to appreciate this! And look how expensive it is! It *must* be good!" This is very much like the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." If you don't agree with their concept, well, you are just too stupid to see it. Ja, right. Even an uneducated peasant could appreciate the Sistine Chapel, it didn't take an "art degree" to recognize the beauty of the work, and the talent of the artist. Moreover, it was conveying something etheric and yet human. Something that can still be awe inspiring today. Monkeys and elephants, when handed paintbrushes, produce stunning similarities to Pollack messes. And Warhol? Pfffffft...a photo of a Campbell's soup can is hardly a creative effort, in fact, it is plagiarizing an ad campaign. True art should indeed invoke emotion. An appreciation of beauty, or history, passion or despair. "Art" is not the ramblings of a diseased mind, it is the product of a trained craftsperson, with something noble to convey. It requires *skill*. Something the trendy artistes moderne truly lack. Can canned shit truly compare to a work by Leonardo or Raphael? No way in hell. Shit is shit.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:25:53 AM EDT
"Y'all gotta see this for I flush it! It looks just like Elvis!"
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:26:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 8:18:47 AM EDT by ErickM]
Originally Posted By Renamed:
I don't. they're pretty, but not challenging in any way. Not for the artist and not for the viewer. It's decoration, illustration. They're shit.
View Quote
Ah, but those images [b]did[/b] evoke an emotional response from you, ergo, they're art. [:)]
View Quote
I think i'm getting it, the modern art evokes emotions of "WTF???" and contempt for society in me, is that what it's supposed to do? But I did like the one with the whales and fish, I guess that means I'm non-artsy, and simple.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:27:10 AM EDT
Yes. Those Remingtons were/are fine art. Art is judged by when it was made. A crude, stone figure, made in 8,000 BC is a masterpiece. A crude, stone figure, made in 1480 AD is a pice of crap. A crude, stone figure, made in 2001 AD might be a masterpiece, or it might be crap, depending on the intent of the artist. To appreciate art, you have to appreciate art. [b]...there was a piece of art there that was a a piece of wood or something formica'ed in plain white with a symmetrical green 2" square in the center of it. Explain that, how is that art? [/b] If you approach art like that with a closed mind, you will need to study art history, in depth. Try this:[url]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/[/url] If you try it with an open mind, just spend some time looking at the painting. The simple ones are the most complex to understand. If you need your art to have a narrative, watch a sit-com.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:32:14 AM EDT
if the definition of art is anything that produces an intellectual or emotional reaction from the viewer, then the can of shit isn't art, it's the government paying money for it that is because it provokes my outrage. I really can't care less what people define to be art, I just care that my tax dollars aren't spent acquiring it. I think the debate here isn't what is art, but what is these "art" worth in monetary terms. Art really has no intrinsic value, much like money. It's worth what people think they're worth. These non-art things you call illustrations are worth something to me, decorating the space above my couch is considered positive utility. And I'm willing to pay money for it. Howver, a can of crap, I can produce that easily on my own. If I ever need to display a can of crap or a jar of jack off by product, I'd prefer to do it myself rather than pay a dime for it. There are idiots in our society, that is inevitable, what is truly unfortunate is that the people who control our tax dollars are even bigger idiots. I would like to hear a good explanation of how acquiring these "art" for these outrageous prices is considered a public good.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:33:48 AM EDT
It's easy to pick one of the more outre works by an artist and sneer at it. Take Warhol, for example. The Campbell's soup can series (it is a series, you knew that didn't you?) is held up as ridiculous and pointed at as an example of his lack of talent. How much of Warhol's other work have you ever seen? How competent a draftsman was he? How adept was he at use of color? What media did he work in? What was the point of the series of works of which the soup can image was a part? Here in Pittsburgh, we have the Warhol Museum where many of his works (in various media) are on display. It is a fascinating place to visit. What is especially amusing is to take someone there who knows nothing about Warhol except that he made a picture of a can of soup. Like it or not, Warhol was both talented and influential. Major Murphy: If you are ever in Pittsburgh, please be my guest for trips to the Warhol Museum and the Carnegie Museum. Dinner at the Penn Brewery after.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:33:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hannah_Reitsch: Much of modern "art", (and I use the term loosely,) is garbage. It is shock value kitsch.
View Quote
Kitsch? This is kitsch: [img]http://jeffwilkie.com/shop/images/IT18_CMyDocumentsMyWebswilkiethcave_explorers.JPG[/img] This is the opposite of kitsch: [img]http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/02/mhirsch/images/autumn.jpg[/img] Kitsch is art that wallows in sentimentality. Kitsch is art that is of no challege to the veiwer, it's a seditive.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:43:11 AM EDT
I wouldn't have either of those pieces in my home. Neither the puzzle dolphins, nor the chicken scratching. I have enjoyed the lovely Hindu artwork you have posted here before, though, Major, and consider it very thought provoking and certainly qualified of being called art. The Warhol soup can was merely an example.....his Marilyn series was no better, and yes, I have seen a wide range of his works. None were worth the price of admission. At best, he missed his true calling as a graphics designer for an advertising company, but an artist? No way. The guys here with PhotoShop show more talent than Warhol had.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 8:44:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2001 8:40:25 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Major Murphy: If you are ever in Pittsburgh, please be my guest for trips to the Warhol Museum and the Carnegie Museum. Dinner at the Penn Brewery after.
View Quote
Deal. Those of you who would write off most of the art that was made for the past hundred years, I have a question. Why do you think that all of the museums of the world, all of the contemporary galleries,all of the great thinkers, all of the universities, all of the publishers, critics and artists, support "Modern", or contemporary art? Maybe, there's more to it than you think. The same Modernist ideas that were behind that "Green Square" painting, make modern glass skyscrapers, sleek automobiles, and stainless kitchen appliances. Ask the designers and achitects, and they'll tell you so. Post Modern ideas, like those of Warhol, are behind the developement of "sampling" in music, and countless other areas (photoshop!). You see it everyday, if you look.
Link Posted: 12/6/2001 9:02:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hannah_Reitsch: The guys here with PhotoShop show more talent than Warhol had.
View Quote
Really because this gives me an idea, I opened up photoshop with "minimalism" in mind. I'm thinking of printing and selling this. [img]http://imagep.webphotos.iwon.com//1000021026/1000021026_1262001124641PM0.5417139.jpg[/img]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top