User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:23:07 AM EDT
[#1]
Hmmm, early reproductions of your large and small intestines.
Nice work. (sorry, I'm evil today) [dracula] --LS |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:24:18 AM EDT
[#2]
I always appreciate any visceral reactions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:27:09 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: I always appreciate any visceral reactions. That's whack. What is it???? To me, it ain't art if you gotta ask "What is it?" (which is not to say it didn't take talent - more talent than I got - to create it) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:28:12 AM EDT
[#4]
ok, I've seen your other work posted here a while back, and now this stuff.
I won't bs you and say I like it. But what I would like to know (I'm not a snobby,nose in the air, art critic, so....) what is your goal here? what are you trying to say? please take no offense, it just doesn't do anything for me. I will say that it's cool that you're doing what you like to do and it pays the bills (?)(I'm assuming) [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:38:29 AM EDT
[#5]
I don't think the goal of Art should be to illustrate other peoples' stories.
Nor do I think that the goal of art should be the demonstration of one's technical ability to mimic reality as closely as possible. That's why we have cameras. Great Music doesn't do these things, neither does great Writing. Great Art has to first say something about Art, before it can comment on anything else. I explore different materials, and realize their physical properties. I see viscous materials resembling viscous things in nature, or in popular culture. I then manipulate the materials to look "more" like the "things" that they seem to resemble. Add a dose of humor, and/or horror, and there you are. I only hope that the viewer won't be bored. They rarely are. Each circular form, in the painting, is just a puddle of house-paint. Pick certain colors, arrage the puddles in a certain way.... (garandman, you know what "it" is. That fact that you already consider it to be a "thing" means I've won you over. I've managed to convince you that "it" is a thing.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 7:41:02 AM EDT
[#6]
I would love to see your Home...Some of your work really catches my eye.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 7:41:30 AM EDT
[#7]
If you were my painting instructor at UCSD (where I minored in Visual Arts), I'd be forced to write something like this:
[b]Professor Cincinnatus' bold new mixed-media triptych explores the pressures that Borgeoise society imposes on women, youths, and people of color in order to further their conformist agenda and justify political oppression. The relative symmetry of the middle piece combined with its forced upright posture illustrate how the social and economic confinement of post-industrial Capitalism effectively squelches individuality, while the neutering influence of the side pieces amplify the demoralizing tension felt by desexualized youth. Subtle humor in the choice of textures and colors allows the casual viewer to enjoy the work without being overwhelmed by the obvious pathos of the piece. Cincinnatus has efficiently presented a poignant commentary on the cruel manner through which outdated institutions like marriage and life-long enslavement are perpetuated by our artificial "traditional" culture. In short, a Tour de Force sure to enlighten and inspire viewers for centuries to come.[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 7:51:55 AM EDT
[#8]
Don't forget about "Man's inhumanity to Man", they love that phrase.
(It's the only time for "them", that it's acceptable to use the word "Man" with a capital"M".) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 7:53:08 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: I would love to see your Home...Some of your work really catches my eye. I keep it all in the studio. It's a bit overwhelming to have too much of this stuff in my home. I'd be more than willing to give you a tour [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 7:57:41 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: (garandman, you know what "it" is. That fact that you already consider it to be a "thing" means I've won you over. I've managed to convince you that "it" is a thing.) Actually, I beleive "it" is a barnacle. Over a plate of beans. That kinda sounds like a power trip - that you've won me over because I accept the premise that "it" is "an it." Too abstract for me. Gimme a paiting of G. Washington anyday over abstract "art." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:00:47 AM EDT
[#11]
Yeah, I understand.
I'm pretty fond of George Crossing the Delaware. Banacles and beans, hmmm? You're a sick man, a very sick man... [;)] I have a Huge painting in my studio, done in this style, of a WWI battlefield. I'll take a pic, and post it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:05:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: . Banacles and beans, hmmm? You're a sick man, a very sick man... [;)] yeah, I'd like to hear Freud's take on my "artistic interpretation." [BD] I have a Huge painting in my studio, done in this style, of a WWI battlefield. I'll take a pic, and post it. Kool. I'll look for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:05:56 AM EDT
[#13]
And here I thought art is supposed to be pleasing to either the eye or the mind. Silly me. Sorry, Cincy, this just makes me gag.
[img]http://www.irondale.org/product/1998/line.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:14:28 AM EDT
[#14]
That's an appropriate photo, for you ("Degenerate Art"?).
here I thought art is supposed to be pleasing to either the eye or the mind All books are not "light" reading, some are in fact brutal. -but great. All music is not soothing, some music hurts your ears. -but is still great. All art is not "pleasant", or pretty. Some is grotesque, horrifying, shocking, or sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:18:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: If you were my painting instructor at UCSD (where I minored in Visual Arts), I'd be forced to write something like this: [b]Professor Cincinnatus' bold new mixed-media triptych explores the pressures that Borgeoise society imposes on women, youths, and people of color in order to further their conformist agenda and justify political oppression. The relative symmetry of the middle piece combined with its forced upright posture illustrate how the social and economic confinement of post-industrial Capitalism effectively squelches individuality, while the neutering influence of the side pieces amplify the demoralizing tension felt by desexualized youth. Subtle humor in the choice of textures and colors allows the casual viewer to enjoy the work without being overwhelmed by the obvious pathos of the piece. Cincinnatus has efficiently presented a poignant commentary on the cruel manner through which outdated institutions like marriage and life-long enslavement are perpetuated by our artificial "traditional" culture. In short, a Tour de Force sure to enlighten and inspire viewers for centuries to come.[/b] I think this is what [B]GARANDMAN[/B] was expressing when he said "Actually, I beleive "it" is a barnacle. Over a plate of beans." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:37:17 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
here I thought art is supposed to be pleasing to either the eye or the mind All books are not "light" reading, some are in fact brutal. -but great. Yep, sometimes it's necessary to depict brutal or ugly scenes, be that in literature, sculptures or paintings, but it should be either necessary to transport an idea or an information. Including disgusting, revolting or brutal scenes just for the sake of it, without making any relevant or artistic point is usually called pornography or smut. So, where's the artistic aspect of those things you posted, or what point are you trying to make? Please note this is not meant as a flame or a personal attack, I just want to know what the hell you were thinking when creating those things? All music is not soothing, some music hurts your ears. -but is still great. Name one example. "Music" that hurts your ears is called noise. Even if creators of such are called composers, Modest Mussorgski, Arnold Schoenberg or Snoop Doggy Dog Doo are still annoying creators of cacophony (1) (1) and it is no coincidence that this word means literally "sounds like crap" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:41:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: All art is not "pleasant", or pretty. Some is grotesque, horrifying, shocking, or sad. Therein lies the essence of art. (IMHO) A truly successful artist is a master of emotional manipulation. Whether that be through expression, captivation, depiction, interjection, recognition, or even suppression, etc. Cincin, it's not my taste but, I 'Cin-searly applaud you for your work and wish you continued success. pigs-in-a-blanket/beans for everyone! (kinda look like a bunch of astronaut heads sticking out of space suits if ya squint) --LS |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:42:26 AM EDT
[#18]
It looks more like an orgy of anemones... [sex]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 8:51:42 AM EDT
[#19]
Kar, Hendrix was QUITE an artist.
AND his music sometimes did hurt a little, if you were lucky enough to hear it live. Depicting brutal scenes, in and of itself, "without a relevant point being made" does not make it "smut", or pornography. I think the best parts of "Saving Private Ryan" were the raw combat scenes. They were works of art. The WORST part of that movie was whatever the "relevant point that was being made". It was weak. When someone creates and then harnesses such POWERFUL scenes, to tell a rather lame story, it's MUCH worse than if those scenes were shown justt for the sake of those scenes. IMHO, of course. Keep in mind my art, which you find to be grotesque and repulsive, is merely an arrangement of puddles of housepaint. It's just paint. It REALLY doesn't look like anything specific. So what's so offensive? Blobs? That it's not another attempt to mimic photography? (...and therefore, somehow represents the downfall of western civilization?) I truly appreciate your strong reaction. It convinces me that I'm onto something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 9:31:34 AM EDT
[#20]
I can understand the plate of beans, but why has someone stuck Vienna sausages in those marshmallows?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 9:33:25 AM EDT
[#21]
Because the marshmallows were looking at me funny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 9:40:11 AM EDT
[#22]
"When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent." - Jacques Barzun.
Think about our culture, politics, economics and art in terms of this quote. And I am not being critical of you, Mr. Cincinnatus. In fact, I am impressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 9:45:08 AM EDT
[#23]
I still like your stuff. My favorite is still your stem cells. This one looks like Picasso's interpretation of an alien woman. Lots of boobs over an urchin like body. Boy, better have a "talk" with my wife.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 9:45:44 AM EDT
[#24]
Well, yeah!
The culture IS decadent(where you been?[:)]). It's ALWAYS been decadent. Name a culture that wasn't/isn't awash in decadence, in their own way. Freedom will always lead to decadence, of some sort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:02:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Freedom will always lead to decadence, of some sort. Better grab your dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "decadent". Hint, a decadent culture is marked by decay or decline. That implies that there was an ascent, leading to a zenith. I would surely certify you being part of some decadent branch of art, if this wouldn't imply your creations having art status. Thus, I'll create a new term for your stuff: cacography. PS: Seriously, that looks like something a very sick dog threw up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:12:42 AM EDT
[#26]
"Dog Vomit"? C'mon now. That just shows me that you don't have much of an eye. Dog puke is much more flat. My work has more mass, and form. Even you can see that. You have to actually look, in order to criticize.
Here's dog puke: [img]http://www.soimmature.com/images/sthumb_pet_puke.gif[/img] vs. my art [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid26/p214a5c94fc7a664aa432a6f7ee0c793c/fd7d65aa.jpg.thumb.jpg[/img] ANYONE can see the difference. [b]Decadent: 1.Being in a state of decline or decay. 2.Marked by or providing unrestrained gratification; self-indulgent. [/b] Which of these two definitions does not apply to our current culture? The only time that Western Culture was in an "ascent" was when it moved from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance (IMHO). Some people, however, would argue that in doing so Western Man became more Humanist. To them that would indicate the beginning of the decline. Decadent branch of art? No. You're just not too familiar with the art of the last 50 years. My stuff would be considered mild, biomorphic, abstraction that teters on the edge of representation. No one familiar with art history would consider it to be too "decadent". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:19:49 AM EDT
[#27]
I stepped on one of those once while scuba diving off Cape Horn. Damn thing nearly took my leg off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:21:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: "Dog Vomit"? C'mon now. That just shows me that you don't have much of an eye. Dog puke is much more flat. My work has more mass, and form. Really, man. What's wrong with THAT guy???? Its OBVIOUSLY barnacles and beans. [rolleyes] + [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:27:18 AM EDT
[#29]
[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid26/p214a5c94fc7a664aa432a6f7ee0c793c/fd7d65aa.jpg[/img]
Cincinnatus I like your work. It has a good 3 dimensional look for a 2 dimentional piece of work. You did real good with the detail of light source and shadows on these. They look ceramic. Good job. Im a 3d and photoshop artist as well as a photographer. Check your IM and I will send you to my web site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:28:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Indeed, garandman!
Compare: Here's dog puke: [img]http://www.soimmature.com/images/sthumb_pet_puke.gif[/img]vs.my art[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid26/p214a5c94fc7a664aa432a6f7ee0c793c/fd7d65aa.jpg.thumb.jpg[/img]Beans:[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:6m0xhIa82E8C:res2.agr.ca/harrow/pics/beans.jpg[/img]barnacles:[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:yXOGY658ZogC:www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/crustacea/barnacles.gif[/img] Garandman obviously has a greater visual sense, and ability to look at fine art.[:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:28:35 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: [b]Decadent: 1.Being in a state of decline or decay. 2.Marked by or providing unrestrained gratification; self-indulgent. [/b] Which of these two definitions does not apply to our current culture? Decadent branch of art? No. You're just not too familiar with the art of the last 50 years. Prick. Why are you trying to be rude and condescending? Only because I find your stuff repulsive you think I'm not familiar with culture? Puh-fucking-leeze. My stuff would be considered mild, biomorphic, abstraction that teters on the edge of representation. Well, that's sorta like sorting dung by flavor, now isn't it? No one familiar with art history would consider it to be too "decadent". Well, read my last post again and you'll see that I most emphatically did NOT call your stuff "decadent", because it's not even that. What's the point of your "art"? It's neither pleasing, nor educational, nor is it in any way philosophical nor otherwise impressive. Giger's creations are art, Dali was an artist, Picasso was a prick and artist, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5 is a piece of art, Bach's "Toccata And Fugues" is one of the best pieces of musical art ever written, Hieronymus Bosch, as gruesome as his woodcuts are, they are art, Andy Warhol created quite artistic pieces. All of them had original ideas. None of them had to seek refuge in "you just don't know what art is", their art stood and will stand for itself forever. Nobody needs to be convinced of the artistic values of their art. If you have to justify your "art", it isn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:32:06 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: [b]Decadent: 1.Being in a state of decline or decay. 2.Marked by or providing unrestrained gratification; self-indulgent. [/b] Which of these two definitions does not apply to our current culture? Decadent branch of art? No. You're just not too familiar with the art of the last 50 years. Prick. Why are you trying to be rude and condescending? Only because I find your stuff repulsive you think I'm not familiar with culture? Puh-fucking-leeze. This is why you are such an asshole Kar, He responded to you in a civil manner, You call him a prick. Try not to take offense to someone who notices that you have poor or no taste in art. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:35:59 AM EDT
[#33]
Now, now...
No need to get all upset. I welcome criticism, and I engage it. Repulsive? I love repulsive. My favorite Dealer considers my work to be repulsive -he loves it. You attack with hyperbole and don't support what you say. You then prove that you don't REALLY look. [b]"I would surely certify you being part of some decadent branch of art, if this wouldn't imply your creations having art status"[/b] That's a bold statement, one a "prick" might make, don't you think? If you refuse to recognize abstraction as an art form, hey! Too bad for you. But just because you're not ABLE to see it as such, doesn't make it so. "Dog Puke"? that's infantile and ignorant. Dali? Warhol? Artists whom YOU would have QUICKLY condemned, if you had been there when they emerged. Anyone can see that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:39:28 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: The culture IS decadent(where you been?[:)]). Or at least getting there. It's ALWAYS been decadent. Perhaps to a degree, but it has been less so. Tell me, what was absurd or futile about Michelangelo or Monet? At some point, it seems like evertyhing has been done (futility) and all that can be done is to make fun of the form itself (absurdity). You can not help but conlude that our society has come to a state of inertia. Despite a number of pressing concerns, the political system is paralyzed. IMHO the arts are in a shambels. Many forms, such as architecture, have simply surrendered and given up any pretense of achieving beauty. You can't help but compare St. Peters to the latest concrete slabs and conclude that somewhere along the way we have lost something. Same goes for comparing 19th century novels to the crap that wins awards today. Because we can not make any progress on any front, we as a society have become obsessed with acquiring more consumer goods (how many ARs do you have?) as a substutute for having some purpose or meaning in our lives. Name a culture that wasn't/isn't awash in decadence, in their own way. OK, how about the US 50 or 200 years ago. [b]Just because all cultures may have some decadent traits, does not mean they are all equally decadent.[/b] This kind of relativism and inability to descriminate is part of what results in cultural stasis. And decadence becomes more pronounced over time, as the society's norms come into conflict with eachother. Freedom will always lead to decadence, of some sort. I do not think that freedom is the causal agent for decadence. Certainly societies that have no freedom have become decadent. My position that freedom is poison to decadence, and its only tonic. Societies become more decadent in large part because they become less free. IMHO. But what the hell do I know? All I know is want an M1A like yours! Maybe I just have M1A envy. Sorry if I am hijacking your thread. I really do appreciate you posting your work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:39:40 AM EDT
[#35]
Geez, Kar. That's a little over the top, dontcha think??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:40:37 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: This is why you are such an asshole Kar, You forgot "anti-semitic", "redneck" and "inbred". Try not to take offense to someone who notices that you have poor or no taste in art. I will take offense everytime some uneducated person makes such a preposterous claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:42:37 AM EDT
[#37]
Right back at you, chief.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:43:37 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: "Dog Puke"? that's infantile and ignorant. Ignorant? I wish. Having seen gallons of said matter, this was the first thing your pictures reminded me of. "Arrogant", that I would have accepted. Dali? Warhol? Artists whom YOU would have QUICKLY condemned, if you had been there when they emerged. Anyone can see that. Really? What makes you think that? How do you come up with this idea, what's your base for this conclusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:44:35 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Geez, Kar. That's a little over the top, dontcha think?? A little ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:46:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Tell me, what was absurd or futile about Michelangelo or Monet? What could possibly be more futile than to attempt to paint a portrait of God? The futility of it is where the beauty lay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:49:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: This is why you are such an asshole Kar, You forgot "anti-semitic", "redneck" and "inbred". I didn't forget, I just didn't write it. Try not to take offense to someone who notices that you have poor or no taste in art. I will take offense everytime some uneducated person makes such a preposterous claim. He is obviously educated in art, As am I since this was [b]one[/b] of my degree's. And art is what ever the artist creates. But I don't expect someone with your back ground to be able to appreciate it. If its not steril, then its not art according to Kar. Do I really need to point out what other movement in history thought along the same philosophy ? You should have just posted your [b]uneducated opinion[/b] on the artwork and left it at that. But again you have to take it a little FUROR, I mean futher and rant on about it showing what an idiot you really are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:51:59 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: "Dog Puke"? that's infantile and ignorant. Ignorant? I wish. Having seen gallons of said matter, this was the first thing your pictures reminded me of. "Arrogant", that I would have accepted. Dali? Warhol? Artists whom YOU would have QUICKLY condemned, if you had been there when they emerged. Anyone can see that. Really? What makes you think that? How do you come up with this idea, what's your base for this conclusion? I believe my Puke vs. Art vs. Beans post has proven that your "ignorance" was in that you obviously didn't look (unless it was a very "chunky" dog puke [:)]). The "ignorance" could be a temporary thing -if you look before you speak. As far as whether you would have condemned Warhol or Dali, had you been a contemporary... ..no way to prove it, but I think your attitude speaks for itself. You don't demonstrate an open mind, in this area, and your words are very much like those of their critics of the time. But hey, who knows? Maybe you would have been a real Avant-garde kind of guy, back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:54:23 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: [img]http://www.irondale.org/product/1998/line.jpg[/img] ...and your picture here is not lost on me. That you would post it, as a reference for your criticism, is quite telling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:55:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Tell me, what was absurd or futile about Michelangelo or Monet? What could possibly be more futile than to attempt to paint a portrait of God? The futility of it is where the beauty lay. I do not think it is futile at all. It is beautiful on its face, and it does not need futility or absurdity to achieve that effect. Truly, it is spellbinding. The whole structure is. Just because we can not make an exact or perfect representation of the subject, it should not stop us from trying. Modern art has given up. It invites us to guess at the subject, or to create our own meaning. It transmits nothing. As to whether the picture of God is accurate, I do not know but you might want to consult with garandman on that. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 10:56:08 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: But I don't expect someone with your back ground to be able to appreciate it. And what, pray tell, do you think you know about [i]my[/i] background? If its not steril, then its not art according to Kar. Where did I say such a thing? Where did I say something that makes you think that? Do I really need to point out what other movement in history thought along the same philosophy ? Oh yes, please do. You should have just posted your [b]uneducated opinion[/b] on the artwork and left it at that. I know I should be upset about this, but somehow your piss-ant comments fail to touch me. Shows what an idiot you really are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 11:01:15 AM EDT
[#46]
Kar,
enough people have already noticed the same conclusions as I have about you, Your just not worth getting another email from sweep. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 11:01:28 AM EDT
[#47]
Somebody's getting alittle cranky, and needs a nap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 11:08:15 AM EDT
[#48]
AGAIN:
Quoted: [img]http://www.irondale.org/product/1998/line.jpg[/img] [b] For those of you unfamiliar with this photo, it's of the Nazi's "Entartete Kunst" exhibition in 1937. "Entartete Kunst" means Degenerate Art. The Nazis put on this exhibition to show the world how base and degenerat Modern Art was. Most of the Artists who didn't flee Germany were later rounded up and put into camps. So, for Kar98 to use this as a reference, for his first post in this thread is pretty powerful stuff. Imagine if he were to open a disussion about Judaism, by showing a big picture of Auschwitz. It has certainly informed as to your "open mindedness" when it comes to art. Why did you post that picture Kar? Do tell..[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 11:16:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Why did you post that picture Kar? Do tell.. Because this exhibition and dog vomit have been the first things that crossed my mind once I saw your pictures. If you think that's insulting, well, it wasn't intended as insult. If you take it as such, *shrug*, not my problem. I took your subject line for this thread 'Welcome Critics: Three New Paintings' as an invitation to submit opinions. This is mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2002 11:24:06 AM EDT
[#50]
So, the first thing you thought of was a Nazi art exhibit, hmmm?
Really? No, not only was this the first thing that popped into your head, YOU actually went and searched for a photo of it, to let everyone know (unless you keep it in your special "Cool Nazi Photos File"). I think that's a little different, don't you? Insulting? I'm not at all insulted by your choosing align yourself with such illustrious art critics as Goebbels and the Nazis. Keep this criticism coming. (Keep in mind, though... it really doesn't help with your whole "I'm not an anti-semite" rap) I just think it makes you look kind of dim, that's all. It makes you look like you share their views on art. Do you? Look Kar!! It's the Fuhrer, enjoying the exhibit! [img]http://stevenlehrer.com/images/degenart.jpg[/img] Maybe if you ask nicely he'll sign your catalog... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
