b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 7898418 (Thread)

# Meh
You've misunderstood cubism there. Most people do.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 3:58, archived)
# HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fuck yeah. Beautiful misunderstandings.
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 3:59, archived)
# you've misunderstood coconut crabs. most people do.
i invented crabs. i bred them by feeding lobsters bounty bars.
(I helped save b3ta! connor, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:02, archived)
# Now you've earned my respect.
It's so simple now you point it out.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:03, archived)
# Do we care?
Are we caring about that?

It's purdy! I don't care what we call the purdy...
(I helped save b3ta! ..wil, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:03, archived)
# .
What does purdy mean without its definition?
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:05, archived)
# If art needs words to explain it before it can be appreciated
then it is fail, IMO.

Same with jokes.
(I helped save b3ta! ..wil, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:17, archived)
# If Art needs explanation
then whoever is looking is asking before thinking.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:19, archived)
# Of course
If there is no explanation then there is no Art
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:22, archived)
# You're trying too hard.
I could chuck a raw chicken off my balcony and it would be art.

Someone could come along and explain why it's art, and it would automatically become shit.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:05, archived)
# If art needs explanation
it's an idea that didn't work out
(I helped save b3ta! ..wil, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:25, archived)
# Yes but then your argument depends on the word Need
All Art should HAVE an explanation. If it NEEDS it then that is either a reflection on the artist or the viewer.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:34, archived)
# But jokes need insinuations and the element of surprise
so are obviously spoilt by being discussed, whereas I've been talked into watching a number of good films that I would otherwise have avoided.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:22, archived)
# This is odd
I don't remember anyone explaining a joke....
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:24, archived)
# I'm not blind . . . I missed you didn't I ?
(I helped save b3ta! Valin I changed glasses while I wasn't looking, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:27, archived)
# And besides
the question "what does purdy mean" is interesting even though people can enjoy art before they have an answer.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:27, archived)
# Thank you
for saying something intelligent.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:31, archived)
# David Deutsch says that flowers are beautiful because they communicate accross a genetic gap,
specifically to bees, and that by extension beautiful things are successful attempts to communicate across gaps, such as the gaps between individual people.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:35, archived)
# The point of art is not found in beauty
If you want beautiful art stay in the nineteenth century. Art is a challenge to the mind and isn't it better to engage in a cerebral appreciation than to coo: "oo that's pretty"?
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:39, archived)
# I think those are two different things
which are confusingly both called art. I think beauty is more deserving of the title, since there are all kinds of challenges to the mind which are arbitrarily excluded from qualifying as art - or else included under a ludicrously wide banner. Extremely wide definitions are useless.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:42, archived)
# yay
this is like being back at art school
(I helped save b3ta! connor, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:48, archived)
# Are you liking art school then?
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:50, archived)
# Go Art School!
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:52, archived)
# Yes, I agree that there is a blurred line.
But how can we go on looking at pretty pictures and calling them art when the whole process of late nineteenth and twentieth century art has shown us the frailties of the boundaries of 'art'. I am constantly dismayed at the Daily Mail ignorance to move past pretty pictures (I'm not making any comment on your own appreciation). Art is intended to stimulate no matter the medium and most of the repetitive bullshit we have to put up with in the name of aesthetic appreciation is a waste of time. Whatever your parents told you about art IS WRONG.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:49, archived)
# My parents would probably have told me that almost anything can be art
if I had been able to bear listening to their opinion. And I agree that they were wrong.

There are two different things being called art here, though, one of which is a critical process of creating beauty, and the other of which is the act of being provoking in unclear ways.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:52, archived)
# Like I said, your parents were wrong.
Remove the ALMOST
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:54, archived)
# And like I said, an extremely wide definition is useless.
If everything is art, then art is a synonym for everything, and we don't need another word for everything. We do need a word for the process of carefully making beautiful things.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being provoking in unclear ways, just that one can do it without committing acts of art. I'm doing it right now, see.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:57, archived)
# Bah.
Legs on a snake, all of you.
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:00, archived)
# DAMMIT
I MISSED OUT ON AN ARTGUMENT.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:03, archived)
# OH NO YOU DI'HNT
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:05, archived)
# SWEEEET.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:12, archived)
# Just thinking about stuff.
Nothing wrong with thinking.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:05, archived)
# I agree.
"Knowing" is often a barrier to experiencing though. I'm clear which I'd rather do :)
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:07, archived)
# ALSO:
www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=916964
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:27, archived)
# Hee.
Good.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32, archived)
# Seriously though
an analogy which occurs to me is of young children standing around in a playground, heatedly discussing the definition of fun. I'd rather just play.
That's not to say that I'm anti-intellectual, or non-intellectual, but the idea of categorization, which is really what's being discussed here, is not really that interesting to me personally, particuarly since it all comes down to nothing more than personal opinion, however forcably that opinion is expressed, or however conventionally 'correct' it is currently considered.
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:39, archived)
# Definitions are unimportant
but things need explaining. In the case of art I see a dodging of an explanation.
I'm also interested in what fun is, by the way, because that's also difficult to explain -
meaningfully, fruitfully difficult, not just intractable.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)
# Brilliant.
Great. That's the point. And when we say that we accept everything with an open mind and don't reject out of hand. That sounds like what you're saying and it sounds like we're arguing from the same precept. But, to return to the point, that's not cubism.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)
# YES.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)
# NO.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:53, archived)
# I AM ONE POSITIVE MOTHERFUCKER.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55, archived)
# WE'RE OFF THE PAGE.
I AM SO ENGORGED RIGHT NOW.
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:56, archived)
# WHOA
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)
# Oh my God
I'm a big fan of Eno's music but I'm afraid both he and the author of the piece have misunderstood Duchamp. such is art
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:41, archived)
# You do not have access to Duchamp's thoughts.
Thus, all you can possibly be expressing are your own opinions, or someone else's. The fact that you do so in such a condescending way is not particularly endearing.
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:43, archived)
# Duchamp
did not publicly explain his work but that does not mean that the consensus is incorrect.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:46, archived)
# Neither does it mean that it is correct.
I repeat, all you're expressing is your own, or someone else's, opinions.
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)
# BTW
I'm sorry if I've sounded condesending in my posts. I've not intended that at all and I'd rather people read my posts with the voice of an interested informed nobody.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:49, archived)
# Well, even if Duchamp was speaking
he'd still only be expressing Duchamp's opinions about what Duchamp thinks. Still prone to errors.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:47, archived)
# Haha
that's just your opinion :)
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)
# Without sarcasm
You may be a genius. (I'm going to bed. Merry Christmas)
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:51, archived)
# Goodnight
it's nice that an interested informed nobody thinks I'm a possible genius. I think.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)
# Cya, merry xmas.
Come play again soon.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:11, archived)
# No I don't want you to think I think everything is art
I merely suggested everything CAN be art. Found Objects have been a part of art for a century and they have opened up the way for us to consider the temporial locus of a transformation between rubbish and art. Can a mere discovery be art? If so then anything Can be art. Whhich prompted my last comment. (see Duchamp)
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:04, archived)
# Oh, well, that's true.
Well then, where does that leave us.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:06, archived)
# That is the eternal question.
Welcome aboard.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:10, archived)
# OK. I think
1) Duchamp's urinal (of which I am very fond) is provoking, but it's not pretty. It's just making a statement via an object. You can call that art if you want, but there are all kinds of other ways to do it, so it would be better if we could give up calling those things art (which is unlikely to happen, oh well).
2) It's a very good point about all kinds of found objects being capable of being made pretty by being framed, or by some other means of the artist suggesting to you a good way in which to look at them. However this ought to be about beauty in order to qualify as art, and being abruptly presented with something jarring is not at all the same.
3) Art goes along with a message, and the art is one thing and the message is another, and they depend on each other somewhat.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:14, archived)
# Also
messages expressed vertically one word at a time are very inexpressive.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:16, archived)
# As artist or viewer?
Figure where you stand and it's all down hill from there.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:12, archived)
# Found objects as an artform is fucking useless.
I was in a gallery about a year ago and one of the artists was selling a piece called "dumpster 4" (there was a number 4 in the dumpster where he found the stuff), and it was 20 showerheads painted yellow.

She spent half a fucking hour talking about how he had found abandoned objects and turned them into art by "gathering them together". I had three issues with this:

1. There was no point - what is he trying to provoke/invoke?

2. The dumpster had gathered all those objects before he got there,

3. It was just a bunch of fucking showerheads painted yellow. For $20k.

(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:16, archived)
# I've heard you talk about this before
and I think I stole the example and used it as part of a letter to The Times.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19, archived)
# Awesome.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:20, archived)
# Not incorrect, just over-priced.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:20, archived)
# I'd pay cost price, if I had a use for twenty yellow showerheads.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:25, archived)
# Not the point. And I know you understand that well.
We both love Doc's work. Any artist with
a good portfolio of works, can, and should
be able to do the same. You saw the work
first hand, it sounds to me liek the person
may have failed it. So I would accept your
judgment in the showerhead's case.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32, archived)
# The only reason that this example sticks in my mind
is because I saw someone run over to it and buy it after the most retarded artspeech I had heard. And it was probably a good investment.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)
# Could be so.
A mid-line, to low work, by a spectacular
artist can often be more valuable.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:57, archived)
# Right.
So any painting is worth the price of the paint plus the price of the canvas?
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55, archived)
# If it's all one colour, yes.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:59, archived)
# As a minimum, YES.
[/;-D
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)
# I like to think of "art" as a descriptive word like "awesome"
Anything can be awesome, but not everything.

Why do people not stand around talking about why something might be deemed awesome? Because that would make it less awesome.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:19, archived)
# Isn't it fucking awesome that
We’re having a serious informed debate on Art on B3ta? The electronic generation is not dulled by technology it seems. *ejaculates*
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:38, archived)
# Right now it's fun more than awesome.
Awesome would be if this disccusion spawned a bunch of pictures.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)
# :)
(I helped save b3ta! mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:47, archived)
# As it's topical and you're not offended by much.

Indeed! I'm digesting now, Nanny!
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:51, archived)
# True enough, but a 'fine aesthetic' opens doors.
In many ways. It's a good tool for contrast too.
And I use it myself, often. You're not incorrect tho.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:54, archived)
# I would have to support the above with only minor quibbles.

The last point, excepted. Just so, and indeed.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:51, archived)
#
When I was a student I was taken to the Tate, there were a load of flags in glass cases, they looked tattered, burnt, dusty, it looked like a holocaust aftermath preserved, it's overall impression was one of utter devastation.

When I approached it and read the words posted beneath it they were about an A4 sheet's worth of explanation that the flags had been made of coloured sand and were joined together by small pipes, and ants were introduced, and as the ants moved from flag to flag they would move the sand and merge the colours and therefore represent the world's population intermingling and global understanding and racial integration.

Great idea, except it didn't work, it didn't look like the world joining hands in racial harmony or whatever, instead it looked like a representation of the last world war held in air tight cases lest our flags collapse to dust, the ants were slowly destroying them.

It was fail because it did not visually trigger in the mind of the observer the artist's intended concept. Good art will do that, no explanation needed, even to someone with absolutely no concept of what good art is.

Whether beautiful, ugly or disturbing, good art should not require an A4 sheet of explanation to get it's point across.

Art that requires explanation, or some learned bluster to educate us of it's true deep meaning to us majority who in their ignorance obviously don't appreciate it, is not good art.

More likely it is self indulgent pretentious bullshit.
(I helped save b3ta! ..wil, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:52, archived)
# I almost agree
I'm not sure where this idea that art can't be art without something to explain it came from. Why not? Aren't there some concepts that we cannot express simply within a single image. That would point surely to a very simple brain.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:59, archived)
# Visual concepts that cannot be expressed within a single image
is also The Beano, so where does that leave us?
(I helped save b3ta! ..wil, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:13, archived)
# Digesting Beano for art.
Several have done so already.
Design is a favorite food of art.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:26, archived)
# Is the Beano art pre-digestion?
Or do you want to make a distinction here, and if so, what?
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:35, archived)
# As whole its not even that.
It's the translation layer that the artist
does in creating that forms it. Sand is not
pre-bronze-casting-negative-stuff. Its part
in the process may not even remain in the
work when you see it.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:40, archived)
# I just meant "why isn't the Beano art then"
or if you prefer, "why isn't the Beano good art".
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:52, archived)
# Some moments they've gotten close.
There are a few pannels, here and there,
that are staggering. But for the most
part, it is lower than TOAP as they
have the tools and brains to do more.
But then it would not be what it is,
a quick & dirty weekly comic, anymore.
(I helped save b3ta! Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:06, archived)
# Ha, how dare you get back to the original argument, I was talking here.
Alright, I agree with you. Although the thing with the ants sounds awesome. As an ant colony, I mean.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:02, archived)
# Yeah
It does sound cool. It's been nice to have this discussion. Thank you. Normally I ahve to argue with my Dad who thinks that everything less literal than Turner is shit. Thank you.
(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:07, archived)
# I think it's even better if it does something completely different to what the artist intended.
He was trying to make a point of how much better it would be if everyone intermingled.

What it showed was a destruction of identity, turning a bunch of beautiful flags into some horrible shit.
(I helped save b3ta! gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:24, archived)
# i like this
(I helped save b3ta! urbane legend i have known the inexorable sadness of pencils, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 15:06, archived)