VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The reason saying something is or isn't art is pointless is because it does nothing. So it's art? Who fucking cares? It's not? Good.
Neither does much for the conversation. If you wrote a paper about something generally considered art and all you did was talk about how artful it was, you would fail for making a hollow, vapid argument.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I think the thing about the horse meat is that sometimes horses are not intended to get ate and are shot up with a bunch of medication and shit.
Most cattle are shot up with a bunch of medication. Mostly antibiotics.
Yeah. Stuff that's safe to eat.
Horses that were never intended to be eaten are shot up with a bunch of stuff that's not safe to eat.
The likely culprit is all the horses that are getting off the road in romania and some people who saw an opportunity.
I'm not sure the stuff is as really safe to eat as you imply.
yeah okay maybe where you live beef is fifty percent plastic. Here though, it is safe to eat and you'll smell the patchouli long before you see the people who would claim otherwise.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
I tend to think of art as any creative expression of truth. And it can be interesting and worthwhile to debate the merits of a piece of art; whether its message is accurate or praiseworthy or offensive, whether its execution was technically proficient, whether the end product is something you'd like to pay to have.
Arguing whether it 'counts' as being art is neither interesting nor worthwhile.
Yeah I mean I pretty much agree with you here (maybe not so much the expression of truth per se, but expression itself) except art that involves unwilling participants is extraordinarily terrible and I think the people doing this shit need to be heavily penalized for it
A school giving them a good grade for it strikes me as irresponsible, and while you can argue that it is art, it really shouldn't be encouraged
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Im just going to be super controversial here and say that injuring people during your fake suicide attempt isn't art.
Trashing a public place isn't either.
Throwing temper tantrums isn't art.
Yeah, this is a stupid opinion.
But I'm going to bet a lot of money that what these muppets did probably wasn't very good art.
Of course you think its stupid.
Still angry that I said burying dead prostitutes in your backyard isn't a form of installation art.
It's exactly as dumb as saying videogames aren't art!
it can be good art or bad art but it can be art.
and come on, the smiley face they made all together? Priceless.
Its not the same at all.
The subway station might be debateable. Maybe.
The girl biting people, not.
It is precisely the same thing. You are categorically refusing that anything involving X can be art.
They are not the same at all.
You are being a total goose.
A thought provoking argument indeed.
You haven't made any arguments either, just stated a popular chat opinion as fact and waved your hands a bit.
You haven't even attempted to explain how hurting somone is "the same" as a video game.
Perhaps you need to put some effort in if you want any back.
There is no objective way to determine what is art and what is not art. It is subjective because much that is art is so wildly different that it becomes useless to categorize. If a group of people consider something to be art they are not wrong. Or it is at least not constructive to claim they are wrong, even though what they consider art is completely without value to you.
Being okay with some idiots considering a staged psychosis is art doesn't mean you approve.
Something about art students getting good grades for hurting people and trashing public spaces reminds of that old Onion article: ACLU sues to defend the right of the the KKK to burn down ACLU headquarters.
Im just going to be super controversial here and say that injuring people during your fake suicide attempt isn't art.
Trashing a public place isn't either.
Throwing temper tantrums isn't art.
Yeah, this is a stupid opinion.
But I'm going to bet a lot of money that what these muppets did probably wasn't very good art.
Of course you think its stupid.
Still angry that I said burying dead prostitutes in your backyard isn't a form of installation art.
It's exactly as dumb as saying videogames aren't art!
it can be good art or bad art but it can be art.
and come on, the smiley face they made all together? Priceless.
Its not the same at all.
The subway station might be debateable. Maybe.
The girl biting people, not.
It is precisely the same thing. You are categorically refusing that anything involving X can be art.
They are not the same at all.
You are being a total goose.
A thought provoking argument indeed.
You haven't made any arguments either, just stated a popular chat opinion as fact and waved your hands a bit.
You haven't even attempted to explain how hurting somone is "the same" as a video game.
Perhaps you need to put some effort in if you want any back.
I haven't said at that hurting someone is the same as a video game.
What I was talking about was that claiming video games can't be art, just because it's a video game, and breaking the law and hurting someone can't be art, just because it's breaking the law, is the same kind of claim.
Do you think I'm saying that yeah sure, be that twat who pretends to be violently insane or be that twat who destroys public property, it's okay because it's art? I'm not.
I highly doubt their message was worth that. Since, well, one, art students, two, when are artists like that ever good. I have a very low opinion of performance art.
And really I fail to see what message they could have had that would be worth it.
But!
I define art as anything stated to be art. It can be bad art, it can be good art, it can be really bad art, but it's still art.
There's really no further arguments to be made behind that definition, since well, it's a definition, but that's mine.
Posts
Neither does much for the conversation. If you wrote a paper about something generally considered art and all you did was talk about how artful it was, you would fail for making a hollow, vapid argument.
??
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
yeah, you could
and should
or I dunno, an art student could probably write an essay about why the message is different blah blah blah but they're weirdos
but calling something art isn't an endorsement.
Google "Anna Odell". I will bet 99% of the articles are in swedish but use translate.
NOTHING MORE
NOTHING LESS
You haven't made any arguments either, just stated a popular chat opinion as fact and waved your hands a bit.
You haven't even attempted to explain how hurting somone is "the same" as a video game.
Perhaps you need to put some effort in if you want any back.
There is a long tradition of performance art that people could not distinguish from reality. See:
-The Diggers
-The Yippies
-The Dadaists
-Andy Kaufman
You could and should, but what is transmitted would be different
I've actually written papers about this and it's a fairly important distinction between what is real and what is not
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
yeah okay maybe where you live beef is fifty percent plastic. Here though, it is safe to eat and you'll smell the patchouli long before you see the people who would claim otherwise.
I will bring an artistry to the craft you would never before have thought possible.
Shut up, Elendil without a Z
Are blue Solo cups real Solo cups, or is red the only authentic kind?
Toby Keith addresses this:
Red only.
It's a felony to purchase anything else in this state.
It can be art and she's still a bitch. Andy Kaufman was brilliant, but he was still an asshole.
Yeah I mean I pretty much agree with you here (maybe not so much the expression of truth per se, but expression itself) except art that involves unwilling participants is extraordinarily terrible and I think the people doing this shit need to be heavily penalized for it
A school giving them a good grade for it strikes me as irresponsible, and while you can argue that it is art, it really shouldn't be encouraged
There is no objective way to determine what is art and what is not art. It is subjective because much that is art is so wildly different that it becomes useless to categorize. If a group of people consider something to be art they are not wrong. Or it is at least not constructive to claim they are wrong, even though what they consider art is completely without value to you.
Being okay with some idiots considering a staged psychosis is art doesn't mean you approve.
Just to check who has OCD.
What delinquency is that, good sir?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I am rock hard right now.
MMmmmm. Yum.
That's definitely performance art
How do you mean?
I haven't said at that hurting someone is the same as a video game.
What I was talking about was that claiming video games can't be art, just because it's a video game, and breaking the law and hurting someone can't be art, just because it's breaking the law, is the same kind of claim.
Do you think I'm saying that yeah sure, be that twat who pretends to be violently insane or be that twat who destroys public property, it's okay because it's art? I'm not.
I highly doubt their message was worth that. Since, well, one, art students, two, when are artists like that ever good. I have a very low opinion of performance art.
And really I fail to see what message they could have had that would be worth it.
But!
I define art as anything stated to be art. It can be bad art, it can be good art, it can be really bad art, but it's still art.
There's really no further arguments to be made behind that definition, since well, it's a definition, but that's mine.
How do you define art?
Food is more expensive in urban areas.