EPTIs Poop Considered Art? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
howLiN
Portugal1676 Posts
| ||
|
WightyCity
Canada887 Posts
| ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
Anyway, when it comes to shock art, the best thing to do is not be angry about it but just ignore it. Getting a reaction is exactly what the "artist" wants. | ||
|
Leth0
856 Posts
| ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On May 18 2012 06:23 Aelfric wrote: If my opinion is scientific and well thought then i can claim that opinion is worth more than others. Poo, vomit these are part of human body or it's actions. But they doesn't have to be artistic in many ways, we can understand them but i don't see any reason to admire them. It's just a complex system's output. I don't claim my view is scientific enough though i can't grasp the idea behind this kind of stuff no matter how much i try to do it objectively or not. And one of the comments to the article: "Well, if that’s art, then stand back because I just had Taco Bell and I’m about to blow a freakin’ Picasso." Science has absolutely nothing to do with art. Your opinion will never be "scientific" | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2497 Posts
| ||
|
Nibbler89
884 Posts
| ||
|
TheFlock
United States389 Posts
I guess the artist was taking a shit one day and had a great idea. Sometimes i dont get art.. but then i wait about 20 mins after eating a big meal and it all makes sense... The hardest part for me is signing my name on it afterward... | ||
|
StormShield24
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Veritask
260 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20030312-2.gif) | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10341 Posts
| ||
|
krok(obs)
Germany264 Posts
*edit* yay im a zergling! | ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
On May 18 2012 07:10 Ohyra wrote: Modern art.. It's one thing to look at a Picasso, Frida Kahlo or Isaac Grünewald. In their paintings you can always read something out of the artist, and you can always look at the paintings in a fresh perspective. This is of course to a large degree dependant on the eras and the mindset at the time, just like we are going through a phase right now with the modern art. But seriously.. i wish we could fast forward just to get past the modern day art. I went to visit the "modern museum" in Stockholm here in Sweden. And one thing that caught my eye was the figure of a goat, standing with a tennisball on top of its head. The museum guide told me that the ball stood for the artist's lost childhood. My mind was blown. "WHAT THE HELL!?" "Seriously!?" Where did all the good stuff go? Another major upset recently here in sweden was when the minister of culture visited the museum. Here they all had cake. The upset was that the cake was formed as a human being, a woman. When you cut the cake, the woman screamed and cried, to represent the genital mutilation that girls go through in Africa for example. Let's just say that the people didn't enjoy it all too much after it aired on national television. It seems that today art is only about chocking, enraging and upsetting. None of it ever makes you want to stop and think, and admire it anymore. It truly is a sad time to be alive, compared to say the 1800-1900's. Art-wise that is  You sure do have an oustanding amount of time on your hands if you managed to have access to and somehow evaulate ALL art on this planet. "that today art is only about..." Please tell me how you managed to understand what all of today's art is. What I bolded is you using anecdotal evidence to describe social trends. It's incredibly lazy thinking and also offers absolutely 0 validity. What the museum guide said to you is also silly. It's his choice to show you that and it's your interpretation that matters. Nothing else. Your jump to the iconic choices for comparison leads me to believe you're trying to be an amateur critic here and that too is just silly. What you think of one piece, a billion others think another or felt something different. A billion more might think the same. See how we can't differentiate between "good" and "bad" art yet? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
A well-engineered machine that accurately mimics a complex human biological process, only to mass-produce shit? That's actually funny, interesting and provocative. | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
When I write music, I write almost completely for myself. It's not to play in front of other people for them to enjoy, or to express a message in some way. It's all about me and what I want in the song. I have no desire to write for anyone else but myself. Despite this attitude, a lot of people still like my music but I couldn't give a shit if they did like it because I didn't write it for them. The thing about art is that you can literally do anything, and SOMEONE somewhere will like it. This is because art is all about YOUR interpretation on the matter. When you listen to a song, you don't like it because someone told you to like it - you like it for whatever personal reasons you have. Maybe it's because it's attached to a good memory you have, or you know theory, and enjoy 5/4 time signatures. | ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19347 Posts
but isn't this unhealthy? ._. | ||
|
FataLe
New Zealand4501 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
Yeah I guess it's art, but it's not good art. (for me at least. I know some of you guys see deep meaning in the collection of cardboardboxes and crayons and thats fine) | ||
| ||
