Post art you like - Page 5

On May 27 2007 19:02 [jOyO] wrote:
Frida Khalo has a wierd and almost disturbing style, but its interesting.
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/femhist/FridaKhalo.jpg
Another Goya
http://www.penwith.co.uk/artofeurope/goya_execution_rebels.jpg

On May 27 2007 18:54 zulu_nation8 wrote:
after the fountain, everything is art.

On May 27 2007 19:27 zuqbu wrote:


I'm sorry, but you missed the point.

On May 28 2007 02:33 zulu_nation8 wrote:
douchebaggery

On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote:
I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.

On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote:
As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.

On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote:
The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.

On May 28 2007 02:59 asla wrote:

. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide.

On May 28 2007 02:33 zulu_nation8 wrote:


Your point is, if something doesn't allow interpretation, its not art. Who the fuck are you to decide what allows and doesn't allow interpretation? To start, if that propaganda piece was made today instead of during the war then it would certainly allow many many interpretations. If you didn't know the context behind the work do you group it into art or not art? How much interpretation do the works of Peter Paul Rubins allow? Is he admired for his craft or his artistic content? Next time when you respond don't type some fuckin douchebaggery one liner and pretend like you actually had something to say.

On May 28 2007 02:52 zulu_nation8 wrote:


ROFL nice definition, if you believe that then take off the Renoir you posted because its content allows for as much interpretation as the title of this thread.




LOLOL you're offended by its content so therefore it shouldn't called art? That picture made me think a lot in fact, mainly anti-semitic and racist thoughts, much more than the impressionist pieces you posted. I'm sorry i didn't recognize your right as the supreme judge of artistic content within moral boundaries.




"narrow-minded" rofls, ok maxdigsoda

On May 28 2007 03:53 statix wrote:


whats the controversy? the guy had a shitty life...and he shot himself in the head. he even fucked up at that and lived for a few more days in pain before he died.

On May 28 2007 04:44 zuqbu wrote:


I was trying to reply to this, but the whole point of your post seems to be an attempt to insult me. Again, please do not move this discussion to a personal level.

On May 28 2007 04:24 zuqbu wrote:


No, that's not my point. I stated that art allows room for interpretation, of course everything allows interpretation but (good) art is manifested by the individual perception. How much space for individual perception is in the poster? In my opinion bar none, in fact it wants to convince it's audience to only one action. Further on, I was making my point about this image while not trying to start this argument because it's leading nowhere. I also said that the way this propaganda (and propaganda in general) was made hasn't changed in 60 years, which lies in the character of the message it's transporting. So the context in this case doesn't matter for me. But in general the context is very important, as you said if someone today would paint in the way Rubens did it isn't likely to fit into the modern definition of art. Because it was already done, and art tries to reinvent itself in ever faster reoccurring cycles. Every stream of artists tries to redefine this definition, just have a look at the extreme examples: the futurists, dada, the avantgarde (and post-avantgarde, especially the situationists). This renders the discussion about what actually is art so difficult.

'The fountain' itself is such a provoking work that you can't discuss it without provoking others. One could say that it's real intention is that others start to fight about it. Your point that it makes art arbitrary provoked me, and I replied in the same manner. Please do not take this discussion to a personal level because it won't help any of us.