Post art you like - Page 6

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 05:43 Navane wrote:
"'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." -zuqbu

so what is the difference of the OP and the fountain?

" Why am I narrow minded just because I think there is a difference between art, kitsch and trash? Especially in this case. And please tell me why I force anyone's perception by stating that art actually is about individual interpretation. Oh wait! Your reply actually proves my point. Thanks." -zuqbu

you state that art is about individuel interpretation, and continue stating that there is no way i can intepreterate () the OP in any other way than propaganda. If both statements are true, then your right. But let me look at the OP again:

It strikes me a little babel-esque, but all the different backgrounds form a unity wich actually accomplish something unlike the babel-dudes. The style reminds me also of dahli, wich painted a lot of absurd combinations of parts, forming a unity. As if trying to say: dont argue, but work together. Also the styles of the background, the giant guy and the city are quite the same, as if we, the victim and them, the victors are all the same. It couldve been the other way around as well.

Quality of art is also determined by the amount of people 'moved' by it. I won't say it was this piece of art wich moved all the people. But we both know that the genre an sich, moved quite a lot of people to do things wich are talked about even today. It brought people together.

You said it was anti-american; i see it as pro american: it shows how they overcame their inner differences and now act as a unity. So here we have two interpretations already.

When i saw the toilet, i just scrolled further, i thought it was a joke. The explanation made it art, not the piece itself.

On May 28 2007 06:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:


so you can't reply to this because you are insulted by it?

On May 28 2007 06:46 zuqbu wrote:
Lots of questions



The way I see it, the fountain was created to provoke while the propaganda was made to convince people to fight a war. The provocation lies in the context that OP posted it as art, not in the image itself. Of course it may be provoking to us now, but not in the context or to the audience it was originally made for.
Second thought: Maybe provoking is not the correct word, I struggle with language at this point. The targeted audience was of course provoked as this poster makes the point that an american invasion will force it's culture upon the losing nation(s), thus making it necessary to win the war to preserve the own style of life. But the way it does make the point is a completely different one than the fountain does, far more obvious, with prejudices mixed in to exaggerate the emotion. The quality of the provocation is at a completely different level.
Can you understand my point? (Not questioning your intelligence but my english 'skills' to make an argument)

In my opinion the elements do not form a unity but show a distorted selection of threats. I mean just look at it, with the KKK mask and the oppression of black people. This is Nazi war propaganda, and the they state that the opposing force is actually the racist? How does this fit together?



This is of course so very true. I asked you to prove the quality of the image to me, and this is a valid way to do so. But I think there's a difference between having the absolute intention to 'move' people rather than giving them the option or initiative to do so.



Could your interpretation be valid for the the targeted audience at the time it was made (One subline said it was made 1944)? Imagine yourself living at the time, with a war around you that's been going on since 5 years.



To me the intention already made it art, if you look at the time and the context it was made there is no further explanation needed

On May 28 2007 07:16 zuqbu wrote:


No, I won't reply to this because I think that replying to an insult (the way I received your post) might only cause in insulting you. I do not want to do this, you're absolutely right to have an opinion. Why should I attack you, you're a complete stranger to me and beside our differences in this argument we don't know anything about each other.
We can have an argument about art, which might be even necessary. If your origin is Chinese as your title says we are facing completely different cultural backgrounds and have a completely different reception of art. This should make the argument interesting, not personal.

On May 28 2007 07:26 Cpt Obvious wrote:
zuqbu I agree with alot you said, but you need to JLIG and realize that what zulu said is true also.

You're biased against the poster in the OP and therefore have no right to claim being objective.
And besides I don't think the intention of the OP was to raise a discussion about what is art and what is not. I found it interesting but I think it'd be best if we just got back to posting pictures, preferably even without that "pseudointellectual bullshit".

On May 28 2007 08:16 zuqbu wrote:


I think you misinterpreted me, I'm far from being objective. I'm not claiming so, if you look at the original reply I made to the OP you will see that my whole opinion evolves around the need to discuss the propaganda image, and not letting it be there unobjected/uncommented. Just look at the last reply I made to Navane, I think that I'm very open to contributions (Am I?), I even ask others to make a point that eventually changes my opinion.

This is a thread about art, and it's unworthy without the discussion. This is what art is about, if you don't argument about it you're denying one of the main reasons it has been created for.

And why is it 'pseudo' to have an opinion and reasoning it? I know you're just quoting the term, but let me explain myself. I didn't originally want to write this because it may seem that I think of my opinion in a more absolute way: I'm student of graphic design and illustration and I'm taking art history and art theory lessons since years. The argument in this thread is not 'pseudo' but very, very important and necessary. Hell, every artists wants an argument about his work.
Again, to clarify myself: Having lessons on the topic does not make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. Of course it has influence on my perception but I really respect every statement made in this thread. I hope the people I addressed receive it that way, because the topic is very important to me.

On May 28 2007 05:13 boghat wrote:

What do you have against Van Gogh?

On May 28 2007 06:30 asla wrote:


Actually the bullet went through his stomach and it is not known if he did it intentionally. Yea he was fucked up, but it was basically all because of his art not being recoginzed. The irony is he died, suicide or not, only a few years before his work became popular. Maybe because of his death, maybe not.