Leaked photos of JLaw and KUpton to be used in art exhibit - Polidicks

[quote]Leaked nude images of Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton hacked and posted online over the weekend will be featured in an upcoming art exhibit at The Cory Allen Contemporary Art Showroom in St. Petersburg, Fla. The images will be included in an collection titled “No Delete” by artist XVALA.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/09/04/leaked-nude-photos-jennifer-lawrence-kate-upton-to-be-showcased-at-art-gallery/?intcmp=features[/url]

...Art.... Right....

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;45891844]...Art.... Right....[/QUOTE] You clearly just don't understand ~art~.

"artist" XVALA should go learn what art is, instead of showing off famous people's naked pictures.

-snip I can't into English-

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;45891844]...Art.... Right....[/QUOTE] Everything can be construed as art. Also I would look up Dadaism.

I imagine a quite strange group of people will come to this exhibit now but yeah, it is a sort of interesting premise for why he's doing it. Why not use the loophole of it being art if it will help his message be spread(or were those pictures actually copyrighted? I don't remember) [quote=article] He told FOX411 the images of Lawrence and Upton were just a small part of a much larger exhibit about privacy in today’s society. Plus, [B]he said they’re art, not photos.[/B] “We’re not posting them… [B]and we don’t see them as photos. [The artist] sees it as art,[/B]” Allen said. “He’s not trying to exploit anything. He’s basically just mirroring who we are today. I think if he was really concerned and too worried about the legality side of it, [B]it would challenge the integrity of the art.”[/B][/quote]

*snip cause I don't need two posts

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;45891856]"artist" XVALA should go learn what art is, instead of showing off famous people's naked pictures.[/QUOTE] okay? do you even know what his exhibition is about? it's not like the whole exhibition is about nude celebrity pictures. [quote]He told FOX411 the images of Lawrence and Upton were just a small part of a much larger exhibit about privacy in today’s society.[/quote] sounds pretty interesting, even, tbh.

Reminds me of this [img]http://i.imgur.com/8Rj6Ma9.gif[/img] ~~Art~~

[QUOTE=zotic;45891899]Reminds me of this [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8Rj6Ma9.gif[/IMG] ~~Art~~[/QUOTE] there's a huge difference on this though, the sculpture shows a explicit lack of skill by the artist, the exhibit on the OP is more of a research on privacy on today's society, not a shitty sculpture. there are amazing contemporary art installations and there's a bunch of shitty ones yeah, but this used to happen back then and it mirrors to music or pretty much anything else. there will always be mediocrity in whatever areas of creative work. this is an amazing contemporary art installation: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_pyramid[/URL] and unlike a bunch of old artists that we consider ~amazing~ today this will be remembered a THOUSAND years from now because it will still be VERY relevant. my point is that you can't just diss everything you see. contemporary art has gotten itself a terrible reputation because of dumb art the media likes to ridicularize. there's a lot to see in >our< world of art right now, you just need to look in the right place. how can someone disagree with this post tbh baffles me. i would love to write a post explaining art history to you fellas but what's the point? i hope i don't shatter your dreams when i tell you back in the 17th century those giant, super detailed panels weren't all painted by one person. they hired a bunch of people from the academy specialized in specific topics (hands, heads, landscapes, architecture, etc) to do the full paintings for them, and they'd sign them afterwards. there was very strict (almost none) true poetic to any art work by the artist before the 19th century when romantism came along breaking all the chains, and then came photography and the only reason you have masters like van gogh, monet, even fucking picasso is because people were willing to do new shit. van gogh didn't sell a SINGLE PAINTING on his lifetime because his work was dissed. see this? [t]http://mesosyn.com/pp-e1.jpg[/t] it was done by picasso. same guy who made this: [t]http://www.museoreinasofia.es/sites/default/files/obras/DE01840_0.jpg[/t] this is a picasso study on deconstructing a bull: [t]http://asymptotia.com/wp-images/2010/02/picasso_bull.jpg[/t] now you know what's the most fucking insane thing about this study? people would never really stylize something to this point in purpose before modernism. AT ALL. i mean it. if something came out this stylized it was instantly considered BAD. nobody ever fucking doodled a stylized bull before because they felt like it was irrelevant or pointless. this dude brought such forms and representations like this to the table. these two: [t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tJfjqQNckdQ/UKAJCj4cklI/AAAAAAAAAkU/bdTme-qN4-I/s1600/Going+West.jpg[/t] [t]https://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/benton_people_of_chilmark.jpg[/t] were made by jackson pollock, who INVENTED action painting pretty much: [t]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg[/t] my point is: give these people a fucking chance, trust me: they're trying. it's not like this dude doesn't have a whole study/research and most importantly a written project to hand in to the institution that is going to expose his work (most museums will refuse your work, even if it's got an amazing idea behind it if you can't truly make a good project for it). contemporary artists want to bring new stuff but it's SO HARD to do nowadays because it feels like everything has already been done. and yes, there's a lot of shitty contemporary art but it's just BOUND to happen, just like (going to repeat myself) there's a lot of shitty music, tv shows, products and pretty much everything that comes out of creative work. if the exposition comes out bad: then you're able to criticize it and say it's shitty. but right now all we know is that his exhibition talks about privacy on today's society. and sorry if this seems a little bit biased but i kind of think the jlaw photos are definitely fit for the subject. there's a lot that goes into this guys, and what you're doing right now is sitting on your ass making fun of somebody's work. because this is exactly what websites that post "~lel modern art~" want you to do. the media loves and has loved ridicularizing art of its time for the last couple centuries.

[QUOTE=circuitbawx;45891864]What statement is trying to be made here[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The images will be included in an collection titled “No Delete” by artist XVALA.[/QUOTE] gee I dunno use your imagination

I don't see how this isn't art. It's a strong, striking and contemporary commentary on the fragility of privacy in our digital society.

[QUOTE=zotic;45891899]Reminds me of this ~~Art~~[/QUOTE] I never really dug that I mean a dragon carved out of a tree is cool for maybe 2-5 minutes because in the end it's just a dragon carved out of a tree.

too bad the photos do not belong to the artist, and the subject has [i]definitely[/i] not given consent. massive rules that any photographer/artist are bound by on pain of having the everloving fuck sued out of them for public display and/or monetization. [editline]e[/editline] lmao it's definitely a pretentious neo-performance artist [img]http://i.imgur.com/WfsQEjv.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/6k2aUUy.png[/img] The wiki article has been deleted twice now due to it lacking any real context to facts people who go around saying current art is all pretentious bullshit because people like this exist aren't much better than these dipshits pursuing the 'I could shit on a canvas' mantra.

I had to take a college class about just studying art to understand just how to define art. Art is hard to define (at least, at first). Everyone has their own opinions about what should and shouldn't be considered art. However, that's where subjectivity plays. The objective definition of art (that we at least arrived to in my class) is that, to be considered art, the item in question must have form, conception, and reception. In other words, it must be tangible. An idea isn't art until it's put into physical form, be it music, words on paper, voice, paintings, sculptures, etc. The conception bit means that the creator (or person who found the naturally made object in question) conceived the object as art. The reception bit can be a bit tricky. For an item to be classified as art, it must have an audience recognize it as art. The audience can be the artist themselves, the general public, an individual, etc. It just has to be received as art by someone. A lot of art seems stupid. But that isn't a question of whether it IS art. It's a question of whether the art is good or bad. Shit art exists, but it is still considered art when you use that objective definition.

So can nude threads be allowed on 4chan again without fear of DMCA if the op just says "art thread"?

come to think of it, who wants to take a bet that this is one of those cases where he either plans it (or will back down and claim that he planned it) where there never was going to be an exhibit, and it was a ~social experiment~ to see how people would react. offhand I remember the guy who sold tickets to see his gay virginity taken backed out and claimed it was for the reactions [editline]4th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=thrawn2787;45892383]So can nude threads be allowed on 4chan again without fear of DMCA if the op just says "art thread"?[/QUOTE] it's basically there so news sites back off of 4chan, and so they can snip shit if things hit the fan without the userbase having the wiggleroom to say 'but you didn't say we couldn't do that!'

I seriously doubt there was any artistic intent, and even if there was they're either going to be arrested or sued for it I'm sure

[QUOTE=Elspin;45892468]I seriously doubt there was any artistic intent, and even if there was they're either going to be arrested or sued for it I'm sure[/QUOTE] If there was there would be a little less "look at me LOOK AT ME!!" to the artist in question, given as noted in another post the artist wants to disappear from the internet and yet has A FUCKING TWITTER ACCOUNT!

I'm going to squat over a canvas and take a huge watery diarrhea shit all over it and pass it off as an artistic metaphor for how shit modern art is. You guys wouldn't understand my artistic vision anyway but by all your definitions it would still be art.

[QUOTE=Midas22;45892785]I'm going to squat over a canvas and take a huge watery diarrhea shit all over it and pass it off as an artistic metaphor for how shit modern art is. You guys wouldn't understand my artistic vision anyway but by all your definitions it would still be art.[/QUOTE] Yup. That's right!

[QUOTE=Midas22;45892785]I'm going to squat over a canvas and take a huge watery diarrhea shit all over it and pass it off as an artistic metaphor for how shit modern art is. You guys wouldn't understand my artistic vision anyway but by all your definitions it would still be art.[/QUOTE] If you shat on a canvas, called it art, and other people saw it as art, then it is art. Whether or not you did a good job is up for decision. :v: But someone already kind of beat you to it. Regarding [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29#Interventions"]this[/URL]: [QUOTE]Several performance artists have attempted to "contribute" to the piece by urinating in it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Midas22;45892785]I'm going to squat over a canvas and take a huge watery diarrhea shit all over it and pass it off as an artistic metaphor for how shit modern art is. You guys wouldn't understand my artistic vision anyway but by all your definitions it would still be art.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=dai;45892266]dipshits pursuing the 'I could shit on a canvas' mantra.[/QUOTE] ¦:J

[QUOTE=dai;45893274]¦:J[/QUOTE] I'm not a dipshit. You just don't understand art obviously.

[QUOTE=Midas22;45893333]I'm not a dipshit. You just don't understand art obviously.[/QUOTE] If you weren't a dipshit, you'd post a picture of your watery diarrhea running down a canvas. Actually, can the Toxx clause be invoked here?

[QUOTE=Krinkels;45893374]If you weren't a dipshit, you'd post a picture of your watery diarrhea running down a canvas. Actually, can the Toxx clause be invoked here?[/QUOTE] Do you really want to see his shit this much?

Chris Ofili won the Turner prize. His pictures incorporate elephant dung

[QUOTE=verynicelady;45893423]Chris Ofili won the Turner prize. His pictures incorporate elephant dung[/QUOTE] A true mastermind. The shades of brown in the piles of shit truly express the struggle and decline of the elephant population and the flies are a metaphor for poachers and game hunters that strive off them.

[QUOTE=Midas22;45893333]I'm not a dipshit. You just don't understand art obviously.[/QUOTE] I like how you think "haha poop art" is still funny and not something every edgy internet kid has been saying forever like you're just regurgitating old jokes that were never particularly poignant in the first place