Hay I'm gonna see it, I loved paprika and perfect blue is what I'm gonna watch this week.
And that's why I like you.
FUCK MY EAR HURTS FUCKING FUCK
join the club, I just had a troath surgery, a week of broken sleep and painkillers, and no voice to complain, neither.
I can't have bread, beacon, habranero sauce, booze or wine till the end of month.
And I just got gifted beer. :smith:
Just got some teeth pulled myself. A week of playing pokeman's while high as a kite on vicodin.
God damn I fucking love vicodin. It's like getting a big hug from a cloud that makes all the pain go away.
Had some Norco saved away from my knee surgery a few months back too. Norco is like super vicodin. So I like Norco too.
Never got how anyone could like Morphine though. The stuff just makes an already confusing world even more confusing.
However, Dilotten(or however it's spelled) is the nectar of fucking God. Knocks you on your ass immediately, the most powerful and instant chill juice ever created. Only problem is it can stop your heart. Pity.
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
Maybe if I downed a couple vicodin my FUCKING EAR WOULD STOP HURTING
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
Want me to send you some Tylenol and Codeine? Never took a liking to the stuff, though I hear it helps with pain.
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
New topic: Awesome drugs
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
good god i love painkillers
Only tylenol I know of is the trololenol
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wytn-_MSBo&feature=related[/media]
Well I suppose that's close enough
[QUOTE=Greeneyes;27378003]I have no idea what's happening..... D:[/QUOTE]
Someone dropped a nuke and now the children are bitching about it. Being dead and all.
Hello CC. You probably don't remember me, but I posted in a few threads and stuff. I love this section, there's some truly amazing stuff here. So I'm gonna browse and throw my worthless opinion around some more :v:
So main reason for posting in this thread is that I am wondering what everyone here thinks of the Tate Modern? The question may only really apply to anyone who lives anywhere near London but hey. I think most of the stuff in the Tate is just pretentious rubbish, but it's possible to find good stuff hidden inside those halls somewhere. And I haven't been for a few years so maybe it got better... Just wondering what y'all think of it.
[QUOTE=Dude Meister;27389972]Hello CC. You probably don't remember me, but I posted in a few threads and stuff. I love this section, there's some truly amazing stuff here. So I'm gonna browse and throw my worthless opinion around some more :v:
So main reason for posting in this thread is that I am wondering what everyone here thinks of the Tate Modern? The question may only really apply to anyone who lives anywhere near London but hey. I think most of the stuff in the Tate is just pretentious rubbish, but it's possible to find good stuff hidden inside those halls somewhere. And I haven't been for a few years so maybe it got better... Just wondering what y'all think of it.[/QUOTE]
Well like any museum of modern art you have to take a lot of the works with a grain of salt. If you always go in with the idea that "this isn't art, this guy just slapped some paint against the canvas and called it art" then you're not going to get much out of viewing those kind of works. It takes an open mind to attempt to get a true emotional response from some of the really out there non-objective pieces.
And you know what, I look at some pieces and it makes me angry, angry for some reason that isn't quite defined, maybe due to the fact that the rubbish before me was deemed gallery worthy, but you know that itself is an emotional response.
I can understand that if a piece is designed to warrent an unpleasent emotional response, then it's working fine and doing its job as a work of art. I can be open-minded, but it doesn't mean I have to like that kind of thing. Yeah I can even see artistic value in that canvas painted a solid grey colour entitled 'grey', but I guess I just have bad taste :v:
I don't think that urinal thing was art though. Or Tracey Emin's "My Bed". I hate that bitch. I'm looking at the current state of my own bed and it looks just as artistic as that piece of shit does. But I don't see myself making a fortune off of bullshit.
I've been in the Tate Modern a couple of times on my trips to London and the Guggenheim in New York. I disliked both.
I'm not even sure why. There's some modern/abstract stuff I love, but for the vast majority of the time it is painted on canvas, like Rothko:
[img]http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g050_rothko_rotp.jpg[/img]
Because, despite its simplicity, and having worked with various paint mediums before, I can appreciate the work and design that has gone into his pieces.
The problem with the Tate is all the new-age sculpture crap. Horrible proportioned humans and random domestic objects scattered around an area, floating around on string n stuff... bah! I really don't get it. Maybe I'm just a huge philistine.
There was a piece at the Guggenheim while I was there that was a dark room carpeted with bass-y white-noise being played loudly from large speakers. There were interesting pieces made from hanging objects that created pictures in shadows and other lighting effects. You had to take your shoes and socks off before entering so you could feel the bass through the carpets.
That was good.While the emotional response wasn't huge, the piece was hugely original and highly evocative to numerous senses. Now I can't remember whether I saw this at the Tate or not but a bunch of bricks neatly lain out on the floor, on the other hand:
[img]http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue7/images/carlandre_equivalentviii.jpg[/img]
No emotional response. Barely any sensory response. Pointless.
That Rothko thing you posted I can appreciate. It may be simple, but it seems to have a lot of 'mood' in it. It feels like it has a feeling with it, like the painting has a soul. random scattering of objects, not so much. And I always hated those horribly proportioned things. There's a difference between doing a good stylised drawing/sculpture (such as Henry Moore's stuff), and just pissing about because you can't pull off realistic proportions (probably not true at all, but I get that feeling off those kinds of work, which is wrong).
But hey it's just my opinion.
And mine differs from yours with that last piece you've posted... I can appreciate aspects of it (oh no I'm turning into one of those pretentious art critics I hate so much aren't I?), but I'm not sure if that's just because of the way it's been photographed. Maybe the real thing just looks like a pile o' bricks in an open room..
[QUOTE=Dude Meister;27392001]Maybe the real thing just looks like a pile o' bricks in an open room..[/QUOTE]
[img]http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/equivalent_files/image001.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.tate.org.uk/images/cms/12624w_bricks2.jpg[/img]
Pretty much.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;27391774][img_thumb]http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue7/images/carlandre_equivalentviii.jpg[/img_thumb]
No emotional response. Barely any sensory response. Pointless.[/QUOTE]
That looks great to me.
It's probably not as great when looked at in a room, but the photo serves it well.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;27392053][img_thumb]http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/equivalent_files/image001.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://www.tate.org.uk/images/cms/12624w_bricks2.jpg[/img_thumb]
Pretty much.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that looks kinda terrible. I like it to an extent though because I really am a man by rules and tidiness.
As a rule, if you can talk about the piece for longer than it took you to make it, it is art.
[QUOTE=technologic;27394140]As a rule, if you can talk about the piece for longer than it took you to make it, it is art.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://ploader.net/files/d924d8ebfeab5784839f6ab6aa7f93bc.png[/img]
I do not believe that is real.
There is no way you can convince me somebody made that and had a serious face.
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
Also, thanks for the headache.
Yeah, I'm 80% sure that it's a troll-example, but it still stands that there's lots of people who'll scribble something then talk for ages about it.
hey let's get some fucking suprematism in here motherfuckers
[img]http://suprematism.org/fs2226ct06-a.jpg[/img]
Therefore supporting my statement.
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
Fucking ninja Scorpio :argh:
suprematist art is so clean cut, probably why i love it.
[QUOTE=technologic;27395552]Therefore supporting my statement.
[editline]13th January 2011[/editline]
Fucking ninja Scorpio :argh:[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QEsjd1WZuY[/media]
I feel like going off on a quick tangent about the statement, "if you can talk about the piece for longer than it took you to make it". Obviously this applies to fine art, and most traditional mediums (to an extent). You can even argue for fine art photography, but it's more about the fine art that's being photographed than the actual final result if you ask me.
On a broad spectrum, though, a person can spend hours, days, months on a painting, a concept, finding that perfect shot... and I think the most artistic thing is that they can do is not explain it, but display it and not say a single word. Art will be received regardless of time, but may be ignored if you have to stand there and say THAT IS THE JOKE.
What makes art, to me, is the fact that it can be perceived by anyone at a personal level, invoke a feeling or reaction. I would buy that art because it speaks to me; not because it is rare, or because it tells me it's that thing I like without me figuring that out for myself, but because I give it personal value by filling in the blanks.
If the viewer can talk about it longer than it took you to make it, you have made art.
Well put.
Actually that kinda depends on the viewer. I never have much to say about a piece of art, other than my opinion of it. There are some things out there I just love, and can't explain why. I wouldn't be able to talk about a piece like that for hours and hours... It's a nice, uh, proverb I guess, but ultimately it can't be used as a definition of what art actually is..
how about we just conclude that catgirls aren't art and call it a day
[QUOTE=Dude Meister;27400521]Actually that kinda depends on the viewer. I never have much to say about a piece of art, other than my opinion of it. There are some things out there I just love, and can't explain why. I wouldn't be able to talk about a piece like that for hours and hours... It's a nice, uh, proverb I guess, but ultimately it can't be used as a definition of what art actually is..[/QUOTE]
indeed, art is subjective and not everyone responds to the same pieces (or art in general) the same, and ultimately "it is what you/the viewer makes of it", but in regards to the previous statement, I argued my thoughts on similar terms.
To the rest of you, what do you personally think qualifies something as 'art'? (ignoring subjectivity, just a general thought)
As far as I'm concerned, if the artist intends a piece of work to be art, then it technically is in my mind. Doesn't necessarily mean it's any good (such as a non-parody version of what you posted earlier), or will have any artistic value to the general public/community. But it'd still technically count as art to me.
I hate the genre of 'fine art', no offense to anyone seriously pursuing it, but the majority of the time I feel like it's a blanket term for generic art that isn't developed enough to be categorized anywhere else. For alot of people, it's an excuse to not really know what you're doing, but look like you do. I understand that there are legitimate 'fine arts', but I feel like most of it is bullshit. I'll elaborate.
It's hard to explain, but I'm talking about for example a photographer's goal to take a picture that looks like a picture. Or a painting that's painted to look like a painting. No actual content, just that it looks like it has content. The art is made for the empty sake of being labeled art, without actually having real artistic value. It's like if you were playing a game and the whole time you were saying to yourself "im playing a video game" rather than actually being immersed in the story. It's subjective so it's hard for me to find a good example. I'm not talking about hipsters or 14 year old girls, but rather the people who have the professional attitude and sort of 'roleplay' being an 'artist'. It's usually perpetrated by people who one day decide to be an artist and try to make a career out of it like they picked it for career day in elementary school. They decide they're a photographer (for example) so they go take pictures just for the sake of having artistic [i]looking[/i] photos. It's like those cheap romance novels, the author decided they were going to be an author for the pure sake of being an 'author'.
[url=http://hisgift.wordpress.com/high-school-and-college-seniors/]This[/url] is what I'm talking about. In the about section they state they have a Bachelor’s of Art in Fine Arts.
It's not my place to decide whats art and what isn't, but when I feel like the artist has the wrong motivations, I respond negatively to it. That in itself qualifies it as art, but it wasn't intentional.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
