Cops: Colorado woman punches, rubs her buttocks against $30 million painting - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lemonator;34071933]here comes the kids who don't get modern art[/QUOTE] here comes the kid who pretends to be an art expert

you guys are only impressed by the amount of effort it must have taken to create a certain work, which is a wrong way to view 'art'. rather, it is a means of expression meant to convey really anything meaningful, which apparently enough people agree with for this piece, but not for 'starving african child'. I know these subjective prices seem silly, but please understand that modern art doesn't exist just because rich art snobs are stupid or pretentious

[QUOTE=danielplazzy;34071761][img]http://i.imgur.com/WCw7s.png[/img] its my latest work "starving african child" you cant bad mouth it because art is subjective[/QUOTE] the starving in this artwork really stands out you can tell how oppressed his family is by it

[QUOTE=Average User;34071416][b][i]THIS[/i][/b] is worth 30 million dollars?![/QUOTE] Be outraged child, your understandings of art are very much lacking.

[QUOTE=Clementine;34072190]Be outraged child, your understandings of art are very much lacking.[/QUOTE] I agree that a lot of people don't really understand the process to make these types of things but you shouldn't say it in such a condescending way or you're only hurting your cause.

A girl in my art appreciation class got thrown out of the modern art museum here for touching one of Jackson Pollock's paintings. There was a question on the worksheet they gave us about texture, and she thought that meant you were supposed to feel the painting.

I love willful ignorance

Considering the type of people that live here I am honestly not surprised

[QUOTE=danielplazzy;34071761][img]http://i.imgur.com/WCw7s.png[/img] its my latest work "starving african child" you cant bad mouth it because art is subjective[/QUOTE] I'm trying to find the penis you inevitably snuck in this.

[QUOTE=ChilColdCoolaid;34072647]I'm trying to find the penis you inevitably snuck in this.[/QUOTE] It's the pink spaghetti strand. He be packin' yo.

I saw a picture of the painting, and honestly, I doubt they'd be able to tell if they didn't watch her do it. It looks like the artist just smeared a bunch of paint onto the canvas and called it a day. I know art is subjective and all, but honestly, I can't tell the work in question from the toilet paper I use to wipe my ass. But then someone would say the same thing about my idea of art(Re: Lancia Stratos), so lol. Also, the girl's a complete cunt. Like it or hate it you're not supposed to wipe your ass on artwork.

The art is shit but that chick sounds like a dumbass too. So yeah. [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;34072838]I saw a picture of the painting, and honestly, I doubt they'd be able to tell if they didn't watch her do it. It looks like the artist just smeared a bunch of paint onto the canvas and called it a day. I know art is subjective and all, but honestly, I can't tell the work in question from the toilet paper I use to wipe my ass. But then someone would say the same thing about my idea of art(Re: Lancia Stratos), so lol. Also, the girl's a complete cunt. Like it or hate it you're not supposed to wipe your ass on artwork. That's what the constitution is for if Congress is any indication.[/QUOTE] The reason modern art sucks so much is because you don't learn how to draw in art school anymore. You're supposed to do something, whatever it is, and explain how it's art and why it's worth being called art, and that's about it. There is absolutely no technique taught because they think you don't need technique to express an artistic view. While I think you really don't need to draw extremely well to make art, you still have to make the message clear enough so people, by looking at your piece, can actually know what you intended to do. Nowadays these "artists" just throw paint buckets at canvas and explain what that means in long explanations you can clearly see they made up on the fly.

I was just thinking about how rude this woman was... Then I noticed it was abstract art. [B]ABSTRACT ART[/B] Suddenly I don't give a fuck about the condition of the painting This is art: [img]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/st-bernard.jpg[/img] This is not: [img]http://i.imgur.com/PWGnN.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=rivershark;34072924]I was just thinking about how rude this woman was... Then I noticed it was abstract art. [B]ABSTRACT ART[/B] Suddenly I don't give a fuck about the condition of the painting This is art: [img]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/st-bernard.jpg[/img] This is not: [img]http://i.imgur.com/PWGnN.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Actually the first one is barely artistic. It's pretty, but it's meaningless, really - it's just something a painter had to paint because he was paid to make someone look badass as fuck, and that's about it. [t]http://www.radeaudelameduse.com/images/radeau.jpg[/t] This [t]http://data0.eklablog.com/hida/mod_html123575_1.jpg?8943[/t] Or this is actual art. There's a meaning behind it, lots of symbolism, and most importantly these weren't commissioned with the instructions "here, there's that guy on his horse. Make him as badass as possible so we can show how badass our army is".

lol the facepunch art circlejerk is hilarious you're like a bunch of children NO YOU CANT MAKE GOOD ART THIS IS GOOD ART SEEEEEEEE

Reminds me of that picture where the artists threw pigs blood on a canvas so many tiems that it actually began to stack and build a 3D shape and it still was jsut black old pig blood on a canvas but worth loads. I've seen it, touched it and read it, and it still is stupid. Jsut liek the one made out of dead rats.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34073040]lol the facepunch art circlejerk is hilarious you're like a bunch of children NO YOU CANT MAKE GOOD ART THIS IS GOOD ART SEEEEEEEE[/QUOTE] art is subjective but come on this is fucking retarded

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34072856] The reason modern art sucks so much is because you don't learn how to draw in art school anymore. You're supposed to do something, whatever it is, and explain how it's art and why it's worth being called art, and that's about it. There is absolutely no technique taught because they think you don't need technique to express an artistic view. While I think you really don't need to draw extremely well to make art, you still have to make the message clear enough so people, by looking at your piece, can actually know what you intended to do. Nowadays these "artists" just throw paint buckets at canvas and explain what that means in long explanations you can clearly see they made up on the fly.[/QUOTE] Even if they did teach technique they're still not gonna churn out artists. To do art you must have a natural talent. Technique alone isn't going to get your work in the Louvre or on Top Gear. Also, it seems to me that technique is optional. If the art community decides random paint smears are worth thirty million then that's all the technique you need.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously the buyer thinks it worth it.

[QUOTE=danielplazzy;34073282]art is subjective but come on this is fucking retarded[/QUOTE] Tell me, why is it you believe Abstract Expressionism doesn't deserve the same respect as other artistic movements? Oh and please, go into detail if you must

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;34071733]This is why my friend stopped studying art at the University: Why go through all that effort to paint an elaborate land-scape or life-like portrait if some clown can half-ass slap some paint on a canvas (or a bucket, or a jar of piss, in fact, forget the paint on the last one), say "it's art!" and get millions for it?[/QUOTE] your friend is an idiot if he only studied art based on money. better off he's not making art. jeez what a cry baby [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;34072856]you still have to make the message clear enough so people, by looking at your piece, can actually know what you intended to do.[/QUOTE] "have to" ughg, i would hate to live in a world where an artist would have to follow arbitrary rules. it's people like you that create the need for people to throw paint cans at canvas. [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;34073308]To do art you must have a natural talent.[/QUOTE] no such thing

all art has to be art I like otherwise it isn't [img]http://i.imgur.com/rnASX.png[/img]

[QUOTE=TestECull;34073308]Even if they did teach technique they're still not gonna churn out artists. To do art you must have a natural talent. Technique alone isn't going to get your work in the Louvre or on Top Gear. Also, it seems to me that technique is optional. If the art community decides random paint smears are worth thirty million then that's all the technique you need.[/QUOTE] Well of course you need talent, but not giving any sort of way to express it ruins a lot of potential careers. The first modern artists and the pioneers of that movement had a very good technique before deciding to dump it for more abstract work. Picasso was an amazing painter before deciding to let aesthetics apart and focus on the abstract meaning and different kinds of art. Even when he was drawing abstract stuff, there still was a very elaborate technique behind it. There was also that one painter whose name I can't remember, but he started painting a very well made, elaborate tree, and repainted it over and over again by simplifying it to the max until it wasn't much more than a bunch of lines on a white canvas. You can see the evolution here, if he immediately pulled the last painting out of his ass people would have just called him a dumbass. Artists nowadays don't have any technique at all - not being able to draw something proportionate with respect of the laws of perspective is one thing, not being able to give any sort of elaborate work is another. Plus, most abstract artists nowadays actually base themselves on artists who made fun of modern art in the first place. Copying people who parodied other people because they found their work stupid in the first place.

Holy crap, page two and we've already forgotten [B][I]some lady punched and butt-rubbed a painting in a museum, isn't that strange[/I][/B] and have now decided to tearing each other apart over what is and is not art.

[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;34074001]Holy crap, page two and we've already forgotten [B][I]some lady punched and butt-rubbed a painting in a museum, isn't that strange[/I][/B] and have now decided to tearing each other apart over what is and is not art.[/QUOTE] Actually there are just the two usual sensationalist headlines white knights who are thisispain and zeke129 (still waiting for raydir to flip out too) constantly bashing people with non-sense and defending what everyone else is blaming.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34073984] Artists nowadays don't have any technique at all - not being able to draw something proportionate with respect of the laws of perspective is one thing, not being able to give any sort of elaborate work is another. Plus, most abstract artists nowadays actually base themselves on artists who made fun of modern art in the first place. Copying people who parodied other people because they found their work stupid in the first place.[/QUOTE] You pulled this out of your arse didn't you? [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] I need a well complied excel spreadsheet of every example you can find to back up your argument

Guys, stop arguing wether it's art or not. It's art, but it's just very shitty art. At least in my opinion.

See, the way I think about modern art is that it's like poking fun at something that's fundamentally nonsensical, but an unchangable law nonetheless. So it's a bit like laughing about a plot hole in a book, if that book were real. Sort of a lampshading type of thing.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY[/media] art

[QUOTE=rivershark;34072924]I was just thinking about how rude this woman was... Then I noticed it was abstract art. [B]ABSTRACT ART[/B] Suddenly I don't give a fuck about the condition of the painting This is art: [img]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/david/st-bernard.jpg[/img] This is not: [img]http://i.imgur.com/PWGnN.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] They're both works of art, but in the latter I'm guessing you have to figure out what it is. Look at it long enough, and you'll find something. When I was at a college for a tour, I saw this jumble of colors called a "painting" in the waiting room by the lobby. I didn't know what the hell it was, but the longer I looked at it, the more I thought about it and eventually saw something in it. It looked like a hallway lined with lockers, and everything was on fire. Some colors seemed to represent shadows or even light shining in from classroom windows, with the sunshine burning through the doors of said classrooms. It was beautiful, but only because I could interpret my perspective on it. With Still's painting, I can sort of see a forest or bog at dusk. [editline]6th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Spybreak;34074200][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY[/media] art[/QUOTE] Most things can be art - good or bad - but that, my friend, is purely [i]hipster bullshit[/i].