[disturbing] Brazilian "artist" makes his face a dog's - Polidicks

[QUOTE=joes33431;28485150]actually, america could be in relation to either North America or South America. Those two are continents. America is not a continent, it is two continents. I only figure, since you want to be a smartass literal douchebag[/QUOTE] Yes, I were totally serious about my post. It's just you people who reply to me telling I'm wrong and showing off how witty and smart you are, hence feeding me on doing more irrelevant posts about whether America is a continent or a country. I think we got over this bullshit already, but some people, who are dumb (Note: You), have to continue this off-topic conversation that has nothing to do with dogmen. It's funny to watch this.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28492827]Creative expression is just some bullshit term so that a messy blob of shit on a canvas can be counted as such.[/QUOTE] welp you [I]do[/I] know better than the dictionary so i guess that settles that you shouldn't come into a discussion about something you've never put that much thought into and then challenge the widely accepted definition of the term that everyone is talking about

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28494600]welp you [I]do[/I] know better than the dictionary so i guess that settles that you shouldn't come into a discussion about something you've never put that much thought into and then challenge the widely accepted definition of the term that everyone is talking about[/QUOTE] Widely accepted by whom? Half a dozen people on an internet forum?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28494933]Widely accepted by whom? [/QUOTE] Do you live under a rock?

[QUOTE=Sanius;28494947]Do you live under a rock?[/QUOTE] Other than hippies who accepts it as art? There's 7 billion people in the world and not all of them think that degenerate art is wonderful.

hahah this guy is a loon

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28494964] There's 7 billion people in the world and not all of them think that degenerate art is wonderful.[/QUOTE] What the fuck makes you think art has to be "wonderful?"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28494933]Widely accepted by whom? Half a dozen people on an internet forum?[/QUOTE] accepted by the dictionary doy [URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art[/URL] no where does it say art must necessarily be skillfull or beautiful to be art, it simply lists those as common qualities [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;28495052]What the fuck makes you think art has to be "wonderful?"[/QUOTE] also what is degenerate art and how is it's degeneracy not wholly subjective? [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] i mean you seem to think that art has some objective quality to it and that is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth

[QUOTE=Sanius;28495052]What the fuck makes you think art has to be "wonderful?"[/QUOTE] Well clearly all the liberal idiots who cream their pants upon seeing something like a cow cut in half and says it is expressing the soul and inner heart of the artist and other filler words that makes it sound impressive when all such art is just some tacky shit. Ohh they are expressing themselves what shit is that? They should do something useful for society like work in industry or business rather than ejaculate onto a canvas then sell them for millions to idiots who run art museums that themselves look like a paper mache model that got pummelled by an artillery strike and cost 10 times the original budget.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28495177]Well clearly all the liberal idiots who cream their pants upon seeing something like a cow cut in half and says it is expressing the soul and inner heart of the artist and other filler words that makes it sound impressive when all such art is just some tacky shit. Ohh they are expressing themselves what shit is that? They should do something useful for society like work in industry or business rather than ejaculate onto a canvas then sell them for millions to idiots who run art museums that themselves look like a paper mache model that got pummelled by an artillery strike and cost 10 times the original budget.[/QUOTE] yo if you're not gonna argue without hyperbole or childish name calling (+plus bringing politics into it out of some weirdly expressed disdain for liberals) then don't bother

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28495177]Well clearly all the liberal idiots who cream their pants upon seeing something like a cow cut in half and says it is expressing the soul and inner heart of the artist and other filler words that makes it sound impressive when all such art is just some tacky shit. Ohh they are expressing themselves what shit is that? They should do something useful for society like work in industry or business rather than ejaculate onto a canvas then sell them for millions to idiots who run art museums that themselves look like a paper mache model that got pummelled by an artillery strike and cost 10 times the original budget.[/QUOTE] That's nice, but if an artist cuts a cow in half and proclaims it as art, what makes it not art? The fact that you don't like it?

This is rather...disturbing [QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;28495314]Dudes, this is sort of fake. It appeared on the news some time ago. The art isn't that he actually did that on his face, but by pretending he did making everyone discuss it like this. Well played and worked.[/QUOTE] It looks pretty real/legit to me

[QUOTE=Sanius;28495286]That's nice, but if an artist cuts a cow in half and proclaims it as art, what makes it not art? The fact that you don't like it?[/QUOTE] It's the fact it makes no sense.

[IMG]http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/654/bodythinker394x450.jpg[/IMG] Body World exhibits could be (if you were so inclined) rhetorically broken down to "just a bunch of humans cut open" but it's representations of humanity are certainly artful. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;28495357]It's the fact it makes no sense.[/QUOTE] to you. Jackson Pollock's paintings may just look like random splatter, but they make sense if you insert your own interpretations into them. their subjectivity is what makes them artful [U][media]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/737/pollocknumberone1948.jpg[/media][/U]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28495357]It's the fact it makes no sense.[/QUOTE] to you

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28495360][U][media]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/737/pollocknumberone1948.jpg[/media][/U][/QUOTE] Looks like a random mess of paint splatters. I don't get it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28495488]Looks like a random mess of paint splatters. [/QUOTE] It looks like a forest to me, dude.

[QUOTE=Sanius;28495286]That's nice, but if an artist cuts a cow in half and proclaims it as art, what makes it not art? The fact that you don't like it?[/QUOTE] All Art should be something that everyone likes. I mean, I don't get all this stupid shit about being "new" and "innovative". All art should should follow strict rules because that's what art's all about. If I were to make a change, shit like Surrealism and Impressionism would be banned. Salvador Dali just painted a bunch of random shit and guys like Monet just painted like he was fucking blind. See if only things were always the same art would be so much more interesting. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] by the way this post was sarcastic.

[QUOTE=pie_is_good;28496409]All Art should be something that everyone likes. I mean, I don't get all this stupid shit about being "new" and "innovative". All art should should follow strict rules because that's what art's all about. If I were to make a change, shit like Surrealism and Impressionism would be banned. Salvador Dali just painted a bunch of random shit and guys like Monet just painted like he was fucking blind. See if only things were always the same art would be so much more interesting. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] by the way this post was sarcastic.[/QUOTE] Yeah all art should be expression of the soul, the artist clearly is an intelligent individual who takes on postmodern society and shows the evil of modern day corporatism and how clearly a vegan lifestyle is the most healthy.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28495360]to you. Jackson Pollock's paintings may just look like random splatter, but they make sense if you insert your own interpretations into them. their subjectivity is what makes them artful[/QUOTE] No. Pollocks is bollocks. Nothing about that man is art.

Well it seems like you've just given up all together and decided to avoid making actual points and just resort to hyperbole. Finding meaning in art is a subjective thing and if someone actually believes that, then fine. If they don't like it, that's fine too. But saying it's not art because it's different or that you don't like it is just plain asinine.

I took a crap shaped like a person once. I didn't pretend it was art.

you fuckers, I was eating when I saw this!!!

-Snip- I can't read.

[QUOTE=Motherfucker;28497006]I took a crap shaped like a person once. I didn't pretend it was art.[/QUOTE] thank you for your scathing commentary, you sure showed me

Who gives a fuck what art is or what art is not. It's better with no rules cause then people can do whatever they want and we end up with weird shit like this to talk about or awesome shit to talk about.

[QUOTE=Motherfucker;28497006]I took a crap shaped like a person once. I didn't pretend it was art.[/QUOTE] It would be art if you said it was.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28495488]Looks like a random mess of paint splatters. I don't get it.[/QUOTE] because you aren't trying to get it silly. if you can look at something and immediately know exactly what it is and what it means, then it really isn't inspiring much thought or introspection, now is it?

[QUOTE=Sanius;28497636]It would be art if you said it was.[/QUOTE] Maybe most people won't look at it as a Ulysses or something but referring to something as art isn't really the same as saying, "I love it."

[QUOTE=Sanius;28497636]It would be art if you said it was.[/QUOTE] it would be (in my opinion) bad art, but art nonetheless [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=pie_is_good;28497662]Maybe most people won't look at it as a Ulysses or something but referring to something as art isn't really the same as saying, "I love it."[/QUOTE] that's exactly my point. debates should be over the quality and meaning of something, not it's qualification as art. by saying something isn't art you're simply silencing any possible discussion