[QUOTE=Tigster;24795822]How many times are you going to project your opinion as fact? You project that since you can't find something in it, NOBODY can, and if they can, they are wrong and stupid. Get out of your middle school mentality and realize that not only are you not the most important thing in the world, but that you also seem to have no idea what an opinion or individuality is.[/QUOTE]
No, but I know what "something" and "nothing" is, and you do not compare this to Leonardo DaVinchi just because you're a beretwearing hipster with no real standards on anything.
Art is meant to be creative, and how creative is it to just randomly generate something through splashes?
It's not, nor will it ever be, it takes no talent, no effort and no knowledge, no matter how much you try to twist and turn it. When I look at art I remain unbias, and try to see just what the person has done, and why he or she did it.
This is blatantly made to make a quick buck... Or, well, hundred millions.
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795834]Okay, so, if it hardly matters who made it, isn't it a complete scam to sell it for 140 million dollars when you simply could have given them some paintjars, a canvas and a cricketbat for around a hundred bucks? [/QUOTE]
But you couldn't make it with those things because it wouldn't be the same thing, it would be a different thing. I don't see how you're not getting this.
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795834]No matter how much you wash a pig, it's still a fucking pig, and no matter how much you look at absolutley nothing, it's still absolutley nothing. [/QUOTE]
But this is where you're being stubborn and closed-minded. Just because you don't see anything doesn't mean no one else does. When I look at that painting, I see someone refusing to adhere to conventional painting rules and expressing himself with raw color. I see someone defying you and your opinion painting that. [B]There is more to a painting than what is on the canvas.[/B]
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795834]The guy who made it could have atleast tried to put some effort into it. Or just sold it at a reasonable price, like 25$, maybe 75$ if he just got the cricketbat.[/QUOTE]
See, you don't even know what you're talking about. He didn't paint it and then immediately slap a "$140,000,000" price tag on it, it was sold for that price many years later between third parties at an auction. The artist didn't set the price for it.
[editline]10:42PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795874]No, but I know what "something" and "nothing" is, and you do not compare this to Leonardo DaVinchi just because you're a beretwearing hipster with no real standards on anything. [/QUOTE]
see, you can't even argue about art without using dumb stereotypes and insulting people who disagree with you.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;24795845]this isn't a logically consistent argument. By acknowledging subjectivity in it's artistic value then you must, logically, also acknowledge subjectivity in it's monetary value.
You can't say "People can disagree with me on whether or not this painting is good" and then say "but people can't disagree with me on what the painting is worth".[/QUOTE]
What I mean through that is, yeah its a cool painting, I wouldn't mind having it in my home but comparing it with the top paintings in the world. It shouldn't be the most expensive, it's seriously too much considering it is very easy to create and doesn't really express anything.
Like the example I just made with the designs on my toilet paper, doesn't that make my toilet paper sound important enough to be top art. Yes, but I'm looking at it way to deep then I should. That's what I am saying about the painting, people are looking to deep into something to find something that isn't there.
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795874]No, but I know what "something" and "nothing" is, and you do not compare this to Leonardo DaVinchi just because you're a beretwearing hipster with no real standards on anything.
Art is meant to be creative, and how creative is it to just randomly generate something through splashes?
It's not, nor will it ever be, it takes no talent, no effort and no knowledge, no matter how much you try to twist and turn it. When I look at art I remain unbias, and try to see just what the person has done, and why he or she did it.
This is blatantly made to make a quick buck... Or, well, hundred millions.[/QUOTE]
Why would you try to compare two totally different things? That's how you try to devalue things? Comparing Da Vinci to this is like comparing a toothpick and an sewing needle. Both may fall under the same category (sharp pointy thing) but they both have different uses. Two styles of art have different intentions, meanings and overall feels. You can't compare the two and expect any unbiased or useful result.
This is rediculous, sorry for offending you people, you know how us slack-jawed peasants are, with only our five senses and whatnot. I know modern art is for the "higher" scale of people, and the other classes just lacks the ability to comprehend it. Since here we were raised thinking stuff needed improvement, and that analytical points of views were a good thing, but look were mindless praise has led us, it's a real improvement on things, no need for pesky images when you have... well... that...
I'll just head off now, I'm sure you have something French to eat anyways.
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795874]
This is blatantly made to make a quick buck... Or, well, hundred millions.[/QUOTE]
but the artist didn't make hundreds of millions off the painting. The 140,000,000 dollars was one collector selling it to another collector at an auction. Jackson Pollock wasn't rich.
How did Justin Bieber and art ever end up in the same thread, anyways?
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795921]This is rediculous, sorry for offending you people, you know how us slack-jawed peasants are, with only our five senses and whatnot. I know modern art is for the "higher" scale of people, and the other classes just lacks the ability to comprehend it. Since here we were raised thinking stuff needed improvement, and that analytical points of views were a good thing, but look were mindless praise has led us, it's a real improvement on things, no need for pesky images when you have... well... that... [/QUOTE]
you can't defend your point of view properly so you just resort to dumb as hell insults like this:
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795921]I'll just head off now, I'm sure you have something French to eat anyways.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vinze;24795921]This is rediculous, sorry for offending you people, you know how us slack-jawed peasants are, with only our five senses and whatnot. I know modern art is for the "higher" scale of people, and the other classes just lacks the ability to comprehend it. Since here we were raised thinking stuff needed improvement, and that analytical points of views were a good thing, but look were mindless praise has led us, it's a real improvement on things, no need for pesky images when you have... well... that...
I'll just head off now, I'm sure you have something French to eat anyways.[/QUOTE]
Because us calling you out on being a narrow-minded moron implies that we are high brow assholes. I forgot that understanding the difference between opinion and fact meant that we were somehow higher than you.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;24795897]But you couldn't make it with those things because it wouldn't be the same thing, it would be a different thing. I don't see how you're not getting this.
But this is where you're being stubborn and closed-minded. Just because you don't see anything doesn't mean no one else does. When I look at that painting, I see someone refusing to adhere to conventional painting rules and expressing himself with raw color. I see someone defying you and your opinion painting that. [B]There is more to a painting than what is on the canvas.[/B]
See, you don't even know what you're talking about. He didn't paint it and then immediately slap a "$140,000,000" price tag on it, it was sold for that price many years later between third parties at an auction. The artist didn't set the price for it.
[editline]10:42PM[/editline]
see, you can't even argue about art without using dumb stereotypes and insulting people who disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
Again you are thinking about it way to deep, but I really can say the same thing to this painting as what you guys have been saying to us.
You weren't there when this was painted, none of us were, for all we know it could of been something just thrown together without any meaning, or it could be a stunning masterpiece. Unless we know that the original intention of this painting was then you are just looking at it way too deep.
i mean do you really think this is how the world works? That there are really people who just go around eating eclairs to spite people? "Hahaha, that pleb, I'll Show him! *eats baguette*"
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;24795958]Again you are thinking about it way to deep, but I really can say the same thing to this painting as what you guys have been saying to us.
You weren't there when this was painted, none of us were, for all we know it could of been something just thrown together without any meaning, or it could be a stunning masterpiece. Unless we know that the original intention of this painting was then you are just looking at it way too deep.[/QUOTE]
Way to try to turn the argument around. You can apply your logic to your argument, which I did. You weren't there, he could have spent months on this piece trying to convey emotion, you're not looking at it deep enough. Oh hey, I just cancelled your argument.
[editline]12:48AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;24795966]i mean do you really think this is how the world works? That there are really people who just go around eating eclairs to spite people? "Hahaha, that pleb, I'll Show him! *eats baguette*"[/QUOTE]
So I shouldn't invite you to tea and crumpets while we rest our feet on the backs of the local farmers?
[QUOTE=Tigster;24795971]Way to try to turn the argument around. You can apply your logic to your argument, which I did. You weren't there, he could have spent months on this piece trying to convey emotion, you're not looking at it deep enough. Oh hey, I just cancelled your argument.
[editline]12:48AM[/editline]
So I shouldn't invite you to tea and crumpets while we rest our feet on the backs of the local farmers?[/QUOTE]
Well I just went on wikipedia and looked this painter up, if the quotes on there are true,(because we know how reliable the Wiki can be) then I'll admit like an adult that you are right and I was wrong. It looks like this guy did know what he was doing, yet I will still say the painting does not have any emotional feeling.
But that is not a bad thing now considering it looks like the only way to see the full emotion is if you are the artist who made it, also not a bad thing how the painting is expressing to himself and not meant to make other people happy, just like non modern music was.
By the way the media talked about the painting they described it like it was just some random painting found in a basement that people liked.
Looks like we are on the same page, again I apologize for the misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;24796027]Well I just went on wikipedia and looked this painter up, if the quotes on there are true,(because we know how reliable the Wiki can be) then I'll admit like an adult that you are right and I was wrong. It looks like this guy did know what he was doing, yet I will still say the painting does not have any emotional feeling.
But that is not a bad thing now considering it looks like the only way to see the full emotion is if you are the artist who made it, also not a bad thing how the painting is expressing to himself and not meant to make other people happy, just like non modern music was.
By the way the media talked about the painting they described it like it was just some random painting found in a basement that people liked.
Looks like we are on the same page, again I apologize for the misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]
It's fine, but you understand that while an artist may paint something and see it one way, the entire point of art is to find something in it. Someone may intend it to look this way, and I may see it and think something else. We all have different minds, so it's only natural that we see the world in a different light than those around us.
well done destroying Vinze gents, he's a gigantic faggot
I hope the shitty kid dies
[QUOTE=djshox;24718944]He exists because he was lucky enough to get the perfect combination of professional hip-hop and r&b producers, along with their label's endorsement. He also had a previous myspace following, which showed that he could hold a fanbase even without professional sponsorship. [b]How you could ever think he's a symbol of conformity by being a popular singer is beyond me.[/b][/QUOTE]
Late reply, but here's why you're so incredibly wrong.
[b]HE DOESN'T WRITE HIS OWN MUSIC. He doesn't do anything, he sings it, that's about it. Not only that, his music is specifically made JUST to sell. Not to have artistic merit, or any modicum of emotion in it, it's made to sell. What does this make him? The symbol of conformity. Not a hard thing to get.[/b] I want to make this clear. I don't give a fuck this kid makes money from it, I don't give a fuck that he exists. But to say he's anything but a simple tool is a fallacy. He's clearly JUST a tool to make money with, the execs know this and use him thusly. Art is very very subjective, and if someone enjoys his music, good for you, you have different taste than I do. Does that justify his existence? NO.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;24799838]I hope the shitty kid dies[/QUOTE]
Do you mean Bieber or Vinze ?
[QUOTE=booster;24703307]Read that in Heavy's voice.[/QUOTE]
not big surprise.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24799878]Late reply, but here's why you're so incredibly wrong.
[B]HE DOESN'T WRITE HIS OWN MUSIC. He doesn't do anything, he sings it, that's about it. Not only that, his music is specifically made JUST to sell. Not to have artistic merit, or any modicum of emotion in it, it's made to sell. What does this make him? The symbol of conformity. Not a hard thing to get.[/B] I want to make this clear. I don't give a fuck this kid makes money from it, I don't give a fuck that he exists. But to say he's anything but a simple tool is a fallacy. He's clearly JUST a tool to make money with, the execs know this and use him thusly. Art is very very subjective, and if someone enjoys his music, good for you, you have different taste than I do. Does that justify his existence? NO.[/QUOTE]
Late reply, but here's why you're so incredibly narrow-minded.
You seriously have quite the jaded view on popular music. He got his start with his own Myspace account and grew his own following before the label even picked him up. Obviously, I don't know what his motives are, hell absolutely NONE of us do, but he's been doing his own thing since the start, and the label's simply promoting it on a much grander scale. He appears to you as a symbol of conformity simply because his music sells? That's just ridiculous. While you think his work doesn't have any artistic merit or emotion in it, apparently a VAST number of fans think otherwise. Like I've said way too many times, he's supplying a MASSIVE demand in the music industry. There's no one or nothing you can blame, it's called industry trends and fads. When his spotlight fades out, there will be a new pop music sensation. You can continue to continually get up in arms over popular music, or you can accept the fact that people have different musical tastes than you do.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24702988]I'm totally okay with this boy getting hurt because I don't like his music!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
I like how this gets dumbs despite the fact that this is almost exactly what pretty much everyone is posting.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24799878]if someone enjoys his music, good for you, you have different taste than I do. Does that justify his existence? NO.[/QUOTE]
so wait, people enjoying his music doesn't justify him as a musician (or whatever you want to call him)?
then what does?
[QUOTE=djshox;24800369]Late reply, but here's why you're so incredibly narrow-minded.
You seriously have quite the jaded view on popular music. He got his start with his own Myspace account and grew his own following before the label even picked him up. Obviously, I don't know what his motives are, hell absolutely NONE of us do, but he's been doing his own thing since the start, and the label's simply promoting it on a much grander scale. He appears to you as a symbol of conformity simply because his music sells? That's just ridiculous. While you think his work doesn't have any artistic merit or emotion in it, apparently a VAST number of fans think otherwise. Like I've said way too many times, he's supplying a MASSIVE demand in the music industry. There's no one or nothing you can blame, it's called industry trends and fads. When his spotlight fades out, there will be a new pop music sensation. You can continue to continually get up in arms over popular music, or you can accept the fact that people have different musical tastes than you do.[/QUOTE]
art is subjective
shit, however, is not
sorry, over-produced crap made to fit the brainwashed masses will always be over-produced crap made to fit the brainwashed masses
The crap Justin Baby produces is crap and should burn. People are too dumb to notice the difference between good music and fucking horrible ear-rape 'music'.
[QUOTE=Egevened;24805606]art is subjective
shit, however, is not
sorry, over-produced crap made to fit the brainwashed masses will always be over-produced crap made to fit the brainwashed masses[/QUOTE]
Or to put it more bluntly, music reviewers who have studied music for all their life can say whether stuff is actually good or bad, as they generally have an unbiased opinion.
Also, people listen to mainstream music because you don't have to look far for it and it's shown everywhere. The masses at football grounds don't want Lobster Thermidor any more than people want Beethoven in clubs.
[QUOTE=Recurracy;24805667]The crap Justin Baby produces is crap and should burn. People are too dumb to notice the difference between good music and fucking horrible ear-rape 'music'.[/QUOTE]
enlighten everybody, what is good music
[QUOTE=Egevened;24805606]art is subjective
shit, however, is not
sorry, over-produced crap made to fit the brainwashed masses will always be over-produced crap made to fit the brainwashed masses[/QUOTE]
sorry, you need to get off your high horse and respect other people's tastes in music
you guys have GOT to stop it with the "mindless masses/sheeple/drones" shit, it's old.
[QUOTE=Smasher 006;24805676]Or to put it more bluntly, music reviewers who have studied music for all their life can say whether stuff is actually good or bad, as they generally have an unbiased opinion.
Also, people listen to mainstream music because you don't have to look far for it and it's shown everywhere. The masses at football grounds don't want Lobster Thermidor any more than people want Beethoven in clubs.[/QUOTE]
Beethoven is everywhere, how do you have to look far for it? It's public domain music. Mainstream music is mainstream because it's POPULAR.
Music reviewers have their own bias, everyone does. It's hard to keep a neutral mindset in the world of music, because you already have a a certain taste and sound you try to listen for. Movie reviewers do it too. What they like and dislike doesn't mean you have to follow their tastes.
[QUOTE=djshox;24806143]sorry, you need to get off your high horse and respect other people's tastes in music
you guys have GOT to stop it with the "mindless masses/sheeple/drones" shit, it's old.
Beethoven is everywhere, how do you have to look far for it? It's public domain music. Mainstream music is mainstream because it's POPULAR.
Music reviewers have their own bias, everyone does. It's hard to keep a neutral mindset in the world of music, because you already have a a certain taste and sound you try to listen for. Movie reviewers do it too. What they like and dislike doesn't mean you have to follow their tastes.[/QUOTE]
I like your clever retaliation that uses the disfiguration of a phrase I used, it's a very clever way to stagnate an argument
I have no problem with musical taste, more like I have a problem with idiots that find "baby, baby baby" to be an exciting lyrical masterpiece
music is an art form, and mainstream music is like what twilight is to novels
[QUOTE=Egevened;24807005]
I have no problem with musical taste, more like I have a problem with idiots that find "baby, baby baby" to be an exciting lyrical masterpiece[/QUOTE]
you just contradicted yourself
"I have no problem with people having musical tastes as long as I agree with them"
[QUOTE=Egevened;24807005]I like your clever retaliation that uses the disfiguration of a phrase I used, it's a very clever way to stagnate an argument[/QUOTE]
thanks it's called making a mockery of your post because it was silly to begin with
even kalibos punched an enormous hole in it
if you have no problem with musical taste, then the last half of your post shouldn't have even been said
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
