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

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45893513]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[/QUOTE] you wouldnt understand

You guys seem to forget that Salvador Dali made a painting of [URL="http://www.wikiart.org/en/salvador-dali/hitler-masturbating"]Hitler jacking off on a horse[/URL]

[QUOTE=Midas22;45893523]you wouldnt understand[/QUOTE] see there you go thinking you're saying something new and clever but "you wouldn't understand it is very deep art :^)" is the exact same shit

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45893556]see there you go thinking you're saying something new and clever but "you wouldn't understand it is very deep art :^)" is the exact same shit[/QUOTE] Thats what you think simply because you don't understand the artist's struggle

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45893556]see there you go thinking you're saying something new and clever but "you wouldn't understand it is very deep art :^)" is the exact same shit[/QUOTE] In case you don't know, Midas is a pretty bad debater and can't really make a decent point properly, so you should just let it go.

If you shat on a canvas and call it art I may agree with you that it's art, although I'm going to think that you're an extremely talentless artist.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;45893056]Yup. That's right![/QUOTE] And that's why the definition of art is completely meaningless.

Of all the things that I'd look at and go "that ain't art," this isn't one. I was actually able to get a grip of the representation the guy is trying to make. Like someone said: fragility of the digital age. As long as JLaw/KUpton give an okay, I see no issue.

Its not art unless you've put blood, sweat, and tears into it. Defecating on a canvas isn't art, but e.coli poisoning is.

[QUOTE=MenteR;45891946]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] You keep calling the OP "work". He didnt do fucking anything! he didnt even take the goddamned pictures! [editline]4th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Warriorx4;45892105]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.[/QUOTE] Sure, it's cool for 2-5 minutes. you know whats not cool for any amount of time? [i]a dude sucking himself off[/i]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;45895283]Sure, it's cool for 2-5 minutes. you know whats not cool for any amount of time? [i]a dude sucking himself off[/i][/QUOTE] I don't know about you but I think anyone with that kind of flexibility is pretty cool

As long as art means [I]something[/I], I'm okay with it. Dada was like that, with ready-mades. People just slapped their names on household objects. It's art because they say it is. Sometimes the art has a deeper social/political meaning than its face value. If someone shits on a canvas and says it represents the Gaza conflict, he better fucking explain to me how it does so, pointing out which handful of shit was Israel and which was Palestine By putting some leaked nudes in an art exhibit, it's more about the idea behind the photos than the photos themselves. Yes he didn't take them. But he's pointing out that they serve as some kind of symbol for the pervasiveness of modern society, that no one's personal life is personal anymore. At least something to that extent. I'm not saying it's good art, but people tend to forget that art isn't just meant to look pretty. It's supposed to illicit a response of some sort from its audience.

Did they get consent from the people in the photographs? Because if not that's pretty fucked. EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure "Being art" doesn't exempt you from copyright. If it's not transformative, it's not transformative, end of story.

[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] Might just be for the reactions, which is still shitty art.

none of this is art anime is art

[QUOTE=Dick Slamfist;45896358]none of this is art anime is art[/QUOTE] Only if it involves giant robots. Because robots. They're awesome.

it's fine to call this art, but i don't think it should be put up on display if he doesn't have the permission of the people in the pictures

[QUOTE=MenteR;45891946]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.[/QUOTE] But is the shitty sculpt quality truly shitty, or is it intentionally done so to represent how shitty it is to be so lonely you have to suck your own dick? ~art!~ But seriously though, a friend of mine went to college for art and he ended up quitting, because no matter how much effort he put into his work, no matter how much skill he exercised in his pieces, he'd end up getting the same grade as some kid who throws a 2x4 on the ground and calls it art. :v:

[QUOTE=dai;45892266] much better than these dipshits pursuing the 'I could shit on a canvas' mantra.[/QUOTE] what about a canvas that shits on YOU

[QUOTE=Riller;45892048]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] wow I think I hate art

[QUOTE=Hakita;45897275]it's fine to call this art, but i don't think it should be put up on display if he doesn't have the permission of the people in the pictures[/QUOTE] Would kind of ruin his point Not that artistic merit trumps being a good person

Just because art doesn't require huge amounts physical labor and time doesn't make it bad. It's all about ideas now and it's better to work smarter, not harder. Sure it might be some guy shitting on a canvas, but you have to know the context and background information as well in order to truly see if it sucks or not. That's like saying a book sucks because you can't read it. You need to learn to read first.

[QUOTE=Token Indian;45901204]Just because art doesn't require huge amounts physical labor and time doesn't make it bad. It's all about ideas now and it's better to work smarter, not harder. Sure it might be some guy shitting on a canvas, but you have to know the context and background information as well in order to truly see if it sucks or not. That's like saying a book sucks because you can't read it. You need to learn to read first.[/QUOTE] Reading a book is a tad more involved than examining what's meant to be an art piece.

so does anyone know how to get tickets my monitor has a p bad resolution

[QUOTE=Wingz;45903233]so does anyone know how to get tickets my monitor has a p bad resolution[/QUOTE] buy a 4k tv, only way

If this is art, then my sweet bro and hella jeff esque comics I made under a heavy influence of drugs are art.

[QUOTE=Primigenes;45900208]NSFW(I guess) [URL="http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d39146/d3914610x.jpg"]True art[/URL][/QUOTE] Is that a redundant titty tube, or is it going to her ass?