Students left a pineapple in the middle of an exhibition and people mistook it for art - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52203870]I definitely agree with the "seeing in real life" part. Seeing these pieces in person is a totally different experience. The texure, size, etc, which are all often large parts of these pieces, are completely indistinguishable or left out of digital representations. Everyone should really try to take an art history class or go to a modern art gallery. It's a wonderful and incredibly thought-provoking experience.[/QUOTE] Why should anyone give a single shit about the texture or the size. I've been dragged through art history courses and galleries by various people and while I've come to accept that it's apparently a thought provoking experience for pretentious hippies(said with the least respect possible), I just legit can't imagine what kind of "thoughts" the "texture" and "size" of a Pollock would "provoke" other than "Ah, it's pretty big" and "Oh, there's a bit more paint here than in that other place. Breathtaking" [QUOTE=153x;52204456]I didn't mean it to come off that I was saying contemporary art is a direct upgrade, what was meant is that it's the current step in the evolution of art. Each new movement does not invalidate the past. I know these paintings are fantastic and I admire them but that doesn't mean I can't also admire contemporary work too. I'll give an example of what I mean. [t]https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sfmomamedia/media/research-projects/downloads/EdeK_98.298.jpg[/t] Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning Drawing. He got a hold of an original drawing from Willem de Kooning, then erased it and framed it. Anyone who is familiar with de Kooning might be shocked because this would have otherwise been worth a LOT of money, but instead he made a statement on how ridiculous it is that we put such a value on it just because it was a de Kooning even though we can't even tell if the drawing was good. Lots of people think this sort of thing is intriguing. I think it's intriguing. You'd be absolutely correct to say there is no technical barrier to make this kind of art, and you don't have to appreciate it, but that's where we are now. Nobody says you can't like classical painting just because we are past that point in history[/QUOTE] This I can at least respect on some level, it's a clear cut idea that's being transmitted that doesn't require 1500 hours of reading about the artists biography to understand. I hope there's a layer of hell dedicated to posers like Pollock and everyone in that same vein.

[QUOTE=kariko;52204103]Again, it was left on an empty table and then someone came and put it in a glass case afterwards. It wasn't in glass to start with.[/QUOTE] yeah because why the heck else would a pineapple be sitting on a table in an art museum. How often do you go somewhere, and see a full pineapple? if It was an apple with a chunk out of it, or a banana peel I might think it was someones lunch, but this was a full pineapple just sitting there [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52204514]Why should anyone give a single shit about the texture or the size. I've been dragged through art history courses and galleries by various people and while I've come to accept that it's apparently a thought provoking experience for pretentious hippies(said with the least respect possible), I just legit can't imagine what kind of "thoughts" the "texture" and "size" of a Pollock would "provoke" other than "Ah, it's pretty big" and "Oh, there's a bit more paint here than in that other place. Breathtaking"[/QUOTE] Can you legitimately not see any different emotions or feelings in Pollocks work? It's cool if you don't, it's not for everybody, but there's no need to call people that enjoy dissecting and analysing pieces of work like that "pretentious hippies" just because you don't personally like it

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52204530]but there's no need to call people that enjoy dissecting and analysing pieces of work like that "pretentious hippies" just because you don't personally like it[/QUOTE] There's no need to splash paint on a canvas and call it art intended to invoke emotions. Me calling them pretentious hippies probably induced a larger emotional reaction than seeing a pollock IRL. Plus I got the same freedom of speech that lets them "dissect and analyze" how a slightly deeper shade of red piss-stains in the corner of a canvas implies the hidden brutality of man and urinary tract infections all at once.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52204514] I hope there's a layer of hell dedicated to posers like Pollock and everyone in that same vein.[/QUOTE] It's not fucking fair to say that, it really isn't. See, we're back at it with the projection (as should be in all art that is plastic, and more), why can't you accept that there's a demand for his particular brand of art? How can you call the artist himself a poser, what's the rationale behind that? I don't like half the things he does but I think pieces like "move it" suffice to justify Pollock's experimentation. How else was he going to come up with such a filiforme, rainbow-shitting piece if not for having practiced the technique before?

That feeling when people will discuses to death the thing they hate (5 pages now, other news threads concerning people dying have less pages) thus giving it legitimacy and publicity. Artists thrive on attention and it isn't lost on them the hate these kind of pieces receive and how those same people will give them free publicity shoving it in everyones' faces while screaming about how much they hate it. "HEY LOOK AT THIS THING THAT ISN'T ART THAT I HATE, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT OR THE ARTIST IF I HADN'T BITCHED ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE." They complain that they don't get it as they become part of the piece itself and the ridiculousness of it. Some people may not consider it art, but I consider it at least hilarious how the artist manages to play the people into the piece regardless of their opinion of it. It's almost like an art form. Hell it literally got a student who had no consideration or interest for the art who wanted to make fun of it, and got him to become/create the very thing he was trying to make a joke out of. Now he is the artist he makes jokes about, and he didn't even realize it, and that in itself is pretty interesting. People say putting a plaque on something to explain it invalidates it as art, but a fucking pineapple in a glass box just got a bunch of people with differing views to discuss it at length. Art is subjective just like most views in life and getting yourself up in a tissy about it usually means playing right into the game you belittle.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52204505]Here's the problem with that: you can't know any of that information by looking at the piece. At most, it's an example within a philosophical essay. It is not a piece of art on it's own.[/QUOTE] But it becomes art once you know the explanation? Because if so, this tirade just got even more pointless

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52204612]But it becomes art once you know the explanation? Because if so, this tirade just got even more pointless[/QUOTE] It should be in a box on the bottom of an essay, not hanging on a wall as a visual art piece. He's seemingly presenting an argument, not a piece of art.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52204620]It should be in a box on the bottom of an essay, not hanging on a wall as a visual art piece.[/QUOTE] Why? You really can't understand why someone would get more out of looking at it in person?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52204620]It should be in a box on the bottom of an essay, not hanging on a wall as a visual art piece. He's seemingly presenting an argument, not a piece of art.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand, this warped canvas that is painted blue conveys so much visually. Clearly you will not fully grasp it till you have read the full 500 word synopsis underneath it. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52204635]Why? You really can't understand why someone would get more out of looking at it in person?[/QUOTE] Is this the new modern art excuse? "Oh well of course it looks terrible online, you have to see it in person to make a decision on it" [QUOTE=1chains1;52204585]Hell it literally got a student who had no consideration or interest for the art who wanted to make fun of it, and got him to become/create the very thing he was trying to make a joke out of. Now he is the artist he makes jokes about, and he didn't even realize it, and that in itself is pretty interesting. People say putting a plaque on something to explain it invalidates it as art, but a fucking pineapple in a glass box just got a bunch of people with differing views to discuss it at length. Art is subjective just like most views in life and getting yourself up in a tissy about it usually means playing right into the game you belittle.[/QUOTE] This is so utterly inane.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52204635]Why? You really can't understand why someone would get more out of looking at it in person?[/QUOTE] It's a blank canvas... why would anyone get something out of it visually? Any meaning comes from the argument behind it, and that meaning would be much more effectively presented in an essay.

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204643]Is this the new modern art excuse? "Oh well of course it looks terrible online, you have to see it in person to make a decision on it"[/QUOTE] What? What exactly do you think I'm trying to "excuse" here? People's enjoyment of something? Goodness gracious, I'm a monster!

[QUOTE=sgman91;52204664] and that meaning would be much more effectively presented in an essay.[/QUOTE] Because that's the entire point of the art in the first place? Hyperrealism might be more effective in a photograph, does that make it useless?

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52204677]Because that's the entire point of the art in the first place? Hyperrealism might be more effective in a photograph, does that make it useless?[/QUOTE] Hyperrealism, as far as I can tell, is about the sheer skill of creating it. Seeing something like that does have value. It isn't an argument, it's a visual piece. That blank canvas has no value on it's own. There's no skill in it. There's nothing visually interesting, beautiful, etc. in it. The only value it has is an example of his argument, and not a visual example, but a thought example.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52204664]It's a blank canvas... why would anyone get something out of it visually? Any meaning comes from the argument behind it, and that meaning would be much more effectively presented in an essay.[/QUOTE] b-but you can see the textures and how he did the strokes and the thickness of the paint breathtaking

[QUOTE=sgman91;52204664]It's a blank canvas... why would anyone get something out of it visually? Any meaning comes from the argument behind it, and that meaning would be much more effectively presented in an essay.[/QUOTE] Can't you see why someone would appreciate being near it? Looking at it as if the original drawing had been sitting on their desk, untouched? Getting a better feel for what the guy who erased it felt like? Getting in close and seeing all the smudged up details of what might've been a beautiful work of art, possibly inducing a stronger emotional response than just reading about it? Different things work for different people.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52204729]Can't you see why someone would appreciate being near it? Looking at it as if the original drawing had been sitting on their desk, untouched? Getting a better feel for what the guy who erased it felt like? Getting in close and seeing all the smudged up details of what might've been a beautiful work of art, possibly inducing a stronger emotional response than just reading about it? Different things work for different people.[/QUOTE] What I seem to be getting from this is that the actual artwork is the least important thing to the modern art experience.

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204757]What I seem to be getting from this is that the actual artwork is the least important thing to the modern art experience.[/QUOTE] If I see a skill-intensive modern art piece with lots of meaning and a labor-free piece with just as much meaning, I'll probably have a stronger appreciation for the one that took more work. So I'm not sure where you're getting my thoughts on the worth of artistic skill when I never even touched on it in that post. Please, drop the incessant passive-aggressiveness, and stop putting words in my mouth

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52204729]Can't you see why someone would appreciate being near it? Looking at it as if the original drawing had been sitting on their desk, untouched? Getting a better feel for what the guy who erased it felt like? Getting in close and seeing all the smudged up details of what might've been a beautiful work of art, possibly inducing a stronger emotional response than just reading about it? Different things work for different people.[/QUOTE] I'm going to be honest. Posts like this come across as the most pretentious drivel I've ever seen. The art community has very little respect in society for being snobs who sniff their own farts while looking at nothing, and it's well fucking deserved IMO.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52204729]Can't you see why someone would appreciate being near it? Looking at it as if the original drawing had been sitting on their desk, untouched? Getting a better feel for what the guy who erased it felt like? Getting in close and seeing all the smudged up details of what might've been a beautiful work of art, possibly inducing a stronger emotional response than just reading about it? Different things work for different people.[/QUOTE] You can scan things at high resolution and post them online and then you can look at all the details you want just as if you were there with your face up close.

Really? Because I find it is more the people who make a huge stink about it being pretentious way more annoying and in your face than the artists or the artwork as they tend to i dont know... not care what people think? As said people just let their emotions rule and just sit there running around in circles saying the same things over and over while the artist just laughs and makes the money off the work. They get to watch people freak out about it, spread the publicity for them AND they get paid for it. Anyone who has spent more than two posts in here trying to cement the fact that modern art is crap pretty much are a huge satire of themselves. Congratulations you talk more about the art work than the bloody fans, get played more. Like I have never in my life been pulled aside from what I was doing to be told about how deep some artists work is by the very artist. I have been pulled aside from what I am doing all the time to have people scream at me "IS THIS WHAT PEOPLE THINK ART IS NOW A DAYS LOOOL" while they produce nothing of value themselves or even attempt to argue it past petty comments based on opinion. "that is SO inane but i wont give a reason or focus on any point in the argument!" "b-but its bad in MY eyes!!" But good job arguing for now almost 6 pages over a pineapple and what it means, as said you belittle the piece but you're more invested in it than possibly even the artist half the time. edit- Like I am sure this is the only "modern art" most people here have even seen all week, and you wouldn't even have to see THIS stuff if you would just not click one tiny thread out of the thousands on here. Then these same people complain how the artists are shoving their modern art in their face being all pretentious when they wouldn't of even heard of this gallery if there wasnt a news article posted by a non art site that they clicked on knowing fully what it was from the title. Maybe it is some sub form of BDSM I am not aware of.

[QUOTE=kariko;52204926]You can scan things at high resolution and post them online and then you can look at all the details you want just as if you were there with your face up close.[/QUOTE] Well, you can't get the dimensions of it, since screens and pictures are necessarily 2D. There is a qualitative difference in what you're saying and the real thing, but it's not significant enough for all this bull about analyzing the strokes. [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=1chains1;52204928] edit- Like I am sure this is the only "modern art" most people here have even seen all week, and you wouldn't even have to see THIS stuff if you would just not click one tiny thread out of the thousands on here. Then these same people complain how the artists are shoving their modern art in their face being all pretentious when they wouldn't of even heard of this gallery if there wasnt a news article posted by a non art site that they clicked on knowing fully what it was from the title. Maybe it is some sub form of BDSM I am not aware of.[/QUOTE] Nice how you condescend on people without knowing anything about them and call them sadomasochists... My mom is a textile artist and throughout my life she's dragged me through hundreds of galleries and museums, I've completed art history classes both in high school and in university, along with classes on literary and artistic critique which, though not part of my major, interested me enough to spend considerable time studying the topic. And I still hate modern art.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52205014]Well, you can't get the dimensions of it, since screens and pictures are necessarily 2D. There is a qualitative difference in what you're saying and the real thing, but it's not significant enough for all this bull about analyzing the strokes. [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] Nice how you condescend on people without knowing anything about them and call them sadomasochists... My mom is a textile artist and throughout my life she's dragged me through hundreds of galleries and museums, I've completed art history classes both in high school and in university, along with classes on literary and artistic critique which, though not part of my major, interested me enough to spend considerable time studying the topic. And I still hate modern art.[/QUOTE] Actually you misread me, I don't care if you like modern art just as much as you shouldn't care if I like modern art. (hint: I'm actually not very big on it either) I am laying into people who have every opportunity to avoid this stuff and still take the time to argue about HOW much they hate it when they're part of the reason it gets so much lime light. What is even stranger is I never even directed any post towards you and damn right I will be condescending to people who put themselves in the way of things they don't like just to specifically say they dont like it. It is obnoxious and a 1 page thread about a lighthearted situation became some stupid argument (not even a good one) about a pineapple and art representation in general for 6 pages. So yes I think they have to possibly have some bdsm fetish as why else would they come in here expecting anything else other than a struggle? edit - And even more hilarious you proved a point I made further up in the very same post you quoted/snipped for one statement, picking out a small point in the argument that had almost nothing to do with it "he said one little thing at the end about bdsm as a joke, this invalidates every point he said before". Like how about bothering with the points I was making, like how silly it is to argue what art means like it hasnt been a dead horse that's been beaten into a very fine motor oil by now.

"he said one little thing at the end about bdsm as a joke, this invalidates every point he said before" lol [QUOTE]Really? Because I find it is more the people who make a huge stink about it being pretentious way more annoying and in your face than the artists or the artwork as they tend to i dont know... not care what people think? As said people just let their emotions rule and just sit there running around in circles saying the same things over and over while the artist just laughs and makes the money off the work. They get to watch people freak out about it, spread the publicity for them AND they get paid for it. Anyone who has spent more than two posts in here trying to cement the fact that modern art is crap pretty much are a huge satire of themselves. Congratulations you talk more about the art work than the bloody fans, get played more. [/QUOTE] Is there a point hidden in this essay? We (or I, at least) talk about this because it's a topic that, in some respect, is able to catch our attention enough to invest time into the subject. The fact that the artist is laughing all the way to the bank is entirely irrelevant. [QUOTE] Like I have never in my life been pulled aside from what I was doing to be told about how deep some artists work is by the very artist. I have been pulled aside from what I am doing all the time to have people scream at me "IS THIS WHAT PEOPLE THINK ART IS NOW A DAYS LOOOL" while they produce nothing of value themselves or even attempt to argue it past petty comments based on opinion. "that is SO inane but i wont give a reason or focus on any point in the argument!" "b-but its bad in MY eyes!!" [/QUOTE] Again, is there a point here other than strawmanning the entire critical side? "B-but it's bad in my eyes" is just about the weakest argument you could make in any objective critique, as the whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" remains. But we're not even talking about beauty here, we're talking about interpretation, meaning, effort and pretentious hippies. [QUOTE] But good job arguing for now almost 6 pages over a pineapple and what it means, as said you belittle the piece but you're more invested in it than possibly even the artist half the time. [/QUOTE] ok? [QUOTE]edit- Like I am sure this is the only "modern art" most people here have even seen all week, and you wouldn't even have to see THIS stuff if you would just not click one tiny thread out of the thousands on here. Then these same people complain how the artists are shoving their modern art in their face being all pretentious when they wouldn't of even heard of this gallery if there wasnt a news article posted by a non art site that they clicked on knowing fully what it was from the title. Maybe it is some sub form of BDSM I am not aware of. [/QUOTE] I like going on rollercoaster rides. Are you gonna interpret that into meaning "look this guy likes getting tied up and thrown around at high G, he must me a masochist sub" or something?` [QUOTE]Actually you misread me, I don't care if you like modern art just as much as you shouldn't care if I like modern art. (hint: I'm actually not very big on it either) I am laying into people who have every opportunity to avoid this stuff and still take the time to argue about HOW much they hate it when they're part of the reason it gets so much lime light. [/QUOTE] What reason is there for me to avoid it if I enjoy talking about the subject? Like it or not we are talking about what's pretty much a global art movement, which isn't exactly something that's all that uch affected by 5 pages of discussion on an internet forum about a game modification. [QUOTE] What is even stranger is I never even directed any post towards you and damn right I will be condescending to people who put themselves in the way of things they don't like just to specifically say they dont like it. It is obnoxious and a 1 page thread about a lighthearted situation became some stupid argument (not even a good one) about a pineapple and art representation in general for 6 pages. [/QUOTE] "dont share your opinions on subjects that you care about even slightly" [QUOTE] So yes I think they have to possibly have some bdsm fetish as why else would they come in here expecting anything else other than a struggle? [/QUOTE] lol [QUOTE] edit - And even more hilarious you proved a point I made further up in the very same post you quoted/snipped for one statement, picking out a small point in the argument that had almost nothing to do with it "he said one little thing at the end about bdsm as a joke, this invalidates every point he said before". Like how about bothering with the points I was making, like how silly it is to argue what art means like it hasnt been a dead horse that's been beaten into a very fine motor oil by now. [/QUOTE] I don't recall saying "this invalidates everything you said before" Saying stupid shit is what invalidates everything you said.

So you didn't actually argue against anything I said, just called things essays and said "lol" a bunch. Well before I get sucked into the circle thats been created here I am going to go, but let me ask this. Did anyone's opinion here change? Did anyone grow from these 6 pages of petty opinions and beating around the bush endlessly? So I think my argument that these people get played by the artist's, become more invested in the subject than the fans themselves and then repeatedly COME BACK to these threads with the content they don't like just to say they don't like it is pretty accurate and bdsm like. Like do you actually disagree with any of that, or are you just taking something else out on me? Because I can't even find an actual thing you're trying to discuss with me here other than trying to find something wrong with a BDSM analogy and doing condescending insults while getting mad at me for being condescending. edit - Hell I don't even have to wait around for the reply because it is that stinking obvious and it makes this thread all the more depressing. Good day man, and there is a difference between sharing an opinion( which I am fine with, what was all that crap about me not liking opinions I just said I didnt care that much about them dude), and going on a crusade to prove your opinion is right in a thread which has content you don't agree with. Like I bet even with my argument laid out above in two sentences you won't answer me directly on whether or not you agree. Because for some reason you've gone personal with this and the actual argument doesn't matter anymore. But to each their own I guess?

[QUOTE=1chains1;52205098]So you didn't actually argue against anything I said, just called things essays and said "lol" a bunch. Well before I get sucked into the circle thats been created here I am going to go, but let me ask this. Did anyone's opinion here change? Did anyone grow from these 6 pages of petty opinions and beating around the bush endlessly? So I think my argument that these people get played by the artist's, become more invested in the subject than the fans themselves and then repeatedly COME BACK to these threads with the content they don't like just ot say they don't like it. Like do you actually disagree with any of that, or are you just taking something else out on me? Because I can't even find an actual thing you're trying to discuss with me here other than trying to find something wrong with a BDSM analogy.[/QUOTE] So you ignore me saying "I like doing this, which is why I do it, and I don't care that the artist is laughing all hte way to the bank" and go for me saying "lol" at your most asinine statements. [B][I] Kinda reminds me of another thing you said.[/I][/B] [QUOTE]And even more hilarious you proved a point I made further up in the very same post you quoted/snipped for one statement, picking out a small point in the argument that had almost nothing to do with it "he said one little thing at the end about bdsm as a joke, this invalidates every point he said before". [/QUOTE]

I believe good art requires both technical skill and creativity, not one or the other. Photorealism to the T is boring and uncreative, photos exist (See this a lot on Reddit where people copy celebrity photos 1:1). On the flip side it's hard to define being creative besides using something concrete as a basis for normal/standard, which is why I believe art requires technical skill to create something competent but also using your experiences and mind to create your own spin or expression. This also means I don't believe just throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas means anything besides being a sham, it required very little thought and we as the audience have to take your word that it's a good piece of art rather than having the art piece itself do the talking. I also don't like that the the onus is on the audience to interpret a piece of art as I really dislike the stigma art has as being only "talented" or "creatively gifted" people can do due to this responsibility people put on the audience to interpret it.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52204560]There's no need to splash paint on a canvas and call it art intended to invoke emotions. Me calling them pretentious hippies probably induced a larger emotional reaction than seeing a pollock IRL. Plus I got the same freedom of speech that lets them "dissect and analyze" how a slightly deeper shade of red piss-stains in the corner of a canvas implies the hidden brutality of man and urinary tract infections all at once.[/QUOTE] You're perfectly within your right to criticise it lol, It's not for everyone, it's not even for me most of the time but I can still respect things I don't like without getting aggressive and insulting people that enjoy it. [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52205014] Nice how you condescend on people without knowing anything about them and call them sadomasochists... [/QUOTE] you literally condescended everybody that likes pollocks work earlier as "pretentious hippies(said with the least respect possible)"

something that annoys me in this thread is people linking classic paintings from pre-19th century like, no shit that art looks amazing compared to modern art - that's art that has survived literally 200+ years the difference between now and then is that you simply aren't seeing the shit art of 200 years ago because it doesn't survive it's like saying all film from the 1940's was superior to modern films because you just watched Passengers and the only film from back then that you know of is citizen kane

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52205206] you literally condescended everybody that likes pollocks work earlier as "pretentious hippies(said with the least respect possible)"[/QUOTE] I aint perfect lol, I guess I did.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52204514]Why should anyone give a single shit about the texture or the size. I've been dragged through art history courses and galleries by various people and while I've come to accept that it's apparently a thought provoking experience for pretentious hippies(said with the least respect possible), I just legit can't imagine what kind of "thoughts" the "texture" and "size" of a Pollock would "provoke" other than "Ah, it's pretty big" and "Oh, there's a bit more paint here than in that other place. Breathtaking"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52204560]There's no need to splash paint on a canvas and call it art intended to invoke emotions.[/QUOTE] i know it's been said before but you're really underselling the thought people like pollock put into their art dawg. there's a lot of consideration those artists put into several aspects. the brushstrokes and texture of pollock's paintings helped convey the emotion he wanted to. he wasn't just mindlessly splashing paint onto the canvas and would sometimes have his paints be more aggressively slammed onto the canvas whenever he wanted to invoke a more intense emotion like anger, or calmly drip the paint onto the canvas whenever he wanted to make it seem more calmer. that's the barebone basics of it, but it should at least give you an idea of the thought process behind splatter art paintings. there's also the stuff with how he chose his colors but pascal already explained that with detail on page 4. and although i don't think seeing the size is [I]that[/I] important, i feel it adds some context as to how much time and effort went into those paintings and i feel seeing the sheer size of the paintings explains that better than just words can, though your experience may vary edit: and hell even if you don't think it's trying to go for an emotional response it's still trying it's damnest to look visually appealing despite being a mess.