Anyone else pissed off that someone's 'art' can be worth that much but if we had made something exactly the same it wouldn't have been worth even the materials it was built from?
Accidental Cleanliness Destroys $1.1m Art Installation
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Well then you can go make it yourself, and then laugh at the dudes for spending all their money on jack shit. Why does that piss you off? Shouldn't it cheer you up?Some_weirdGuy said:
No no, I couldn't care less about owning a piece of junk like that, I'm talking about how some guy can make 1.1 million dollars from his one of it, while if I made one that had been exactly the same in every way it would have only sold for like $20 at most.mrpenguinismyhomeboy said:
Man but that's really cool for so many different reasons. Like, that's jesus right? We all know Jesus, he's that dude, and he did things, and as far as we know he's kinda like the best dude. He is the pinnacle of holiness to some people, and has somewhat been contorted into a surfer bro type dude in popular culture (the Jesus in family guy for instance). Regardless Jesus is regarded as a pretty cool dude to most people.idarkphoenixi said:
This dude took that, And he peed on it.
You know where pee goes? In the toilet bowl. You know what else goes in the toilet bowl? poop, used needles, used condoms, drugs we're flushing down because we're about to get caught, vomit, spit, boogers, phelm, all manner of gross things. And if piss belongs anywhere, it belongs in the toilet bowl. The toilet bowl is, for the most part, a disharmony of disgust and shame. Jesus is the harmony of all that is good and right and beautiful.
Also, how weird would it be to pee on a crucifix? especially since its a dude, so he like took his dick out, looked at the Jesus on the cross, looked right into his face, and was like, "I'm gonna pee on you." Isn't that absolutely crazy? Ins't that insane? Doesn't that just make your head explode when you think about it? Because of all the things that you could have done with a crucifix, would you really ever pee on it?
It's not about what the end result is, it's about how they made it. And from how they made it, you can extrapolate the message they send.
Destroyed it? Or made it better?
In all honesty, though, I'd almost argue that the world is better off with one less piece of so-called art wasting space in a gallery somewhere.
yeah that is true, that is kinda bullshit. The art world has a very very very very big reputation problem.Some_weirdGuy said:
i think there may be a slight misundersatnding here, i wasn't working on a game, just playing one. it was a reponce to the level i was playing. unless i'm misundstanding you, in which case sorry.Owyn_Merrilin said:
but what are you basing that definition between something that clearly does have meaning, or one where they've just made stuff up? is it not possible that a work could have meaning, but due to the perticular meduim or method the artist has used it just doesn't work out for you personally?Owyn_Merrilin said:
i dunno, i think the "skill" requirement is a bit harsh, or limited at least, i'd say the bed did require skill, it was just a skill in making diagrams and giving directions. if this counts as the right kind of skill for an art work i guess is debateable, but i'd say it definatey isn't without any skill, or at least that i really like the ideas and design of that piece, and i count both those as skills.Owyn_Merrilin said:
way too many "skill"s in that sentance.
i actually wasn't familier with the "red square" peasent woman image (well, ok it's a bit familier, i've seen "black square" by the same artist), and have been looking for more about it (like where it is, can't find that info though) considering the artist was a russian working in the post revolutionary era, i don't think the connection between "red square" and "peasent" is really that big of a leap. a tad era specifc maybe, but really not all that bad, still pretty interesting i think, anyway i've digressed. we shall continue this in the morn if y'like, i don't get to do these often and i do like them.
*skips off*
edit: now seen your edit on the designing/playing mix up. more tomorrow (maybe)!
The full answer is kinda complicated and I'm lazy, but in short, "sorta, but it's generally better to err on the side of caution in these hyper-litigious times." Odds are I could use it and nothing would happen, but there's always the chance someone would get upset and call a lawyer and that's just not worth the hassle.GeorgW said:
Earnest Cavalli said:
THIS
SHIT
ISN'T
ART
Ever since one asshole put a fucking sideways urinal in an art museum, art has become meaningless drivel and pretention. Art takes SKILL not a blackbelt in bullshit
Burn the galleries to the ground
This reminds me of that news story from a couple months ago about a bottle of water (the water was apparently from a melted Antarctic glacier, symbolizing global warming or some such) that was on display in a museum. Last I checked their theory was that someone either threw it out or drank it.
*Snuff* Well maybe that's just your opinion!xXxJessicaxXx said:
Jokes aside, you have a good point. It sometimes feels like we can't just say "Look Billy, you suck at art. Maybe try something else?"
What becomes interesting to me is what distinction we have over objectivity versus subjectivity if something like art is to be discussed. Another thread about games as art had some mentioning actual art theory as a supposedly objective way to define art. But as someone outside of that "community," any theory or guideline for what constitutes as art starts to get blurry since at least one person had to agree to a set of terms to apply to anything. It's not math where a formula has a function with possible limitations (finding the area of a circle with the formula of a square wouldn't work). Instead, creations like the picture below get a pass because of certain criteria, but other creations - yes, even of different mediums - could be discounted because they do not appease some art theorist.
If emotion, insight, or grandiose questions are part of determining art, I especially find that the definition can get its share of stretches because to someone, that below picture means something important. Hell, even someone like me who does not give the faintest of damns about it could come up with some b.s. "insight" after looking it up and down for a minute. This has me think to the episode of the show Community where Jeff takes a pencil and says something along the lines of "that is why I can tell you that this pencil is named Steve, and when I snap it *snap a part of you dies." The most random and meaningless crap can touch us in different ways unexpectedly, is what I'm trying to say I guess. I'd apply that one to a lot of things because people can look more into something if they start caring enough, granted, excessive practice would make one go insane. Think about all of the bullshit you probably had to fill entire essays with regarding books that you abhorred and, to this day, see zero meaning in?
And that is where I figure that it doesn't matter if a couple of snobs conned one another into believing that a deep, philosophical point was hidden within an assortment of junk. Someone has to step up and say, "As a regular Joe, may I ask what the hell business do you have putting that up in a museum and acting like it's the Ark of the Covenant?!?" Someone has to just be honest in whatever board room approves stuff that gets mopped up by the janitor because it looks like a terrible prank from the high school field trip earlier on. More to your point, when it comes to being objective, people need to honestly say that "while I do appreciate X, yeah some skill was involved - but so did my 7th grade art project - I guess it has its failings and might not need a laser grid security system." Enough of those failings should perhaps have people like those judging what is and is not art look at whatever was next in line for something better. And actually warrants being worth more than $30 in a yard sale because of the fancy signature of an exotic name.
*wow, that was a keyboard-full. Sorry for rambling (I need to take a breather!)*
I think Sojoez's comment is fitting: It looks like a mutli-colored dumpster.Sojoez said:No shit.ZeZZZZevy said:
Here is more from the same artist.
It seems that the artist has been dead since 1997 though, so that does make it hard to restore it to what it was. Still shit art.
This is my new reason for why I never clean up after myself, ever.
Never know what wonders I might be destroying if I disturbed the mountains of pizza boxes.
Never know what wonders I might be destroying if I disturbed the mountains of pizza boxes.
