f13.net

(http://i.imgur.com/S8Qbo.jpg)

That's just creepy.

Must smell wonderful.  :ye_gods:

x 4

Just notch the bed post like everyone else.

Nothing is funny about that picture.

Likely NSFW and also does not belong in the funny thread, perhaps a sad and depressing thread. That said, guess some people just like saving for a rainy day  :why_so_serious:

Political Point is Political.

I can see why someone might find it funny, but nah.  Not for me.  Especially as it's a Bloodworth from elsewhere in my brain.

It has a shock factor funny to it... I get it, especially with my morbid sense of darkened humor. But yeah... gives off a creepy horror movie vibe.

I laughed at the twist. Then I laughed louder as my brain began noticing the length some of them had been unrolled.  Poor chaps on the top row, back wall, fifth from the corner and first on the end.

What am i missing? twist?

it's a shitty art exhibition - where the artist just fucked every men and saved up every pic and every used condom.
she won an award for it.

disgusting creature, i avoid them whenever i can.  :why_so_serious:

What, women?  :why_so_serious:

----

Also yes, it's an art-thingy, not the bedroom of some random teenager. Which lessened the shock value for me considerably.

She shoulda made balloon animals out of them!

Or glazed donughts.

You evidently knew better men than I in college.  Plenty kept these sort of "scorecards." Panties, photos, earrings.. whatever they could collect off the women they'd bedded.  Lots of accolades from other guys for it.

Now it's a woman doing it so it's inappropriate and she's a slut.

Men's briefs might be more analagous, but less shocking. Keeping used condoms is icky because, y'know, they're full of semen.

Which dries up and is no more or less gross than hide glue when it's done so. It's meant to be shocking and make you think a little. Boxers wouldn't have the same impact.  Just another part of the current movement in Art.

At least it wasn't put in the snacktastic thread.

I disagree, it's still a lot more gross. It's also really crap art.

I don't know about that.  I think a photo of the display is pretty powerful with the woman in the pose that she's in.  I found it interesting.

Yeah, I thought it was really striking, myself. Uncomfortable, but good art often is.

The type A in me had to count, I think it's around 124 or so.  That's a lot of dicks.

In a row?

Maybe a couple could have been at the same time...

Same.  The girl's positioning and body language are what make it stand out for me. 

I liked it and, frankly, like what it said to me.

I'm also confused since the perspective makes some of them look like the female condom, which would add a more interesting element, I think.

Again I'm forced to examine my own lack of artistic understanding.  Let's discuss the spaghetti-o thing next, I never got that one either.

I'm pretty much unimpressed by the "disturbing image as art" thing. It's simply not that hard to creep people the fuck out.

I like this kind of art. Things done by people that I could never replicate in a million years:

 :drill:

I'm no art scholar but let's see if this helps:

Understand that modern art is divorced from the centuries prior.  The ability to capture perfect images of a moment in time changed things radically. Why spend decades learning to paint a perfect scene when a guy with a half-hour of instruction can use a device to capture a scene in better detail than you ever could.   So art began to shift to what the scene felt like. What emotions and reactions  it could evoke from you, what it says about your preconceptions and how it can shake your personal "truths" about the world.

So we come to the modern pieces like this, piss christ, etc.  Some call it trolling, some call it honest critique, some call it taking suckers for a ride.

I blame guys like Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollack for making artists into cunts.

My interpretation of what is art, and what is bullshit, is defined by my belief the artist exhibited any particular talent beyond the normal populace.

If not, bullshit. In this case, I call bullshit.

So the idea doesn't count for anything? (Not in this case, but generally).

It's part of it. But the execution of the idea is the difference to me. I can think of a story, but I may not have the talent to write it. I can have the idea for a video, but I may lack the expertise to shoot or direct it.

To me, photography has spawned a generation of vapid people who think they are artists. However, there are obvious examples of photography where you see greatness. The execution of those photos is beyond what any normal person would do.

That's...interesting.

Other people may see it differently. That's the essence of art. It doesn't have to be loved by all, but I think defining it simply as something which provides an emotional response is too low of a bar.

A trainwreck provides an emotional response.

Wonder if she made every one of those guys sign a waiver?  I mean, modern photo comparison software being what it is, there is a good chance some internet troll will be able to link at least a few of those guys pictures to their IRL identity, so they can point fingers and whatnot.

Art should be about expression, not exhibiting talent.

And what, pray tell, is the point of that bar?  To keep something pure? What, exactly are you trying to protect?  The notion that you can't do art because you don't think that way?

The proper response to 'anyone could do that' is always, "'Anyone' didn't. That individual did."  In any profession or any activity.   Saying "anyone" is just sour grapes and trying to console yourself that you can't or didn't.

I personally think that Hestons food is art, even though he's a fucking tit-end and it wouldn't feed a fucking sparrow.

Sometimes art just is.

I'll buy a canvas, some paint, fling the paint on the canvas, think up some deep name and call it art. :oh_i_see:

Ooooh. A discussion on art.

This isn't art. Its a pop psychology case in a room.

Let's meet her father.

He left home when she was 7 because of his drinking problem.

Dibs.

Not really. It's an honest critique of the material. Simply acting is not an artistic endeavor. Everybody poops.

I just want to know what message the image is trying to convey.  If it's the "see, we call this woman a slut but a man would be praised" then I don't buy it, because if it was a guy with a lock of hair from each woman along with a picture like this scene, we'd call him a psychopath.  If this is a big "up to the viewer thing" then it makes more sense but that's always a cop out to me, art should be up to a viewer but it would always have its own voice as well, even if people never see that voice.

It's gross but pretty good as a work of art.

Not really. She just wanted to sleep around and used art as an excuse to do so.

Does that work ?

Or he's photo 1...

99% of discussions attempting to define art hit the "wall of shit" where someone says something really original like "what if I shit on the table and call it art, does that make me an artist?" and "how about if I draw a face in it, is it art now? Eh? IS IT?".

Invoking poop is the artistic Godwin's Law and it marks the point when there is no merit whatsoever to the conversation any more.

Nazi poop.

So... are games art? 

/runs away

On the one hand, she's got all these "trophies" neatly arranged on the wall.  So you think about the time and effort that went into putting all that together; it's something that would ordinarily indicate pride.  But then you think about the fact that it's fucking gross, and from the way she's sort of curled up and turned away from the camera, it looks like she thinks it's gross too, and she's ashamed of all of it, and of herself.

To me, it's a powerful portrait of compulsive behavior, and inner conflict, and being really fucked up in the head.  If I'd seen a similar composition before, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful, but I hadn't.  I respectfully suggest that if anyone thinks it's not art because he could come up with something just as good or better, he put up or shut up.

Why should she need an excuse?

She doesn't. I still think it shouldve been a family photo with only her smiling. Considering 100 men or more have been all up in her, playing the anonymity game is a little lame.

Anyway, still not art.

My personal opinion is that creating that artificially would have been artistic and thought provoking. Actually fucking people to create it makes it pretentious bullshit done for shock value.

Wait, faking it would have been less pretentious than doing it for real?

What?

 :uhrr:

I agree insofar as the picture being the important thing -- I don't think that whether it's "real" or not matters one way or the other as far as the artistic value of the picture itself.  (Here is where I diverge from many in the beret-wearing community; I think a piece of art that you need to know the story behind to appreciate is like a joke that you need to have explained to you.)

Well, like any art there are layers of things to appreciate/drive interest. One person might enjoy an opera on a purely surface level, whereas someone like me might be interested in that and also in the harmonic structure or whatever - the 'knowing how it was done' part of things necessarily has a narrower appeal, and shouldn't generally be necessary for the layman to be able to form an opinion about something.

If how you did something is more interesting than the result you're probably not making very good art. (I'm looking at you John Cage.)

Well, at least it stimulated discussion.

 :oh_i_see:

Oh, shit.  Now it's fucking art. :awesome_for_real:

Nope, still not art. Never was art - and never will be art.

Art is incredibly simple to define. It's anything that someone creates with the intent of creating art. That's it. You can argue for days about whether something is good art or not, there's loads of shitty art in the world, from my crayon pictures on the fridge as a kid to any Michael Bay movie, but that's where the conversation starts. "Is this art" is an even more retarded discussion point than "is this music?"

By that standard then, f13 is art. :why_so_serious:

Yup, and I would say this was not created with art in mind. It was created with a deep personal need to not have the father she had and maybe she called it art and good for her, still not art.

But again, I don't know why would would have a conversation about this in an artistic regard as something would have to be art to have that conversation. What we should be talking about is how to make it more funny on the internet as right now it's just a depressing, relatively, gross smelling room.

In other news, I think we found the next location for that Glade Air Freshener blind test.

Edit: Or whatever brand currently is doing ads in gross places.

Fixed it.

(http://i.imgur.com/m2EaK.jpg)

Like a guy buying shitty games on steam deal and arranging neatly in some virtual shelf while turning away from it?  :why_so_serious:

What's interesting to me is, not knowing a goddamn thing about the artist or anything, I don't see her as turning away from her collection in the picture. I see her as gazing at it, and we are intruding on her little moment of ... whatever.

<shrug>

Nah, no Garfield mask...

Yeah she looks to be staring at the end of the wall, towards the newest acquisition.

I find it disgusting to just have used condoms on the wall, but good for her for getting her's as long as she's not hurting people in the process (such as intentionally spreading diseases like an asshole).

That said, I don't view it as art, just a collection type of hobby from a person who's OCD about each piece of the collection being lined up just right. So it's kind of like a stamp collection, only with cocks, semen, and orgasms


Nicely done :awesome_for_real:

That's not the definition of art at all. Sure, it's the definition hacks with no training or talent use since it validates their work. You can argue the minutea about the exact definition of art or what qualifies as art before or after the early twentieth century, or high vs low art, or fine vs craft art, but that definition is just... lazy and sloppy. There needs to be some sort of cultural context, connection between artist and audience, minimum level of skill, blah, blah, blah. I'll give you that what qualifies as "legitimate" art got a lot broader in the early 20th century, but it's still not univerally encompassing. Otherwise, idiotic attenion whore like the Yellowists would be correct in their retarded beliefs.

Also, from what I can find out she just asked guys if they would jerk of in a rubber for her and let her take their picture.

Actually, it's a perfectly fine definition of art. It's a shit definition of fine art - which is where you don't really want to encounter "hacks with no training or talent."

Photo in the OP is still not art nor is the girl/photographer an artist.

I think the most interesting thing about it is how different everyone's reactions might be if it was a guy on the bed with his own used condoms and pictures of girls on the wall.  This thread was pretty quick to go to 'daddy issues', I doubt the guy's mind would be discussed at all after he was declared "creepy as hell."

Pollack is considered by many to be one of the great artists of his time, but he didn't have training and his technique didn't exactly require talent, just vision.  I don't see this as being terribly different.  It's designed to provoke a reaction, that's enough for many.

I liked it, and it's most certainly art.  It's a hell of a lot more creative and thought provoking than the vast majority of you (or the rest of humanity) could ever come up with and create.  It's not earth shattering or anything, but it absolutely is art.

I disagree, and my argument is exactly the opposite of yours.

What a weird discussion.  Exactly why does it matter whether or not it is art?  Dumb semantics.  It can provoke an interesting conversation without being art.  Or it can be art, who cares?

I'd say it's on a level with Tracy Emin. Probably more interesting, actually. And yeah, Emin is considered by a large number of people to be a legitimate artist, and makes a living as such.

Unfortunately.

The photo is more interestingly composed than the work, in my view.

I don't think she is turning away from the pictures either. But her showing her back to the camera, together with the legs pulled up and close the body evoces a very vulnerable pose. I think that's what is causing the instinctive reactions by viewers.

Edit: And her being barley dressed/unprotected from prying eyes. Imagine her in a big fur winter-coat, would change the image right away..

Re: What is art.

I'd say there are a couple aspects defining it. Plus it's probably very subjective as well.

SKILL: That what Paelos talked about when he referred to execution. Something finely made, that few people would be able to reproduce.

IDEA: Originality. Something maybe easy to do once you know how to, but one has to think about it first. To give a non-arty example: the Archimedean principle, there is nothing inertly complicated about the relationship buoyancy and weight displaced if you get it explained. But someone had to think of it first.

INTERACTION WITH THE CONSUMER: The 'message'. Does it cause a reaction in the viewer? I think art is mainly a way to express thoughts (or feelings) in a non-verbal way. Which why it can be so effected in causing a response and uproar (see this thread as proof). It is very easy to simple ignore or dismiss a flat out statement ('Cookies are good' - 'I disagree'), but presented as picture or object it sort of sneaks up on, whether you realize it or not. Plus as the message is somewhat more cryptic than a statement read it differently and are forced to interpret it. Which reveals a lot about their own ideas/conceptions. (see this thread as proof).

Yeah I thought of Tracy Emin ("Bed" specifically) when I saw it too. Which I think is one of the reasons I don't like it - it doesn't strike me as original, nor done interestingly enough to not need to be original. However, I saw it as being about alienation - reducing human intimacy to a scoreboard, a collection of waste products and a series of effectively anonymous photographs. Anyone have a link to anything about the piece or the artist? I'm wondering if the piece is the photograph or the installation, and if it's an installation what's the role of the woman in it? Is she the artist? Does she stay there the entire time?

Also, very unpleasant, and potentially hazardous, for whoever ends up having to dispose of the whole installation. I wonder if she filled in a risk assessment form?  :why_so_serious:

Make a photograph of a guy in a yellow bio-harzard suit disposing the used condoms. Ta-Da new art piece!

Why do people so often define art as "it's art if I like it"?

Because people define their own opinions and likes as benchmark against which the world is measured?

It makes me think that stapling used condoms to the wall is gross.

(http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/ratman/scans/Sketch40.jpg)

Wow, you just totally changed my perceptions on toast with that work of art.

I mean, I know I am supposed to be a seeing a happy piece of toast celebrating his own toastiness and possibly also his release from this toaster prison, but I can't help but thing there is a bit of fear in his eye, that maybe that is a look of utter terror.  That maybe he is running desperately away from the toaster and is afraid of catching fire.  Fucking super thought provoking.

Because people sometimes use art to rationalize terrible decisions or lack of talent.

I think the mere fact that we all assumed they were used and intercourse happened at all - with no context and I'll wager research - by anyone except angry.bob makes it transcend that.   It says a lot about the viewers and the cultural context.

It's just creepy.

Don't be an idiot.

Also, if the toast is happy, does that mean it is a preferable state than bread? Is bread the unformed child both dreading and needing to be burnt and molded by society to become the toast?  Are we then, the toaster?

Did some searching and she has a NSFW Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22617248@N02/) NSFW that is mildly interesting, but nothing amazing.

I see a piece of bread that gives the outward appearance of being happy to be sent to the toaster, but the teardrop-shaped eyes belie a barely-contained horror.  I'd rate it more powerful than a room full of condoms.

She's trying entirely too hard.

That would be because Daddy.

I don't think they are listening to you at this point, but I think you are right. Even if you are joking.

I think the lighting plays a role too.

(http://www.guitarforworship.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Ferris-Bueller-Art-Museum.jpg)

Now this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOB9avcSqpg) is art!   :why_so_serious:

Not only because of the lighting in that piece, but because of the originality  :why_so_serious:

Not art.  Just a rich girl who's trying to over think things.

Tiger blood.

The art world has brought this on itself by making these sorts of questions legitimate when they should be ridiculous.

I would also say that if anything with artistic intent is art but not good art then clearly when people argue whether or not something is "art" what they are really arguing is whether or not it is interesting and worthwhile art, not whether it is "art" by definition in that you totally were trying to create art when you took a dump in a bowl.

The art world? I don't think there's a central committee out there deciding what counts as art.

edit: if anything, I'd say this is what democratization of art leads to. We've gone way beyond commercial and religious illustrations of the 17th century (the most uncontroversial form of art you could imagine today).

No, but there are several local and state organizations that do, and give grants as such.

There's no democracy in the art world. The average person has zero input on what gets put in museums. What is considered museum-worthy art is determined by a very small group.

You could say the same about food, or any number of things, music, books, etc.

Also galleries these days are far more beholden to visitor numbers and so forth as metrics to work out who gets sacked and the like.

Point, but I'm pretty sure those are dealt out in a diversified fashion. Ie. the condom wall may get a grant and thus official recognition, but there is no agenda to push for more condom walls.

I agree with lamaros, there's plenty of popular input. Art has never been more diverse, something I do not believe would happen if there was a small cabal pulling the strings.

A "small cabal pulling the strings" sounds sinister but that is how museum curation works, and unlike things like books and music (which are controlled by publishers to some extent) there are very few avenues for artistic recognition or distribution outside of curated establishments.

Traditional art is something that must be viewed in person, in a controlled environment, in a relatively small number of establishments across the globe. It benefits very little from digital replication, and stuff like performance art and art installations benefit even less. It also depends very heavily on the individual tastes and whims of private collectors.