Wall of Fame -- aka the condom wall

[Paelos]

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.

[SurfD]

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.

[Ruvaldt]

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.

Art should be about expression, not exhibiting talent.

[Merusk]

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.

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.

[Ironwood]

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.

[tgr]

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

[schild]

Ooooh. A discussion on art.

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

Let's meet her father.

[Ironwood]

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

Dibs.

[Paelos]

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.

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

[Lakov_Sanite]

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.

[jakonovski]

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

[schild]

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

[Ironwood]

Does that work ?

[Furiously]

Ooooh. A discussion on art.

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

Let's meet her father.

Or he's photo 1...

[apocrypha]

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.

[Paelos]

Nazi poop.

[Nebu]

So... are games art? 

/runs away

[Samwise]

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.

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.

[Goumindong]

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

Why should she need an excuse?

[schild]

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

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.

[Abagadro]

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.

[apocrypha]

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?

 

[Samwise]

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.

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.)

[Ingmar]

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.)

[Ironwood]

Well, at least it stimulated discussion.

 

[Yegolev]

Oh, shit.  Now it's fucking art.

[schild]

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

[Ingmar]

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?"

[Pennilenko]

By that standard then, f13 is art.

[schild]

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?"

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.

[schild]

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.

[schild]

Fixed it.

[rk47]

To me, it's a powerful portrait of compulsive behavior, and inner conflict, and being really fucked up in the head.

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

[Sjofn]

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>

[Surlyboi]

Ooooh. A discussion on art.

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

Let's meet her father.

Or he's photo 1...

Nah, no Garfield mask...