Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 23, 2025, 06:14:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously  (Read 34195 times)
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #70 on: April 03, 2007, 09:23:40 AM

BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!






Your turn.

Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #71 on: April 03, 2007, 09:32:09 AM

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Nice Shooting Tex.

Let's not.

As to H ;  You will quite literally watch anything when you have a sleeping 7month old that wakes every time you twitch and you've left the channel on Sky Movies and suddenly the good movie you WERE watching finishes and the credits for a heap of shit appears.  It's at that point you realise you left the TV controller on the Dining table and you can't move and the wife appears to have fucked right off to enjoy the peace and quiet and you're left listening to some wee whiny twat screaming that eventually he WILL BE ALL POWERFUL AND HE'LL SHOW ALL OF THEM.

Babies are Hell.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #72 on: April 03, 2007, 09:55:10 AM

If you had to listen to whining, it might as well be your baby's over his.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Jayce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2647

Diluted Fool


Reply #73 on: April 03, 2007, 10:35:33 AM

If you had to listen to whining, it might as well be your baby's over his.

That's a perfectly good point.  I can't speak for Ironwood, but my kids crying is painful to hear even if I know they're ok.  It's nothing compared to the pain of that movie's dialog though.

Witty banter not included.
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529


Reply #74 on: April 03, 2007, 10:50:27 AM

One thing I don't believe the movie mentions is the horrible stench that often lingers over Pasadena.
You truly do have to actually smell it to believe how bad it can be.  I thought crude oil being refined out in Abilene or drilled for in Odessa stunk something fierce, but Pasadena has a stench all its own...

The upside is that since schools are funded by property taxes, the schools in the area tend to be a LOT better than is the case (Deer Park, for instance, is one of the better school districts in the state).
I don't know... the Pasadena school system isn't the most stellar according to my sister-in-law and all of the other half's family who are firmly entrenched in the area.  The Friendswood\Pearland districts are considerably "safer" schools to go to.  Sure, it isn't inner city Houston or anything like that, but it definitely isn't the top school district of choice.

And my father-in-law used to tell us all kinds of stories about Gilley's.  I never knew if he was telling the truth with some of them though...
I was thinking Deer Park -- Pasadena and Baytown don't hit the "sweet spot" for refinery tax money. Deer Park does -- and it's student body is a mix of the kids of engineers and blue-collar laborers.

Semi-decent sports program  -- Andy Petitt played for Deer Park. Lives there too -- a few miles from my parent's place. Too bad he chokes half the fucking time. The music program (except for voice, which I understand is outstanding) has fallen off a bit, but it's got a very good fine arts program overall. Academically, they're near the top of the state -- near Plano, etc.

Now, Pasadena's schools aren't anything to write home about (although I know a few people that work there). They are, however, considerably better than other schools with the same demographics (fairly low-income area, etc) because they have a great deal more money than a similiar district on the other side of town. I'd avoid La Porte ISD, though. *shudder*.

Clear Lake, Brook and Friendswood benefit in much the same way from NASA (lots of kids of rocket scientists out there), and there's some solid schools on the north side of town (Woodlands area) -- but fucking education in Texas is goddamn hit or miss. I prefer Clear Lake to Deer Park if I was picking a place to live, but for school's -- it'd be a toss-up.
WindupAtheist
Army of One
Posts: 7028

Badicalthon


Reply #75 on: April 03, 2007, 04:12:23 PM

BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!

Your turn.

Okay.

Ahem...

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

Now you go again.

"You're just a dick who quotes himself in his sig."  --  Schild
"Yeah, it's pretty awesome."  --  Me
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #76 on: April 03, 2007, 05:30:16 PM

I understand what you said, and understand that you're the biggest idiot around here as well. One which, even if you grew up for awhile, would still be more stupid than Broughden. Seriously, you take the cake. You're one part Alex Keaton, one part Ishmael Boorg. And just another kid to boot.

And even if I did misunderstand, I still wouldn't care. Because I don't like you, and I'm quite happy never giving you an ounce of respect just by default.


Hey, I still disagree totally with what you said about Art, but I can get behind your Triforcer Stance.


(And it was a totally throwaway comment anyway, I don't wanna get into a debate about the Authorial Phallacy anyways, since I spent too much time studying it during my own creative pursuits.  It was an interesting Debate tactic tho.  I look forward to our lightsabre fight where you claim TO HAVE THE HIGH GROUND.)

God, I watched that movie again yesterday.   Still shit.


But there isn't a debate here. Not until you tell me give me some reasons why you said what you did at least.

All I was speaking about was personal style. Style, and how people can identify or have a liking for someone's work (or a disliking, for that matter). And why and how they can get a general idea about future creations by certain individuals when taking said individual's previous work into account. Style is hardly a farfetched idea that even needs to be debated. It exists. Artists are embodied in their work, and represent the artist at whatever period in life they were created.

In the case of movies, it might get a little trickier, since there's hundreds of people working on the average film - and all contribute and put their souls into it in some way. But even then, someone's calling the shots -- someone has the "vision", and is dictating things to the others. Most of the time, that person is the director. In the end, the final product falls on his or her head.

But anyways, skipping the elementary shit, I just need to ask: Is it so wrong for someone to say, "I like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick. I'm looking forward to/avoiding this film"? Because that's all this amounts to. I don't care to look over the exact conversation that started this, but believe someone said they "liked Tarantino's movies". Some other guy came in and acted like it was weird to not take every movie on it's own terms, and ignore the people behind it.

If you believe that, then I never want to hear you praise or denigrate, or even talk about a director ever again.

[EDIT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're mistaking me for saying you have to like an artist personally if you like his or her work. Or something like that. But that isn't what I meant. I just said you couldn't seperate them. As far as that goes, the two are one and the same.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2007, 05:40:07 PM by Stray »
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19324

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #77 on: April 03, 2007, 05:37:06 PM

Is it so wrong for someone to say, "I like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick. I'm looking forward to/avoiding this film"?

No.

Is it wrong for someone to say "I normally like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick, but this particular film turned out to be completely different and I disliked/liked it anyway"?  This whole tangent started when Selby said that if Uwe Boll made a good movie, he (Selby) would watch it even though Uwe Boll has made lots of bad movies in the past.  You said he was silly because it's impossible to separate the art from the artist.  I think if you retract that accusation we can move on.   smiley
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #78 on: April 03, 2007, 05:46:40 PM

I would say that looking back on the original argument that once again the only problem is the use of the word "impossible" where "unlikely" would do.

Artists don't usually change their spots very often. Typically if you hate a good bit of an artists work, you aren't going to enjoy the next piece they do. It's very hard, but not impossible to seperate the two, and it's very rare that an established artist has a paradigm shift to greatness in their work. Note that I said established, not learning, advancing, and brainstorming.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #79 on: April 03, 2007, 05:58:32 PM

Is it so wrong for someone to say, "I like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick. I'm looking forward to/avoiding this film"?

No.

Is it wrong for someone to say "I normally like/dislike _insert director's name here_ schtick, but this particular film turned out to be completely different and I disliked/liked it anyway"?  This whole tangent started when Selby said that if Uwe Boll made a good movie, he (Selby) would watch it even though Uwe Boll has made lots of bad movies in the past.  You said he was silly because it's impossible to separate the art from the artist.  I think if you retract that accusation we can move on.   smiley

I don't think I'm going to retract anything.


If you're open to liking "something anyways" despite the past, then all that tells me is that you really do like that particular director's schtick, but finally found something where you thought it was applied well.

Or in other words, some people might actually like Uwe Boll's general take on things, but recognize he hasn't executed well -- He might get lucky one day and make a "good Uwe Boll" film -- and some people might like it. Simply because they never really hated him anyways. They wanted to like where he was going before.

I, for one, would hate even a good Uwe Boll film. Because it's Uwe Boll that I hate. Not just his lack of execution. He sucks all around.


Boll is a horrible example though. We should stop mentioning him. There are other things people are more likely to do a 180 on (I've done it plenty myself -- George Clooney is the first thing that comes to mind).
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7353


Reply #80 on: April 03, 2007, 06:26:51 PM

I, for one, would hate even a good Uwe Boll film. Because it's Uwe Boll that I hate. Not just his lack of execution. He sucks all around.

See that's the whole point about separating the artist from his art. What was being said was that it's possible (thought highly unlikely) that Uwe Boll might make an actually good film. Yeah it might be the case that he actually executes his style well finally (is that right? I always thought his style was 'incredibly shitty, dear god I want to stab my eyes out with cotton buds') but the point was that if the movie was actually a good movie it would be watchable. Or rather while there are movies that are really made as a reflection of the director's tastes (Tarantino being a case in point) it is possible for a director to make a film that is of quality without it being wholly a mater of their style. Not every film a director makes has to be in the exact same style and to state that you could never like a film because it was directed by X, Y or Z is to more or less state just that.

There are certainly cases where a director heavily influences movies but imagine someone who said that they hated Spielberg's style after watching the Indiana Jone's Trilogy and declared that, even without watching it, that they would hate Schindler's List. Directors aren't magically stuck in a single style or genre and while stating that you take films directors have made as indicators of what films you're interested in makes perfect sense, it seems bizarre to say that you'd never like one of their films.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #81 on: April 04, 2007, 01:20:06 AM


I don't think I'm going to retract anything.


You said that 'You Can't Seperate The Art From The Artist.'

I said 'That's Bollocks'.

I think you really do need to retract that.  You're saying that any art washed up on a beach in the middle of nowhere cannot be expressed due to the artist being unknown.

I say Bollocks.

Tracey Fucking Emin is what you get if you follow your logic.  Fucking Mona Lisa is what I get when I follow mine.

I don't NEED to know fuck all about Leonardo to appreciate the Mona Lisa.  I don't even need to know his fucking name.  I certainly don't take anything away from the painting because he was totally fucking batshit insane.  Authorial Phallacy.  I said I wouldn't do this and here I am debating.


I mean for fucks sake, Art is meant to outlast the artist.  That's the fucking point.


"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #82 on: April 04, 2007, 01:25:32 AM

One of the most hated sentences from the mouth of my German teacher in school:

"You have to take his whole writing into account to understand that book" (about what the author really means when he uses the word blue, because he doesn't mean the color, as evident in other books).

Fuck that. Book can't stand on its own, book failed. End of story.

Of course then it is also true that a book (picture,movie) that can stand on its own does so regardless of who made it.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 01:30:45 AM by Tebonas »
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #83 on: April 04, 2007, 01:30:15 AM

The only Professor to ever pull that shit on me was the guy that said the same thing about Hardy.

I found out later he had published five books on the works of Hardy.  He had to think that way; it generated revenue for him.


I'm not saying that you cannot glean insight through an understanding of the artist.  I'm just saying that it's not the important bit.  Thinking that way leads to our current cult of celebrity.  It leads to Tarantino.  And it shackles the artist themselves.  Did Raimi, for example, WANT to put the Doc Ock Operating Table funny in ?  Or was he forced to because it was entirely expected of him ?

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #84 on: April 04, 2007, 01:41:34 AM

BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!

Your turn.

Okay.

Ahem...

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

Now you go again.

Whoops

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #85 on: April 04, 2007, 01:44:48 AM

The deeper understanding you glean from the combined works is added value that should not be underestimated. But each piece should work on its own as well.
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #86 on: April 04, 2007, 01:47:24 AM

But even that DOES NOT NEED to reference the author nor the artist.

 cheesy

I could do this all day.  It beats work.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6365


Reply #87 on: April 04, 2007, 02:10:29 AM

Understanding the author or artist gives added value to understanding his works, but it doesn't add enough to satisfy the intellectual wanking-off needed to do it in most cases.

Oh yeah, beats the hell out of work!  cheesy
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8046


Reply #88 on: April 04, 2007, 06:28:45 AM

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"


Whoops

You know, the funny thing is I truly enjoyed the hell out of Serenity and would love to see Firefly revived but I'm surprised it placed so high on that list. It made like $5 at the theater.

Hey, Joss Whedon made it, this could lead right into the main derail again. (I happen to like everything he's done on TV and most of his movies. I'll give him a pass on some of the script's he helped with. I mean, he wrote Alien Ressurection but he also wrote Toy Story, right?)

"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #89 on: April 04, 2007, 08:46:23 AM

BUT LOVE ISN'T SAND!

Your turn.

Okay.

Ahem...

"THEY MADE PILES OF MONEY AND CRITICS ACTUALLY LIKED THEM BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS!  SO GO CRY INTO YOUR BEER, INTERNET, AND KEEP BACKING SHIT LIKE SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

Now you go again.

Weesa gonna die?

HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42666

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #90 on: April 04, 2007, 08:53:01 AM


I don't think I'm going to retract anything.


You said that 'You Can't Seperate The Art From The Artist.'

I said 'That's Bollocks'.

I think with film, it's REALLY bollocks in most cases because film is such a collaborative medium. Sure, the director calls the shots, but there's so many things and people he has to rely on to make a good movie that just saying it's HIS art is wrongheaded. Even with guys like Robert Rodriguez you have extra people on the set, and there's always the actors as well. A good director can get a great performance out of a mediocre actor, but a great actor can save a mediocre director's bacon. Shit, where would Lucas be without the ILM guys, or the presence of Harrison Ford?

Ice Pirates, that's where he'd be.

Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15542

The World's Worst Game: Curry or Covid


Reply #91 on: April 04, 2007, 08:56:09 AM

Ironwood, we're hating on Old Masters now?

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #92 on: April 04, 2007, 08:59:46 AM

We're doing what now ?

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #93 on: April 04, 2007, 10:45:43 AM

Damn. You're going on about cult of celebrity now?

If you're willing to admit that one can gather insight by understanding an artist beforehand, then that's good enough. We don't need to go any further. I wasn't trying to head into People magazine territory with my stance. 
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529


Reply #94 on: April 04, 2007, 11:13:04 AM

You know, the funny thing is I truly enjoyed the hell out of Serenity and would love to see Firefly revived but I'm surprised it placed so high on that list. It made like $5 at the theater.

Hey, Joss Whedon made it, this could lead right into the main derail again. (I happen to like everything he's done on TV and most of his movies. I'll give him a pass on some of the script's he helped with. I mean, he wrote Alien Ressurection but he also wrote Toy Story, right?)
Making money and "being a good movie" aren't always the same thing. (I'm not going to say "never" --- fuck people who claim if it's popular, it can't be good.) It made back it's investment (trust me, the "It cost XX million dollars" to make stuff is bullshit. It rarely costs as much as they claim. That's what it costs if you ignore sweetheart deals, tax breaks, and all the other fun ways Hollywood defrays costs), which is more than a lot of sci-fi films.

As for Whedon and Alien Ressurection, I believe he disavows all knowledge of that script -- which isn't surprising, as I understand several other people butchered the script after he was done.

Frankly, I'm just marking time until Fox's ownership of the rights to produce Firefly on TV expire. I'm kind of hoping Whedom takes another whack at it on Sci-Fi or something. Most writers, I think, would have a serious problem working out when to place it (before the movie? After the movie? Some before, then some after?) or how to handle the big changes the movie introduced, but I think Whedon would do okay.

I doubt it'll happen, but what the hell. Hoping doesn't cost me anything.
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8046


Reply #95 on: April 04, 2007, 01:52:51 PM

Frankly, I'm just marking time until Fox's ownership of the rights to produce Firefly on TV expire. I'm kind of hoping Whedom takes another whack at it on Sci-Fi or something. Most writers, I think, would have a serious problem working out when to place it (before the movie? After the movie? Some before, then some after?) or how to handle the big changes the movie introduced, but I think Whedon would do okay.


I hold out the same hope. Or that he can find a way to continue Firefly in another medium. Buffy has moved to comic books so maybe the same with Firefly? That said I'll settle for Fox never getting its grubby paws on another tv show I care about. (There are very few of them so the odds are good: Supernatural, Dexter and BSG are about it for me and Supernatural is a guilty pleasure.)

"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #96 on: April 04, 2007, 02:09:46 PM

I don't get it about Firefly sometimes. I just wasn't awed by the project much at all, but it seems it has quite the following here.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529


Reply #97 on: April 04, 2007, 02:38:16 PM

I don't get it about Firefly sometimes. I just wasn't awed by the project much at all, but it seems it has quite the following here.
Sometimes I wonder myself, and I'm part of the fan club. Part of it was the way it was killed -- it's like the poster child for every show cancelled because of stupid fucking executives who couldn't find their dick without a map and the aid of a bored secretary. DVD sales alone vindicated everyone who hated it was cancelled, and they shared it with other people.

Thinking back, when it was cancelled -- it was probably the first good show to unfairly get the axe (out of hundreds over the last few decades) in the age of the insta-Season on DVD. A lot of people (myself included) never saw it on FOX. We saw it on DVD -- in the proper order, with the best (and never aired) episodes at the end. Right away -- before the body had cooled, so to speak and the show had faded into the past.

We got to see it without Fox's fuckups, and it was just really obvious that the flaw wasn't so much the product, but the network.

The only reason it's not on the air now -- just on DVD sales (which resurrected Family Guy) -- is that Whedon won't work with Fox. I don't blame him. It seemed damn obvious they wanted that show to fail, and made sure it happened. I honestly think that, by the time Fox's rights to it expire, Whedon will have moved on and it won't get resurrected.

But who knows? Family Guy and Futurama give me a bit of hope. :)
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #98 on: April 04, 2007, 03:05:43 PM

Damn. You're going on about cult of celebrity now?

If you're willing to admit that one can gather insight by understanding an artist beforehand, then that's good enough. We don't need to go any further. I wasn't trying to head into People magazine territory with my stance. 


Wow.  Who are you talking to ?

How magnanimous.  You make no mention of the fact that you were totally wrong.  You really ought to retract your stupid statement about the fact that you CAN'T seperate the art from the artist.

Because it's stupid.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #99 on: April 04, 2007, 03:31:41 PM

SHAMPOO IS BETTER! I MAKE THE HAIR CLEAN AND SHINY!

NOOOO, CONDITIONER IS BETTER! I MAKE THE HAIR SILKY AND SMOOTH!

<whack whack whack>

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #100 on: April 04, 2007, 03:48:28 PM

Wow.  Who are you talking to ?

How magnanimous.  You make no mention of the fact that you were totally wrong.  You really ought to retract your stupid statement about the fact that you CAN'T seperate the art from the artist.

Because it's stupid.

Huh? Where did that come from?

Here I thought I was trying meet you at some middle ground, using your own comments to do it, and yet, you give me this shit. Like I was being insulting in that reply or something.

Don't want to be nice? Fuck you then. That's my only answer now. You don't just get to say you're right by fiat, and expect me to say I'm wrong simply because you made a reply. Saying "Bollocks" and doing your usual Ironwood-Handwaving is not going to make me "retract" that easily. I'm not just some bullshit printer repairman who pulled some "authoritative" shit about artists out of his ass yesterday.
Gutboy Barrelhouse
Terracotta Army
Posts: 870


Reply #101 on: April 04, 2007, 05:17:42 PM

/fight!

/getpopcorn

/settleintoeasychair

stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #102 on: April 04, 2007, 09:21:31 PM

It's the last thing I care to fight about really. Ironwood can say what he wants. I'll make no further replies after what he says next. I have enough experience with applying myself into my work, and being appreciated for it -- and it's the same case with my grandmother, my mother, my brother, and any friend who's involved with art. People go to them for what they specifically bring to the table, for who they are as people, and what they've done in the past. Even the smallest nuance of what makes a person who they are and how they see, judge, and revise things in their own particular way comes through in their art. Even how they move or operate physically effects their art. How they were raised effects their art. Where they live, what they believe, who they love, who they hate effects their art. Some seemingly insignificant moment when they were 9 years old, knee deep in the grass, and examing bugs or dead birds or pieces of dogshit effects their art.

Only one person I know is a "celebrity" in their field -- and none of that means dick to what I was referring to. I said this was about style and personal sensibility from the getgo. It applies to all art, at any stage. It's a simple point that isn't even in the "debatable" realm. I'm not retracting shit.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 11:44:35 PM by Stray »
Evil Elvis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 963


Reply #103 on: April 04, 2007, 11:03:55 PM

Ice Pirates, that's where he'd be.

Dem's fightin' words.  Ice Pirates was boss.
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #104 on: April 05, 2007, 01:20:20 AM

It's the last thing I care to fight about really. Ironwood can say what he wants. I'll make no further replies after what he says next. I have enough experience with applying myself into my work, and being appreciated for it -- and it's the same case with my grandmother, my mother, my brother, and any friend who's involved with art. People go to them for what they specifically bring to the table, for who they are as people, and what they've done in the past. Even the smallest nuance of what makes a person who they are and how they see, judge, and revise things in their own particular way comes through in their art. Even how they move or operate physically effects their art. How they were raised effects their art. Where they live, what they believe, who they love, who they hate effects their art. Some seemingly insignificant moment when they were 9 years old, knee deep in the grass, and examing bugs or dead birds or pieces of dogshit effects their art.

Only one person I know is a "celebrity" in their field -- and none of that means dick to what I was referring to. I said this was about style and personal sensibility from the getgo. It applies to all art, at any stage. It's a simple point that isn't even in the "debatable" realm. I'm not retracting shit.

/wince

Oh Good God.   That was painful to read.

Tell you what, go to your local art gallery and have a look.  Or go to a library and pick up a novel by someone you've never heard of.  Or watch a movie from a foreign director that'll make no sense to you.

Now either enjoy it or don't and then come back here.  Describe the art and how it made you feel and what it did for you.  Then admit that you know fuck all about the artist in question and tell me again that it's impossible to seperate Art from the Artist.

I put it to you that Art exists only through the medium of your own intepretations.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Why I can't take John Travolta seriously  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC