Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So... I choose to make this artistic statement... the form of which speaks of deep and true things and stuff... you know, the things and stuff...
Very deep... verrrry deep Wrex.
I can think of a very direct way of making this guy look like a moron... just bear with me. Naked... *you fill in the blank, then vomit* art in museums.
There is absolutely no way this plan can fail... I hope .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/05 08:22:37
"...D'you know much about art,Nobby?"
"If necessary,sarge."
"Oh,come one,Nobby!"
"What?Tawneee says what she does is art,sarge.And she wears more clothes than a lot of the women on the walls around here,so why be sniffy about it?"
"Yeah,but...." Fred Colon hesitated here.He knew in his heart that spinning upside down around a pole wearing a costume you could floss with definitely was not art,and being painted lying on a bed wearing nothing but a smile and a small bunch of grapes was good solid art,but putting your finger on why this was the case was a bit tricky.
"No urns,"he said at last.
"What urns?"said Nobby.
"Nude women are only art if there's an urn in it,"said Fred Colon.This sounded a bit weak even to him,so he added:"Or a plinth.Both is best,o'course.It's a secret sign,see,that they put in to say that it's art and okay to look at..."
-Taken from Terry Pratchett's,"Thud."
(Sorry about that thought it fitting).
I think to define wether or not it's art we must come up with the definition of what art really is.Yet this is almost impossible as everyone has their own thoughts on what art is.
To me,it's not really art,but that's just me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/09/05 09:03:05
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."-Groucho Marx
If she had been some fat scrag strung out on vodka and hash, would it be art? My minis are art. I'm emailing various news agencies right now. Don't expect a response as they won't be able to sell commercials following or preceding a story about a wargaming nerd.
What I thought was most disturbing was the reporter's usage of the boy in the Photos:
"See the little kid holding the Tshirt? Why should his mom... have to expose him to what you consider art?"
I didn't see her trying to keep her child from seeing the model, nor did she or anybody else in any of the photos seem to be offended by the photo shoot.
However the reporter does have a point, the mother should have had a choice on whether her child was subjected to the human body in that manner. However, she does not seem to mind at all.
I think this is art, even more so than all the sculptures of random shapes and structures that make up 'Modern' art, or the random splashes of color of a 'Jackson Pollock'. I found the one of the man in the Amphitheater especially intriguing. Not all of the images were 'good' art IMO, but that one was worthy, and maybe that's the point? Does EVERY image/sculpture/composition by an individual artist have to evoke a certain response for his work to be considered art, or does just one qualify the rest of his work? If all the images were in public, but there were no public around would this be so controversial? And what if the artist decided that the 'extras' were necessary to convey/evoke the message/reaction he was trying for?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/05 09:57:28
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Art isn't just a pretty picture of a flower on your wall, Art emcompasses a huge varying degree of different things and is largely subject to each individual.
For example, a man/woman can literally chuck paint at a convas and get paid £50,000 for it. Personally I think its a load of cr@p but another might think its novel.
It is art. Because making art is just about expressing something to other people. So it could take any form, from writing a song or poem to taking a gak on a plate. If they're trying to convey a message, however intriguingly they try to do it, it's art.
You don't get to make the decision, the person creating it does.
You do however get to decide if it's any good. Personally as someone else pointed out this sort of thing has been done before and seems a bit like a college project. But well done to them for getting some exposure (sorry bout the pun).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/05 15:17:51
"Get on the Ready Line!"
Orkeosaurus wrote:Yeah, but when he get's out he'll still be in Russia, so joke's on him.
There is a more interesting series of public nude art photography done by someone who gets 1,000s of volunteers to show up somewhere like Sydney Harbour Bridge and all lie down naked and be photographed as part of a big picture.
It works really well and people enjoy taking part and the photos are impressive too. I think the artist arranges it in advance with the police.
It is the reaction of people to an event like this (in the room of armour) which determines people's future attitude to nude art.
Some people are going to be shocked and scared, and pass that feeling on to their children. Other people are going to behave different and pass their behaviour on to their children.
If there is something inherently ugly, wrong, sinful or bad about the human body we are all super screwed because we are stuck in one from the day we are born until we die.
No-one knows what art is. It is impossible to come to a definition which isn't either too broad or too restrictive.
Porn is when it gets you going. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
I can't see myself getting wood from that art event, so I don't class it as porn. Someone else might, but I reckon they would be wrong -- there are much better ways of doing porn if that is waht you want to do.
BrookM wrote:Nudity can be art, but that right there isn't.
Yar. It isn't the nudity that makes it art though. Much as being green doesn't make a dollar bill worth one hundred pennies.
Kilkrazy wrote:It is well known that the US has a prudish attitude to nudity compared to other western countries.
That is because we giggle when we here the word 'bewbies'. teehee.
dogma wrote:Oh, art is a thing now? I always thought it was just an excuse.
We have a winner.
Apone wrote:It is art. Because making art is just about expressing something to other people. So it could take any form, from writing a song or poem to taking a gak on a plate. If they're trying to convey a message, however intriguingly they try to do it, it's art.
No it's not art and I actually do get to decide. Funny how that works. Art isn't about expressing one's self. That is the simple Hollywood biopic version of it. Writing a poem isn't art, it is writing a poem. Making a painting isn't art, it is painting. Just the mere act of doing something is not enough to put it beyond reproach.
As my philosophy professor on Aesthetics liked to point out, art comes from the word artifact. Today these pictures aren't anything but maybe 30 years from now they may mean something as they tell us something about the time period and the culture of that period. Probably not though as public nudity, especially in this fashion, has been done before, and in a more interesting way.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is a more interesting series of public nude art photography done by someone who gets 1,000s of volunteers to show up somewhere like Sydney Harbour Bridge and all lie down naked and be photographed as part of a big picture.
I remember watching something on that and I agree that it was really interesting. I think in the long run though the documentary may be more worthwhile and telling than the actual photos though.
If this guy had any balls or real creativity he would say that this is the price he has to pay for his work instead of trying to get a free pass by using art as an attempt at a run around. Running around nude in public places is illegal. If you are going to do it than either get permits or don't get caught. He isn't an 'artist' so much as an artful dodger (wink wink, nudge nudge).
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I remember once I was with some people and one of them decided to ride me a little about painting miniatures. He told his new girlfriend, who was extremely cute but gullible, I was an artist and stood back, smirking, to leave me explaining about painting toy soldiers.
I immediatly went into full bs mode explaining to the girl about art and it's variations, that I was also a performance artist, blah, blah,blah. At the end of this, I told her I was looking for a new model and would she like to try out for the position.
To cut a long story short, I ended up making out with her in front of her boyfriend who didn't see it coming.
Kilkrazy wrote:Porn is when it gets you going. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
I can't see myself getting wood from that art event, so I don't class it as porn. Someone else might, but I reckon they would be wrong -- there are much better ways of doing porn if that is waht you want to do.
True. But it also has to be remembered that some art is porn, and some porn is art.
It may not be a very good piece of art.
Which strikes me as a much better question, 'what is good art?'
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sebster wrote:True. But it also has to be remembered that some art is porn, and some porn is art.
Not really though... If I cannot tell that it is supposed to be art (not like "tried", but is actually is artistic) it is then clearly porn. No art is porn until you cannot get enough of it, at which point it is really it's own thing; this "own thing" category has absolutely nothing to do with art (we will debate this I am sure) more in terms of it's personal relevance to you. As long as we call any personal experience Art, we put our perspective in a True art kind of angle. There is no True art besides what everyone/most agrees to be art, at which point it is quite a contest of the ego, rather than the relevance of the piece to it's INTENTIONAL subject matter.
There is art and then there is other stuff... like socks and ties... which can be artistic, but really really though, they are simply knick-knacks. Like a coconut carving, which is in essence art, but made to create money specifically, regardless of the intention of the piece... which work out to be value based inherently by the market it is placed in most regularly; thus it is worth cash, not emotion/ thought (sort of).
Which strikes me as a much better question, 'what is good art?'
Can you not stop looking at it? Boobs?
Fine line not existent here, and I could rationally argue that softcore "stuff" is most definitely art when perceived en masse. Boobs... need I say more?
That shape, regardless of its... these shapes (db)... regardless of its direction intentionally mirrors your perception of it by its natural qualities. The more you look the less you realize how similar these two shapes are to a fused clone of the same.
Math = 2+2 on this one cats and dogs.
So when you add the two shapes together, you more or less end up with a form of symbolism, rather than personal (experience/ perspective based more or less) interpretation of art as defined by the whole. Put it this way... everyone feels pain, most perceive it in drastically different ways. Pain is the symbol, your own perception is the interpretation. Odd thing about this is that most everyone likes boobs, on the other hand the opposite is true of wangs.
This is a 2+2 cats and dogs, and birds and bees perception "problem".
Phallic vs. Receptively assertive. Simple as that really... wangs are not particular nice shapes, yet the core shapes are exactly the same as a womans chest body. The difference is utterly astounding in it's effect on someones perception... because almost everyone likes boobs. Cleavage = 4
Keep in mind that the purpose of the OP news was that this cat was being purely sensationalist... no two ways about it. So if mainstream toolery makes you less of an artist/ not an artist at all, this cat has the handbook down. Running around dressed up like... something totally random, will get you massive amounts of attention. There is no guarantee that this guy will make anything besides a few measly bucks which will be gone in no time.
Now that I have wasted a few hundred confusing words... image FTW!!!
This is a very soothing style, and direct as all hell.
Foreground aggressive... background passive, the imbalance is quite obvious, but not without it's interesting qualities.
At this angle the line between passive and aggressive leaves you in an assertive mode, and you are left to make your decision on the piece.
But where are the boobs you say? Dunno really, all I see are hills .
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2009/09/07 06:27:41
I think all of these posts were right in one way or another, and I agree to all of them to an extent.
So i guess I just posted some meaningless gak.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/07 07:52:41
95% of teens would go into a panic attack if the jonas brothers were about to jump off the empire state building copy and paste this if you are the 5% who would pull up a lawn chair grab some popcorn and yell JUMP BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mekboy wrote:Tzeentch: Full house! Yay!
Deciver: Straight Flush! Yay!
Eldrad: Four of a kind! Awww!
Creed: Warhound titan. Die, xenos scum!
Wrexasaur wrote:
Not really though... If I cannot tell that it is supposed to be art (not like "tried", but is actually is artistic) it is then clearly porn. No art is porn until you cannot get enough of it, at which point it is really it's own thing; this "own thing" category has absolutely nothing to do with art (we will debate this I am sure) more in terms of it's personal relevance to you.
So art is art when you believe its art?
Wrexasaur wrote:
As long as we call any personal experience Art, we put our perspective in a True art kind of angle. There is no True art besides what everyone/most agrees to be art, at which point it is quite a contest of the ego, rather than the relevance of the piece to it's INTENTIONAL subject matter.
I'm an artist. Watch as I type artistically.
Wrexasaur wrote:
There is art and then there is other stuff... like socks and ties... which can be artistic, but really really though, they are simply knick-knacks. Like a coconut carving, which is in essence art, but made to create money specifically, regardless of the intention of the piece... which work out to be value based inherently by the market it is placed in most regularly; thus it is worth cash, not emotion/ thought (sort of).
The relationship between cash-money, hoes and art is necessarily negative?
Wrexasaur wrote:
Fine line not existent here, and I could rationally argue that softcore "stuff" is most definitely art when perceived en masse. Boobs... need I say more?
So there is a fine line?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Dogma wrote:So art is art when you believe its art?
Art is Art for you when you believe it is art. Being that there are no solid guidelines for Art as a defined term, all things are inherently artistic in one way or another to someone at sometime, and all that malarky.
I'm an artist. Watch as I type artistically.
Indeed, and all that fundamentally essential stuff needed to... cheeseburgers and bananas... that is all I got .
The relationship between cash-money, hoes and art is necessarily negative?
If the subject matter is negative, it will be negative. I have seen plenty of racy stuff that is quite elegant and very stylized, branding in one way, clearly art in another. Bling is just silly, and the closest I think you can get to art in that respect is parody.
So there is a fine line?
No, the divide is vast and deep, with terrible monsters in between... with fangs and stuff .
Wrexasaur wrote:
Art is Art for you when you believe it is art. Being that there are no solid guidelines for Art as a defined term, all things are inherently artistic in one way or another to someone at sometime, and all that malarky.
But some (most) people are stupid. Do their opinions count?
Wrexasaur wrote:
If the subject matter is negative, it will be negative. I have seen plenty of racy stuff that is quite elegant and very stylized, branding in one way, clearly art in another. Bling is just silly, and the closest I think you can get to art in that respect is parody.
Is there poetry in a shotgun blast?
Wrexasaur wrote:
No, the divide is vast and deep, with terrible monsters in between... with fangs and stuff .
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
.
.