I also thought some were pretty damn good. Hell, I'd hang them in my bathroom or wear them on a t-shirt.
That number 21 is hilarious to me 'cause there is something very much like it in the special exhibits section of the Seattle Art Museum. I think I wanted to tell that painting to 'Fuck Off' when I saw it.
haha... "fuck you, yellow ochre #86!!" :mad:
~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
hahah... to tell you the truth, i didn't hate the Reinhardt one when i saw it... it struck me as odd when i first looked at it, because it looked like it was a plain black canvas... and it wasn't until i read the description that i noticed the subtle detail in it... which then made me wonder if having such subtle detail in it made it more or less odd? i couldn't decide. overall it was strange, but not unpleasant.
~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
I don't believe that skill is unnecessary in creating art. A poet or writer needs special skill with language, a musician needs skill with an instrument. why does a visual artist get off easy? why should I value an unskilled artist's work? One must have skill to convey an idea or emotion to someone visually (and not by using a stupid placard!)
i agree that photorealism is a huge waste of time, but thats not what the great ones go for either. I love the impressionists. they often blended technical skill and creativity masterfully. But much of the art since sucks because the art establishment has completely rejected any degree of quality, and many in fact go out of their way to discourage technical ability and consider the ideas of art pre-19th century to be inferior. they threw out hundreds of years of artistry. anyone can be an artist now.
hmmm...again....impressionists = modern art.
who said 'unskilled'....there are varying degrees of skill, and also what one CHOOSES to employ. plenty of artists have the SKILL, and do not utilize them fully b/c the IDEAS are paramount to the technique in their minds.
there are artists, today, who possess and demonstrate said 'skills' that others seem to laude. take a look at the superrealists and dare say such arytists are 'unskilled.' that said, give me the work of klimt, matisse, chagall over it any day of the week.
ART IS SUBJECTIVE.
*anyone* could be an artist at ANY time. whether one gets *recognized* ofor their efforts, another story entirely.
techinical ability alone does not equate "art" but merely, technical ability. one can play, draw, paint, etc...but the ideas and concepts are what truly make an artist create art imho.
That's like saying modern music is shit, or modern film is shit, or modern literature is shit. Of course some of it is, even a lot. A lot is fantastic though. Art is not about photorealistic paintings, it's about ideas.
I don't reckon it is really, modern music is good if it's well crafted, whatever it sounds like. I appreciate that point. But to call some of the pictures you posted 'art', is like me banging a dustbin with a golf club and saying it's music.
i.e. It isn't, it requires no particular talent or requirement, other than having the essential elements..a bin and a club. Just like taking a picture of corrugated iron simply requires a camera and some erm, corrugated iron, rather than talent and craft.
Oh, and the ever present 'brass neck', that I mentioned earlier, that allows thses individuals to wax lyrical (talk bollocks) about it 'til the finger painted cows come home.
Art isn't supposed to be like-able.. It's supposed to provoke thought. Some of the simplistic things in life can end up being the most interesting.
you just described Jeffrey Dahmer...
is serial killing art?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
But much of the art since sucks because the art establishment has completely rejected any degree of quality, and many in fact go out of their way to discourage technical ability and consider the ideas of art pre-19th century to be inferior. they threw out hundreds of years of artistry. anyone can be an artist now.
This is actually a very interesting point of view, because it was only in the 16th/17th/18th/19th centuries that technical ability even became remotely associated with art, and especially with the Enlightenment and Modernity, when precision and detail and exactness started to matter. In all areas of thought and industry, we wanted to find exactness. We wanted to find 'truth'. These centuries were famous for the 'old masters' - called so for a reason.
Before this, just to take one example, you had ancient Celtic art which, though skillfull, was often far from precise and featured men with elongated appendiges - *ahem* - as well as lion heads, dog heads, bird heads... much like tribal art. I don't take the view that 'Yeah but these were more primitive people.' They weren't, they were skilled labourers and farmers and architects and craftsmen in gold and stone. But colour and imagination and spiritual depth were the order of the age, not technical ability and photo-realism. They wouldn't have even heard of photo-realism.
So you could say that Modern/Post-modern art is doing nothing more than going back to a Pre-modern time when none of our Modernist artistic trappings mattered. This technical ability is no more a part of art than space shuttles are part of world exploration.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
This is actually a very interesting point of view, because it was only in the 18th/19th centuries that technical ability even became remotely associated with art, and especially with the Enlightenment and Modernity, when precision and detail and exactness started to matter. In all areas of thought and industry, we wanted to find exactness. We wanted to find 'truth'. These centuries were famous for the 'old masters' - called so for a reason.
It goes back a bit further. Think early renaissance, even before Brunelleschi and Donatello were working on developments in perspective in the 15c. At this point there is still a close link between art (architecture) and science. This type of precision became highly valued, almost in a divine context and became central to the notion that artist were creating not just a depiction, but a "window" to another place.
But colour and imagination and spiritual depth were the order of the age, not technical ability and photo-realism. They wouldn't have even heard of photo-realism.
I think that is the key that hasn't been mentioned. One of the single most important developments in nineteenth century art is the invention of the modern camera and the spread of photography. Once you can capture the image as it is seen, create, without any deception, a true window with a photograph, why should artists strive to? There had been hints of modernism, from the loose brushwork of Velasquez to David flattening out the picture plane, but from the mid nineteenth century forward, artists began focusing on formal issues... art for art's sake (see Whistler's 1874 Nocturne in Black and Gold).
Impressionism stems forth from this movement, this push towards painterly concerns (light, texture, surface...).
One of the things I hear mentioned again and again is the idea that anything can be art, and this is problematic because it takes the skill and craft out of the equation. If anything can be art, then anyone can be an artist. The thing is that is not truly a modernist idea, that comes directly from Duchamp.
It's Duchamp and his readymades that really force this notion of the appropriated object as art (anything can be art). That upside down urinal was art because he said so, because he made that choice, because he placed it in context, and because he forced it to be seen that way in 1917 (even if it was tossed out of the gallery). No one really picks up on Duchamp' ideas for another forty-odd years, hence his close link to post modernism and later conceptual or idea art.
But I digress....
I agree that art is subjective. I am only encouraged that people continue discussions like this, that art, even arguably bad art, can still insight this type of spirited discourse.
And in that spirit I will contribute my idea of bad, sad and pathetic art: Damien Hirst's For the Love of God, 2007.
It goes back a bit further. Think early renaissance, even before Brunelleschi and Donatello were working on developments in perspective in the 15c. At this point there is still a close link between art (architecture) and science. This type of precision became highly valued, almost in a divine context and became central to the notion that artist were creating not just a depiction, but a "window" to another place.
That was weird, I actually edited my 18th/19th C to include quite a bit earlier soon after I posted, and quite a bit before you did... hmmmm. Must have been a gap in the time/space continuum. But yes... you're exactly right. I'm just opposed to the idea that people say technical skill/photo realism *is* art, when that's only been the predominant idea for several hundred years, just a speck of dust on the whole of human history.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I think that is the key that hasn't been mentioned. One of the single most important developments in nineteenth century art is the invention of the modern camera and the spread of photography. Once you can capture the image as it is seen, create, without any deception, a true window with a photograph, why should artists strive to? There had been hints of modernism, from the loose brushwork of Velasquez to David flattening out the picture plane, but from the mid nineteenth century forward, artists began focusing on formal issues... art for art's sake (see Whistler's 1874 Nocturne in Black and Gold).
Impressionism stems forth from this movement, this push towards painterly concerns (light, texture, surface...).
One of the things I hear mentioned again and again is the idea that anything can be art, and this is problematic because it takes the skill and craft out of the equation. If anything can be art, then anyone can be an artist. The thing is that is not truly a modernist idea, that comes directly from Duchamp.
It's Duchamp and his readymades that really force this notion of the appropriated object as art (anything can be art). That upside down urinal was art because he said so, because he made that choice, because he placed it in context, and because he forced it to be seen that way in 1917 (even if it was tossed out of the gallery). No one really picks up on Duchamp' ideas for another forty-odd years, hence his close link to post modernism and later conceptual or idea art.
definite history of the beginning of 'modern art'......in a nutshell. i brought up duchamp and the dadaist's earlier...in particular his fountain. evidently some may think that was the beginning of the end of art. to me, that's when it truly got *interesting*...beyond mere ability....and into the relam of ideas. now if that is pretentious wank to some, so be it. again, some of it is and can be. however, a LOT of it is not...and to dismiss it all, or call it all pretentious just b/c one doesn't like or agree with it....is quite dismissive, period. art for art's sake.
The classical composer and pioneer of electronic music Karlheinz Stockhausen who died last year called 9/11 the greatest work of art ever conceived... so in a way, it could be. There was uproar about his comments but I know what he meant. He wasn't saying it was nice art or enjoyable art. He was just saying that, aesthetically, it was the most powerful and provocative creation ever made by human beings.
The guy was a pretentious git but it's an interesting idea.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
The classical composer and pioneer of electronic music Karlheinz Stockhausen who died last year called 9/11 the greatest work of art ever conceived... so in a way, it could be. There was uproar about his comments but I know what he meant. He wasn't saying it was nice art or enjoyable art. He was just saying that, aesthetically, it was the most powerful and provocative creation ever made by human beings.
The guy was a pretentious git but it's an interesting idea.
The word 'deconstructionist' comes to mind.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
The classical composer and pioneer of electronic music Karlheinz Stockhausen who died last year called 9/11 the greatest work of art ever conceived... so in a way, it could be. There was uproar about his comments but I know what he meant. He wasn't saying it was nice art or enjoyable art. He was just saying that, aesthetically, it was the most powerful and provocative creation ever made by human beings.
The guy was a pretentious git but it's an interesting idea.
I don't think it's an interesting idea, I think it's ludicrous, and it's indicitive of the bollocks and bullshit that's been spouted here these last few days. Sorry an all
I don't think it's an interesting idea, I think it's ludicrous, and it's indicitive of the bollocks and bullshit that's been spouted here these last few days. Sorry an all
Don't hold back Jamie...tell us how you really feel
The classical composer and pioneer of electronic music Karlheinz Stockhausen who died last year called 9/11 the greatest work of art ever conceived... so in a way, it could be. There was uproar about his comments but I know what he meant. He wasn't saying it was nice art or enjoyable art. He was just saying that, aesthetically, it was the most powerful and provocative creation ever made by human beings.
The guy was a pretentious git but it's an interesting idea.
Gee I wonder why there was an uproar.
What kind of a perverted mind thinks something like that?
People throwing themselves out of a building that is on fire because they feel that is a better way to perish...that is art???
The demolition of thousands of lives is art?
There is no basis for his bullshit statement. It was not meant to be a piece of art....it was an act of terrorism.
I like you jamie, but sorry, that pissed me off that you brought that up. :(
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
The classical composer and pioneer of electronic music Karlheinz Stockhausen who died last year called 9/11 the greatest work of art ever conceived... so in a way, it could be. There was uproar about his comments but I know what he meant. He wasn't saying it was nice art or enjoyable art. He was just saying that, aesthetically, it was the most powerful and provocative creation ever made by human beings.
The guy was a pretentious git but it's an interesting idea.
it wasnt a creation.. it was destructive... and Metzger did that back in the early 60's... it was also shit.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Gee I wonder why there was an uproar.
What kind of a perverted mind thinks something like that?
People throwing themselves out of a building that is on fire because they feel that is a better way to perish...that is art???
The demolition of thousands of lives is art?
There is no basis for his bullshit statement. It was not meant to be a piece of art....it was an act of terrorism.
I like you jamie, but sorry, that pissed me off that you brought that up. :(
I never said I agreed with it :eek: I was just commenting on something dunk said about whether or not serial killing is art and providing an example of someone who thinks it can be. I also don't think Stockhausen was in any way justifying or praising it, he was just saying that conceptually, for what it set out to do, it was perfect. Of course, a great deal of conceptual art is bullshit and grotesque. See that baldy german guy who cuts himself with razors and rolls about in his blood naked for details
I personally am undecided on what constitutes art anyway. A lot conceptual stuff seems to me a confusion of the difference between an action and a creation but then, you could argue that the concept itself is a creation.
Just to summarise, I do not think flying planes into buildings is artistic!
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
it wasnt a creation.. it was destructive... and Metzger did that back in the early 60's... it was also shit.
The destruction led to a lot of consequences: war, a new political atmosphere, a new way of life. One could argue (ONE, NOT ME! ) that it was a creation of sorts.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I never said I agreed with it :eek: I was just commenting on something dunk said about whether or not serial killing is art and providing an example of someone who thinks it can be. I also don't think Stockhausen was in any way justifying or praising it, he was just saying that conceptually, for what it set out to do, it was perfect. Of course, a great deal of conceptual art is bullshit and grotesque. See that baldy german guy who cuts himself with razors and rolls about in his blood naked for details
I personally am undecided on what constitutes art anyway. A lot conceptual stuff seems to me a confusion of the difference between an action and a creation but then, you could argue that the concept itself is a creation.
Just to summarise, I do not think flying planes into buildings is artistic!
Oh I am sorry, I know that. I just get into such a spin over it still. It was truly a heartbreaking and traumatic experience. And for that stupid f%^k to regard it as a perfect piece of art is horrific.
Why couldn't he just choose a building imploding or something similar. No, to be controversial and draw attention to himself he had to use the WTC as an example. Dick...
Like someone taking a dump on the American flag and calling it art. (no comment from the euros. lol)
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
The destruction led to a lot of consequences: war, a new political atmosphere, a new way of life. One could argue (ONE, NOT ME! ) that it was a creation of sorts.
could argue that... they'd be wrong.. but they could argue that
all destructive acts create something though... reaction, consequences, bruises...
i tell you.. some 'art' isnt even art... these people arent talented enough to draw the dole... but what they have is a way with words, confidence and an ability to foolpeople into believing their bollocks about their 'art'
con artists... selling spiel to the bourgeoisie who are too scared to call it crap in case they become ostracised from the art circle so stick with the others in order to appear to know what the artist is talking about... which they dont.. and neither does the artist..
now, i really must get back to my flamingo...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Oh I am sorry, I know that. I just get into such a spin over it still. It was truly a heartbreaking and traumatic experience. And for that stupid f%^k to regard it as a perfect piece of art is horrific.
Why couldn't he just choose a building imploding or something similar. No, to be controversial and draw attention to himself he had to use the WTC as an example. Dick...
Like someone taking a dump on the American flag and calling it art. (no comment from the euros. lol)
I know what you mean and it is a very risky thing to talk about in such a way but he didn't set out to start telling people this genius idea he had, his comments were in the context of someone asking, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, how he felt the events reflected the theme of harmony of humanity in one of his compositions, if he felt that what he set out to say in that musical work was compromised by horrific acts like this. He said "The fact that spirits achieve with one act something which we in music could never dream of, that people practise ten years madly, fanatically for a concert. And then die, that is the greatest work of art that exists for the whole cosmos". He proceeded to say that it was a crime because the audience for this "concert" did not agree to it, they were not willing participants.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Comments
haha... "fuck you, yellow ochre #86!!" :mad:
Meet Malevich,
or Laib
naděje umírá poslední
For them I counter with this: http://theworstartaward2006.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/25.JPG
What do you say civ_eng_girl?
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
how 'bout a little EMEK?
http://www.expressobeans.com/public/detail.php/23563
hahah... to tell you the truth, i didn't hate the Reinhardt one when i saw it... it struck me as odd when i first looked at it, because it looked like it was a plain black canvas... and it wasn't until i read the description that i noticed the subtle detail in it... which then made me wonder if having such subtle detail in it made it more or less odd? i couldn't decide. overall it was strange, but not unpleasant.
hmmm...again....impressionists = modern art.
who said 'unskilled'....there are varying degrees of skill, and also what one CHOOSES to employ. plenty of artists have the SKILL, and do not utilize them fully b/c the IDEAS are paramount to the technique in their minds.
there are artists, today, who possess and demonstrate said 'skills' that others seem to laude. take a look at the superrealists and dare say such arytists are 'unskilled.' that said, give me the work of klimt, matisse, chagall over it any day of the week.
ART IS SUBJECTIVE.
*anyone* could be an artist at ANY time. whether one gets *recognized* ofor their efforts, another story entirely.
techinical ability alone does not equate "art" but merely, technical ability. one can play, draw, paint, etc...but the ideas and concepts are what truly make an artist create art imho.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
That said, most modern art pisses me off. It's interesting, but still pisses me off.
I like the work Darell Anderson did for Stephen King. This is the stuff I'm into..
http://www.braid.com/darktower/stanza%20images/stanza%2010.jpg
http://www.stephenking.com/darktower/images/the_artwork/song/9.jpg
http://www.stephenking.com/darktower/images/the_artwork/song/11.jpg
http://www.braid.com/darktower/stanza%20images/stanza%206.jpg
I don't reckon it is really, modern music is good if it's well crafted, whatever it sounds like. I appreciate that point. But to call some of the pictures you posted 'art', is like me banging a dustbin with a golf club and saying it's music.
i.e. It isn't, it requires no particular talent or requirement, other than having the essential elements..a bin and a club. Just like taking a picture of corrugated iron simply requires a camera and some erm, corrugated iron, rather than talent and craft.
Oh, and the ever present 'brass neck', that I mentioned earlier, that allows thses individuals to wax lyrical (talk bollocks) about it 'til the finger painted cows come home.
this is true. though it doesnt change the fact that some modern art is still shite.
which is much what the fluxus artists were saying.
if you stand in front of an artist or piece of art and say "oh yeah i can do that", then why dont you?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
anything's art if you pay enough for it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you just described Jeffrey Dahmer...
is serial killing art?
No, but that reminds me of something... you might get a kick out of the film Art School Confidential - it's got bad art and campy serial killing storyline.
It's bad awful hilarious.
This is actually a very interesting point of view, because it was only in the 16th/17th/18th/19th centuries that technical ability even became remotely associated with art, and especially with the Enlightenment and Modernity, when precision and detail and exactness started to matter. In all areas of thought and industry, we wanted to find exactness. We wanted to find 'truth'. These centuries were famous for the 'old masters' - called so for a reason.
Before this, just to take one example, you had ancient Celtic art which, though skillfull, was often far from precise and featured men with elongated appendiges - *ahem* - as well as lion heads, dog heads, bird heads... much like tribal art. I don't take the view that 'Yeah but these were more primitive people.' They weren't, they were skilled labourers and farmers and architects and craftsmen in gold and stone. But colour and imagination and spiritual depth were the order of the age, not technical ability and photo-realism. They wouldn't have even heard of photo-realism.
So you could say that Modern/Post-modern art is doing nothing more than going back to a Pre-modern time when none of our Modernist artistic trappings mattered. This technical ability is no more a part of art than space shuttles are part of world exploration.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
It goes back a bit further. Think early renaissance, even before Brunelleschi and Donatello were working on developments in perspective in the 15c. At this point there is still a close link between art (architecture) and science. This type of precision became highly valued, almost in a divine context and became central to the notion that artist were creating not just a depiction, but a "window" to another place.
I think that is the key that hasn't been mentioned. One of the single most important developments in nineteenth century art is the invention of the modern camera and the spread of photography. Once you can capture the image as it is seen, create, without any deception, a true window with a photograph, why should artists strive to? There had been hints of modernism, from the loose brushwork of Velasquez to David flattening out the picture plane, but from the mid nineteenth century forward, artists began focusing on formal issues... art for art's sake (see Whistler's 1874 Nocturne in Black and Gold).
Impressionism stems forth from this movement, this push towards painterly concerns (light, texture, surface...).
One of the things I hear mentioned again and again is the idea that anything can be art, and this is problematic because it takes the skill and craft out of the equation. If anything can be art, then anyone can be an artist. The thing is that is not truly a modernist idea, that comes directly from Duchamp.
It's Duchamp and his readymades that really force this notion of the appropriated object as art (anything can be art). That upside down urinal was art because he said so, because he made that choice, because he placed it in context, and because he forced it to be seen that way in 1917 (even if it was tossed out of the gallery). No one really picks up on Duchamp' ideas for another forty-odd years, hence his close link to post modernism and later conceptual or idea art.
But I digress....
I agree that art is subjective. I am only encouraged that people continue discussions like this, that art, even arguably bad art, can still insight this type of spirited discourse.
And in that spirit I will contribute my idea of bad, sad and pathetic art: Damien Hirst's For the Love of God, 2007.
And because I can't help it, I'll also throw in one of my favorite artists (again because he was so twisted) Francis Bacon.
That was weird, I actually edited my 18th/19th C to include quite a bit earlier soon after I posted, and quite a bit before you did... hmmmm. Must have been a gap in the time/space continuum.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i have this on a fridge magnet at home!
went to an impressionist exhibit at the AGO, and this painting really stood out for me, against all of Monet's pastelly pinks and blues...
nothing i have posted even remotely suggests otherwise.
indeed.
it is the IDEA....beyond just the IMAGE.
as western sky states here:
definite history of the beginning of 'modern art'......in a nutshell. i brought up duchamp and the dadaist's earlier...in particular his fountain.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The guy was a pretentious git but it's an interesting idea.
The word 'deconstructionist' comes to mind.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I don't think it's an interesting idea, I think it's ludicrous, and it's indicitive of the bollocks and bullshit that's been spouted here these last few days. Sorry an all
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
What kind of a perverted mind thinks something like that?
People throwing themselves out of a building that is on fire because they feel that is a better way to perish...that is art???
The demolition of thousands of lives is art?
There is no basis for his bullshit statement. It was not meant to be a piece of art....it was an act of terrorism.
I like you jamie, but sorry, that pissed me off that you brought that up. :(
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
it wasnt a creation.. it was destructive... and Metzger did that back in the early 60's... it was also shit.
agreed. it wasn't ART, it was an EVENT. (in my business, we would have called it an INCIDENT.) :(
I personally am undecided on what constitutes art anyway. A lot conceptual stuff seems to me a confusion of the difference between an action and a creation but then, you could argue that the concept itself is a creation.
Just to summarise, I do not think flying planes into buildings is artistic!
The blowing-up of the parliament buildings, set to music and fireworks.... does that count as artistic?
Why couldn't he just choose a building imploding or something similar. No, to be controversial and draw attention to himself he had to use the WTC as an example. Dick...
Like someone taking a dump on the American flag and calling it art. (no comment from the euros. lol)
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
i was just about to post that :eek:
could argue that... they'd be wrong.. but they could argue that
all destructive acts create something though... reaction, consequences, bruises...
i tell you.. some 'art' isnt even art... these people arent talented enough to draw the dole... but what they have is a way with words, confidence and an ability to foolpeople into believing their bollocks about their 'art'
con artists... selling spiel to the bourgeoisie who are too scared to call it crap in case they become ostracised from the art circle so stick with the others in order to appear to know what the artist is talking about... which they dont.. and neither does the artist..
now, i really must get back to my flamingo...