Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 I love apple pie- but this is just riddiculous..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54745-2002Jun3.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 If she'd put the pie in a jar of urine and maybe drew a cross on the pie, she could have got government funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 This $hit is ridiculous. I hate is the frickin' morons who make a sculpture of Jesus with no arms out of cow $hit, and then pass it off as art and say we're all too dumb to understand it. Everytime I walk into an art gallery and I see people marveling over $hit like that, I want to punch every single quote, unquote "ar-tist" who thinks up ludacris ideas with the sole intent being to look smarter than everybody else. They sit in their studios all day and act like they have all the answers, acting like soldiers who are fighting for their freedom are scum because they're not drinking espresso and talking about the hypocrisy of organized religion or the beauty in a pile of $hit. I'd like to equip every single one of them with a flamethrower and drop them into a tribal region of Pakistan. Then I'd come back to America and sit in a New York coffee house three blocks from Ground Zero and talk about how the architecture on the wtc was all wrong. :soapbox: This $hit isn't art. It's $hit created purely to receive government funding because we feel the need to appeal to this "artsy"-fartsy bull$hit. Eff em all...jerkoffs. :jerkoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 ...what he said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 So, how do you feel about these dumb artists, Orange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks p1ss Christ, dung madonna and that sicko mapplethorpe stuff is disgusting and shouldnt be funded by tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Of course...what everyone failed to read in that original article was this line... It's an interesting idea -- inventive enough to warrant a $10,000 grant from the private, nonprofit Public Art Fund So again, how is my tax money funding this particular so-called art? Now if we are on the subject of not wanting the taxpayers money going to something...lets talk about Star Wars (no not Attack of the Clones) or welfare to people who simply have kids to gain more $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Of course...what everyone failed to read in that original article was this line... It's an interesting idea -- inventive enough to warrant a $10,000 grant from the private, nonprofit Public Art Fund So again, how is my tax money funding this particular so-called art? Now if we are on the subject of not wanting the taxpayers money going to something...lets talk about Star Wars (no not Attack of the Clones) or welfare to people who simply have kids to gain more $. Not everyone missed it and the indications are that the assumption is probably wrong that the others did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Wait a minute, If Norman Rockwell paints a scene of robust, homespun, Americana, with a freshly baked pie in the window of a cosy cottage, and a couple of young rascals ready to grab it, then it's art. But is someone sets up the scene and acts it out as sort of a living painting, it isn't? What's the diff? And why are you guys so uptight about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 I can almost understand why this would appeal to a certain group of people. I don't give a damn who did it. Jackson Pollack has a "painting" up in the National Art Gallery of a piece of canvas with a ****roach that got stuck in the paint and just stayed there. There is another piece, I have no idea who it's by, and it's just a big sheet of paper that he did calculations on. This is NOT art. This is stuff that dumb people use to elevate themselves above everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Yea. i know. I've said this a few times already. Can't resist it. Some people can look at Picasso and see brilliance. Some can look at Picasso and ask; "Who spilled the paint?" Oh. And what OPM said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 I find some of the highly hostile reactions here to Anissa Mack's Pies for a Passerby really perplexing. The linkage that has been drawn by some here between this piece and Robert Mapplethorpe's clearly controversial work is so off-base that it's downright laughable. The reality is that Pies for a Passerby is about as innocuous as modern art gets, folks. If you dislike or disagree with what Mack is doing, fine. Don't go see it. Nobody is forcing anyone here to view her work or foot the bill for it. She's doing Pies for a Passerby with private funding, which is how art should be paid for, in my opinion. Much of what goes on in modern art today does little for me. However, I have no problem with modern art that opts for an aggressive and in-your-face style. For me, painting, sculpture and still photography are at such a pronounced disadvantage in terms of being able to provide an arresting, visceral and immersive experience for their audience when compared against the pervasive, full-on, sensorial power of the mass media (namely modern hi-tech moviemaking, high-definition, 500-channels-plus TV programming and internet-based fare) that I have no problem with artists in these fields doing what they must in order to create a stir and garner some attention for their work. Which isn't to say that I necessarily like or agree with the lengths to which some artists go to in order to get that attention. But when I stroll into a gallery or museum, I much prefer to see something by, say, Andy Warhol, Barbara Krueger or Cindy Sherman (whose Untitled Film Stills series from the late 1970s contains some of the best, most evocative still images ever committed to celluloid), something big, bold and colorful that really jumps out at me, as opposed to some Classical piece of art that drably and stodgily sits there on its pedestal or in its frame, silently begging appreciation and adoration from me. If I wanted to subject myself to something staid, static and thoroughly dull, I'd save myself the trek to a gallery or museum and go down to my local video store and rent a Merchant/Ivory flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 What highly hostile reactions are your talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Originally posted by OPM What highly hostile reactions are your talking about? Mainly OS's. And the e-man seconded his angry sentiments. So that makes two, which technically (albeit narrowly) constitutes a plurality of opinion, hence my aforementioned reference to "reactions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 I find some of the highly hostile reactions here to Anissa Mack's Pies for a Passerby Yes, his response was very hostile but where did OS react against the specific piece you refered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Here ya go, OPM: Originally posted by OrangeSkin This $hit is ridiculous... This $hit isn't art. The "This" he was referring to was Mack's piece, as well as modern art as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Unless he told you different, IT would refer to the art I mentioned, not the specific piece the article mentioned. You do realize this is all about football addiction? Have you ever seen an addict not get his fix? Not a pretty sight :high: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Originally posted by OPM Unless he told you different, IT would refer to the art I mentioned, not the specific piece the article mentioned. No, I haven't talked to OS about this. Have you? If not, you do realize that it could be argued that you are being as equally presumptuous as myself on this minutely specific matter here, correct? Originally posted by OPM You do realize this is all about football addiction? Have you ever seen an addict not get his fix? Not a pretty sight :high: I feel your pain, OPM. I can't wait till the season finally gets here. In the meantime, though, as much as I enjoy debating modern art, I'd much rather spend my offseason downtime posting cheesecake pics in the Babe Alert thread over at Tailgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 And those of us, er...at least myself anyway, down in Tailgate appreciate your hard work and diligence in that particular offseason endeavor. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Well, I guess I should specify my intentions. I wasn't referring specifically specifically to that piece of art (I hope you're not as confused as I am by that sentence). I was just using it as an example for other pieces of crap. Well, now that that's cleared up, back to your regularly scheduled programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Thanks for clearing that up, OS. Uh, I think. :laugh: At any rate, I so don't care about this issue anymore. The only thing I care about right now is this... BTW, you're most certainly welcome, PCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Now that is modern art. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Oh behave! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 You know, Glenn, it's not too hard to tell what you do on the computer when you're not here at Extremeskins. :laugh: Not that there's anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Just call me Glenn X-rated, Brave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.