Why do people kill Animals just for Art! [Archive]

HUnewearl_Meira

Mar 29, 2004, 06:22 PM

I rather agree with Answerman and Abdur... In the case of goldfish... It's kinda trivial to worry about their well-being... Their memory span is about a minute and a half, for one-- so they really don't know what the heck is going on around them to begin with. Furthermore, they're barely sentient. Most sea life is barely sentient, in fact. Most fish are incapable of thought, for lack of the correct type of neural tissue. I don't recall the details, but the only neural tissue posessed by say, jellyfish for example, is equivalent to what we generally refer to in ourselves as a spinal cord-- which means they have no capacity for thought, whatsoever. They just move and react automatically. That's the only thing they're really capable of.

Goldfish are only slightly more sophisticated. They can tell the difference between pain and hunger. That's pretty much it. Their brains and nervous systems aren't nearly as sophisticated as ours.

It's hard to cite animal cruelty when the creature in question doesn't have the type of neural tissue required to produce thought above the instinctive level.

Now, monkeys or cats in a blender would be a bit more of a problem, as both of those creatures have the same sorts of neural tissues as humans, and can be proven to exhibit problem-solving intelligence.

Personally, I'd never put a goldfish in a blender, but the knowledge that someone bought a bunch of goldfish for that purpose doesn't particularly bother me.

Solstis

Mar 29, 2004, 06:34 PM

I'm sure some larger fish missed out on a meal.

Fish have to be at least slightly aware to memorize feeding times/occasions (the Great Shadow cometh! Prepare to sup!), though I consider Goldfish to be the lowest on the chain.

Reminds me of that asthma commercial where the goldfish is gasping for air.

Nai_Calus

Mar 29, 2004, 06:36 PM

I used to have goldfish. They were the stupidest things that ever lived, except when feeding time came. Then they got smart.

Sometimes.

Blend away.

Er... I mean, blending goldfish is just horrible. Monsters.

_Ted_

Mar 29, 2004, 06:42 PM

What defines animal cruelty?

Is hurting an animal that is incapable of thought cruelty? How about picking an orange? Oranges can't think either!

Xero_Silvera

Mar 29, 2004, 07:00 PM

Marco Evaristti never harms or endagers anyone or anything in his works - and yet he is able to create esthetic experiences, which seem to place their focus an inch or two behind the blind spot at the back of our eyes. In the zone where some audiences will be blinded and others will watch in awe.
Quoted from his website. And the goldfish thing is in the website as well. the dude is a psycho and id like to see him executed on live tv. That will be all..
-xero

Pancake

Mar 29, 2004, 07:09 PM

On 2004-03-29 16:00, Xero_Silvera wrote:

Marco Evaristti never harms or endagers anyone or anything in his works - and yet he is able to create esthetic experiences, which seem to place their focus an inch or two behind the blind spot at the back of our eyes. In the zone where some audiences will be blinded and others will watch in awe.
Quoted from his website. And the goldfish thing is in the website as well. the dude is a psycho and id like to see him executed on live tv. That will be all..
-xero

Me too, lets grind his ass in a blender!

Scejntjynahl

Mar 29, 2004, 07:30 PM

So if you are incapable of thought or memory you become target for mutilations and ultimately senseless death?

What if you suffering from a coma, and you are a complete "vegetable", no brain activity other than that of helped breathing. Can the orderlies screw around with that person?

And since when did mother nature become the posession of mankind? This guy is http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif , I bet he doesnt do that shit to his backyard...

_Ted_

Mar 29, 2004, 07:35 PM

Damn it, you've got a point about the incapable of thought stuff.

Pancake

Mar 29, 2004, 07:44 PM

Mr double Posting Ted, I hope your not drinking while flying

HUnewearl_Meira

Mar 29, 2004, 07:48 PM

On 2004-03-29 16:30, Furankunichan wrote:
What if you suffering from a coma, and you are a complete "vegetable", no brain activity other than that of helped breathing. Can the orderlies screw around with that person?

The family of that person has the legal right to have them pull the plug at any time. It's also worth noting however, that such a person may have potential to use the rest of their brain, again. It's possible that a medical discovery could save this person's life. There is still potential.

A goldfish on the other hand does not have the potential to become more intelligent, as they are biologically incapable of it.

Again, I'm not one to advocate getting goldfish and putting them in a blender for entertainment purposes, but I'm not going to get all worked up because someone just killed something that wasn't really aware that it was alive to begin with.

Sord

Mar 29, 2004, 08:08 PM

all i have to say is the guy should have just used orange water balloons filled with his own donated blood, besides, it would seem more of a sacrifice on his part than on a fishes, no doubt getting more attention.

The_Pea_Guy

Mar 29, 2004, 08:18 PM

I'm more bothered by the fact that an "artist" thinks that killing a goldfish in a blender is a work of art than a goldfish's life.

This guy belongs in a mental asylum, not an art gallery. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_nono.gif

[ This Message was edited by: The_Pea_Guy on 2004-03-29 17:20 ]

_Ted_

Mar 29, 2004, 08:26 PM

He didn't think that killing goldfish is art! He put goldfish in blenders, he did not turn them on, someone else did.

600!

[ This Message was edited by: _Ted_ on 2004-03-29 17:29 ]

Sord

Mar 29, 2004, 08:35 PM

Evaristti, who was born in Chile, drew widespread attention -- and disdain -- when he displayed 10 working blenders filled with goldfish in a Danish gallery in 2000.

He invited guests to turn the devices on and someone did, grinding up a pair of goldfish.

that's the key part in this thing though, while he didn't touch anything, he encouraged others to do so

The_Pea_Guy

Mar 29, 2004, 08:37 PM

On 2004-03-29 17:26, _Ted_ wrote:
He didn't think that killing goldfish is art! He put goldfish in blenders, he did not turn them on, someone else did.

600!

[ This Message was edited by: _Ted_ on 2004-03-29 17:29 ]

Still weird if you ask me.

103!

_Ted_

Mar 29, 2004, 08:39 PM

On 2004-03-29 17:37, The_Pea_Guy wrote:

On 2004-03-29 17:26, _Ted_ wrote:
He didn't think that killing goldfish is art! He put goldfish in blenders, he did not turn them on, someone else did.

600!

Still weird if you ask me.

103!

Weird as heck, but Sord, I don't think he meant blended up goldfish to be taken as art.

LollipopLolita

Mar 30, 2004, 11:44 AM

you guys are missing an essential key. this is performance art. the goldfish isn't art. but the mere action and desire of someone else wanting to grind a goldfish up just because it's there and it's human nature to be tempted to do it, now that's the performance art part. because in that case, the truth and beauty of human nature shines through. that's the whole point, that's why he had live goldfishes in there, because he knows the worth and value of the lives of the goldfish. performance art in this way is to test and observe human behavior, it's a challenge to see what people would do. he's watching how people react to the goldfish in the blender. and if someone did do it, like that person, then it's also an observation of the other people reacting to the person blending a goldfish. what kind of human would do that? and will someone do that? and what would it look like? and what for? that's part of his concept here.

i think it's a pretty smart concept. i see his point and i like it.

you can't blame him for someone else grinding the fish. he didn't do it. a visitor did.

it's not that weird at all. other performance artists have done a lot weirder but on the whole, performance art is a bizarre.

This guy belongs in a mental asylum

i can say that for a lot of people here. but you didn't understand the concept did you?

reading the article, i can tell that he's very conceptual.

Red Iceberg wat a dumb ass idea who ever wasted so much red dye deserves to be shot.

A, no one will see it as its miles up north
B, no one cares
C, it looks crap

that's not the point, how it looks it not the point. the point is that he thought of it and he did it. he doesn't care if you care or not. but he did accomplish making the iceberg look different. again, it's conceptual art but one that is in nature. and he is right about people wanting to take things from nature and decorate it. he changed the way it looked but it's still an iceberg. he used a fiery red as an expression. this is in the steps of duchamp. the art exist conceptually, in our minds, as an idea. not the resulting piece of work itself. in conceptual art the idea of a work matters more than its physical representation. it is based on the idea. conceptual artists have bizarre ideas which are not the product of logical conclusions. it has challenged our precepts about not only art but society, politics and the media. you reacted to the red iceberg didn't you, albeit it a negative one...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marco Evaristti never harms or endagers anyone or anything in his works - and yet he is able to create esthetic experiences, which seem to place their focus an inch or two behind the blind spot at the back of our eyes. In the zone where some audiences will be blinded and others will watch in awe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted from his website. And the goldfish thing is in the website as well. the dude is a psycho and id like to see him executed on live tv. That will be all..
-xero

now why is that psychotic. it's true that he did not hurt anyone or anything, he didn't blend the goldfish. someone else did. and that's just his artist's statesment, while in fact being a tad scientific. and what he's saying has a point. he's not sticking something in your blind spot, he's saying his art has the power to do it, to mesmerize and captivate. can you create something like that? can you think of painting an iceberg red? no, he was the first to do it. did you have the vision and the creative concept? did you have the creative energy to think of painting something so big found in nature red?

so you want to execute the guy for putting goldfish in the blender, but not the visitor who blended the goldfish.

besides, you eat fish too right? and other animals?

now don't judge art that you have no understanding of. don't judge anything that you don't have an understanding of. you guys all missed his point, eh?

Even_Jin, bonsai kitten is a joke.

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-30 08:59 ]

KodiaX987

Mar 30, 2004, 11:48 AM

Lolita is my goddess. I'm about to put this back into my sig. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

LollipopLolita

Mar 30, 2004, 11:57 AM

amazing how people can get worked up over some things huh, kodi?

http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_bunny.gif

kinda funny, even now, here on psow, people are reacting to his artwork (even though they dont' understand it). so his artwork has that long and wide of a range. his artwork has the ability to affect how you feel and you responded to it even though you didn't see the work. you guys are all part of the performance art now. how do you feel?

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-30 09:06 ]

Sord

Mar 30, 2004, 01:14 PM

On 2004-03-30 08:44, LollipopLolita wrote:
you guys are missing an essential key. this is performance art. the goldfish isn't art. but the mere action and desire of someone else wanting to grind a goldfish up just because it's there and it's human nature to be tempted to do it, now that's the performance art part. because in that case, the truth and beauty of human nature shines through. that's the whole point, that's why he had live goldfishes in there, because he knows the worth and value of the lives of the goldfish. performance art in this way is to test and observe human behavior, it's a challenge to see what people would do. he's watching how people react to the goldfish in the blender. and if someone did do it, like that person, then it's also an observation of the other people reacting to the person blending a goldfish. what kind of human would do that? and will someone do that? and what would it look like? and what for? that's part of his concept here.

i think it's a pretty smart concept. i see his point and i like it.

you can't blame him for someone else grinding the fish. he didn't do it. a visitor did.

it's not that weird at all. other performance artists have done a lot weirder but on the whole, performance art is a bizarre.

ok, while i don't particularly care about the gold fish thing (even if the thought is kind of morbid) and i was just pointing out why people are complaining about the artist and not the person who turned it on... ok, gotta stop on this.

Lollita, you have a good point, but it's not exactly 100% valid, course, nor is any one elses, unless it was complete fact. You don't know the mind of this person, so you can't really say he was trying to obsserve humans. For all we really know, the guy just wanted to see what it was like to blend of a goldfish, but didn't want to take the wrap for it. Also, a lot of what you say is actually an opinion too, and not so much fact.

In reality, and this goes for everyone, this whole debate is rather, well, crappy. Simply because we aren't the artist, and we won't think like him because we haven't lived his life in his body, regardless of wether your on his side or not, none of your points are 100% valid unless you have some proof to show it; they are all biased theories. If, for example, Lolli had said what she said cause she read it on the guy's site, it would be a 100% valid point (unless the artist hired some fancy writer or something to come up with an excuse.) But to the best of my knowledge, that's not the case.

So, just to sum it all up, what i'm saying is this whole debate is worthless, and don't bother me about not just saying that, cause i like to show why i think something is pointless.

Blatt4Life

Mar 30, 2004, 01:15 PM

I hate animal cruelty as well...

LollipopLolita

Mar 30, 2004, 01:41 PM

If, for example, Lolli had said what she said cause she read it on the guy's site, it would be a 100% valid point (unless the artist hired some fancy writer or something to come up with an excuse.) But to the best of my knowledge, that's not the case.

opinion? i read his concepts. i've seen his work before.

You don't know the mind of this person, so you can't really say he was trying to obsserve humans. For all we really know, the guy just wanted to see what it was like to blend of a goldfish, but didn't want to take the wrap for it. Also, a lot of what you say is actually an opinion too, and not so much fact.

and btw if you only studied art enough, you'd know that each movement has a point. and the point behind each movement or style is fact.

Sord

Mar 30, 2004, 02:23 PM

On 2004-03-30 10:41, LollipopLolita wrote:

If, for example, Lolli had said what she said cause she read it on the guy's site, it would be a 100% valid point (unless the artist hired some fancy writer or something to come up with an excuse.) But to the best of my knowledge, that's not the case.

opinion? i read his concepts. i've seen his work before.

You don't know the mind of this person, so you can't really say he was trying to obsserve humans. For all we really know, the guy just wanted to see what it was like to blend of a goldfish, but didn't want to take the wrap for it. Also, a lot of what you say is actually an opinion too, and not so much fact.

and btw if you only studied art enough, you'd know that each movement has a point. and the point behind each movement or style is fact.

since i can't get all fancy with quotes... *shrug*

First part: Then i admit i was wrong then, if that's what the guy was doing, and he said it, then far be it from me to say otherwise (even though there is always that slim chance of a lie.)

And as for the studying art stuff Lolli, these are either conclusions you yourself came to, or read from somebody else. So whose to say it's the right one, the simple fact is, there isn't. It's all theory, even what you said. Cause there might (notice "might," so this is also a theory) that there isn'y a meaning behind every little stroke. You don't need feeling to brush a stroke on a peice of paper, or draw a face. You see some work that was just buckets of paint thrown onto a canvas and it's called art. They say it shows feeling. When in reality, the person who made it felt just the same as any other person of "normal" (whatever that is) mental and physical status. I'm not trying to say i'm right, just trying to say what i think are the points in your argument that work against you.

LollipopLolita

Mar 30, 2004, 02:32 PM

as much as you'd like to think it is sord, it isn't as simple. have you seen how an artist works firsthand? a real artist? do you know what an artist thinks about? their thought processes? how they come up with their concepts? do you know how much care, work, time and energy goes into this delicate process?

these conclusions that people come up with aren't exactly stuff that you pull out of the air. there's facts and history on this you know because the artists themselves wrote down what they thought.

of course there isn't a meaning behind every single little stroke and you can't say that for every art because there are different movements with different aims and purposes. you cannot say the same out of two movements, say impressionism (which is a lot about brushstrokes and light and not meaning) and pop art (which is totally not about brushstrokes but about meaning)

You see some work that was just buckets of paint thrown onto a canvas and it's called art. They say it shows feeling. When in reality, the person who made it felt just the same as any other person of "normal" (whatever that is) mental and physical status.

this is where your uninformed knowledge about art fails you. if only you understood the point of the movement. you see, what you're talking about is abstract expressionist. and you see in abstract expresionnist, it's not just the work on the canvas that is art. not at all. it's the expression of the artist and mostly the performance and expression of so called artist during the process. it's not that the thing itself shows the expression, it's just a product. it's like a pollock. you see a pollock and you go wtf? it's just drips, what the hell? that's not art. yeah but you know he was the first to do it, and there is no meaning and no concept behind it. 0. it's just how he did it and how he came about it. it's about how he felt when making it made him make it a certain way. and if you ask, how do you know he felt that way? well then go read what he said or watch his videos.

yes i do admit that the problem with conceptual or abstract art is that it is too hard and removed for people to understand.

and above all, not all art in galleries are good. some people just got lucky with the critics.

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-30 11:34 ]

Sord

Mar 30, 2004, 03:06 PM

On 2004-03-30 11:32, LollipopLolita wrote:
as much as you'd like to think it is sord, it isn't as simple. have you seen how an artist works firsthand? a real artist? do you know what an artist thinks about? their thought processes? how they come up with their concepts? do you know how much care, work, time and energy goes into this delicate process?

these conclusions that people come up with aren't exactly stuff that you pull out of the air. there's facts and history on this you know because the artists themselves wrote down what they thought.

of course there isn't a meaning behind every single little stroke and you can't say that for every art because there are different movements with different aims and purposes. you cannot say the same out of two movements, say impressionism (which is a lot about brushstrokes and light and not meaning) and pop art (which is totally not about brushstrokes but about meaning)

You see some work that was just buckets of paint thrown onto a canvas and it's called art. They say it shows feeling. When in reality, the person who made it felt just the same as any other person of "normal" (whatever that is) mental and physical status.

this is where your uninformed knowledge about art fails you. if only you understood the point of the movement. you see, what you're talking about is abstract expressionist. and you see in abstract expresionnist, it's not just the work on the canvas that is art. not at all. it's the expression of the artist and mostly the performance and expression of so called artist during the process. it's not that the thing itself shows the expression, it's just a product. it's like a pollock. you see a pollock and you go wtf? it's just drips, what the hell? that's not art. yeah but you know he was the first to do it, and there is no meaning and no concept behind it. 0. it's just how he did it and how he came about it. it's about how he felt when making it made him make it a certain way. and if you ask, how do you know he felt that way? well then go read what he said or watch his videos.

yes i do admit that the problem with conceptual or abstract art is that it is too hard and removed for people to understand.

and above all, not all art in galleries are good. some people just got lucky with the critics.

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-30 11:34 ]

well, basically this is the easieast thing to answer that i'v gotten from you. All i have to say is, "How do you know?" I've watched people make artwork, and sometimes it takes them a while and sometimes it doesn't. You go on and ask me all the questions about there concepts and thoughts and whatnot. But putting it simply, "Do you?" even with a life time of study you still are not that person. In reality, life is the greatest art cause it can never be copied, but that's a topic for a later day.

And i know some conclusions are't pulled out of thin air. Some of my favorite works are done be a guy who mixes animals and landscapes and what not, but he does all this genetic, enviromental research and what not. He has a mural he's working on that i'm looking forward to, i'll try and find the guy's name (names are never good with me)

as for the stuff in all the polluck paragraph, i'll give credit to the first few people who did it, but everything else it's usually done in the style of another

Sord

Mar 30, 2004, 03:11 PM

On 2004-03-30 12:06, Sord wrote:
Some of my favorite works are done be a guy who mixes animals and landscapes and what not, but he does all this genetic, enviromental research and what not. He has a mural he's working on that i'm looking forward to, i'll try and find the guy's name (names are never good with me)

His name is Alexis Rockman

LollipopLolita

Mar 30, 2004, 03:27 PM

i can turn the table on you though. how do you know that it means nothing? how do you know that artist's minds are simple? are you an artist? how do you propose that all artists' minds aren't complex? you're arguing about semantics and proposing. you're not even discussing art of the artwork anymore.

and i'm talking about high artwork, not simple things like the ones in fanworks. i'm talking about pieces that takes time to accomplish. heh. i know because i've been there. i know the experience. i go through it almost every day. there are concepts that takes months to figure out and there is simple things that doesn't take any at all. it depends on the depth of the concept.

and you can't say we know nothing at all because we are not the person and don't know how the person thinks, because the person did tell us what he thought. whether he's lying or not, well that's his thing, but in a lot of concepts, there just isn't a lot of room to lie about because it shows in their artwork. and artists are the type of people that explain why they did that since it is their thought process. if an artist says, i am a surrealist. do you say no and not believe him?

but if navi made a drawing about a fonewm, and she said she felt like drawing a fonewm, do you believe her?

do you question plato and say, how do you know that's what he really believe in? was kantz lying? was decartes not being honest?

as for the stuff in all the polluck paragraph, i'll give credit to the first few people who did it, but everything else it's usually done in the style of another

no not at all, pollock was the first to do it. and credit isn't given to the first few people or any other who copied him. that's because we're crediting pollock for the brilliance of his creativity for being the originator.

this is fruitless and pointless and gets you nowhere. it's not even the point of the discussion anymore and it's pointless with this attitude. it's like phil 101 and has little backing. in the end you have failed to see the value of art and artwork. adopt the principle of charity and begin to open up your mind and understand. cuz we might as well argue about solipsism since this is what it's going onto.

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-30 12:35 ]

Saladwood

Mar 30, 2004, 03:45 PM

On 2004-03-30 12:27, LollipopLolita wrote:
this is fruitless and pointless and gets you nowhere. it's not even the point of the discussion anymore and it's pointless with this attitude. it's like phil 101 and has little backing. in the end you have failed to see the value of art and artwork. adopt the principle of charity and begin to open up your mind and understand. cuz we might as well argue about solipsism since this is what it's going onto.

This is quite true, it is pointless and is going nowhere. Sord, your questions are besides the point. You said that it's not what the artist might be thinking but then Lolli proved that wrong and it turns out it is what the artist is thinking right? It is what he said in his thesis. Well damn this applies to everyone then. And you know you did miss Lolli's important point. If it belongs to that movement then damn it has the points and purpose of that movement. You cannot say conceptual art is not conceptual when the artist said he is a conceptual artist and that is a conceptual piece of art. Unless you wanna say again that the artist might be lying. Which in that case is sorta, well then wtf yo?

[ This Message was edited by: Saladwood on 2004-03-30 12:48 ]

Sord

Mar 30, 2004, 04:02 PM

On 2004-03-30 12:45, Saladwood wrote:

On 2004-03-30 12:27, LollipopLolita wrote:
this is fruitless and pointless and gets you nowhere. it's not even the point of the discussion anymore and it's pointless with this attitude. it's like phil 101 and has little backing. in the end you have failed to see the value of art and artwork. adopt the principle of charity and begin to open up your mind and understand. cuz we might as well argue about solipsism since this is what it's going onto.

This is quite true, it is pointless and is going nowhere.

You might want to rethink that. Even if everything i say is proved wrong, at least i learned something from that. I don't just argue for the hell of it. You can learn a lot from it to.

Scejntjynahl

Mar 30, 2004, 04:03 PM

Like always Lolli makes excellent points and is able to back the opinions expressed very well indeed.

What of "accidental" art, you had posted that all art has a meaning or purpose, what if it was accidental?

Back on topic:

This artist has a different approach, even though I may not comprehend it, it is art. And in that it becomes undescribeable, like emotions. Personally, even though goldfish have no recollection of pain, it pains me that they were used in such a manner. No, I am not a vegetarian. But in my personal belief I have always known that to kill an animal was for the purpose of continuing your own existence. Example: Food, clothing, and raw materials for shelter and defense. But art? Im not quite ready for that idea, perhaps later I may reconsider...

HUnewearl_Meira

Mar 30, 2004, 04:32 PM

On 2004-03-30 13:03, Furankunichan wrote:
This artist has a different approach, even though I may not comprehend it, it is art. And in that it becomes undescribeable, like emotions. Personally, even though goldfish have no recollection of pain, it pains me that they were used in such a manner. No, I am not a vegetarian. But in my personal belief I have always known that to kill an animal was for the purpose of continuing your own existence. Example: Food, clothing, and raw materials for shelter and defense. But art? Im not quite ready for that idea, perhaps later I may reconsider...

Really the question behind art is... Where do you draw the line? Where does it go from being profound, and making you think, to being just disturbing or gross? Dr. Jack Kavorkian (the "Suicide Doctor", as they used to call him) got into art some time ago, and on at least one of his paintings, he used his own blood to paint the frame. A few years ago, there was a big dispute over a painting of the Virgin Mary, because part of the medium used to paint it was elephant dung. Another artist decided that his own feces in a jar was a sufficiently artistic piece to display (talk about shooting ideas out of your ass...).

Just where is the line between great art and simply bad taste?

Uncle_bob

Mar 30, 2004, 04:36 PM

On 2004-03-30 13:32, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Just where is the line between great art and simply bad taste?

When it causes controversy, that's when it's over the line or pretty damn close.

bordering

Mar 30, 2004, 08:14 PM

ah, this topic reminded me strongly of a great seanbaby article:

http://www.seanbaby.com/news/cow.htm

i'd have to say that exploding skinned cow dropped from helicopter by naked man >>> some stupid red iceburg.

like sb, i've had extensive exposure to the "world" of art (theories, people, places, etc, etc until i feel like vomiting just thinking about it). my parents are both artists in their own right, my mother in fact being a curator at the local modern art museum (an institution of some renown). my husband is active in the art scene as well. and, yes, virginia, i did have my own phase in early teenhood of trying to express my YOUnique individualllllily through "artistic expression and exploration" (i almlost literally gagged while typing that). but i grew out of that rather quickly, despite the rather embarrasing amount of praise that my even then rather sarcastic and mocking works garnered. i've been around art and artists behind the scenes my whole life and i can say from LONG experience that so much of what is "art" is really just people trying to impress each other. everytime i hear the words/phrases "juxtaposition", "difficult work", "hegemony", "site specific", or "metonymy" i die a little inside.

i especially identify with sb's summation of the "meaning of art":

That is exactly what's wrong with artists. In the 10 or 12 hours you spent on a painting that someone might interpret to mean that you love the guitar, you could have knocked on 800 people's random doors and told them all, with no misunderstanding, that you're one hundred percent behind the success of the guitar. Or better yet, if it's really that important that everyone knows you enjoy the guitar, FUCK YOU.

Art would like to think that it's some sort of secret communication device between the intellectual elite, but all it's doing is circling a message through the same group of ***s that they're all pissed off. It's a waste of time; you can tell someone you're pissed off with a simple karate chop. Karate attacks or just words about karate attacks are a cleaner and faster means of communication than painting floating eyeballs with your body fluids ever will be.

it's funny because it's true. except i might be inclinded to substitue "special, delicate, misunderstood flowers" in for "pissed off". but they both work.

if you really want to "experience nature" from a new, abstract perspective like this solid gold iceburg *** dancer seems to be postualting his work as an expression of, go pick up a copy of the journal Cell.

visual art is outmoded. compare what it is today to what art originally developed for waaaaaaaaay back in the history of our species. the artistic inclination of humans was thought to have developed as a means of conveying IMPORTANT information. not like, "i feel sad WAAAAAH". more like, "jim was here" or "this way to the water hole". it has long outlived its usefullness as a means of expressing anything resonant to society (and by long i don't mean just with the advent of modern art either).

sure, it's perhaps is useful as a personal cathartic exercize, much like knitting or petting a sof' l'il silly-willy kitty. that doesn't grate on my nerves as much as people placing far more weight and value on it than it deserves. hell, we all need a private release and it can serve that function for some quite adequetly.

it also has grand uses for telling people that you think you're like, really totally deep man. like whoooooooa. sort of like church. all of these people participating in a rather elaborate charade simply to have an excuse to interact with each other. (even though, DURRR, interaction is in itself important; blowing up what is simply the vehicle of it to grandiose proportions just IRKS the hell out of me.) there are plenty of other less obnoxious ways to hang out with other people though, ways that don't involve the word "juxtaposition". like fashion, music, alchohol, pso, sports [ick to me too, but still...],etc, etc. (yes, the first two can be loosely classed as art, but on the whole they're nowhere near as pompus and ridiculous as visual/performance/*** dancing art. they know what they are for the most part: a means for people to come together and have something in common. the "thing" isn't as important as the "together" in this case.)

ooooh, and speaking of kitties, and to end this on a somewhat pleasent note, now, THIS, to me, is good artin':

http://www.monpa.com/wcp/documentry/d1.html

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. [the part of that site where they discuss the implications and the feelings of the "artists" behind those works is unutterably PRICELESS.]

LollipopLolita

Mar 31, 2004, 03:44 AM

i'm tired, so i'm not even gonna say anything to bordering because it'll take some time. though i am not disagreeing or agreeing entirely.

but hey

everytime i hear the words/phrases "juxtaposition", "difficult work", "hegemony", "site specific", or "metonymy" i die a little inside

that makes me laugh. a lot. because i know how you feel. juxtapose is one of the ones that makes me wince. and everytime i hear terribilita i want to mash someone's head. but

"art" is really just people trying to impress each other.

i'd have to disagree with that. not everyone makes art to impress each other.

What of "accidental" art, you had posted that all art has a meaning or purpose, what if it was accidental?

that's the one of the points of the dada movement actually. random art. the purpose was to show that art can be random or accidental, and art is crap.

Really the question behind art is... Where do you draw the line?

maybe if and when the concept is firm and upheld and the outcome is justified. iunno, i'm up way too late! snowcone!

Mar 31, 2004, 07:59 AM

On 2004-03-30 08:44, LollipopLolita wrote:

watching how people react to the goldfish in the blender. and if someone did do it, like that person, then it's also an observation of the other people reacting to the person blending a goldfish. what kind of human would do that? and will someone do that? and what would it look like? and what for? that's part of his concept here.
Well whats to stop someone ramming his sorry ass in a blender and encouraging people to kill him?

you can't blame him for someone else grinding the fish. he didn't do it. a visitor did.
And that would be the argument if someone stuck him in a giant blender and encouraged people to turn that on.

the dude is a psycho and id like to see him executed on live tv. That will be all..
-xero
True but Even though I've been saying all this stuff I disagree that he should actualy be killed.

so you want to execute the guy for putting goldfish in the blender, but not the visitor who blended the goldfish.
If I had to choose then I say both lol.

I guess this is kinda stupid but I just don't think he had the right.

HUnewearl_Meira

Mar 31, 2004, 12:07 PM

On 2004-03-30 13:36, Uncle_bob wrote:

On 2004-03-30 13:32, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Just where is the line between great art and simply bad taste?

When it causes controversy, that's when it's over the line or pretty damn close.

But what if that was the intent? Art isn't always meant to be a pleasent experience, y'know. Sometimes the idea is to make people debate over what is moral, and what is not. Or perhaps to show us how grotesque we are. What then?

LollipopLolita

Mar 31, 2004, 12:19 PM

You might want to rethink that. Even if everything i say is proved wrong, at least i learned something from that. I don't just argue for the hell of it. You can learn a lot from it to.

sord, again, you're arguing semantics

Well whats to stop someone ramming his sorry ass in a blender and encouraging people to kill him?

nothing, he can do that if he wants and the point would be the same, what's the value of life and the beauty of life. he can go get into a blender if he wants. and if someone did turn on the gigantic blender, he wouldn't be to blame for it, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TURN IT ON. and also how does it look when a human is squished in a blender!!! and btw that is so not the point...

but you know there is a difference between a human and a goldfish.

If I had to choose then I say both lol.

funy decision, putting them both on the same plane of ethics

I guess this is kinda stupid but I just don't think he had the right.

you said it, i didn't

i guess, then, no one has the right to put goldfishes in blenders? at all?

then what gives you the right to kill ants or spiders?

what gives you the right to eat an animal?

what gives you the right to use animal products?

you should be executed too.

you know how people cook live crabs and lobsters?

they should be executed as well.

let the vegans run free

would you mind so much if it was an earthworm in there? or just be more grossed out?

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-31 09:21 ]

Mar 31, 2004, 12:26 PM

I rarely kill ants and never spiders.
Yes I do eat meat but thats because killing somthing is ok if you're gunna benefit from it, but for just seeing what would happen, thats just sick.
But yeah I see you're point Lolly person.

LollipopLolita

Mar 31, 2004, 12:36 PM

what if i told you the point of it was to show the beauty and nature of humans and the value of life?

would that make it as justifiable as your eating meat?

because see, you don't technically have to eat meat. you can still be a vegetarian or vegan and be completely healthy, right?

but then if you say that killing something is okay if you benefit from it, then hell i say i'll have something to benefit if i kill frink. so then that's okay?

if he put a cow in the blender with intentions of drinking the beef milkshake afterwards, is that ok?

see what i mean sj? ^_^

Saladwood

Mar 31, 2004, 12:47 PM

Hey people,

IT'S A GOLDFISH

Most goldfish are sold at fishstores to FEED OTHER FISH and are very disposable.

If you have a problem with a goldfish getting killed by an audience member, then go throw away every single violent movie, videogame, and book AND unhook any video feed going to your TV so you can't witness the violence against everything that is shown on television in your house RIGHT now, because from watching, reading, playing all of that, you are encouraging more violence to be produced! Go join a non-violent "new age" *cough* hippie *cough* *cough* commune. Can't find one? Seems like there's enough of you that you can start one. Maybe all you should do is take care of goldfish all day long and treat them as equals.

Hrith

Mar 31, 2004, 12:47 PM

I do get your point too, Lolita, except the part about killing Frink >_<

LollipopLolita

Mar 31, 2004, 12:49 PM

oh kef because i have something to gain from killing frink. his blood. i drink it everyday. so i gain something from it. and it's nutritious gain, so it's ok.

oh and salad, comrade goldie told me to tell you that she enjoys being my equal.

viva la goldfish revolution

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-03-31 09:50 ]

KodiaX987

Mar 31, 2004, 02:22 PM

ART!

Defined by KodiaX987, your resident motherfucker.

Art is defined as whatever causes the viewer to go on a forum rampage-crusade because he doesn't feel it was politically correct.

Welcome to the wonderful world of ethics, bastards and bitches.

Hrith

Mar 31, 2004, 02:50 PM

Ah, KodiaX, what would PSOW (and art, too) be without you ? http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

bordering

Apr 2, 2004, 04:49 AM

On 2004-03-31 00:44, LollipopLolita wrote:
i'm tired, so i'm not even gonna say anything to bordering because it'll take some time. though i am not disagreeing or agreeing entirely.

but hey

everytime i hear the words/phrases "juxtaposition", "difficult work", "hegemony", "site specific", or "metonymy" i die a little inside

that makes me laugh. a lot. because i know how you feel. juxtapose is one of the ones that makes me wince. and everytime i hear terribilita i want to mash someone's head. but

so much of what is "art" is really just people trying to impress each other.

i'd have to disagree with that. not everyone makes art to impress each other.

yea, i made ample allowance for that in my diatribe, with the bold part of the last quote and this next statement:

sure, it's perhaps is useful as a personal cathartic exercize.... hell, we all need a private release and it can serve that function for some quite adequetly.

i'm just ranting because i'm sick to death of Art proper and being dragged along to gallery openings and movie screenings and such with people who take it all too seriously with all the ridiculous pretentiousness that goes along with it. ::breath:: ARGH. i just do my best not to laugh and/or slap them when they start saying that their plastic lemurs in plastic trees Represent the, uh, juxtaposition of, uh, uh, starving people in africa? GRR. DIE! PAINFULLY! PREFERABLY BY STARVATION SO YOU CAN SEE THAT PLASTIC LEMURS IN PLASTIC TREES HAVE -NOTHING- TO DO WITH IT! hehe.

really, though, -art- is fine, sometimes. for instance, i like my huz's work (i remember early on being very leery and crestfallen after he revealed he was a painter AND a musician ("good GOD not another art ***. puh-leeze") and then being somewhat shocked when his work didn't totally suck ass).

but -Art-? PEH.

...didn't anyone get a kick out of the kitty painting site? hahaha. check out the dancing section too. PURE. GOLD.