| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2008 03:42:39 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Interesting thing about art.... one thing I learned about art a long time ago from someone very wise is that... 'Art, art is created to inspire an emotional response. Regardless of a positive or negative emotion, if a person responds strongly than you did your job.' Considering your response the Artist did a fantastic job. |
I think this is a bunch of hooey designed to let so called arteeests be anti-social without being criticized. Why should a so-called artist be privileged to be allowed to go around provoking emotional responses in people with no regard for what those responses are. My emotions are my own. Stay the heck away from them. You can't just go around and do something f'd up to provoke people and then stand back and say "Hey, who the hell do you think you are to criticize me when I'm an arteest!" B.S.! |
First of all learn to spell. ARTIST, in my personal opinion your ignorance shines through perfectly in your misspelling. I personally believe you are a bunch of Hooey, to discredit so many people because you feel violated, because someone invoked an emotion within you that you didn't like.
Though, I do have ask why you believe that statement encourages anti-social behavior without criticizing? Seriously, take yourself for example, here you are flaming all over the board, and criticizing everything. It doesn't stop it or encourage anti-social behavior.
If, your mind was open just a little bit in my opinion, you would see it is a statement to aid an ARTIST to put more effort in their work, to create something that is not mundane or ordinary. To push the limits of their creative medium and to inspire, invoke, encourage, elevate emotion through. It is not what you believe to be an 'excuse' to create, but a reason to.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:43:31 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
"Artists are sovereign individuals attuned to special arrays of the spectrum. They are specialists who cannot profitably be used as employers or employees.
Apart from their special focus and calling, artists are much like anyone else. They need to eat, sleep and live under roves. Despite an odd need to dissociate to fine-tune their feelers and to commune with forces yet unrealized, they cannot live entirely in a vacuum. This and the subsequent inability to conform is viewed with suspicion and frequently misunderstood as a privilege by those who lack this capacity and have not shared in the innate experience associated with it. It should come as no surprise that artists are sometimes unhappily mated and not likely to be recognized for their use until well after they have died and no longer present a perceived threat to a society who, by and large, opposed them while they were still living.
A society without art is a society in decline. When any village continues to exists for a spell without acts that dignify its existence, it's survival can only be measured by counting." |
This is exactly the kind of hooey I'm talking about. "Sovereign individuals!" "Special arrays of the spectrum!" Holy Cow! Smoke another one! |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:46:32 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I should add that my responses thus far in this thread have to do only with the subject of "art" in general, and are unrelated to the pictures that began this subject of discussion.
As far as those pictures go, though, have any of the "art is sacrosanct" crowd considered the possibility that those pictures constitute and promote violence against women? Sexist, violent, pornographic tools of misogynistics bent on subjugating women?
It's possible! |
Do your homework, Woman in pierced suspension work is untraditional. There are many many more males doing this type of work than not. So why is it not a tool to promote violence against men?
You have no argument. Simply because you have no facts, just a twisted ideal of reality, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:47:11 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Case in point - painting a crucifix dipped in urine and displaying it in public. Calling it art is not a defense. The person who does that sort of thing has earned a negative response from the people he intentionally "provoked." |
And that's bad, why?
Because the artist pissed off some people by creating a piece that reflects his view of religion? So? If that's how he feels about religion, it's his perogative to express that feeling as he sees fit. He's not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or anything like that. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:47:44 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
"Artists are sovereign individuals attuned to special arrays of the spectrum. They are specialists who cannot profitably be used as employers or employees.
Apart from their special focus and calling, artists are much like anyone else. They need to eat, sleep and live under roves. Despite an odd need to dissociate to fine-tune their feelers and to commune with forces yet unrealized, they cannot live entirely in a vacuum. This and the subsequent inability to conform is viewed with suspicion and frequently misunderstood as a privilege by those who lack this capacity and have not shared in the innate experience associated with it. It should come as no surprise that artists are sometimes unhappily mated and not likely to be recognized for their use until well after they have died and no longer present a perceived threat to a society who, by and large, opposed them while they were still living.
A society without art is a society in decline. When any village continues to exists for a spell without acts that dignify its existence, it's survival can only be measured by counting." |
This is exactly the kind of hooey I'm talking about. "Sovereign individuals!" "Special arrays of the spectrum!" Holy Cow! Smoke another one! |
Are you are jealous you didn't think of it first?
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:48:07 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
First of all learn to spell. ARTIST, in my personal opinion your ignorance shines through perfectly in your misspelling. |
I can't believe you think that when I write "arteeests" it indicates inability to spell. If you don't actually realize that I'm using that spelling (which approximates the French pronunciation of the word) to make fun of people and make the point that they think they are above others, then I'm amazed. I spell quite well in English, French and Arabic, thank you very much! |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:49:09 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by littlegett:
First of all learn to spell. ARTIST, in my personal opinion your ignorance shines through perfectly in your misspelling. |
I can't believe you think that when I write "arteeests" it indicates inability to spell. If you don't actually realize that I'm using that spelling (which approximates the French pronunciation of the word) to make fun of people and make the point that they think they are above others, then I'm amazed. I spell quite well in English, French and Arabic, thank you very much! |
Can we get SC in here to issue a warning for personal attacks?
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:50:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Are you are jealous you didn't think of it first? |
Damn! You got me! Yes, I'm jealous! |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:51:26 PM · #59 |
If I caught her while I was fishing I certainly would not be doing catch and release. :) That performer has the most beautifully sculpted body I've seen in a long time. I hope the member has her as a model for some nude challenges here in the future. A hint: You'll score better without the hooks. LOL I enjoyed looking at the entire portfolio. I think that it could have been better without the "heavens light" that was used. More use of darkness and shadows would have allowed the highlighting of the hooks with specular reflections.
As to being shocking, it doesn't compare to someone I know who was a "cutter" when she was a teenager. The scars on her body would make many grown men swoon.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:51:52 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by littlegett:
First of all learn to spell. ARTIST, in my personal opinion your ignorance shines through perfectly in your misspelling. |
I can't believe you think that when I write "arteeests" it indicates inability to spell. If you don't actually realize that I'm using that spelling (which approximates the French pronunciation of the word) to make fun of people and make the point that they think they are above others, then I'm amazed. I spell quite well in English, French and Arabic, thank you very much! |
Can we get SC in here to issue a warning for personal attacks? |
Sure, let's do it, because you're the one calling ME ignorant. I, on the other hand, made fun of a generalized group of people who call themselves artists. Get a thicker skin! |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:52:24 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
...This is exactly the kind of hooey I'm talking about. "Sovereign individuals!" "Special arrays of the spectrum!" Holy Cow! Smoke another one! |
Yours is the usual response. The many share your view.
My mother's response to poetry is to fall asleep.
My wife's response was divorce.
Opposition, however, is part of the game. Energy, too, exhibits polarity. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:57:13 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by littlegett:
First of all learn to spell. ARTIST, in my personal opinion your ignorance shines through perfectly in your misspelling. |
I can't believe you think that when I write "arteeests" it indicates inability to spell. If you don't actually realize that I'm using that spelling (which approximates the French pronunciation of the word) to make fun of people and make the point that they think they are above others, then I'm amazed. I spell quite well in English, French and Arabic, thank you very much! |
Can we get SC in here to issue a warning for personal attacks? |
Sure, let's do it, because you're the one calling ME ignorant. I, on the other hand, made fun of a generalized group of people who call themselves artists. Get a thicker skin! |
na, I like my skin the way it is thank you very much. I call them as I see them. You bore me already, I wonder whats on TV.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:57:25 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Case in point - painting a crucifix dipped in urine and displaying it in public. Calling it art is not a defense. The person who does that sort of thing has earned a negative response from the people he intentionally "provoked." |
And that's bad, why?
Because the artist pissed off some people by creating a piece that reflects his view of religion? So? If that's how he feels about religion, it's his perogative to express that feeling as he sees fit. He's not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or anything like that. |
Many would argue that what he did was far worse! He made millions and millions of people feel really bad, hurt, offended and angry. You can't defend that by calling it art. Unlike much of the Muslim world, I would not call for him to be killed for this. But, if someone were to punch him in the face, I would have to say that he earned it. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:03:41 PM · #64 |
Thank you epescala,
One thing that has bothered me for quite some time now is that the majority of artists and critics seem to feel that something has to be happy or furry to be profound or to have meaning. I don't blame them, the world is a rough place, probably more bad goes on than good in the world. People like to surround themselves with bright, colorful, happy things which help isolate them from that part of the world.
Maybe they have enough bad going on in their life that they just don't want any more of it. That is cool too. It bothers me though when they try applying that personal view of the world onto others, instead of looking the other way they try to paint over what they don't like to see.
Personally I am unable to view or judge any photo featuring the homeless, it just makes me too sad. However I think it should make me sad, and I think such photos should exist. Not because they are beautiful, but because they are not.
Originally posted by epescala:
Just because its not a cute puppy, a cute baby, a sunset or a macro of an eye doesn't mean it's not good, or its not art. I think the photos are beautiful, and if you look closely you'll see that this makes her happy. To each his own I say. |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:04:52 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by epescala:
Just because its not a cute puppy, a cute baby, a sunset or a macro of an eye doesn't mean it's not good, or its not art. I think the photos are beautiful, and if you look closely you'll see that this makes her happy. To each his own I say. |
There are many in the feminist community who believe that all pornography is subjugation and domination of women regardless of the feelings of the "actress." They would argue something to the effect of that the pornography actress, having been raised in a male-dominated society, was badly influenced by that society and, in effect, was not free to make "correct" decisions.
I'm not calling these pictures pornographic, by the way, I'm simply using the example of pornography to address your point.
I wish to restate that my statements in this thread are really unrelated to the photographs that began it. I'm leveling a criticism against the sacrosanct position of art, not against these pictures.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:05:32 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
 |
She looks like she's having a pretty good time.
I could think of better ways to spend my time but who am I to judge? |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:08:50 PM · #67 |
From Daniel Riedel's website
This shoot has gotten mixed reviews, either horror or wonder and very little in between. The shoot itself was the brainstorm of myself and Erik Dakota. Erik is a fantastic piercing artist in the Bay Area.
It is one of my most favorite shoots that I have done so far. It has encouraged me to get a print account set up and start offering my photography to others. It̢۪s also where I have started to figure out what I am looking for in my art and photography. This shoot has evoked a reaction more than my other pieces. At first I wondered if I had made a mistake. After thinking about it, however, I realize I was dead on with what I wanted, envisioned and hoped for.
As Thomas Friedman says the world is flat. His concept was more of a socio-economic statement. Mine is more of a statement that people are truly different and enjoy so many different things. Though many will find horror with this piece, they may kringe they might have to look away, and they may shudder. I also hope they look at it and realize that we as humans can do the most amazing things.
I want to capture personality in my art, I want to capture a human, who they are, inside and outside, and express that to others. More of my work will probably drift around from edgy fetish, to comical, to just exploring the beauty of ourselves.
I also offer up the documentary that behindkink did about the piece. I invite you to watch.
link and video obviously not work safe
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:11:40 PM · #68 |
| Again, I'm not talking about those pictures. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:12:03 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Many would argue that what he did was far worse! He made millions and millions of people feel really bad, hurt, offended and angry. You can't defend that by calling it art. Unlike much of the Muslim world, I would not call for him to be killed for this. But, if someone were to punch him in the face, I would have to say that he earned it. |
You just crossed the line by Condoning violent acts against another.
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 16:12:19.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:12:40 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Again, I'm not talking about those pictures. |
Then start your own thread and stop hijacking this one.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:17:16 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
... I'm leveling a criticism against the sacrosanct position of art, not against these pictures. |
And I agree. Any work of art has to withstand the onslaught of critics, of anyone with an interest, really. Nothing, in that sense, is sacrosanct, as you say.
What I alluded to, in my earlier post, were the origins of art, both historically and inherently, not some immunity by mere label or status. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:18:24 PM · #72 |
So you dont think it's possible that, at least some of these women actually enjoy what they do? Women can be just as sexual or even more sexual than men, and I dont believe for a second that the woman in these photographs was forced to do this. Performances like this can be very spiritual, IMO, and I dont think it's fair to say she doesnt have the ability to make "correct" decisions. (BTW, what's "correct" to you is not necesarily what is correct for the rest of us)
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by epescala:
Just because its not a cute puppy, a cute baby, a sunset or a macro of an eye doesn't mean it's not good, or its not art. I think the photos are beautiful, and if you look closely you'll see that this makes her happy. To each his own I say. |
There are many in the feminist community who believe that all pornography is subjugation and domination of women regardless of the feelings of the "actress." They would argue something to the effect of that the pornography actress, having been raised in a male-dominated society, was badly influenced by that society and, in effect, was not free to make "correct" decisions.
I'm not calling these pictures pornographic, by the way, I'm simply using the example of pornography to address your point.
I wish to restate that my statements in this thread are really unrelated to the photographs that began it. I'm leveling a criticism against the sacrosanct position of art, not against these pictures. |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:21:29 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Can we get SC in here to issue a warning for personal attacks? |
Sure. While I'm at it, I'll also throw in a warning for publicly accusing other participants of rule violations.
Both of you cool it now. Stay on topic, or stay out of the thread.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:27:32 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Case in point - painting a crucifix dipped in urine and displaying it in public. Calling it art is not a defense. The person who does that sort of thing has earned a negative response from the people he intentionally "provoked." |
And that's bad, why?
Because the artist pissed off some people by creating a piece that reflects his view of religion? So? If that's how he feels about religion, it's his perogative to express that feeling as he sees fit. He's not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or anything like that. |
Many would argue that what he did was far worse! He made millions and millions of people feel really bad, hurt, offended and angry. You can't defend that by calling it art. Unlike much of the Muslim world, I would not call for him to be killed for this. But, if someone were to punch him in the face, I would have to say that he earned it. |
Because the artists expression hurt someone's feelings, you'd have him physically injured?
Isn't the freedom of expression one of those constitutional thing-a-ma-bobs you've sworn to defend? |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 04:32:44 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by epescala:
Just because its not a cute puppy, a cute baby, a sunset or a macro of an eye doesn't mean it's not good, or its not art. I think the photos are beautiful, and if you look closely you'll see that this makes her happy. To each his own I say. |
There are many in the feminist community who believe that all pornography is subjugation and domination of women regardless of the feelings of the "actress." They would argue something to the effect of that the pornography actress, having been raised in a male-dominated society, was badly influenced by that society and, in effect, was not free to make "correct" decisions.
I'm not calling these pictures pornographic, by the way, I'm simply using the example of pornography to address your point.
I wish to restate that my statements in this thread are really unrelated to the photographs that began it. I'm leveling a criticism against the sacrosanct position of art, not against these pictures. |
Do you really think porn is all bad too?
If art disrupts the shiny, happy, Stepford fantasy existence that some want to have, it's bad?
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only as the government defines it is not how it's worded.
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 16:34:47. |
|
