If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   How art tricks people into paying $3.6 million for an "abstract" painting   (cnn.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, neurobiology, visual systems, visual perceptions, University of Geneva, human ancestor, amygdalas, Art Is..., Stone Age  
•       •       •

4559 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Sep 2012 at 11:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 05:51:29 AM

spesimen: mjbok: Someone brought up sports as a possible parallel for being overpaid. While I think that athletes ARE overpaid my judgment on such things comes down to this: could I do it?

Can I paint a picture like the Mona Lisa? No. Can I throw a bunch of paint at a blank canvas? Yes. Can I make a single dot on a blank canvas? Yes. Can I piss in a jar, throw in a dollar bill and seal it? Yes. Those are all things I can do repeatedly with out much difficulty.

the trick is not to pee in a jar... it's to be the first guy to think of doing it.

the fact that people are still talking about it thirty years later, even people such as yourself who may not really like modern or contemporary art, is proof that he was onto something, no?

if you try and sell your own pee jars you may find some interested parties but there's a reason why 'piss christ' has a wikipedia page and you will be lucky to get some play on craigslist maybe.

a lot of folks just think 'art' means nothing but pretty pictures, and hey, they can convince themselves they are right, and the art world won't really care anyway.... just like geologists don't really trouble themselves with the idea that the earth is 6000 years old even though some folks on the internet will swear up and down it's the case and they know better.


That's a lot of sneering for someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. 'Piss Christ' isn't a jar of pee. It is a photograph, and creating/recreating it would in fact require the sort of technical ability that mjbok was saying he valued. 

/it even happens to be a "pretty picture"
 
2012-09-17 06:09:23 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That's a lot of sneering for someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. 'Piss Christ' isn't a jar of pee. It is a photograph, and creating/recreating it would in fact require the sort of technical ability that mjbok was saying he valued.


my tone wasn't intended to sound sneering, sorry bout that mjbok,

as for mf ridic, i dunno what to tell ya dogg. i mentioned that piece simply because i was too lazy to look up an actual 'jar of pee' piece, if one even exists. piss christ was controversial enough in the 80s to spawn these same discussions, regardless if it was actually a photo of urine. he brought up the "dollar in the jar thing and seal it" maybe somebody did that, i never claimed to have wide-ranging knowledge of the field.

my point was that mjok's view on athletes is no different than how it is for artists - he's just framing the context differently. to say, yeah i can make a 3 pointer, but not consistently, is different than saying yeah i can pee in a jar. and is better framed as, yeah i can pee in a jar, but can i convince the art world that i'm doing something financially lucrative..., and there the answer would also be similarly dificult.

as for the last part it wasn't intended to sound dismissive either. i really don't give a shiat at all if someone says "i don't understand it so it's not art" which happens in all of these threads, but i do stand by my assertion that nobody gives a shiat about their uninformed opinion either...and that having an open mind about these things might prove enlightening at some level. shrug, it is what it is
 
2012-09-17 07:06:27 AM

Gordon Bennett: Let's try unsettling again.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 800x324]


Is that the code for unlimited ammos ?
 
2012-09-17 06:47:42 PM
Abstract art apologist. lol
 
2012-09-17 09:40:46 PM

spesimen: the trick is not to pee in a jar... it's to be the first guy to think of doing it.

the fact that people are still talking about it thirty years later, even people such as yourself who may not really like modern or contemporary art, is proof that he was onto something, no?


That's salesmanship, not artistic value. When you hear about something ridiculous you tend to remember it, especially the more outlandish it is. There was a thing in a magazine a few years ago that had modern art and stuff done by a three year old (I might be getting the details slightly off, but the basic concept is there) and art critics were raving about the mastery of random crap that a child did.

To me it's a scam. I look at someone like Christof and don't see how it is great, but it is interesting. Paint splatters that are random on a canvas? To me it's gibberish. I can not like something, but see it has merit. As much as it is derided as drivel, I can look at people on American Idol and say that they have talent. Clay Aiken doesn't sing my kind of music, but you can't deny he is talented. You look at a band like Winger, they had an AMAZING guitarist, but he made his money doing pop crap.
 
Displayed 5 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report