Piss Christ Thread Here - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-06-2005, 06:34 AM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
And, like all postmodern art, you'll either love it for its irony or you'll hate it completely.
No, I wouldn't fit into either of these categories. I like the artwork but not for its irony. In fact I don't see any irony in it.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 06:36 AM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ft. Worth Frog
I have been to the MOMA and the Metropolitan, and to tell you the truth, I leave the Met feeling inspired while I leave the MOMA with nothing but a huge question mark. Why? Much of the stuff they have on display there is literally crap (one display has different kinds of bodily fluid stains on cloth). What about the piece that was simply a white board? How much work went into that?
Look at the dates of much of the modern art. I would say that 95% of it is dated from the 1960s and 1970s. An art museum, for me, is more of a historical record of what people considered to be "art" in a period of time, rather than a collection of what the masses consider to be "art."

Solid color canvasses made in 2005 would probably get laughed at, because they'd point to it being done 30 years ago.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 07:41 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Piss Christ is sooo 90s



Seriously though, I've met artists who are seen in the public eye as controversial, troublemakers, attention-getters... but every time they have surprised me with their intelligent presentation and defence of their work. Plus they act really sane and centred It's a nutty world.

foray
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 10:28 AM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But how much gets seen or heard? Without funding very little.
I don't think there's any guarantee that what you create will get seen or heard, and I think it's dangerous to start living on those terms. It creates a sense of entitlement that isn't helpful either to the artist or society. Can you imagine if all the starving actors, writers, directors, dancers, etc (many of whom are in L.A., and many of whom are crap), would start to take it as their entitlement that the government must give them a platform from which to speak? Distribution is not a right.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 11:35 AM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
I don't think there's any guarantee that what you create will get seen or heard, and I think it's dangerous to start living on those terms. It creates a sense of entitlement that isn't helpful either to the artist or society. Can you imagine if all the starving actors, writers, directors, dancers, etc (many of whom are in L.A., and many of whom are crap), would start to take it as their entitlement that the government must give them a platform from which to speak? Distribution is not a right.
Outside of the U.S., all film/TV industries are at least partially state funded or owned. That's because it's too expensive of an industry, and Hollywood is too successful. Killing tax funded media around the world would give the U.S. a global monopoly.

But as I've said, this issue is overblown. The amount we spend on art in this country pales in comparison to the amount we spend to pay the interest on our national debt, not to mention the hundreds upon hundreds of billions we're spending on military excursions. Art spending is a literal drop in the bucket, and cutting it out completely will do absolutely nothing to lower your taxes.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 01:54 PM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


I don't think there's any guarantee that what you create will get seen or heard, and I think it's dangerous to start living on those terms. It creates a sense of entitlement that isn't helpful either to the artist or society. Can you imagine if all the starving actors, writers, directors, dancers, etc (many of whom are in L.A., and many of whom are crap), would start to take it as their entitlement that the government must give them a platform from which to speak? Distribution is not a right.
No one's claiming its a right. I think you are missing the point completely. Its not about entitlment to artists but society.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 03:57 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:33 PM
In general, I think it is conservatives who are sitting on a sense of entitlement. They want people to fund any scheme that they want ("faith-based initiatives"), even if others protest, but when it comes to things that they disagree with, then let's cut all the funding! Let's stop the world, folks! The *conservatives* don't want to pay for something!

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. We all pay for things that we disagree with, ultimately.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 10:30 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 02:33 PM
I never did see human waste as art. Interesting...
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 04:57 AM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
I never did see human waste as art. Interesting...
Some of the very first "paints" were human and animal dung along with blood, berries and many other things most wouldn't consider "art" these days.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 05:32 AM   #70
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Another reason why absolutely everyone should bow to the sheer genius of Jan Van Eyck.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 06:31 AM   #71
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Some of the very first "paints" were human and animal dung along with blood, berries and many other things most wouldn't consider "art" these days.

Those substances were considered media, IIRC, and were not considered "art" by themselves. Otherwise, Neanderthal Man would consider the tribal outhouse an art gallery. Early humans did not have access to oils and other types of paint so they would use whatever they had on hand.
__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 08:58 AM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:33 PM
the Renaissance was funded by the Medicis.

Shakespeare was funded by Elizabeth.

in my opinion, one of the great tragedies of the USA is that we don't do more for art -- think of all the talent that goes wasted in this country because it's hard to make a big profit off of challenging art.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-07-2005, 11:14 AM   #73
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ft. Worth Frog



Those substances were considered media, IIRC, and were not considered "art" by themselves. Otherwise, Neanderthal Man would consider the tribal outhouse an art gallery. Early humans did not have access to oils and other types of paint so they would use whatever they had on hand.
Well no shit. That's why I called them "paints". The problem with BEB's post was that he assumed people were considering the waste itself art and not what they did with it.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 02:23 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:33 PM
People have always pretty much used what they could get to do art. Oils didn't come in in Europe until around 1400. Before that people used "tempera" paint made from egg shells. Clay, of course, is straight from the earth, and it's still used, of course. Fabric dyes came from various and sundry plants or animals. Before they could make anything synthetic, they had to invent the technology, and most modern paints didn't make their debuts until the nineteenth or twentieth centuries.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com