Censorship and Art

Sentagur · Mar 10, 2017

Tanoomba said:
Of course it is. But you're presuming to be the arbiter of how much effort went into producing something despite having no idea what the process was.

Heck, if you want to bring objectivity into it, it took a tremendous amount of effort to carry a mattress around every day for months and months. Tremendous.

Um where was i presuming anything about the proper amount of effort or that effort was the only measuring stick for art?
If the effort was the only thing then the convicts smashing rocks at a penal colony would be on the same level as Michelangelo's David

Campbell1oo4 · Mar 10, 2017

Sentagur said:
If the effort was the only thing then the convicts smashing rocks at a penal colony would be on the same level as Michelangelo's David

I really like this line.

Heriotze · Mar 10, 2017

If you're arguing against the ills of postmodernism while saying that you're view of art is the only true one you've turned that corner and have become a caricature of your own argument. It's honestly just sad, it's sad that you can't separate the political definition from just allowing yourself to feel something.

You wake up next to your wife; you wake up next to your girlfriend; the sickening smell of morning breath; the acrid smell of pussy and sweat on sheets; you drag your arm away as her skin grabs on to yours until you can audibly hear it being removed from this woman; no matter how careful you can be; when you kiss the side of her mouth you know; you know from the city that you need batteries; that alkaline smell is what it means to be happy.

Tanoomba · Mar 10, 2017

Sentagur said:
Um where was i presuming anything about the proper amount of effort or that effort was the only measuring stick for art?
If the effort was the only thing then the convicts smashing rocks at a penal colony would be on the same level as Michelangelo's David

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. It seemed to me that you were heavily implying that a lot of modern art looks like it required very little effort to create (compared to, for instance, Renaissance-Era paintings that clearly required a lot of time and energy), and that said supposed lack of effort should play a role in whether something is actually considered "art" or not.

Is that not what you meant?

ZyyzYzzy · Mar 10, 2017

Tanoomba said:
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. It seemed to me that you were heavily implying that a lot of modern art looks like it required very little effort to create (compared to, for instance, Renaissance-Era paintings that clearly required a lot of time and energy), and that said supposed lack of effort should play a role in whether something is actually considered "art" or not.

Is that not what you meant?

He meant

Sentagur · Mar 10, 2017

Tanoomba said:
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. It seemed to me that you were heavily implying that a lot of modern art looks like it required very little effort to create (compared to, for instance, Renaissance-Era paintings that clearly required a lot of time and energy), and that said supposed lack of effort should play a role in whether something is actually considered "art" or not.

Is that not what you meant?

This is my opinion but for me to consider something art it requires some expended effort. Shitting on a plate is not art no matter how much emotion and discussion it causes. Gluing a bunch of garbage together or exploding a bunch of garbage, or covering a dog in paint and letting him shake in front of a canvas I dont consider art. But as i said maybe i am just a bit old fashioned.

Tanoomba · Mar 10, 2017

Sentagur said:
This is my opinion but for me to consider something art it requires some expended effort. Shitting on a plate is not art no matter how much emotion and discussion it causes. Gluing a bunch of garbage together or exploding a bunch of garbage, or covering a dog in paint and letting him shake in front of a canvas I dont consider art. But as i said maybe i am just a bit old fashioned.

Right. But the thing is, we can't really tell how much effort went into something just by looking at the final product. We don't know what steps the author took to arrive at that product, how much experimentation was needed, how many attempts the author made, how much research went into it, etc.

Compared to classical art, which needs no context to appreciate (although, certainly, a greater appreciation could be gleaned through a better understanding of how those works were created too), there is a lot of modern art that requires more effort on the part of the viewer to appreciate. In many cases, the layman has no interest in needing to learn about a piece in order to appreciate it and therefore dismisses it as "not art". Heck, I can totally understand why many people are only interested in art that is pleasing to the eye and required a great degree of obvious skill to create. But there exist many people who are more interested in art than your average layman, just like there are people who are into cars, or cinema, or sports, or gourmet dishes, or whatever, and these people derive pleasure from analyzing and appreciating modern art too. Unlike car nuts, cinephiles, spots fans, gourmands and the such, art fans are often dismissed as pretentious fart-sniffers who elevate and legitimize bullshit in order to jerk each other off, and that's just baloney.

Everyone has the authority to decide what art they like or don't like. What they don't have is the authority to determine other people's interests as illegitimate, and they certainly don't get to decide what is and isn't art with little to know understanding of art at all.

Lendarios · Mar 10, 2017

Tanoomba
If you have to explain context and effort, then some of the intrinsic elements of the art are lost.

If i see this

then i would think that is one ugly drawing.

But then if someone tells me it is Michael J Fox self portrait, I cant go and say "omg so brave and beautiful". That will be disingenuous.

ZyyzYzzy · Mar 10, 2017

Lendarios said:
Tanoomba
If you have to explain context and effort, then some of the intrinsic elements of the art are lost.

If i see this

View attachment 125445

then i would think that is one ugly drawing.

But then if someone tells me it is Michael J Fox self portrait, I cant go and say "omg so brave and beautiful". That will be disingenuous.

I laughed way too much at Michael J. Fox self portrait

MachRed · Mar 10, 2017

Art is like defining your taste in women.
If 'effort' is important, an athletic build might factor into your preference over a naturally skinny chick.
If the hidden and deeper meaning is important, the personality or intellect would be considered.
Some will be more or less attractive to the individual, but general consensus will clearly point in a similar direction.

And as far as pretentious fart-sniffers who elevate, legitimize, and try to influence others taste and preference - it's pretty fucking real in my eyes.

ZyyzYzzy · Mar 10, 2017

MachRed said:
Art is like defining your taste in women.
If 'effort' is important, an athletic build might factor into your preference over a naturally skinny chick.
If the hidden and deeper meaning is important, the personality or intellect would be considered.
Some will be more or less attractive to the individual, but general consensus will clearly point in a similar direction.

And as far as pretentious fart-sniffers who elevate, legitimize, and try to influence others taste and preference - it's pretty fucking real in my eyes.

View attachment 125451

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Titan_Atlas · Mar 10, 2017

ZyyzYzzy said:
I laughed way too much at Michael J. Fox self portrait

I made a Michael J Fox name tag and put it on the shake machine in our server station a week ago. It was largely funny a few of our SJW's attempted moral outrage.

Feanor · Mar 10, 2017

Tanoomba said:
Compared to classical art, which needs no context to appreciate (although, certainly, a greater appreciation could be gleaned through a better understanding of how those works were created too), there is a lot of modern art that requires more effort on the part of the viewer to appreciate. In many cases, the layman has no interest in needing to learn about a piece in order to appreciate it and therefore dismisses it as "not art"

Yeah I concur 100% that objectively this is art but I can't stand that sort of intellectual noise.

Heriotze said:
If you're arguing against the ills of postmodernism while saying that you're view of art is the only true one you've turned that corner and have become a caricature of your own argument. It's honestly just sad, it's sad that you can't separate the political definition from just allowing yourself to feel something.

This sums it up. There are two conversations here, one about art the other about politics.

Titan_Atlas thinks that postmodern art is the same as philosophical postmodernism. There are apolitical avant garde artists and there are politicized mainstream artists who are postmodernist thinkers and so on and so on. Impressionists did not set out to make impressionism, expressionists did not set out and so on. All are names made up by academics.

Restricting your taste to classical definitions (mj minor, portaits and fruit baskets, all that boring shit) is kind of like being stuck in the past. I compare it to how one views technology. Either you are for the future or you're scared of skynet and want to go back to rotary phones. Without experimentation there is no development and without this:
You don't get modern pop music. Chosen as a typical piece. Traditional chords with elements that were influenced by composers such as John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen.

I think where

Lithose and I went past each other is in that I'm saying taste is subjective, which it is. That is not up for debate. He's saying art has standards which it does but art is not a science. It is not factual. And while we share similar political views our arguments are different. His defensive position (sometimes funny, granted) relies on attacks much more than mine and have noticed how it usually devolves into "I know you are but what am I" with everyone. That's fine.

Art has many different kinds of standards, western notation, eastern music and so on. Standards don't make art wholly objective unless you wish to view it that way, going back to the very first thing I said. In which case that is your opinion.

Tanoomba · Mar 10, 2017

Lendarios said:
Tanoomba
If you have to explain context and effort, then some of the intrinsic elements of the art are lost.

But that's the point. Art doesn't have "intrinsic elements" any more, at least not all of its many branches.

Feanor said:
Yeah I concur 100% that objectively this is art but I can't stand that sort of intellectual noise.

More power to you. At least you don't seem to be under the impression that you're being forced to appreciate art you hate.

Heck, when I hear car people discussing engines and model numbers and shit, my eyes roll to the back of my head. Discussing the minutiae of a bunch of metal parts designed to get you from point A to point B seems pretentious as fuck to me. But that's my problem, not theirs. They are interested in and therefore study and immerse themselves in a field that seems silly and pointless to me. I don't complain about them "sniffing their own farts" and patting themselves on the back for being part of their exclusive club that the layman doesn't "get". That would be retarded. Yet when it comes to the art community people who don't know the first thing about art appreciation feel they are entitled to shit on those who do. It's ridiculous.

Lithose · Mar 10, 2017

Lendarios said:
So shit on a plate is a go? We can arbitrary grade the poop consistency.

Sure. If an artist comes in an explains what people will find attractive about it without citing his personal experiences. What in the work he believes will draw people in in order to allow him to tell his story (And what can be recreated so work of this kind can be judged), and then the intrinsic elements in the poop that tells his story? By all means.

And now you see why the art world doesn't want ANYTHING like this. Having to explain in quantifiable terms what their bullshit means? Would make them sound like huge assholes. Because it would make them sound like fucking 4 chan with rare pepes, because that's exactly what they are, posh 4chan.

Lithose · Mar 10, 2017

Heriotze said:
If you're arguing against the ills of postmodernism while saying that you're view of art is the only true one you've turned that corner and have become a caricature of your own argument. It's honestly just sad, it's sad that you can't separate the political definition from just allowing yourself to feel something.

Yeah, no one is saying there is any true view of art. I have no idea where you're getting this bullshit.

Lithose · Mar 10, 2017

Feanor said:
I think where Lithose and I went past each other is in that I'm saying taste is subjective, which it is. That is not up for debate. He's saying art has standards which it does but art is not a science. It is not factual. And while we share similar political views our arguments are different. His defensive position (sometimes funny, granted) relies on attacks much more than mine and have noticed how it usually devolves into "I know you are but what am I" with everyone. That's fine.

It's not fine, because that's not what happens. I will make fun of people who try to jump away from the subject or argue semantics, but more often than not I'm reminding people about the meat of the argument. Which is how you ended up saying "what are we arguing about". We're arguing because your original point of total subjectivity was silly. It's not totally subjective, not at all. If that was the case then art simply would not exist. Because the only way humans quantify something as existing is by separating it from other aspects of perception. At its core art must be SOMETHING intrinsic to gain the name.

Tan, and other post modernists believe that is literally an artists story, nothing to do with the piece of art but the person. Which is what I said--the modern view of art is a club meant for artists, and art itself may as well be credit to signal importance in the club. It has no intrinsic quality of engagement. Something even fucking cave paintings have. The fact is in 2 thousand years if someone dug up some famous modern art? They would not recognize it as ANYTHING. Meanwhile, we regularly dig up Roman and Greek art and instantly recognize it as art.

That should make you think. We don't need to KNOW the artists when we look at classical work--even if you don't like it, you can say "someone tried to express something with that". When you look at a blue Canvas, can you say that? Or scribbles on a cloth

70 million.

50 million.

100 million.

If these survived 2k years and someone dug them up...think they would say "Hmm, what amazing art! I wonder what its creator was thinking"? Like they did with the huge amount of classical art we've recovered? Or do you think they might think "Well, fuck--someone probably spilled some shit on this, I wonder if there is a real painting underneath."

Feanor · Mar 10, 2017

Lithose said:
It's not fine, because that's not what happens. I will make fun of people who try to jump away from the subject or argue semantics, but more often than not I'm reminding people about the meat of the argument. Which is how you ended up saying "what are we arguing about". We're arguing because your original point of total subjectivity was silly. It's not totally subjective, not at all. If that was the case then art simply would not exist. Because the only way humans quantify something as existing is by separating it from other aspects of perception. At its core art must be SOMETHING intrinsic to gain the name.

Tan, and other post modernists believe that is literally an artists story, nothing to do with the piece of art but the person. Which is what I said--the modern view of art is a club meant for artists, and art itself may as well be credit to signal importance in the club. It has no intrinsic quality of engagement. Something even fucking cave paintings have. The fact is in 2 thousand years if someone dug up some famous modern art? They would not recognize it as ANYTHING. Meanwhile, we regularly dig up Roman and Greek art and instantly recognize it as art.

That should make you think. We don't need to KNOW the artists when we look at classical work--even if you don't like it, you can say "someone tried to express something with that". When you look at a blue Canvas, can you say that? Or scribbles on a cloth

70 million.

View attachment 125511

50 million.

View attachment 125512

100 million.

View attachment 125513

If these survived 2k years and someone dug them up...think they would say "Hmm, what amazing art! I wonder what its creator was thinking"? Like they did with the huge amount of classical art we've recovered? Or do you think they might think "Well, fuck--someone probably spilled some shit on this, I wonder if there is a real painting underneath."

Your silly subjective not at all statement is that the paintings you offered suck a massive throbbing dick.

My silly nonsubjective not at all statement is that those paintings are art. Do not worry about my opinion.

Taste is subjective. Are you going to semantics your way out of this one too? Let me get you started. Taste is psychological.

You are right about one thing. This conversation is silly.

Lithose · Mar 10, 2017

Feanor said:
Your silly subjective not at all statement is that the paintings you offered suck a massive throbbing dick.

Good thing I didn't say "not at all" then, did I? I said not totally. The argument is very fucking basic and rather than confronting it you either misread it or are willfully misinterpreting it because your argument is shit.

Feanor said:
My silly nonsubjective not at all statement is that those paintings are art. Do not worry about my opinion.

Taste is subjective. Are you going to semantics your way out of this one too? Let me get you started. Taste is psychological.

You are right about one thing. This conversation is silly.

Not semantics, as I said I would when I said I'll bring you back to the meat of the argument? I'll simply show you my first fucking post in this thread.

Lithose said:
That's not true though, not entirely. There is subjectivity in beauty, for sure. But there can easily be objective standards we can agree upon for beauty.

You have no argument. You've been bumbling around trying to make one for pages, then realized you agree with me, and are now salty enough to try and dig your heels in and push back a little. Continue to troll, but you have nothing, and we know it.

If the art community would have the balls to deny the snow flakes who flooded the field with shit because they had to go to college and couldn't hack actual classes so they stuffed them into art history? You wouldn't be trying to defend the color blue as art. That is how absurd you are right now, and how absurd "art" is right now--which is why talented artists will sometimes never succeed, meanwhile, Yoko Ono, who can find the right dick to suck will be performing at the epitome of success, with legends in the field.

Artists should WANT to make art about talent again. Because you are being fucked. But you're so god damn ideological indoctrinated that you will defend this cancer by saying someone who painted blue on a canvas and left a single line white--something every house painter in America can do with fucking masking tape--is "art". No. I'm sorry, I'm just not going to buy into the idiocy anymore, and hopefully more people will start standing up soon too as this infects fields we actually produce important shit in--or as it destroys more and more of our art that people consume.

Feanor · Mar 10, 2017

Says it's not semantics, goes on to semantic. You suck at this, dawg.

You agree with me too you just can't bring yourself to say it. Once again we both agree that art is partially objective by way of standards and partially subjective by way of art being exactly what it is. If I was wrong this conversation would not exist. The very fact we're sucking each other off is because art is subjective. You are the one defending a position. By the way good job keeping yourself from bolding and capitalizing in your last post. I could almost read the parts where you would have. Good job also avoiding the taste question.

Lithose you're an academic right? Some sort of teacher? I thought so.

I won't bother feigning buttanger at your slurs by bolding and capitalizing a long winded reply. I will repost the last thing I said as a way to avoid your deluded and obsessed social justice warrior brain in reverse.

Lithose said:
Good thing I didn't say "not at all" then, did I? I said not totally. The argument is very fucking basic and rather than confronting it you either misread it or are willfully misinterpreting it because your argument is shit.

Not semantics, as I said I would when I said I'll bring you back to the meat of the argument? I'll simply show you my first fucking post in this thread.

You have no argument. You've been bumbling around trying to make one for pages, then realized you agree with me, and are now salty enough to try and dig your heels in and push back a little. Continue to troll, but you have nothing, and we know it.

If the art community would have the balls to deny the snow flakes who flooded the field with shit because they had to go to college and couldn't hack actual classes so they stuffed them into art history? You wouldn't be trying to defend the color blue as art. That is how absurd you are right now, and how absurd "art" is right now--which is why talented artists will sometimes never succeed, meanwhile, Yoko Ono, who can find the right dick to suck will be performing at the epitome of success, with legends in the field.

Artists should WANT to make art about talent again. Because you are being fucked. But you're so god damn ideological indoctrinated that you will defend this cancer by saying someone who painted blue on a canvas and left a single line white--something every house painter in America can do with fucking masking tape--is "art". No. I'm sorry, I'm just not going to buy into the idiocy anymore, and hopefully more people will start standing up soon too as this infects fields we actually produce important shit in--or as it destroys more and more of our art that people consume.

Feanor said:
Standards don't make art wholly objective unless you wish to view it that way, going back to the very first thing I said. In which case that is your opinion.

Never mind I just noticed you did in fact bold something.

Censorship and Art

Low and to the left

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

ジョーディーすれいやー

RIP USA

Low and to the left

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

RIP USA

Molten Core Raider

RIP USA

Deus Vult

Karazhan Raider

ジョーディーすれいやー

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Karazhan Raider

Buzzfeed Editor

Karazhan Raider