And you thought Kelly Price's art sucked ass
Furplay
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=528539670
--
"It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long as I
was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
"One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty, And Just
Ass for All"
ilr
This actually has content, and tho' I'd call it pretty well distorted
atleast in proportion, it's still very involved, there's a lot of details
happening in the piece, and it's a far cry more "deep", intellectually,
than most stuff from other fictional creators along the lines of... oh
let's just throw a name out there like say.... Michael Hirtes for instance.
-Ilr
Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message news:3A445625...@radiks.net...
Elynne
<snipt>
Yeah, and if you thought *that* sucked, you should check out this guy's
website at http://www.joebachelor.cjb.net/ - it's not furry for one thing,
and for another it looks like people *pay* him for these pictures! The
murals, especially - you should definitely look at those. Geez, talk
about wasting his talent, not drawing naked huge-busted chibi vixens...
-- Elynne *snort*
Chuck Melville
Furplay wrote:
> Behold and know horror!
>
Actually, I never gave Kelly Price's work a thought, good or ill. But
we can always depend on you to publicly insult someone, deserving or not,
if we sit and wait long enough. And it's only been, what, a week since the
last?
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/
online graphic novel: FELICIA: THE SORCERESS' APPRENTICE
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/felicia/felicia.html
weekly comic strip: STARS 'n' STRIPES
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/starsstripe/sns.html
Bart: Wow, a former president living right across the street.
Homer: Oh, why did he have to move in on _my_ territory? Look at him.
Thinks just because he led the free world, he can act like a big shot!
Stupid President... why couldn't he just stay in his own state?
Lisa: Actually, this _is_ one of the nine states where Mr. Bush claims
residency, Dad. I wouldn't have voted for him, but it's nice to have a
celebrity in the neighborhood.
Homer: Wait a minute... if _Lisa_ didn't vote for him... and _I_ didn't
vote for him --
Marge: You didn't vote for anybody.
Homer: I voted for Prell to go back to the old glass bottle. After that,
I became deeply cynical.
-- A rare glimpse of Homer, member of the electorate, "Two Bad Neighbors"
Furplay
Furplay
Come on, let me see you do it with a straight face.
can you?
Huh? can you?
Yeah, I did'nt think so either.
Cerulean
been submerged in in furry fandom too long. Art just bit you on the
arse and you didn't recognize it.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( NoV--,,J!e 6u!ua^3 ay+ u! 6u!7J!ms Jno7o) pue punoS,,
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>Behold and know horror!
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=528539670
You know that isn't two bad. Its not done in a realistic style but it
does effectively convay the emotion that the artist wishes to create.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Furplay
BTW, this item was featured on www.disturbingauctions.com (where I first
discovered it).
And I quote:
_______________
"And they call it "fine art"
submitted by gollygee at Thursday, December 21, 2000, 06:23 PM
Be forewarned, this will make you shrink back in terror.
_______________
Seems I'm not alone in my opinion of this "art". I guess a cross in a
jar of urine is considerred too bourgeois nowadays.
--
Furplay
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:37:10 -0600, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >Behold and know horror!
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=528539670
>
> You know that isn't two bad. Its not done in a realistic style but it
> does effectively convay the emotion that the artist wishes to create.
>
What emotion is that? Confusion?
Dude, it's a crap painting! Ignore all the snooty preconceptions and see
crap paintings when you see them.
Furplay
low, low modest starting price of $350), and NOT ONE bid has been placed.
Of course, if it's such a good piece, you're more than welcome to put
your money where your mouth is (literally) and place your bid on it. Now
you can hang what you regard as REAL art on your wall, and it's "furry" too!
Nah, I did'nt think you would either.
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
--
Artist
> Notice that he's had this thing up for auction for several days (at
the
> low, low modest starting price of $350), and NOT ONE bid has been
placed.
>
> Of course, if it's such a good piece, you're more than welcome to put
> your money where your mouth is (literally) and place your bid on it.
Now
> you can hang what you regard as REAL art on your wall, and it's
"furry" too!
>
> Nah, I did'nt think you would either.
Do you like looking through Yerf? I get the feeling that you do. :)
William Earl Haskell
> That was *art*?? Looked like an ass-spatter on paper to me.
>
> BTW, this item was featured on www.disturbingauctions.com (where I first
> discovered it).
>
> And I quote:
> _______________
>
> "And they call it "fine art"
> submitted by gollygee at Thursday, December 21, 2000, 06:23 PM
>
> Be forewarned, this will make you shrink back in terror.
> _______________
It sure did *that* for me - "disturbing" hardly covers it. <brrrrrr> Scary
monsters!
Ostrich
>
What would you consider to be worthy of the label of good art, then?
--
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
Kory Anders
(aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:37:10 -0600, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
>>Behold and know horror!
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=528539670
>
>You know that isn't two bad. Its not done in a realistic style but it
>does effectively convay the emotion that the artist wishes to create.
I think it's rather interesting. Impressionistic and evocative.
ilr
Ostrich <ost...@fysh.org> wrote in message news:92427r$q6v$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
> Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> What would you consider to be worthy of the label of good art, then?
> --
As most of us recall, he was rather partial to Harem fems drawn
by B'O'Connel. So partial infact that we all got to see them waging
WWIII since it seemed Furplay 'just couldn't get enough of BOC's
pics. And from one of his later "tantrums" I've
surmised that F.Perry's work gives him a nice little piss-boner too.
But I really have no room to talk either. I think that artsy stuff is
just flat-out bullshit. I love works that excel on the 'technical'
aspects of illustration. And my taste in furry art style is decidedly
conservative spurring from a long period of exposure to Warner/
/Disney animation and Play-Boy magazine since I was 3. If there's
a proportional flaw in a piece, I will have a hard time enjoying that
picture no matter what the content is, especially if it's 'Nekkid.
-Ilr
Furplay
Well, I know what does SUCK, and furs, this "painting" doth truly suck
most mightily.
(and I see that it *still* has'nt received one single bid yet either, BTW)
Furplay
ilr let down the meth pipe he was using just long enough to type in a haze:
>
>And from one of his later "tantrums" I've
> surmised that F.Perry's work gives him a nice little piss-boner too.
>
HA HA HA HA HA! If you were'nt so full of shit, I'd deck you. Instead,
I'll just remnd myself that you're a notorious choad and simply move on.
Chuck Melville
Furplay wrote:
> Oh? And can you actually deny that KP's art truly DOES suck ass?
>
Not the point. The point is that you don't seem to be able to mention
anybody's name except to deliver them a personal slam, even if it's only in
an offhand measure. If you don't like Kelly Price's work, why announce it
to the world at large, and do it in such a manner as to fully denigrate it
and him? Doesn't matter if you feel he deserves it or not, it's demeaning
and lacking in class.
So, for that matter, is bringing this other piece of art to our
attention, not for the sake of appreciation or even out of being sheer
dumbfounded by its audacity, but simply for the sake of sniggering at it.
Pure meanspiritedness, nothing less.
Some time ago, you were bitching about how some pro artists tended to
treat you like last year's unwashed laundry; I think that since then you've
managed to answer your own question, whether you realize it or not.
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> Behold and know horror!
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5285396
70
>
Personally, I find it and the written interpretation intriguing. Mind
you I wouldn't hang it on my wall.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction - Sins of the Past MUX
http://riftsmux.dhs.org/~sins/
Dark Ren -
http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=darkren
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> Oh? And can you actually deny that KP's art truly DOES suck
ass?
>
> Come on, let me see you do it with a straight face.
>
> can you?
>
> Huh? can you?
>
> Yeah, I did'nt think so either.
I publicly deny that his art 'sucks ass' with an entirely straight face.
You see, he actually does real art that tends to make real,
substantial money. Perhaps the level at which you can live
comfortably on without having to worry too much. How about you,
bud? Can you say the same?
Furplay
Chuck Melville wrote:
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> > Oh? And can you actually deny that KP's art truly DOES suck ass?
> >
>
> Not the point. The point is that you don't seem to be able to mention
> anybody's name except to deliver them a personal slam, even if it's only in
> an offhand measure. If you don't like Kelly Price's work, why announce it
> to the world at large,
You're right. Everyone already knows how much his art sucks. Why bother
to say it?
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
>
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:37:10 -0600, Furplay
<mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> > >Behold and know horror!
> > >
> >
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=528539
670
> >
> > You know that isn't two bad. Its not done in a realistic style but
it
> > does effectively convay the emotion that the artist wishes to
create.
> >
>
> What emotion is that? Confusion?
>
> Dude, it's a crap painting! Ignore all the snooty preconceptions
and see
> crap paintings when you see them.
>
So tell me, what do you think of Picasso?
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> Notice that he's had this thing up for auction for several days (at
the
> low, low modest starting price of $350), and NOT ONE bid has
been placed.
Do you think someone would pay $350 for one of your works?
> Of course, if it's such a good piece, you're more than welcome to
put
> your money where your mouth is (literally) and place your bid on
it. Now
> you can hang what you regard as REAL art on your wall, and it's
"furry" too!
Didn't say I'd buy it. I like a heck of a lot of art I see on the net and
on the newsgroups. But I'll be damned if I'm going to buy it. LIke
and want to buy are two different things.
Personally, I've had my eye on a four hundred buck picture of a
tiger that I saw in a store. Marvelous detail, but I haven't broke
down and shelled out the green yet.
> Nah, I did'nt think you would either.
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:37:10 -0600, Furplay
<mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> > >Behold and know horror!
> > >
> >
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=528539
670
> >
> > You know that isn't two bad. Its not done in a realistic style but
it
> > does effectively convay the emotion that the artist wishes to
create.
> >
> > --
> > Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
> > http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out
more.
> > Free the Memes.
>
> --
> "It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long
as I
> was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
>
> "One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty,
And Just
> Ass for All"
>
--
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> That was *art*?? Looked like an ass-spatter on paper to me.
>
> BTW, this item was featured on www.disturbingauctions.com
(where I first
> discovered it).
>
> And I quote:
> _______________
>
> "And they call it "fine art"
> submitted by gollygee at Thursday, December 21, 2000, 06:23
PM
>
> Be forewarned, this will make you shrink back in terror.
> _______________
>
> Seems I'm not alone in my opinion of this "art". I guess a cross
in a
> jar of urine is considerred too bourgeois nowadays.
Gee.. there are lots of people who have agreed with others on
entirely stupid points. But they were just as wrong. Art isn't
something that everyone will agree on. You don't like it which is
fine. Just shush up and let those who like it have it.
> Cerulean wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations, Furplay, it has been clinically proven that you
have
> > been submerged in in furry fandom too long. Art just bit you on
the
> > arse and you didn't recognize it.
> >
> > --
> > ___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
> > <__,` Z / ( DC2.~D
GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
> > `~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
> > / (7 ( NoV--,,J!e 6u!ua^3 ay+ u! 6u!7J!ms Jno7o) pue
punoS,,
>
> --
> "It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long
as I
> was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
>
> "One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty,
And Just
> Ass for All"
>
--
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
>
>
> Ostrich wrote:
> >
> > Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> > >
> > What would you consider to be worthy of the label of good art,
then?
> > --
> > -Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
>
> Well, I know what does SUCK, and furs, this "painting" doth truly
suck
> most mightily.
>
> (and I see that it *still* has'nt received one single bid yet either,
BTW)
>
You didn't answer the question.
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
>
>
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> >
> > Furplay wrote:
> >
> > > Oh? And can you actually deny that KP's art truly DOES suck
ass?
> > >
> >
> > Not the point. The point is that you don't seem to be able to
mention
> > anybody's name except to deliver them a personal slam, even
if it's only in
> > an offhand measure. If you don't like Kelly Price's work, why
announce it
> > to the world at large,
>
> You're right. Everyone already knows how much his art sucks.
Why bother
> to say it?
>
What can you say about entirely missing the point?
Furplay
Dark Ren wrote:
>
> In article <3A44F2ED...@radiks.net>,
> mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> > Oh? And can you actually deny that KP's art truly DOES suck
> ass?
> >
> > Come on, let me see you do it with a straight face.
> >
> > can you?
> >
> > Huh? can you?
> >
> > Yeah, I did'nt think so either.
>
> I publicly deny that his art 'sucks ass' with an entirely straight face.
> You see, he actually does real art that tends to make real,
> substantial money.
If only those suckers knew....if only they knew.........
> Perhaps the level at which you can live
> comfortably on without having to worry too much. How about you,
> bud? Can you say the same?
>
Well guess what? I it still has'nt recieved one single bid either!
Know why?
Because IT'S STILL F*CKIN' UGLY!
Does'nt look like he's making much moola from THIS "painting" now, is he?
I guess even art collecters won't be suckered into paying for this eyesore.
Furplay
Dark Ren wrote:
>
>
> Gee.. there are lots of people who have agreed with others on
> entirely stupid points. But they were just as wrong. Art isn't
> something that everyone will agree on. You don't like it which is
> fine. Just shush up and let those who like it have it.
>
Well, they're more than welcome to have it, but seeing no bids, it looks
like no one wants to have it.
Furplay
cat women with leaky tits and translucent tummies. So what?
Dark Ren wrote:
>
>
> So tell me, what do you think of Picasso?
>
--
Elf Sternberg
Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> writes:
>Seems I'm not alone in my opinion of this "art". I guess a cross in a
>jar of urine is considerred too bourgeois nowadays.
"Shock art" is boring. Let's face it. Ever since Mapplethorpe
got attention for a photograph of himself with a humungous leather dildo
hanging out of his backside, people have been seeking more and more
attention from the art world with these absurd ideas. But Mapplethorpe
was a lousy photographer of people; he was a brilliant photographer of
flowers, however, and nowadays those are the pictures that take in
thousands of dollars. It takes no talent to produce a Serrano or Ofili;
all it takes is a willingness to put the obvious together in obvious
ways.
It won't last, though. Serrano and Ofili will be forgotten in
time. Lucien Freud, on the other hand, will be remembered as the master
of our age, because he's not shocking, he's just more talented than
anyone else doing portraiture today.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
Furplay
only one with my view of this piece, since no one is bidding on it.
Mathue wrote:
>
> In article <926fd7$tn4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dark Ren
> <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > What can you say about entirely missing the point?
>
> I think he's had his 'write protect' tab moved. ;)
>
> --
> MT - Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
>
> 101010
Furplay
Elf Sternberg wrote:
>
>
> It won't last, though. Serrano and Ofili will be forgotten in
> time. Lucien Freud, on the other hand, will be remembered as the master
> of our age, because he's not shocking, he's just more talented than
> anyone else doing portraiture today.
>
I very much agree.
Had it been just the back of some seated person in a background that
seems Van Gogh-esque, it would be fine. Instead, the guy ruins it with
some weirdassed image of a butt-ugly jaguar woman with leaky tits and a
translucent tummy. Anyone who has a dream like that should lay off on
the salsa before going to bed, not making a painting about it and
expecting the rubes to shell out several Benjamins.
Dark Ren
That's a rather short sighted over simplification. But that seems to
be the only type of argument that you have in this little angst bomb
you dropped. Oh well, no sense trying to talk art with someone
who shows the insight of a philistine.
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
>
>
> Dark Ren wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gee.. there are lots of people who have agreed with others on
> > entirely stupid points. But they were just as wrong. Art isn't
> > something that everyone will agree on. You don't like it which is
> > fine. Just shush up and let those who like it have it.
> >
>
> Well, they're more than welcome to have it, but seeing no bids, it
looks
> like no one wants to have it.
>
Personally, I wouldn't trust the art taste of most Ebay users when it
comes to potential fine art. Just like my view of your opinion has
been significantly damaged by your own statements.
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> Say what you will, but I have the comfort of knowing that I'm not
the
> only one with my view of this piece, since no one is bidding on it.
That's a rather groundless assumption. Talk about putting
thoughts into the heads of others.
> Mathue wrote:
> >
> > In article <926fd7$tn4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dark Ren
> > <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What can you say about entirely missing the point?
> >
> > I think he's had his 'write protect' tab moved. ;)
I'm inclined to agree.
> > --
> > MT - Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
> >
> > 101010
>
> --
> "It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long
as I
> was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
>
> "One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty,
And Just
> Ass for All"
>
--
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> A dead old Spaniard who had the sense NOT to paint portraits of
fugly
> cat women with leaky tits and translucent tummies. So what?
Nevermind..
> Dark Ren wrote:
> >
> >
> > So tell me, what do you think of Picasso?
> >
>
> --
> "It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long
as I
> was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
>
> "One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty,
And Just
> Ass for All"
>
--
Furplay
Dark Ren (who must be related to the artist to defend him so) wrote:
>
>
> That's a rather short sighted over simplification. But that seems to
> be the only type of argument that you have in this little angst bomb
> you dropped. Oh well, no sense trying to talk art with someone
> who shows the insight of a philistine.
>
Yeah, maybe I am just a plebeian, but I still would'nt shell out 25
cents, let alone at least $350, for such garbage.
Have to admit, this "thing" has garnered my interest, since I can see
with my own eyes that regardless of what is considerred "art", that when
you really come right down to it, the question of how good it is is
determined if anyone actually WANTS it.
So far, the majority of planet Earth supports me on this position, since
it's still not getting one single bid after over a week.
But, don't let ME stop you. Feel free to shell out a few bennies for it,
if it's so good to you.
Chuck Melville
Furplay wrote:
>
>
> Have to admit, this "thing" has garnered my interest, since I can see
> with my own eyes that regardless of what is considerred "art", that when
> you really come right down to it, the question of how good it is is
> determined if anyone actually WANTS it.
>
Nothing of the sort. All that determines is how -popular- a thing is,
not how good it is. A good many people like a lot of things that are
simply of questionable taste, simply because it tweaks their personal
interest.
As an example: remember Disco? Sure, a lot of people villify it
-now-... but it was an extremely popular musicform for several years during
the seventies. -Somebody- loved it an awful lot.
Curiously, the very reason that this piece of art repulses you means
that it fulfilled its major obligation as Art -- it got an emotional
response from you. Therefore, there must be some critical quality to it.
(Not that I'd want it on -my- wall either; I can recognize its worth, but
that doesn't mean that it appeals to -my- particular tastes either.)
Furplay
Heeeeeeere's Chucko!:
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Have to admit, this "thing" has garnered my interest, since I can see
> > with my own eyes that regardless of what is considerred "art", that when
> > you really come right down to it, the question of how good it is is
> > determined if anyone actually WANTS it.
> >
>
> Nothing of the sort. All that determines is how -popular- a thing is,
> not how good it is. A good many people like a lot of things that are
> simply of questionable taste, simply because it tweaks their personal
> interest.
>
I guess that explains "kitsch". But, I'll even take clown paintings on
velvet to such an eBay eyesore.
> As an example: remember Disco? Sure, a lot of people villify it
> -now-... but it was an extremely popular musicform for several years during
> the seventies. -Somebody- loved it an awful lot.
>
All five mnutes of it.
> Curiously, the very reason that this piece of art repulses you means
> that it fulfilled its major obligation as Art -- it got an emotional
> response from you.
Yeah, that I think it sucks, and the "artist" ought to be ashamed of
himself for trying to scam so much for it..
> Therefore, there must be some critical quality to it.
> (Not that I'd want it on -my- wall either; I can recognize its worth, but
> that doesn't mean that it appeals to -my- particular tastes either.)
Well, let's wait a few more days till the auction closes and see if it
appeals to ANYBODY ON THE PLANET, shall we?
--
Charles Melville
Furplay wrote:
> > As an example: remember Disco? Sure, a lot of people villify it
> > -now-... but it was an extremely popular musicform for several years during
> > the seventies. -Somebody- loved it an awful lot.
> >
>
> All five mnutes of it.
Try about five -years-. Several top ten hits, several dances, God knows how
many discoteques, and a movie during its peak. It was pervasive and it was
popular. -Somebody- loved it.
>
>
> > Curiously, the very reason that this piece of art repulses you means
> > that it fulfilled its major obligation as Art -- it got an emotional
> > response from you.
>
> Yeah, that I think it sucks, and the "artist" ought to be ashamed of
> himself for trying to scam so much for it..
>
Well, -there's- the crux, isn't it? Why do you automatically expect that it
-is- a scam? How can you be sure that the artist wasn't genuinely sincere with
what he was doing? Ed Wood was a hack movie director with less than credible
achievements, but he honestly believed he was creating art. I have no respect
for the works of Jackson Pollack, but I can't honestly say that he didn't believe
in what he was doing creatively.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Dark Ren
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
>
>
> Dark Ren (who must be related to the artist to defend him so)
wrote:
No, I just don't like ill mannered individuals to be allowed to slam
someone who cannot defend themselves.
> > That's a rather short sighted over simplification. But that
seems to
> > be the only type of argument that you have in this little angst
bomb
> > you dropped. Oh well, no sense trying to talk art with someone
> > who shows the insight of a philistine.
> >
>
> Yeah, maybe I am just a plebeian, but I still would'nt shell out 25
> cents, let alone at least $350, for such garbage.
Neither would I, but that's not because it's garbage.
> Have to admit, this "thing" has garnered my interest, since I can
see
> with my own eyes that regardless of what is considerred "art",
that when
> you really come right down to it, the question of how good it is is
> determined if anyone actually WANTS it.
Not necessarily. Art is not art because people want to buy it. Art is
art because its appreciated. Personally, some of the works of art
that I could find in a gallery I wouldn't pay a red cent for, but I can
see that they are art and appreciate them as such.
> So far, the majority of planet Earth supports me on this position,
since
> it's still not getting one single bid after over a week.
Again, you proclaim empathy with the faceless masses. It must be
nice to read the minds of others like you do.
> But, don't let ME stop you. Feel free to shell out a few bennies for
it,
> if it's so good to you.
I'm not. But that's not because I don't like it. There's a painting in a
store near my place that portrays a beautiful tiger. But I'm not
buying it, largely due to concern over the price. Not that I couldn't
afford it, I just can't justify it. Your arguments are hollow.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> I publicly deny that his art 'sucks ass' with an entirely straight face.
> You see, he actually does real art that tends to make real,
> substantial money. Perhaps the level at which you can live comfortably
> on without having to worry too much. How about you, bud? Can you say
> the same?
Um, Ren, you do realize that Kelly "Striker" Price is a different person than
the artist who created the item on eBay, don't you?
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Furplay
of them in one post:
Dark Ren wrote:
>
> In article <3A474773...@radiks.net>,
> mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dark Ren (who must be related to the artist to defend him so)
> wrote:
>
> No, I just don't like ill mannered individuals to be allowed to slam
> someone who cannot defend themselves.
>
He's on the net too. I'm sure he knows what a keyboard is for (unless
he's used the parts to make a portrait of Moses drowning in a pile of
cow dung).
>
> Neither would I, but that's not because it's garbage.
>
Okay, tell me what DOES make it garbage to you?
>
> Not necessarily. Art is not art because people want to buy it. Art is
> art because its appreciated. Personally, some of the works of art
> that I could find in a gallery I wouldn't pay a red cent for, but I can
> see that they are art and appreciate them as such.
>
So far, all you've done is demonstrate an "art for art's sake" attitude.
> > So far, the majority of planet Earth supports me on this position,
> since
> > it's still not getting one single bid after over a week.
>
> Again, you proclaim empathy with the faceless masses. It must be
> nice to read the minds of others like you do.
>
Takes no empath to see that zero bids = zero interest in supporting such
bad art.
> > But, don't let ME stop you. Feel free to shell out a few bennies for
> it,
> > if it's so good to you.
>
> I'm not. But that's not because I don't like it. There's a painting in a
> store near my place that portrays a beautiful tiger. But I'm not
> buying it, largely due to concern over the price.
Overpriced is one thing. Overpriced and UGLY is another.
[and now it's Chucko's turn]:
Charles Melville wrote:
>
>
> Try about five -years-. Several top ten hits, several dances, God knows how
> many discoteques, and a movie during its peak. It was pervasive and it was
> popular. -Somebody- loved it.
>
All you're telling me is that the gullability of the population at large
can be unfathomable sometimes.
> > Yeah, that I think it sucks, and the "artist" ought to be ashamed of
> > himself for trying to scam so much for it..
> >
>
> Well, -there's- the crux, isn't it? Why do you automatically expect that it
> -is- a scam?
Look, this guy may think each brushstroke he makes is worth a million
dollars, but anyone who supports that delusion by shelling $$$ for it
is also a clueless fool in their own right.
Fortunately, there still have'nt been anyone THAT rich/moronic as of
6:28 PM, Dec 25th. The number of bids has been at a steady ZERO. My POV
is still being proven to be right.
> How can you be sure that the artist wasn't genuinely sincere with
> what he was doing?
No, I think he was on crack. That's what I think. His text description
only makes the image all the more creepy and ugly, IMO.
> Ed Wood was a hack movie director with less than credible
> achievements, but he honestly believed he was creating art.
Sorry, but this is no "Glen or Glenda". It's the physical manifestation
of some artist's messed-up ego and greed run amok.
--
Furplay
Mathue wrote:
>
>
> Mayhaps you could rail against something more
> rationally shameful? Child p0rnographers, rapists, ethnic cleansers,
> old lady swindlers?
If I did, nutless wonders like Chucko would only come bitching at me for
being a Blue Meanie towards child pornographers, rapists, ethnic
cleansers, and old lady swindlers, just out of the sheer automatic
reflex in flaming me.
Dark Ren
mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
> Um, Ren, you do realize that Kelly "Striker" Price is a different
person than
> the artist who created the item on eBay, don't you?
>
Actually, that was a slight mistake on my part, yes. This statement
was meant for the individual on EBay. As to Price, I've not seen his
work yet. Have a link?
Chuck Melville
Furplay wrote:
> Dark Ren wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A474773...@radiks.net>,
> > mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dark Ren (who must be related to the artist to defend him so)
> > wrote:
> >
> > No, I just don't like ill mannered individuals to be allowed to slam
> > someone who cannot defend themselves.
> >
>
> He's on the net too. I'm sure he knows what a keyboard is for (unless
> he's used the parts to make a portrait of Moses drowning in a pile of
> cow dung).
But probably doesn't read this newsgroup. You'd be better off emailing him and
insulting him 'face-to-face'.
>
> >
> > Neither would I, but that's not because it's garbage.
> >
>
> Okay, tell me what DOES make it garbage to you?
>
And when did you stop beating your wife? He just said that, in his opinion, it
isn't garbage. Period.
>
> > Not necessarily. Art is not art because people want to buy it. Art is
> > art because its appreciated. Personally, some of the works of art
> > that I could find in a gallery I wouldn't pay a red cent for, but I can
> > see that they are art and appreciate them as such.
> >
>
> So far, all you've done is demonstrate an "art for art's sake" attitude.
...and...?
>
> > > So far, the majority of planet Earth supports me on this position,
> > since
> > > it's still not getting one single bid after over a week.
> >
> > Again, you proclaim empathy with the faceless masses. It must be
> > nice to read the minds of others like you do.
> >
>
> Takes no empath to see that zero bids = zero interest in supporting such
> bad art.
First off, it only means that no one on -that- site is going to buy it. Doesn't
mean it wouldn't sell if he took it elsewhere, or even reoffered it again after the
holidays.
Secondly, no one buying it doesn't mean it's bad either; remember that Van Gogh
only sold one painting in all his life, and that for a pittance. A lot of artists'
works don't become recognized for their worth until after the artist's lifetime.
Thirdly... why the hell do you even care so much? What did this guy ever do to
you that you have to go to so much effort to sneer at him so publicly? Thanks for
putting the Grinch back into Christmas.
> Charles Melville wrote:
> >
> >
> > Try about five -years-. Several top ten hits, several dances, God knows how
> > many discoteques, and a movie during its peak. It was pervasive and it was
> > popular. -Somebody- loved it.
> >
>
> All you're telling me is that the gullability of the population at large
> can be unfathomable sometimes.
No, that's all you're hearing. What I'm telling you is that popularity doesn't
determine the value of quality.
>
> > > Yeah, that I think it sucks, and the "artist" ought to be ashamed of
> > > himself for trying to scam so much for it..
> > >
> >
> > Well, -there's- the crux, isn't it? Why do you automatically expect that it
> > -is- a scam?
>
> Look, this guy may think each brushstroke he makes is worth a million
> dollars, but anyone who supports that delusion by shelling $$$ for it
> is also a clueless fool in their own right.
Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's a scam, or that the guy isn't convinced it's
art of some nature.
>
> Fortunately, there still have'nt been anyone THAT rich/moronic as of
> 6:28 PM, Dec 25th. The number of bids has been at a steady ZERO. My POV
> is still being proven to be right.
What, is -that- the important issue here? That you have to be right in that the
guy's work doesn't sell? As I said, it proves nothing other than that it doesn't
sell -this- time. It happens.
>
>
> > How can you be sure that the artist wasn't genuinely sincere with
> > what he was doing?
>
> No, I think he was on crack. That's what I think. His text description
> only makes the image all the more creepy and ugly, IMO.
Ah. In your opinion. Right.
>
> > Ed Wood was a hack movie director with less than credible
> > achievements, but he honestly believed he was creating art.
>
> Sorry, but this is no "Glen or Glenda". It's the physical manifestation
> of some artist's messed-up ego and greed run amok.
Well, as you say, that's your opinion. Not fact.
Chuck Melville
Furplay wrote:
> Mathue wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mayhaps you could rail against something more
> > rationally shameful? Child p0rnographers, rapists, ethnic cleansers,
> > old lady swindlers?
>
> If I did, nutless wonders like Chucko would only come bitching at me for
> being a Blue Meanie towards child pornographers, rapists, ethnic
> cleansers, and old lady swindlers, just out of the sheer automatic
> reflex in flaming me.
Hardly. At least then you'd be applying your bile towards more
deserving individuals instead of assaulting people whose only crime is that
they don't live up to your rather questionable artistic standards.
>
> --
> "It sure would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, so long as I
> was the dictator." -- GW Bush 12/18/00
>
> "One Divided Nation, Under Bush. Intolerable. Without Liberty, And Just
> Ass for All"
--
Furplay
Chuck Melville wrote:
>
>
> Hardly. At least then you'd be applying your bile towards more
> deserving individuals instead of assaulting people whose only crime is that
> they don't live up to your rather questionable artistic standards.
>
Oh yeah. Accusing ME of having "questionable artistic standards" when I
point out a hideous eyesore that was spotted on eBay. That's a hoot!
Dark Ren
cp...@zipcon.com wrote:
>
>
> Furplay wrote:
>
> > He's on the net too. I'm sure he knows what a keyboard is for
(unless
> > he's used the parts to make a portrait of Moses drowning in a pile
of
> > cow dung).
>
> But probably doesn't read this newsgroup. You'd be better off
emailing him and
> insulting him 'face-to-face'.
Nah, he's too cowardly for that.
> >
> > Okay, tell me what DOES make it garbage to you?
> >
>
> And when did you stop beating your wife? He just said that, in
his opinion, it
> isn't garbage. Period.
Some people just don't know how to listen.
> >
> > So far, all you've done is demonstrate an "art for art's sake"
attitude.
>
> ...and...?
Uhh.. wow, He got it right for once. Too bad what he saw flew right
over his head yet again. Yes, art for art's sake. Art isn't defined by
any one person. And thank goodness for that. Just because you don't
like something doesn't mean it's not art. Art is art, no matter if it’s
good, bad or any other color of the spectrum in the eyes of one or a
hundred human beings on this huge clump of mud and rock. Its just art
you don't like. Try wrapping your brain around that rather than
spitting out the old tired line of 'It sucks'.
> >
> > Takes no empath to see that zero bids = zero interest in supporting
such
> > bad art.
>
> First off, it only means that no one on -that- site is going to
buy it. Doesn't
> mean it wouldn't sell if he took it elsewhere, or even reoffered it
again after the
> holidays.
And I doubt people in general go to EBay looking for art in the first
place.
> Secondly, no one buying it doesn't mean it's bad either; remember
that Van Gogh
> only sold one painting in all his life, and that for a pittance. A
lot of artists'
> works don't become recognized for their worth until after the
artist's lifetime.
True.
> Thirdly... why the hell do you even care so much? What did this
guy ever do to
> you that you have to go to so much effort to sneer at him so
publicly? Thanks for
> putting the Grinch back into Christmas.
Hmmm.. some people are just the type who have to try and gain
acceptance by going over to a group of people and saying, 'Hey man,
look at this shit. Sucks, don't it'. Especially in a forum where the
original artist has no ideas he's being attacked without provocation
and has little recourse to defend himself. Providing he would have even
wasted the time. Somehow, I doubt he would have, had he known.
> >
> > All you're telling me is that the gullability of the population at
large
> > can be unfathomable sometimes.
>
> No, that's all you're hearing. What I'm telling you is that
popularity doesn't
> determine the value of quality.
>
Unfortunately, some people need to have the justification of the
masses. But you're not going to get it here, so take your attacks
elsewhere, Furplay.
> >
> > Look, this guy may think each brushstroke he makes is worth a
million
> > dollars, but anyone who supports that delusion by shelling $$$ for
it
> > is also a clueless fool in their own right.
>
> Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's a scam, or that the guy isn't
convinced it's
> art of some nature.
If this person who would shell out cash for it a fool just because he
said so? Gee, I didn't know he was ever made grand master of taste for
the known universe. What a scary thought.
> >
> > Fortunately, there still have'nt been anyone THAT rich/moronic as of
> > 6:28 PM, Dec 25th. The number of bids has been at a steady ZERO. My
POV
> > is still being proven to be right.
>
> What, is -that- the important issue here? That you have to be
right in that the
> guy's work doesn't sell? As I said, it proves nothing other than
that it doesn't
> sell -this- time. It happens.
And that it doesn't sell on that site. Personally, I think he found the
wrong place to put his art. Although it doesn't take much effort to put
up an auction there.
> > No, I think he was on crack. That's what I think. His text
description
> > only makes the image all the more creepy and ugly, IMO.
>
> Ah. In your opinion. Right.
His opinions, nothing more.
> > Sorry, but this is no "Glen or Glenda". It's the physical
manifestation
> > of some artist's messed-up ego and greed run amok.
>
> Well, as you say, that's your opinion. Not fact.
Seems we discover another individual who thinks his opinions are fact.
Is this forum a magnet for those types, I wonder.
Hey Furplay. Why don't you head over to the website I made before and
tell me what you think of the color scheme. Don't want you to run out
of things to slam. And this time you have reason to since I pointed it
out to you. All the better to justify it.
Furplay
>
> >
> > But probably doesn't read this newsgroup. You'd be better off
> emailing him and insulting him 'face-to-face'.
>
> Nah, he's too cowardly for that.
>
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I did do just that. I'm not afraid to call
a spade a spade (or something that looks like it needs to be shoveled
with one).
>
> Uhh.. wow, He got it right for once. Too bad what he saw flew right
> over his head yet again. Yes, art for art's sake. Art isn't defined by
> any one person.
How about "A joke is only funny if someone laughs". The whole scam of
"art" getting sold for megabucks is that no one, much like in "The
Emperor's New Clothes" wants to dare step and say "Hey! That's not art
at all! That's crap!".
And BTW, said crap STILL has'nt attracted one single bid as of 12/26/00
5:16PM CST
Dark Ren
Agree to disagree. I've wasted enough time.
Al Goldman
>
>Dark Ren (who still enjoys the feel of a leather bullwhip up his wazoo)
>wrote:
>
Classic cheap shot from an expert. This is why lots of us just ignore Furplay -
feel free to do the same, Dark Ren.
Al Goldman
Furplay
Furplay
Mathue wrote:
>
> In article <3A4926DD...@radiks.net>, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to dissapoint you, but I did do just that. I'm not afraid to call
> > a spade a spade (or something that looks like it needs to be shoveled
> > with one).
>
> Oh great, you're getting even more petty :D
>
> Doncha have anything better to do? You're getting really _fixated_
> on this. (Then the guy does a deja search and finds all this in AFF,
> and forms yet another bad impression of furries.)
>
GOOD ON THAT! Maybe he'll never draw any butt-ugly jaguars with leaky
tits ever again.
Maybe he'll actually go to ART SCHOOL for a while.
And BTW, the piece is STILL very ugly, and it's STILL not recieved any
bids as of 12/26/00 8:17PM CST. Someone better hurry. It's gonna close
within 24 hours!
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
doja.com> writes:
> In article <3A4926DD...@radiks.net>, Furplay <mhirtes@
> radiks.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to dissapoint you, but I did do just that. I'm not afraid to
> > call a spade a spade (or something that looks like it needs to
> > be shoveled with one).
>
> Oh great, you're getting even more petty :D
Looks like he can't win. Get slammed for not speaking his mind to the artist,
and now gets slammed for when he does.
I have to disagree with the premise that there is no such thing as bad art, or
that there's no justification for being judgemental about an item if it's art
because everyone has different opinions.
"Art for Art's Sake" is no longer a valid defense the moment you attempt to
put a price tag on art. The moment you do that, you are asking each and every
observer to weigh the balance between their desire to hang onto X dollars vs,
their desire to posess the piece of art.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> His opinions, nothing more.
Here, Ren, lemme give you my two cents on that tragic waste of
paint:
1) "Artist" has no name recognition. No market currently exists for his work
No museum or collection recognition. No gallery exhibits work.
2) Artist (sic) shows no technical skill beyond the 'Draw Tippy' stage.
3) Artist (sic) breaks no new ground, nor explores new territory with piece.
4) Artist (sic) dabbles in an already over-crowded genre' without adding any
thing new or important.
5) Artist (sic) attempts to add some minor 'shock value', also overdone.
6) To his credit, the artist (sic) at least created an orginal work.
Estimate of value: $20.00, street. I estimate that's the price of the canvas,
minus the cost of paint thinner and time to clean it and make it usable again.
Is it art?
Well, see this --> O_o ?
That's a piece by me showing how I feel when I read AFF. The medium is
electrons on phosphor. (c) M. Beebe, 2000.
That'll be $350.00, please. Cash only.
Ars gratis artis, indeed . . .
StukaFox
Ars gratis vulpes
Artist
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:001226200...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> In article <261220001739093499%mathu/e...@my-doja.com>, Mathue
<mathu/e@my-
> doja.com> writes:
> > In article <3A4926DD...@radiks.net>, Furplay <mhirtes@
> > radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to dissapoint you, but I did do just that. I'm not afraid to
> > > call a spade a spade (or something that looks like it needs to
> > > be shoveled with one).
> >
> > Oh great, you're getting even more petty :D
>
> Looks like he can't win. Get slammed for not speaking his mind to the
artist,
> and now gets slammed for when he does.
>
> I have to disagree with the premise that there is no such thing as bad
art, or
> that there's no justification for being judgemental about an item if
it's art
> because everyone has different opinions.
>
> "Art for Art's Sake" is no longer a valid defense the moment you
attempt to
> put a price tag on art. The moment you do that, you are asking each
and every
> observer to weigh the balance between their desire to hang onto X
dollars vs,
> their desire to posess the piece of art.
Actualy, it is a valid defense, just not a good one. I do agree with
you here, but for different reasons which are these. I personaly
believe that ANYTHING I say is art, becomes art. I'm not saying that
that pile of cow chips is GOOD art, though.
As you said, "every observer [has] to weigh the balance between their
desire to hang onto X dollars vs, their desire to posess the piece of
art." See, what you said is what I believe to be [an unintentional]
oxymoron because first you say it's not a valid defense and then you
'assume' that is is art. :) I'm not sure what you where trying to say.
This isn't an attack, just an attempt by me to understand the underlying
logic. :) Fell free to ignore/correct/amend at your whim. ^___^
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> "Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in
> message news:001226200...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> attempt to put a price tag on art. The moment you do that, you are
> asking each and every observer to weigh the balance between their
> desire to hang onto X dollars vs, their desire to posess the piece of
> art.
>
> Actualy, it is a valid defense, just not a good one. I do agree with
> you here, but for different reasons which are these. I personaly
> believe that ANYTHING I say is art, becomes art. I'm not saying that
> that pile of cow chips is GOOD art, though.
> As you said, "every observer [has] to weigh the balance between
> their desire to hang onto X dollars vs, their desire to posess the
> piece of art." See, what you said is what I believe to be
> [an unintentional] oxymoron because first you say it's not a valid
> defense and then you 'assume' that is is art. :) I'm not sure what
> you where trying to say.
> This isn't an attack, just an attempt by me to understand the
> underlying logic. :) Fell free to ignore/correct/amend at your
> whim. ^___^
When I go after the logic of someone's opinion, I try to plug in pieces of a
bigger picture to see how well their logic fits the real world, rather than
trying to come up with a complete alternate system of logic and playing
advocate that it is better. This confuses some people because they assume
that I'm personally agreeing with their point of view, yet still arguing with
them.
What I'm saying is that if you're going to stand up and say "This abandoned
left shoe I dug out of the dump is art!" (And there are artists who have done
such things. I learned about one whose specialty was taking commonplace items
and by virtue of putting them on display, made them "art" because one looked
at them differently in that context. Personally, considering his contribution
to the project, I think he should be considered a promoter rather than an
artist, and the original craftsman "elevated" to the rank of artist, but this
aside is getting overly lengthy.) then perhaps I will regard this shoe with
the eye for some artistic message.
That's Art for Art's sake.
But the moment you say "This abandoned left shoe I dug out of the dump is art!
Now what am I bid?", Art for Art's sake isn't a valid defense of bad art.
That's because as soon as you put a price tag on it, it is Art for Money's
sake, and rather than JUST considering the artistic merits of the shoe, we
also have to make a monetary value judgement, i.e. perceived quality. And
therefore, if we don't think the quality of the art merits the asking price,
we have a pretty quantitative (albiet subjective) standard of good or bad art.
Good being "I'd pay for it" (regardless of whether one has the money or really
would follow through) and bad being "Ha! Anyone who pays that much for it is
a fool!"
Dark Ren
mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
> Looks like he can't win. Get slammed for not speaking his mind
to the artist,
> and now gets slammed for when he does.
No, he's just getting slammed for overall pettiness.
> I have to disagree with the premise that there is no such thing as
bad art, or
> that there's no justification for being judgemental about an item if
it's art
> because everyone has different opinions.
Good for you. Unfortunately art is subjective. Meaning it is defined
by no one man. You can't tell anyone what their tastes are, even if
they are totally off the wall.
> "Art for Art's Sake" is no longer a valid defense the moment you
attempt to
> put a price tag on art. The moment you do that, you are asking
each and every
> observer to weigh the balance between their desire to hang onto
X dollars vs,
> their desire to posess the piece of art.
So pricing art invalidates it? I don't think so. Doesn't change who
likes it, does it? Change the way the colors are set? The structure?
Just what changes in a created item when someone puts a price
on it? Nothing at all. He's just asking, 'Ok, some like, some don't.
So who will pay for it?' In this case, no one who's come on EBay.
BUt it's still art as the opinions of like, dislike and indifferent would
remain the same.
Dark Ren
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com wrote:
> Here, Ren, lemme give you my two cents on that tragic waste of
> paint:
Go for it, dude.
> 1) "Artist" has no name recognition. No market currently exists for
his work
> No museum or collection recognition. No gallery exhibits work.
Everyone starts as an unknown.
> 2) Artist (sic) shows no technical skill beyond the 'Draw Tippy'
stage.
And you teach art and have the degrees to back up your claim, right? Or
are you just saying that because you -think- its ugly? Ooops, another
opinion.
> 3) Artist (sic) breaks no new ground, nor explores new territory with
piece.
What makes you say that? Elaborate, man.
> 4) Artist (sic) dabbles in an already over-crowded genre' without
adding any
> thing new or important.
And what genre is that? what makes it overcrowded besides that
intangible things called your opinion. Have any facts for me at all?
> 5) Artist (sic) attempts to add some minor 'shock value', also
overdone.
Opinion.
> 6) To his credit, the artist (sic) at least created an orginal work.
>
> Estimate of value: $20.00, street. I estimate that's the price of the
canvas,
> minus the cost of paint thinner and time to clean it and make it
usable again.
>
> Is it art?
Yep.
> Well, see this --> O_o ?
>
> That's a piece by me showing how I feel when I read AFF. The medium is
> electrons on phosphor. (c) M. Beebe, 2000.
>
> That'll be $350.00, please. Cash only.
Just like with the so often slammed painting, I have a choice of
whether I want to buy or not. And yet again I choose not. Come on now,
Stuka. Rather than join in on the one line easy bash, how about you put
some meat to your opinions. Since you seem to want to portray yourself
as someone who knows about art, or that is what I gather from your
comments. Instead of just disagreeing, let's discuss.
Of course, if you're just another of those that likes to make their
opinions fact, fell free to not give details.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> And you teach art and have the degrees to back up your claim, right? Or
> are you just saying that because you -think- its ugly? Ooops, another
> opinion.
*blink*
Uh, guy . . .
>> 3) Artist (sic) breaks no new ground, nor explores new territory with
> piece.
> What makes you say that? Elaborate, man.
There's nothing new in that piece. There's that jumps out and says
"wow -- here's a new way of looking at something".
> And what genre is that? what makes it overcrowded besides that
> intangible things called your opinion. Have any facts for me at all?
It's call 'surrealism', and it's been done over and over and over,
usually with much more skill than this. Sorry, this guy ain't
Rob't Williams. Hell, he ain't even ROBIN Williams.
>> 5) Artist (sic) attempts to add some minor 'shock value', also
> overdone.
> Opinion.
Uh-huh, and this is 'wrong' because . . . ?
> Just like with the so often slammed painting, I have a choice of
> whether I want to buy or not. And yet again I choose not. Come on now,
> Stuka. Rather than join in on the one line easy bash, how about you put
> some meat to your opinions. Since you seem to want to portray yourself
> as someone who knows about art, or that is what I gather from your
> comments. Instead of just disagreeing, let's discuss.
Um, let's see -- your whole post seems to be the repeat of the
word 'opinion' over and over. What're you discussing again?
> Of course, if you're just another of those that likes to make their
> opinions fact, fell free to not give details.
StukaFox
--
The most important question of 2001 will be 'Why aren't you fucking FURIOUS?'
Elf Sternberg
Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> writes:
>Had it been just the back of some seated person in a background that
>seems Van Gogh-esque, it would be fine. Instead, the guy ruins it with
>some weirdassed image of a butt-ugly jaguar woman with leaky tits and a
>translucent tummy.
My impression of the picture was that the artist had absolutely
no sense of composition at all. There's no focal point or narrative
line, there's no well-thought color scheme at work, the anatomy is
horrid, and the overall impression I get is that, ten years from now, if
he works hard to improve, this is the artist who will be working on the
next generation of velvet Elvises.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
Dark Ren
tends to be a little annoying. 'Scuse me about that, I’ll admit my tone
was less than helpful.
And what are we discussing? Well, personally I'd like to know more
about what you think it's nothing new. You say there is nothing in it
that jumps out at you.. and that doesn’t really help. It looks new to
me since I've never seen something that looked like it.
So it's surrealism.. yeah, I can see that. So what is it about this
peace that has been so played out in surrealism? What about it is old
and tired? What themes present are just the same as so many other
surrealistic works that you've seen?
That's a good place to start.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> Nothing wrong with opinions, cept when they are phrased as fact. That
> tends to be a little annoying. 'Scuse me about that, I'll admit my tone
> was less than helpful.
There we go. It happens -- this is an inflectionless medium and
meanings are often muddled.
> And what are we discussing? Well, personally I'd like to know more
> about what you think it's nothing new. You say there is nothing in it
> that jumps out at you.. and that doesn't really help. It looks new to
> me since I've never seen something that looked like it.
See if you can find 'Juxapose' magazine (Tower should carry
it). The school he's copying / aspiring to (your choice) is
the post-Williams' surrealists, which is the school Juxapose
mostly covers. The problem with this school is that message
overcame medium and a lot of unskilled people jumped on the
bandwagon. In fairly short order, the school became flooded
with ungodly bad knockoff art from students trying to be cool
by copying this 'outsider' artform. There are some good examples
floating around now, some of which will become museum pieces
(Williams' already have moved from the gallery to the display
spaces), but this isn't one of them. To use an analogy: I can't
play the guitar, but I know Gilmour was having a shitty night
when he played Oakland a few years ago.
Dark Ren
FromTheDes...@StukaFox.Com wrote:
> See if you can find 'Juxapose' magazine (Tower should carry
> it). The school he's copying / aspiring to (your choice) is
> the post-Williams' surrealists, which is the school Juxapose
> mostly covers. The problem with this school is that message
> overcame medium and a lot of unskilled people jumped on the
> bandwagon. In fairly short order, the school became flooded
> with ungodly bad knockoff art from students trying to be cool
> by copying this 'outsider' artform. There are some good examples
> floating around now, some of which will become museum pieces
> (Williams' already have moved from the gallery to the display
> spaces), but this isn't one of them. To use an analogy: I can't
> play the guitar, but I know Gilmour was having a shitty night
> when he played Oakland a few years ago.
One interesting aspect of your response is something you might have
added as an afterthought. Aspiring to be. Perhaps that is just what
he's doing. Usually when it comes to aspiring artists, it's considered
bad form to drop a boulder on them. I would think being scathing of his
work in that case is a very negative thing to do, although as is
obvious I can't really know one way or the other.
I'll see if I can locate that particular magazine you mentioned. I did
a little quick searching on Yahoo. but couldn't locate anything about
that particular 'school' of surrealism. But I did find some nice work
by a rather famous artist. Salvador Dali. Personally, I can't see the
difference in the most general sense. Of course, I haven't made art
appreciation anything more than a minor sub note in my life. I know
what I like and what I don't like and that's enough for me.
So due to lack of information, I'm obviously in little position to
lecture anyone on specific periods and the like. Perhaps I'll come back
to it after I get educated. ;)
Artist
What is an artist but someone who see's the world differently o.O?
> That's Art for Art's sake.
>
> But the moment you say "This abandoned left shoe I dug out of the dump
is art!
> Now what am I bid?", Art for Art's sake isn't a valid defense of bad
art.
> That's because as soon as you put a price tag on it, it is Art for
Money's
> sake, and rather than JUST considering the artistic merits of the
shoe, we
> also have to make a monetary value judgement, i.e. perceived quality.
And
> therefore, if we don't think the quality of the art merits the asking
price,
> we have a pretty quantitative (albiet subjective) standard of good or
bad art.
> Good being "I'd pay for it" (regardless of whether one has the money
or really
> would follow through) and bad being "Ha! Anyone who pays that much
for it is
> a fool!"
Ah hahaha! :) There we go, the qualification that makes the argument
make sense "Art for Art's sake isn't a valid defense for 'BAD ART'.
^____^ Now your making sense. I dunno how I feel about that point of
view, but I do understand what your saying. :)
Dark Ren
mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
> But the moment you say "This abandoned left shoe I dug out of the
dump is art!
> Now what am I bid?", Art for Art's sake isn't a valid defense of bad
art.
Obviously. If art is bad, it's bad. But it's still art. No one ever
said all art was good. ;)
> That's because as soon as you put a price tag on it, it is Art for
Money's
> sake, and rather than JUST considering the artistic merits of the
shoe, we
> also have to make a monetary value judgement, i.e. perceived
quality. And
> therefore, if we don't think the quality of the art merits the asking
price,
> we have a pretty quantitative (albiet subjective) standard of good or
bad art.
> Good being "I'd pay for it" (regardless of whether one has the money
or really
> would follow through) and bad being "Ha! Anyone who pays that much
for it is
> a fool!"
Not necessarily. I love a lot of the art that is created y the artists
in the anthro genre. Some of it is real damn good art. But I've never
considered paying for it. Doesn't make it bad, just not something I'd
pay for a tangible copy of. Bad art is a matter of personal tastes, not
if it has a price tag and whether or not you'd pay for it.
> --
> "if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's
parents
> do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their
kids."
> -- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
> Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties
for UCE.
>
>
--
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> My impression of the picture was that the artist had absolutely
> no sense of composition at all. There's no focal point or narrative
> line, there's no well-thought color scheme at work, the anatomy is
> horrid, and the overall impression I get is that, ten years from now,
> if he works hard to improve, this is the artist who will be working on
> the next generation of velvet Elvises.
I found his name strangely appropriate - "Joe Bachelor". He obviously knows
little about pregnant women, since his poor jaguar woman is going to have a
breech-baby.
And I agree about the composition. That mess in the upper right corner is
meant to be the man's face. I think it's that way because he hit the edge of
the paper.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Obviously. If art is bad, it's bad. But it's still art. No one ever
> said all art was good. ;)
And you know the funny thing is, Furplay started this thread not by denying
the item in question was art, but just by saying it sucked and wasn't worth
the $350 minimum bid on it.
> Not necessarily. I love a lot of the art that is created y the artists
> in the anthro genre. Some of it is real damn good art. But I've
> never considered paying for it. Doesn't make it bad, just not
> something I'd pay for a tangible copy of. Bad art is a matter of
> personal tastes, not if it has a price tag and whether or not you'd
> pay for it.
The question you leave here is, if bad art is a matter of taste, and
everyone's tastes are different, then how can ANYTHING be called bad art? Or
good art for that matter? Because good is just as much a matter of opinion as
bad is.
Fortunately, we've learned over time a few "rules" about what makes art good,
some of it is instinctual, some of it is intellectual. "Art Snobs" make a big
show of ranking the intellectual rules infinitely higher than the instinctual
aesthetic judgements. Most furry fans have no training in the intellectual
aspects of art and just go "oooo, cat girl. Preeeety." :-) I had a few art
appreciation classes in College, although I was a bit rebellious to the
orthodoxy for my teacher's tastes. The one on architecture was fantastic.
There are some aesthetic judgements that are pretty common to everyone, which
is why we can sometimes all agree that some art sucks, and some art is
fantastic.
Cerulean
> and the overall impression I get is that, ten years from now, if
>he works hard to improve, this is the artist who will be working on the
>next generation of velvet Elvises.
Go to his website and you may think differently. Granted, this is far
from his best work, which explains why he is trying to unload it on
eBay. But there's also a good reason for him to be accustomed to
expecting thousands of dollars for a painting. In furry fandom, we see
artists trying to sell their bad work at comparable prices to their
good work all the time, and the real world is no different.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( NoV--,,J!e 6u!ua^3 ay+ u! 6u!7J!ms Jno7o) pue punoS,,
Furplay
Cerulean wrote:
>
> Quoth Elf Sternberg:
>
> > and the overall impression I get is that, ten years from now, if
> >he works hard to improve, this is the artist who will be working on the
> >next generation of velvet Elvises.
>
> Go to his website and you may think differently. Granted, this is far
> from his best work,
I'm very much baffled about that fact too. His other stuff *does* have
merit, but THIS thing is a steaming diaperload.
--