|By Admin on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 08:06 pm: Edit|
This thread is going to be closed, and restarted elsewhere ...
|By Artist on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 06:55 pm: Edit|
Why thank you ...
|By Mr_Carfax on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 06:44 pm: Edit|
Who am I to discourage bad taste-
for the definitive guide on eating people you can't go past "To Serve Man" by Karl Wurf
|By Verawench on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 05:38 pm: Edit|
Petermarc, that's brilliant.
|By Petermarc on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 04:51 pm: Edit|
of course, if you feel the least bit guilty about it, you can dig a grave and throw up into it...
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 04:42 pm: Edit|
I don't consider eating human flesh wrong. I consider killing humans for this purpose to be wrong, and, moreover, eating your own species, or closely related ones, is unhygenic.
I wouldm however, eat an already-dead human without remorse if I had no other food source. Or it tasted good.
|By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 04:42 pm: Edit|
Cause you can get sick- humans carry diseases that humans tend to be very suceptible to.
It's harder to get sick eating a fish, because there just aren't as many bugs that can infect fish and people.
|By Chevalier on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 02:46 pm: Edit|
Tim, I don't think that eating human flesh is wrong. It's unpleasant for most of us, and who would want their loved ones to be eaten? (Think back to Monty Python's "undertakers" sketch.) Still, plenty of cultures have embraced it (cannibalism, not the sketch) for ceremonial reasons, and scores of shipwrecked sailors have been saved by the act. Less typical examples of survival cannibalism include the snowed-in Donner party and the Uruguayan rugby team plane-crash survivors ...
I like the invented rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and the libertarian in me shrinks from raising people as livestock and killing them for beef. Furthermore, I wouldn't much relish going against mom's wishes by eating dad. However, if someone consents (or at least doesn't refuse) to leave behind his/her corpse as food; or if a corpse is encountered and no one related to the deceased objects to its being eaten, then ... why not dig in? It's better than starving.
|By Petermarc on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 02:25 pm: Edit|
it's a maze for modern human intelligence, vera...he's trying to find his way out and he'll get...alot of cheese...nope, the door isn't up there...damn, does someone have a map?
|By Timk on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 01:25 pm: Edit|
"Let's go one step back. DOES a human have more right to life than a rat? Now back up some more. Do humans and rats have any "inalienable" or "intrinsic" rights at all? No, they don't. Nature imposes burdens and grants privileges, but not rights. Of course, humans are free to invent rights and live or die by them. And so they do, for themselves and certain lucky animals that they value.
Thanks to the abilities of our species, humans one-up rats from time to time. And thanks to the abilities of rodents, rats stamp on us from time to time."
Therefore do you consider the concept of eating human flesh to be wrong, and if so, why?
|By Bjacques on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 08:44 pm: Edit|
I'll give most new art a chance, give the artist a chance to explain himself or herself. Between the Tate Modern in London and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, I've seen a lot of stuff that would cause riots in Cincinnati, stuff like Gilbert & George's "Naked Shit Pictures" or the art of Jim Nutt.
Obviously there's a lot of stuff that fails on pretty much every level and depends entirely on dodgy art theories. The trouble is, experimentation in visual art has gone so far that the eye has to be educated somewhat. Even ancient Greek art that was easy on the eye followed laws of form, and you had to know them to critique it. Marcel Duchamp's toilet workd because it has a story behind it. I draw the line at Abstract Expressionism, but I like Damien Hirst. His "pharmaceutical" mirror a society that considers drugs, legal or not, a part of its diet. You could say he got the jump on the GM foods controversy, but that was just happy accident if anything. I think it's a witty series and Hirst seems like an ok guy, so I'm willing to give him the chance I won't give, say, Dave Eggers.
The question is, how far does art education go before it becomes theory, then ideology, then plain hot air?
Anyway, if you're going to judge art (or anything) at least give criteria for your judgment beyond your own tastes. Taste is subjective, even when it's held collectively or by a majority (then it's often imposed). Taste is just the sensual equivalent of belief, and you can't argue with that. To be of use, criticism needs mutually agreed-upon ("objective") criteria, over which we can agree or disagree. Even judging according to whether the artist is serious or just screwing around is better than nothing.
Getting to rats, if it's humans vs. rats, I'll side with my own kind, but hey that's just me. That still leaves plenty of room for debate over eating meat and testing on animals and for what purpose. There's survival, then medical progress and then just plain cruelty. I think we've beaten this one around a bit already.
I've got a good rat story. In Paris, there used to be a Cemetery of the Innocents where Les Halles was later and is now a park and subterranean mall. In 1786 they had to dig it up and replant the stiffs because the local rats got a taste for human flesh. After they ate the corpses, they tunnelled into people's houses. There's an exterminator shop nearby called something like House o' Vermin, that has dead rats hanging in the window.
The Steve Jackson Games case ended happily. The SS agent in charge was such an asshole that Jackson was able to sue the SS and win, (thanks to good Texas lawyers working pro bono). SJG *almost* went bankrupt, but Steve Jackson redid the confiscated game (GURPS Hacker) from scratch and it sold well, partly because it was a good game and partly the hacker crowd wanted to show support. The battle led to founding of the Austin chapter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (I was at one of the planning barbecues). It was panic and arrogance on the part of the SS. Details are in Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown."
A punk walked up to me in the street. He said, "you got a light, mac?" I said, "no, but I got a dark brown overcoat!" - Bonzo Dog Band, "Big Shot"
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 08:09 pm: Edit|
"Like, dude, where did the basketball hoop go?"
|By Tavarua on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 08:04 pm: Edit|
"Rodents and absinthe -- they just don't mix."
That's not necassarily true. In vitro, that's for you Don, to the brain pan involving thujone at 150 mgs doesn't work. I'm sure if they all gathered around the fire with a nice tall glass, they would find it enjoyable. Silly, fuzzy bastards.
|By Artist on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 04:58 pm: Edit|
I agree with Kallisti.
|By Chevalier on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 04:41 pm: Edit|
Rodents and absinthe -- they just don't mix.
Anyone here caught their Fido nipping at the Green Fairy? Aren't dogs supposed to love the stuff?
|By Petermarc on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 04:35 pm: Edit|
|By Chevalier on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 04:24 pm: Edit|
Let's go one step back. DOES a human have more right to life than a rat? Now back up some more. Do humans and rats have any "inalienable" or "intrinsic" rights at all? No, they don't. Nature imposes burdens and grants privileges, but not rights. Of course, humans are free to invent rights and live or die by them. And so they do, for themselves and certain lucky animals that they value.
Thanks to the abilities of our species, humans one-up rats from time to time. And thanks to the abilities of rodents, rats stamp on us from time to time. Bubonic plague, anyone? Baby-gnawing? The human winner grants himself the spoils of "rights". He also grants "rights" to the losers of his choice. Some of us choose to give life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the status of a "right". This works; extending this further often doesn't.
|By Admin on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 03:54 pm: Edit|
|By Timk on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 03:48 pm: Edit|
"LH…so if something tastes good, it does not matter how it came to be or where it came from? Carrying this out to the extreme, I would imagine that someone could make human flesh taste good. So…it wouldn't matter?"
Ok, just to start something off, Why does a Human have more right to life than a Rat?
|By Artist on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 02:41 pm: Edit|
Ladies, thank you all very kindly...no offense taken of any kind.
(Believe me, I've heard a lot worse than "ick").
Long story short:
These pictures were selected (from my website) by the curator of a group show to be included in the group show...
When I brought them to the gallery and was filling out the paperwork with the curator, he asked what the medium was...I told him and he freaked out and said there was no way he would include them in the show (remember, he had selected them originally from my website).
Hence, my question regarding the creative process and its effect on someone's feelings about a piece of art...
|By Cheri on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 11:38 am: Edit|
Artist, nothing personal, but my opinion is, "ick". Of course, that is only my opinion.
|By Morriganlefey on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 09:41 am: Edit|
Ditto Vera, Artist - I knew what it was when first I saw it. As most women disdain going for the subject matter in question, I doubt very many will consider it high art.
No offense intended of course, I just wouldn't frame it over my sofa...
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 09:17 am: Edit|
No offense, Monsieur Artiste, but I just assumed you were showing off the contents of your kitchen sink.
Now that I get it, I remain unimpressed.
|By Artist on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 01:45 am: Edit|
So...no comments about my pictures.
That's one of the problems with this forum. Not enough representation of the fairer sex (although I would have thought you, Verawench dearest, might have said something). After all, there is something special about the creation of those pictures...
|By G_T_Impaler on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 04:03 pm: Edit|
So if I flick my lights on and off, do I get $30,000 too?
|By Admin on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 03:21 pm: Edit|
heh, I said I'm not *much* of a postmodernist.
|By Verawench on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 03:07 pm: Edit|
Come now, Kallisti - you don't like Odd Nerdrum?
|By Verawench on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 03:06 pm: Edit|
Hey, folks, anyone see the recent winner of the Turner prize?
What a fucking joke.
|By G_T_Impaler on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 02:10 pm: Edit|
Thanks guys, BTW, "Nude Descending" is framed on the wall over my computer. ;) I see something new every time I look up.
|By Admin on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 01:44 pm: Edit|
I'm not much of a postmodernist, because after Duchamp, for me, all else seems to pale in comparison, and I resort to pop art for simpler pleasures. Oh wait. I really like Lenore Fini. Can someone please release a collection of her works? Ryden is a pop art lense to me, which is why I'm so enthusiastic. I love old jesus postcards & plastic bunnies, and he seems to solder both together seamlessly.
And I just have to say "fuckin' A, Guido!" too. Shine on you crazy diamond.
|By Mr_Rabid on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 01:02 pm: Edit|
Fuckin A Guido- right on.
You can only get so much mileage out of shock. One urinal is a zen slap of enlightenment. A second urinal just makes me want to pee.
As for Duchamp- Nude Descending a Staircase, baby! WOOOOH!
|By G_T_Impaler on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 12:16 pm: Edit|
As to the question of innovation in art work: I think there is a line where genuine innovation moves into the realm of creating just to be able to say one has made something new. Artist's like Boucher and Duchamp were creating to challenge their compatriots conception of the nature of art. Admittedly, artists like Woodward and Ryden are doing essentially the same thing, but there is a distinction. Early modern artists, the cubists and Kandinsky in particular were striving to create art in a way that freed it from the restraints of form (much in the way that the impressionists had done before them); there is however, lasting artistic merit that can be distilled from it, such as harmony between geometric shapes or contrasting colors. Later movments tend to justify themselves by pushing away from traditionaly accepted forms; their claim to art is that their work challenges the norm. It seems that such works can't stand alone on artistic merit. Maybe I'm too jaded, but I can't find anything ascetically enticing about a lump of shit in a jar of urine. I would even call Duchamp an artist (a hell of an artist at that) for doing essentially the same thing. The distinction here is that he was first. Entering a urinal in an exibition was a hell of a statement; but anything after that seems to me to be redundant.
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 08:07 am: Edit|
Wow, I like the meat pictures ;-)
|By Petermarc on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 01:09 am: Edit|
if you pronounce 'L-H-O-O-Q' in french, it means
'she has a hot ass'...maybe that's how she got the model job, after leo made her shave...
|By Admin on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 10:45 pm: Edit|
my recent favorite.
how could I resist:
he's taken every object from my childhood and regurgitated it through a victorian scrapbook.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 10:41 pm: Edit|
Jeff Koons is my hero
|By Admin on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 10:25 pm: Edit|
Here, here. I agree ...
except for the guy who did that giant ceramic, gilded Michael Jackson ... gack. Ran into that at the MOMA and nearly lost it.
btw, I have an eight foot Ingre's Odalisque on my wall surrounded by hollywood style christmas lights. Perfectamundo!
The other painting by Manet you mention is Olympia, unforgiving yet scrumptious.
Yet another one, along these lines, is Boucher's famous nude:
The painting shocked the Paris elite with its bald sexuality, and spurred Louis XV to have the model, a young lady of Irish decent, bathed and oiled and tossed into his bed. Madame Murphy became known as la Morphise ... the Murphy's beer site claims that it was her funds which got the family brewery a-runnin'.
The story behind a particular work has the power to spur it into an entirely different level for me, where I can easily become obsessed. Or, like Duchamp's LHOOQ Mona Lisa, I could give a rats ass what it means, just looking at it gets my panties in a scrunch.
|By Mr_Rabid on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 08:21 pm: Edit|
I try to avoid deciding something sucks as much as I can. I generally view it as my inability to appreciate the sucky thing in question, unless I am damn sure.
I used to say 'country music sucks.' Then my girlfriend of the time forced me to listen to it, told me what she liked about it and through her I came to appreciate it.
Take Nascar- I have no use for Nascar. But the other night I was talking to a girl who gave me a window into what is cool about it.
She digs the death-defiance, the bravery and drama of the risk. Like fighter pilots, these men going around and around for the sheer joy of speed, risking death or crippling injuries because they can.
When it comes to art, if I don't like it, I try to find out how to like it. If I realize I don't like it because (rare though it is) it really does suck, I go look at something else.
No need to go round telling people 'that sucks!'
|By Verawench on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 07:07 pm: Edit|
Rabbit, love, I wanted to stay away from the question of relativity in art. Certainly, anything can at any point strike us as artistic, appealing, beautiful.
It happened to me with industrial music as well. It was driving around at night in the car of a boy I loved. It was the only music he played. It's the only music I could associate with his beautiful face and the way he drummed his long slim fingers on the steering wheel to the rhythm of Wumpscut, Covenant or Skinny Puppy.
Even within each particular genre there is shit (take some of that cheesy future-pop, EBM, dance-floor industrial-wannabe bullshit out there).
|By Verawench on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 07:00 pm: Edit|
It was Ingres.
Also, I didn't say "knowing the story" holds true for every painting. Only those you are merely appreciative of at first.
|By Mr_Rabid on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 05:27 pm: Edit|
There is a painting called the Odalisque, an idealized vision of a cortesan. Soft lines, beautiful naked woman. Happy servant and sleek cat. Forget who did it.
Manet or Monet (one of them -nets) came back with a french hooker. She was lit harshly, staring cynically straight at the viewer.
Her servant behind her looks like she wouldn't mind strangling her, and her cat's back is arched in anger or fear.
So without knowing the story behind those paintings, I think I would appreciate them both much less.
|By Mr_Rabid on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 05:24 pm: Edit|
Once I was walking by the railroad tracks, and I quite unconciously started grooving to the rhythm of the passing train.
That lead me to appreciate industrial music.
The train was not trying to make music. Much like words are really only words, as opposed to black markings, when you read them.
You can extend this idea easily enough- look at a well designed room. The designer makes use of colors and textures that may please the eye, or disturb. The lines and structure all add to the aesthetic impact of the place.
Extend it now to a random pile of bricks. Is it pleasing? Depressing?
Does it make you feel a certain way? How about that tree outlined starkly against the sky? Beautiful, eerie? Haunting? How is this different than a painting of the tree- perhaps the artist adds touches to make it more evocative, but still- the essence is there in both.
So a pile of rusted metal or a dead pig can indeed be art.
Is it bad? Or is it just that you haven't learned to groove to that train?
|By Artist on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 01:49 pm: Edit|
Submitted for your perusal…(comments?)
(If you click on the image, it will take you to a larger image - saving a little bandwidth here…)
|By Verawench on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 10:04 am: Edit|
Shut up, BJ.
Anyway, I have full faith in Mr. Guerard and his views on the "spontaneous connoisseur".
It is not possible to change your mind about a piece of garbage once you learn how it was made, or by whom, or what childhood trauma or bodily function was involved. If you didn't enjoy it in the first place, no amount of secondary knowledge will convince you otherwise.
It is, however, possible to have a luke warm or neutral opinion about a particular piece but grow fond of it once its "life's story" is explained to us.
Take David's "Death of Marat" - with a nod to Chryssipvs. When, as a child, I saw the picture in an art book, I liked it. Not as much as the gorgeous, naked Roccoco rubbish a few pages before, but I liked it. Several years later its story and subject matter were explained to me. The letter. The bath. The murder. The man. Whatever one's political perspective, the picture is fascinating.
It's what I call the "pleasure of knowledge" - of being clued in and enlightened about a particular piece. And it's also what shitty modern art takes advantage of: its pretentious creators know full well the impact of their audience acquiring the "mystic" knowledge of how something was made and what lame political / psychological agenda fueled "Shit Stain No. 4".
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 09:19 am: Edit|
Look ma! They're dancing about architechture...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 07:32 am: Edit|
What if the only person to enjoy the finished article and truly 'understand' it is the creator. Is the finished article then a piece of art or just a piece of self-serving, self-indulgent nonsense?
What is the purpose of art? Is it to please others or is it to please and satisfy the artist's own self-centred ego?
|By Uncle on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 06:10 am: Edit|
If someone other than the creator of the work enjoys it, then it's art. Art=joy? I like to think so! If you don't enjoy it then it's shit,right? BTW I enjoyed all the art posted by fourmites.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 03:47 am: Edit|
"A piece of garbage, no matter how interestingly it was made, is still a piece of garbage (although a documentary on how it was made may be interesting)."
Very true and a piece of good art, no matter how simple and boring the process by which it was made, is still a piece of good art.
What it comes down to is that it is the finished work that determines whether the piece is good art or not. The process involved may be of interest to some people but the process is simply a means to an end and that is all. It is the end result alone that determines whether to piece is good or not.
|By Artist on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 02:19 am: Edit|
I would respectfully beg to differ with the idea that art is like sex or humor...and yes, sometimes art is created to make you think (although some forms of humor can make you think...think satire or irony for example).
Many of the arts (visual, musical, written) have examples of this...
Probably the simplest example of this would be the art of music...protest songs are more than just a pretty melody - Eve of Destruction - Blowing in the Wind - Universal Soldier - etc.
(Also, note the current hullabaloo surrounding David Hockney's assertion that the old masters used lenses and basically traced their paintings...)
I'm not saying I agree that the process that creates a piece of art should always mean something...but I do think that sometimes it can add to someone's feelings about the piece of art.
Also, I do agree that a piece of art should be able to stand on its own, but process can to it.
A piece of garbage, no matter how interestingly it was made, is still a piece of garbage (although a documentary on how it was made may be interesting).
(Please remember the comment that the splatter paintings were initially pleasant enough to look at - without knowing how they were made.)
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 01:28 am: Edit|
If we all shoved a load of paint up our arses and then shitted it back out onto a canvas would we all become artists producing works of art? (Or does it depend on your degree of sphincter control?)
Maybe the next time I get drunk and throw up I'll thrown up onto a piece of canvas, save it and then exhibit it it in the Tate Modern. I could title my work "Reincarnation of Absinthe". Who knows, maybe I'd win the Turner prize?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, December 09, 2001 - 01:21 am: Edit|
For once in the whole time I you have been on this forum I entirely agree with you 100%!
Art is like sex or humour, the only thing that matters is your initial response. Imagine analysing sex and the physical processes involved, would this make the experience more enjoyable? More likely to dampen down passions than increase them.
Analysis of things like sex, humour, art and music is missing the point of spontaneous joy. Spontaneous joy is absolutely wonderful, why kill it by analysing it?
|By Artist on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 10:17 pm: Edit|
These were supposedly liquid non-toxic acrylic paints that were "squirted in" then "squirted out"...
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 09:30 pm: Edit|
I have a technical question.
Did this artist (and I use the term loosely) place pigment in the orifice in question, or did he place a tube of pigment and them employ the available sphincter to squuze out some pigment?
The former would require either
1) pigments that are safe to take directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the liver, which doesn't work in reverse, or
2) a certain amount of self destruction as a lot of pigments are quite toxic.
"I don't know scatology, but I know what I don't like."
|By Verawench on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
"If you earnestly debate whether you should believe, you are no believer; and no genuine lover could seriously question whether he is in love. Who cares whether Shelley had any theory in mind when he breathed his Aeolian song? If we feel any response to art at all, that response must be a fact of immediate experience, not the fruit of reflection. If we reason that Shelley conformed to some definite system, the esthetic value of his poem is not enhanced thereby, and might well be endangered."
Albert L. Guerard, "Art for Art's Sake"
|By Artist on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 02:12 pm: Edit|
BC's comment reminds me of something…
I read a review of a painter's exhibition where the reviewer said the paintings were pleasant enough to look at. He said they were essentially abstract splatter paintings with nice colors. (I agreed, looking at pictures of them.)
He then read a short treatise on how the works were created. After reading this, he said he saw the work differently. He said he felt a little put off and oddly compelled by the work. When I found out, I also felt a little differently. (It made me think…)
Bottom line…these paintings were created be the artist putting acrylic paint into his body (not his mouth, either) and expelling the paint onto the canvas.
LH…so if something tastes good, it does not matter how it came to be or where it came from? Carrying this out to the extreme, I would imagine that someone could make human flesh taste good. So…it wouldn't matter?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 01:01 pm: Edit|
"Does knowledge of the process involved in creating a piece of art change (or add to) the enjoyment or interest of/in that piece of art?"
Not at all. If I go into a restaurant and eat a meal, if it tastes good then it's good, if it tastes bad then it's bad. A knowledge of how the meal was produced matters not at all to my taste buds. If a meal tasted bad it would make no difference whether the chef spend hours preparing it and thought highly of it himself. The end result would still be a bad meal.
The end result is what matters and the production process is no more than a means to an end. If the end result of a long and complex production process is a piece of bad art then that's exactly what it is, BAD ART. If the process is short and simple but the end result is good then you end up with GOOD ART.
To think otherwise is self-indulgent crap on the part of the artist.
|By Bob_Chong on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 06:48 am: Edit|
Does knowledge of the process involved in creating a piece of art change (or add to)the enjoyment or interest of/in that piece of art?
I think it's secondary. Only if I like something already would I appreciate the amount of effort put in, but I would not like it just because someone tried really hard. I loved Sgt. Peppers before I read how it was made, and reading that (years later) made it more interesting to me, but on a different level.
But I am always weary of the myths behind some art's creation. For example, the patently ridiculous myth surrounding Kubla Khan seemed to detract from Coleridge's craft. At 19, I thought it was both plausible and cool that he had written the poem in a frenzied stream-of-consciousness, as fast as his hand could set the words to paper, all the while wacked out on narcotics. But at 20, as a student of literature etc., I knew that there was no way this was the case (i.e., it took a lot of hard work to write that). And then I just found that he had the shits when he wrote the first draft.
Goes to show ya, I guess. Never underestimate the power of a loose stool.
|By Artist on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 11:38 pm: Edit|
What do you mean by "Platonic tripe"?
My question was not to imply that it should, just to see what people think...
|By Chrysippvs on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 11:27 pm: Edit|
"Does knowledge of the process involved in creating a piece of art change (or add to) the enjoyment or interest of/in that piece of art?"
Platonic tripe..it amazing how dualistic the west has become..
|By Artist on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 11:12 pm: Edit|
Does knowledge of the process involved in creating a piece of art change (or add to) the enjoyment or interest of/in that piece of art?
|By Chrysippvs on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 09:53 pm: Edit|
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, December 07, 2001 - 02:52 pm: Edit|
If I think something's bad art then I'll fucking say it's bad art. Damien Hurst's 'art' is a load of worthless rubbish.
People fill London's modern art galleries with pile of bricks, heaps of horse-shit and dead animals and call it art. Then people say we don't even have the right to say it's bad art. Bollocks, half the crap masquerading as art isn't just bad art, its not fucking art at all. A lot of it's just a heap of shit with the twat who made it laughing at the public for being so naive and gullible.
If its bad its bad. We should just say so. If a reataurant makes you a meal thats bad then its a bad meal. 'Art' is not this holier than holy sacred cow that we should all bow down and unquestionably admire. Shit is shit regardless of what arty tag you put on it.
|By Louched_Liver on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 02:49 pm: Edit|
Now that's more like it. Ya prick. Fuckwad. Peckerhead. Rump ranger. Brown starfish licker. Dipshit. Trouser trout.
The Fois Gras (thanks Panty).
|By Chevalier on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 12:15 pm: Edit|
|By Louched_Liver on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 12:05 pm: Edit|
Chartreuse gives me a killer, skull fuckin', middle of my cortex pain. Even w/one drink.
As for all the huggy, huggy crap; let's get things back to normal-Everyone piss off!
|By Meat_Nipples on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 09:21 am: Edit|
Ummmmm... Chartreuse. The Green is delicious and full of earthy bite. Reminds me of Benedictine only not nearly as gentle. Yellow is good too, but I have had very limited experience with it. It's funny, I can get a bottle of Chartreuse sent to me from SC with shipping for cheaper than I can get it from the local store that carrys it (when I make a large order of course). I am glad this thread is all love oriented now and what not. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, just like the Chartreuse.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:36 am: Edit|
With a spoon.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:35 am: Edit|
Taking out your own appendix.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:35 am: Edit|
Feeding yourself to the dog and cat. (The only time they'll sit still together)
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:34 am: Edit|
Painting oneself into a corner.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:33 am: Edit|
Walking through walls.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:32 am: Edit|
Leaping tall buildings in a single bound comes to mind.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:31 am: Edit|
Boy, how creative can you get after slurping Sir piss, sipping Segerra ... etc.
Might I suggest adding a few drinks of Chartreuse. My new friend!
|By Wolfgang on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 07:26 am: Edit|
Damn it! I had a bet on this fight and you spoiled everything with your flower throwing cheap love distributing violon playing answers !
ok, ok, that was cute...
|By Heiko on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 04:07 am: Edit|
"I think if everyone in the world was more like Head, it would be a very different place. (hee hee)."
Of my friends, two are definitely "more like Head" while the rest loves people they can't understand. ;-)
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 03:09 am: Edit|
Peter, TWO witty posts in succession (sp?) You'll get extra points for that...
This is becoming a thread I enjoy...
|By Petermarc on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 02:59 am: Edit|
absinthe makes the art grow fonder...
|By Artist on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 02:50 am: Edit|
It's a love fest...
Okay, now everyone sing along...
What the world needs now,
is love, love.
It's the only thing
that there's just
too little of...
|By Petermarc on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 02:44 am: Edit|
hey! no fighting over 'the love that dare not speak in a comprehensible manner'...
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 02:22 am: Edit|
Head, Artist: I love people I can't understand.
Head, I loved you first, OK?
|By Artist on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 02:04 am: Edit|
Perskonally, I think if everyone in the world was more like Head, it would be a very different place. (hee hee).
|By Artist on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 01:57 am: Edit|
Boy, how creative can you get after slurping Sir piss, sipping Segerra and having a Herring (ain't that bad)???
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 01:55 am: Edit|
That was beautiful, I'm all tears...
|By Artist on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 01:50 am: Edit|
|By Bob_Chong on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:10 pm: Edit|
Good luck with finals!
I'd add a couple things re: FDR. Do a little digging, when you get the chance, and it'll scare the crap out of you. Nixon was a sniveling weasel, but that was small potatoes compared to what FDR did, said, and tried to do. Nixon was paranoid and criminal, and FDR was arrogant and criminal.
As for Reagan, he and the Dem congress went around sucking each others' dicks so much that they all got what they wanted: guns and butter (gimme the guns and I won't veto your destined-to-suck social programs). Unfortunately, and this is why his legacy looms so largely now, only one side "won": i.e., the East Bloc collapsed (Reagan "won") in the spending spree to keep up with us, but nothing good came of the 80's welfare bloat. (Of course, this all depends on your yardstick.)
I am not toeing the dominant absinthe forum line with my selective view of history presented above. I admit it. Blackjack et al. should be logging on anytime now, explaining why welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and Head Start, are the cat's meow, why someone else deserves a part of my paycheck without my consent, etc.
|By Heiko on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 11:48 am: Edit|
"Perhaps the culprits were from another origin"
I suspect the culprits were paid by Bayer - they lost so much money with ciprobay that they needed America to buy antibiotics en masse.
*Not to be taken seriously, of course* ;-)
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 11:38 am: Edit|
Out of interest what is happening with the anthrax attacks in the USA? Have they stopped completely? Nothing on the news over here at the moment about them.
Are the government agencies still no further on with their enquiries or is it that perhaps the culprits were not Islamic terrorists after-all? Perhaps the culprits were from another origin and political persuasion and were capitalising on the Sept 11th events for a totally different agenda and the agencies are embarrassed to say so? Homegrown Right-wing militias perhaps?
|By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 11:21 am: Edit|
Bob Chong, you have a point about FDR and the bullying, but my obsession with the 1960's (as someone who wasn't born until 1980) has led me to despise Nixon and what he did to American Politics. I don't like Reagan either, and his legacy is probably the most prominent in our current era (not of bullying, of other things). But don't get me started on why, this topic will never end. And Bob, I never meant to offend you in any way if I have. I, like Vera, am a stressed out nervous wreck twitching and snarling at anything that I am confronted with. Finals are coming up at my school, so I have regressed into an ape like creature. And yes, my tits are made up of mere flesh, but the nipples, they nourish with raw meat.
|By Chevalier on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 09:54 am: Edit|
I've been wanting to touch upon this for some time, but it's difficult. As an American living in a foreign country whose citizens (the adult ones, at least) saw their (by Latin American standards) peaceful, democratic (since 1818), incorrupt country -- a place where the armed forces and police were perceived as the defenders of the Chilean Constitution -- become a dictatorship, I listen more than speak.
The majority of Chileans did not vote for the socialist Allende. The majority of Chileans did not support him. A slight majority approved of the coup d'etat -- they felt that it was necessary to save Chile from economic (and perhaps social) chaos. HOWEVER, nearly all of this majority expected that the military junta would clean things up, step down within months, and call for new elections. Most were willing to give up some freedoms for this -- and for bread on the table. A vigilant police force, stricter rules and punishments ... things like that.
It didn't turn out that way. Parliament was dissolved, political parties were banned, tens of thousands were exiled or imprisoned without trial, and thousands more simply "disappeared", some via one-way trips from helicopter hatches to the Pacific Ocean below. In a small country with a small population, nearly everyone who's not from the upper classes knows someone who was exiled, jailed killed.
The result is a lost generation (1973-1989) of people too timid to speak up, too narrow-minded to open their vistas, and too devious to be trusted. They got their bread, eventually, with two great recessions in between. They're the most acquisitive, materialistic, status-conscious people you'll meet -- and the least ethical, when no one's looking.
Give away your liberties, and you may have to wait a long time to get them back.
|By Bob_Chong on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 08:26 am: Edit|
[in] totalitarian regimes...the changes were so gradual
"Ew...Fox turned into a hardcore pornography channel so gradually, I hardly noticed..." --Marge
|By Cheri on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 06:14 am: Edit|
Mother's gonna help build a wall...
|By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 02:32 am: Edit|
Mother will check out all your girlfriends for you, mother won't let anyone dirty get through, she won't let ya fly but she might let you sing...
|By Perruche_Verte on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:52 am: Edit|
People who survived totalitarian regimes have often written how the changes were so gradual, no one really felt they had a mandate to complain at first, being so privileged as they were.
Unless it's something really drastic like the Khmer Rouge marching everybody out of the city and shooting everyone who wears glasses or speaks French, most people can be persuaded to accept fewer rights than they have, all in the name of security and "homeland defense" (that phrase echoes apartheid so strongly it scares me -- so when are the "homelands" going to be set up?).
The key is to resist, proportionately and appropriately, whenever this crap gets attempted, because you can't give them an inch.
I'm sure many of them mean well, even Ashcroft. They want to take care of you, the innocent, the Real Americans, the true believers. They want to keep you safe forever. It's a vampire's kiss.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:34 am: Edit|
Whoops, what I meant was that in '63 an armed revolution in Chile was unreal. Ten years later, it happened...
Even to the last moment, if you read books by Pablo Neruda or listen to songs by Violeta Jara...they still thought their lives were safe...
My wife has Jewish parents, from Berlin, Germany. Her parents' concern was that no matter what, you have a passport from some other country.
Just in case...
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:20 am: Edit|
I guess we have a different perspective (me, not you) as we grow older.
Things can happen in a country at at an amazing speed. In Chile, 1963, an armed revolution? Planes bombing the house of government? The president killed?
No FUCKING WAY. Unthinkable. Laughable. A democracy since, what, help me Chev, 1814?
And it happened.
You gen X or Y, don't take things for granted, OK?
|By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 11:13 pm: Edit|
Fuckin A Right Doctor O!
Vera, it wasn't programmers- this was before computer RPGs. It was the paintings, drawings, and thousands of pages of research and text owned by a struggling little publishing house. Which ended their struggles, put all of them out of a job, and bankrupted the founders personally.
For being too nerdy, they get this?
I agree- it is not as severe as a death camp.
Where I disagree with you is that it is OK because of that.
Because that kind of behaviour on the part of government, if it is allowed to continue, is what can lead to the censoring of non-government-approved ideas.
The 'Mcarthy era' comes immediately to mind. Thousands of peoples lives were ruined, many ended up sleeping with the fishes...
This kind of thing can also lead to the censoring of non-government-approved people.
Today, they will shut down a business the don't like. Not because the owners are doing anything illegal, but because they don't condone the anti-drug policy of the government.
If we shrug it off, tomorrow they might decide that the people who don't agree with them are terrorists.
And execute them, maybe, for treason. It's happened before, and it might again.
Gotta fight it.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 10:49 pm: Edit|
Verushka, no offense was meant here either.
Sometimes I forget that we are not only from different countries, but also different generation. Moi 49, you 22.
I lived through Argentina going from military (benevolent) government to chaotic democracy to military (nasty) government.
I'm trying to warn you because when the military (after 76) were in power, leftists were being kidnapped and killed. All of us knew it. But, not being leftists, we condoned it. We said nothing.
The legacy of those killings has haunted Argentina ever since.
Believe me, you are not doing a favor to the country when you condone the wrong thing.
|By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 10:42 pm: Edit|
The legacy of government bullying has been alive and well since the Nixon administration
Replace the word "Nixon" with "FDR" and you're onto something (finally).
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 10:36 pm: Edit|
Doc, it's been a thrill ride spatting with you. Though I don't mean to offend. It's all good snarling fun.
But see, I've been in 5th gear for the past week or so. Languid Wench can't take it. She gets tense and edgy. She twitches in strange places and her canines itch.
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 09:26 pm: Edit|
Baby, your world-weary purr gets me through those lonely nights.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 08:58 pm: Edit|
What a sweet accent it is.
Especially when cooing in Heads earhole.
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 08:56 pm: Edit|
"I guess it's right. They're mostly foreigners. In this case, Arabs. It happened to Jews at some other time"
I'm a foreigner. I have been here barely half my -short - as you didn't neglect to point out - life. I still have my accent. Again, don't try any cheap tricks, Doc.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 08:07 pm: Edit|
A few innocent people were detained and questioned"
Vera: six hundred people have been in jail, incommunicado, for 2 months.
I guess it's right. They're mostly foreigners. In this case, Arabs. It happened to Jews at some other time.
|By Meat_Nipples on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 08:03 pm: Edit|
"Anyway, your problem is with the government not being held accountable for its careless / lawless actions. Guess what, thou who drinketh absinthe: you're not being held accountable for yours."
My absinthe drinking does not affect the lives of many different people. It affects me, that is my choice. The government’s carelessness destroys lives.
And Tav, JLF sold a chemical that is indeed used in some fake ecstasy tablets. The chemical is dextromethorphan. It is the principal ingredient in most OTC cough syrups. In a high enough dose it does have a mind-altering effect, but is in no way similar to E. It is cheap and easy to adulterate pills with. They stopped selling this product because of the bad press it was getting and they harm it was causing. Months later they were busted anyway, for selling a chemical I could extract in my kitchen with a bottle of Robotussin and some lemon juice. By the way, this substance is easily available in bulk quantities from many online suppliers that will never be touched because of the way it is marketed. JLF came with a message the DEA didn't like, end of story. They knew the legality of their business, and they flaunted it. They got shit on anyway.
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 07:56 pm: Edit|
"what is happening in the U.S.A. is scary."
You seem to be thinking in reverse. Compare the government reaction against its Arabic citizens / residents, and that which happened to the Japanese during WWII. Compare THAT to the treatment of blacks throughout most of this country's history.
A few innocent people were detained and questioned. No one's been horded into concentration camps or deported in large numbers.
If the human rights agenda has been thrown into reverse recently, it hasn't gone back more than a few inches - and that is simply because we are in crisis mode.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 07:49 pm: Edit|
"About 95% of all Goths SHOULD be illegal "
Cute, Vera. VERY cute. But it doesn't address the point.
The fact that something has never happened in a country doesn't mean it can not happen.
This country has been a democracy, with a tradition of human rights and freedoms that extends for hundreds of years.
My previous statement would have been absolutely true about Chile. Except that at some point (a few years ago) something happened. Does the name Pinochet ring a bell?
For those of us who have seen the unthinkable happen, what is happening in the U.S.A. is scary.
|By Tavarua on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 07:43 pm: Edit|
Excuse my ignorance, but was JLF the company that sold the chemicals used to make E? Probably not, but is this the case?
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 07:32 pm: Edit|
"Are you going to wait until Goths are declared illegal before you worry?"
About 95% of all Goths SHOULD be illegal (see Chonger's previous points on the subject of being a critic).
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 07:31 pm: Edit|
"However, even they did not brake the law, they will be put out of business"
So will about 50% of all business, for hundreds of reasons.
If what you're describing was a trend in the actions of this country's government, this forum wouldn't exist.
I don't like this whole "i'm the victim of the government" argument. It either points its finger at the large misfortunes of others or the small but exagerrated mishaps of ours. Shit happens, usually to others; why bemoan a government that, other than snipping a portion of your yearly income, really isn't poking its nose into YOUR life that much.
Don't tell me about fucked up government.
My parents used to write questionable perscriptions to people who knew people who knew people that could put decent food on our table - while thousands stood in line to get the basic supplies. They had to bribe government officials to get permits to buy a scrap of land. They languished in jobs that permited no advancement, career- or technology-wise.
Truly bad government will make con artists out of its own citizens. People will do things that fail to meet their own ethical standards, simply to survive under a regime.
We are all decent, well-fed people in cushioned living rooms. Why the FUCK are you all bitching?
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 06:19 pm: Edit|
"Some guys lost a bunch of programmer data due to a mindless government. Is it really such a loss to society to have one less RPG on the shelves? "
Vera, what's up with you? Are you going to wait until Goths are declared illegal before you worry?
That stuff about JLF. I never bought anything from them, but they had this wonderful, quirky catalog offering "Poisonous/non-consumable" items.
Their disclaimer was a piece of art. They sold the weirdest plants and chemicals.
But nothing they sold was illegal. However, even they did not brake the law, they will be put out of business.
|By Verawench on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 05:22 pm: Edit|
Some guys lost a bunch of programmer data due to a mindless government. Is it really such a loss to society to have one less RPG on the shelves?
Anyway, your problem is with the government not being held accountable for its careless / lawless actions. Guess what, thou who drinketh absinthe: you're not being held accountable for yours.
|By Meat_Nipples on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 04:14 pm: Edit|
That’s the kind of shit that really bothers me. The legacy of government bullying has been alive and well since the Nixon administration, and no one has the balls (had to throw that in it) to do anything about it. The US is far from totalitarian right now, but the fact that its citizen’s aren’t outraged about these kinds of atrocities really bothers me. The lack of publicity is the real kicker. But the shit of it is, no one would care. The masses would assume they were "dumb" and deserved it. As a young person, I dont see where my peers reject this kind of cold acceptance of injustice. In fact, they eat it up like they do microwaved slices of homogenized cheese rot at the school cafeteria; eagerly and with a sinister sense of privilege and self-importance.
|By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 03:25 pm: Edit|
The NSA once raided a gaming company. Yknow, roleplaying, D&D type stuff. I believe it was Steve Jackson games, but it's been awhile.
See, they were making a cyberpunk game, and used to go to BBSes and ask people stuff about modern weapons and encryption, to give the game a realistic edge.
So the gubmint didnt know what an RPG was, and smelled a nest of commies where only geeks were laired.
Went in, took all the computers and written material. In other words, all that had been written about the game and the means to produce it.
Never charged anyone with anything.
Never gave anything back.
Company went bankrupt.
Fuck you, Uncle Sam, wherever you are.
|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 12:39 pm: Edit|
I have them, period, which can be a disadvantage in the job market
|By Etienne on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 11:49 am: Edit|
The DEA and BATF are famous for their disregard of the law and rights of the ordinary citizen. The list of their atrocities is endless. Nothing that you read about these people should surprise you.
Despite my support for the President, the new "anti-terrorism" bill recently signed into law is the most frightening thing to come along within my lifetime. This law will have a much farther reach than any of us can guess now.
|By Meat_Nipples on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 10:28 am: Edit|
Yes, Dr O., I am speaking of JLF. I figured someone here might have heard of them. They have posted some new and depressing announcments on their site.
And to answer Veras question I am guessing that Bob Chong has an obsession with testicles because he has told me to "grow a pair" and repeatedly refered to them in this topic. If they are not large he certainly values their presence. As to me, they have always seemed somewhat perplexing and useless.
I also did not intend to make a statement about racial profiling. You'll get no argument from me that it doesn't go both ways. Stupidity should'nt be a crime in itself though. Endangering others and their property should be, but a momentary lapse of intellegnce (when you are only endangering yourself) and the choice to put whatever the hell you want into your own body, well those are human rights. Not that I think their shouldn't be consequences for dumb behavior, but if it isnt harming anyone else then it isn't criminal. I really dont understand the American notion of justice today though, so we may be speaking a different language.
|By Chevalier on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 07:53 am: Edit|
On the other hand, there's the famous "look the other way", a favorite of South American cops. Jaywalking is a legal offence in Chile. No matter; everyone -- from toddlers to centenarians -- does it, right in front of the "pacos" (Chilean cops). Argentina's the same. People run across freeways and nobody cares until some cars get bloodstained. (There are pedestrian bridges that span across freeway lanes. Not enough people use them. In truth, there aren't enough bridges.)
In the U.S., the right to be left alone -- the only "inalienable" right that the Founding Fathers believed our government must defend -- is being chipped away by court decisions and agency regulations. Meanwhile, new "rights" -- of questionable legitimacy -- are being "provided" by these very same courts and agencies.
In South America, your right to have a law (e.g., the jaywalking law) aid you and others via its enforcement is cynically ignored by those who have sworn to uphold it: the police. Either get rid of the law, or give it teeth through enforcement. Otherwise, you're left with uniformed playacting.
|By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - 05:28 am: Edit|
You are the master of hyperbole. Driving a Ferrari 140 MPH in front of a school would surely be felony reckless driving, no?
As for jaywalking, it is dangerous (or so the rationale goes). At least one famous ex-hippie died that way. Who was it--Jerry Rubins? Tom Hayden? Oh, wait, he's only braindead. I dunno. It was somebody or another.
And to Meat: I never suggested my testicles were out of spec. I have them, period, which can be a disadvantage in the job market (sometimes). I was only saying that profiling goes both ways, and (racial/gender/whatever) preferences need to go away.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 11:59 pm: Edit|
"And by the way, I know some people who operate a completely legal business selling exotic plants and chemicals (like I said none of them illegal) that was recently raided by the FDA and DEA."
Meat, was that JLF?
"You must be speaking from experience"
Amore, you have no idea how mild the mild Swiss doctor is. In my 18 years in the States I have had two brushes with the law: a speeding ticket in Puerto Rico and a jaywalking (technical name: "Walking against a red light") ticket in Marina del Rey.
I could understand the first one. But the second one? Was he trying to valiantly protect innocent car drivers from the dent I would make in their hood? The guy was the only car in the street, a block away and he actually drove around the corner to ticket me...
There's a funny thing about jaywalking tickets. They are not traffic violations. They are misdemeanors. So if you drive a Ferrari 140 MPH in front of a school, you get a ticket. If you "Walk against a red light" and don't pay your fine, a warrant for your arrest is actually produced.
I'm straying from the subject.
Twenty years ago, that the police could take your house away for growing pot (hey, DEA, I don't, so don't send the helos) was unthinkable.
If the government decides, a few years from now, that absinthe has become a public menace, what are you going to do, Vera?
Vera, when the unthinkable 20 years ago has become commonplace, when there actually is talk about torturing suspects, when the President can decide that whoever is fingered as a terrorist can be tried in a kangaroo court...it's time to worry.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 11:10 pm: Edit|
While you put yourself into your work. Vaginas and what not. I put myself into mine, your heads. I'm in Emmy's head. Have been for years. I'm still trying to master that Psychic Vampire thing that no one really explained to me over in SIH.
"She leaned over the crossword puzzle on the kitchen table, with the plastic Scipto eversharp pencil in one hand and while rubbing the temples of her forehead with the thumb and index finger of the other, she began her Psychic attack.
DO you have to listen to that crap? she said I want to listen to CSX. Why cant you just leave my radio alone? Stop eating all my breadsticks. Why are you washing all your colors with your whites? Are ever gonna fix my lamp? Those left overs were going to be my dinner! Stop touching eveything. Go in the living room, stop teasing the cat. What's wrong with the sweatshirt jacket I bought you...
|By Verawench on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 11:05 pm: Edit|
"obviously large testicles"
How do you figure?
|By Artist on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 10:56 pm: Edit|
Why Mr. HP...that's a HP (High Phive) to you. A condom??? Hmmmm, I have mini-condoms for all my brushes...(Did I just step into something?)
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 10:50 pm: Edit|
Well Bob, if you want a job that will implement your obviously large testicles I would suggest you join the marines.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 10:23 pm: Edit|
"Injustice begins when you get pulled over
because of your pony tail, not your tail light."
And it continues when you are given a job because of your extra melanin or lack of testicles.
(Racial) profiling and affirmative action are two sides of the same coin.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 10:20 pm: Edit|
I believe any artist (including a musician such as yourself) worth their salt puts something of themselves into everything they do (I know I do).
|By Artist on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 10:15 pm: Edit|
I didn't think that you meant I made female sexual organs look strange...you were just offering up your own take (but it still sounded as if you were stating a trusim):
"Strangely enough I never realized how bizarre the female genitalia looked..."
I believe any artist (including a musician such as yourself) worth their salt puts something of themselves into everything they do (I know I do). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that commentary about their work will evoke a reaction. So don't be suprised...but don't worry about it with me...no harm, no foul.
By the way, I was wondering about the moniker you have chosen for yourself...I generally perceive nipples to be either comforting (like to a child who is hungry/thirsty) or attractive/alluring/sexy (you fill in the blank). Meat is usually beef (or pork or chicken). So the image that is conjured up by your name is maybe a meat grinder with a nipple on the end of it and ground meat oozing through the nipple...(I'm dying to know what you actually had in mind...)
|By Verawench on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 09:39 pm: Edit|
"What we don’t see is that most people are simply unlucky, victims of circumstance"
Unlucky, fine, they still broke the law. Injustice begins when you get pulled over because of your pony tail, not your tail light.
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 09:31 pm: Edit|
"Anyway, I stick to my guns: in most cases, if you get busted for having a dime bag on you, you were stupid enough to get yourself into trouble and deserve it."
This is the kind of dualistic self-righteous attitude that fuels our government’s invasion of personal life. It is the common ideology of the American middle class. Those who get busted were dumb. I am someone who doesn't like pot, but if I did, and carried it with me in my vehicle, then got stopped for a tail light out, and the cop thought, "well this kids got a pony tail and is driving around in a van so I should search him" I would be screwed. Was I stupid? Maybe for carrying it in my car but if you have ever carried your absinthe anywhere in your vehicle you are just as stupid (though most cops would know nothing of it but it is the principle of the thing). People who get busted are often stupid; sure, we see that on the show "Cops". What we don’t see is that most people are simply unlucky, victims of circumstance.
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 09:12 pm: Edit|
Artist, once again I didn't mean that you make the female genitalia look strange, just that a few paintings looked strange to me. Maybe they uprooted a deep fear in me of all vulvas turning into wolf faces. Who the hell knows? I take blame for the controversy though. I attempted to make sure you realized I wasn't criticizing your art and I started an avalanche of meaningless, at least to me, shit.
And by the way, I know some people who operate a completely legal business selling exotic plants and chemicals (like I said none of them illegal) that was recently raided by the FDA and DEA. Computers, vehicles, and a substantial quantity of their products were taken, without any due process. They just showed up, said we are searching the place, and took what they wanted. To my and their knowledge nothing illegal was found in the search yet much of what was taken has not been returned and probably never will be. Yes, this happened in America, about a month ago.
|By Verawench on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit|
"The U.S.A. a totalitarian country? No. But we are less free than we were 20 years ago. And since 9/11, our remaining rights are taking a beating."
You must be speaking from experience. I've never heard of anyone getting busted without due process. Remember how hard this forum came down on a certain individual who claimed to be severely fined and thrown into jail by customs because of his ordering of/possession of absinthe? We were all sceptical - because the scenario DID NOT MAKE SENSE. According to you, though, this wouldn't be at all far-fetched.
Anyway, I stick to my guns: in most cases, if you get busted for having a dime bag on you, you were stupid enough to get yourself into trouble and deserve it.
I traveled within the last week and other than having to have my ID out almost constantly at the airports and having a metal fingernail file taken away at Tampa Int'l, I didn't see any "violations" of my rights. And seeing national guard at airports only makes you smile because they're all adorable 18 year olds with guns that look too big for them. It's oddly touching.
And Artist, don't listen to dem bastoids, you rock. You can paint my genitalia any day.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 07:31 pm: Edit|
Chonger, I clarified my post because I have a deep respect for the U.S.A.
The longest standing government form (and a democratic one!), the political freedoms, we usually are on the right side in wars... trust me, I don't think I respect any other country as much as I do the U.S.A.
That is why the government's attitude regarding pretty private endevours (like drug use) is so baffling. If they were to do the same regarding religion, there would be riots in the street.
It is amazing how thing "creep in". Vera also thinks I'm exaggerating. She's (I believe) 22.
Well, the year she was born, it would have unthinkable that someone's property or money would be taken (forfeited) without charges been pressed, an arrest or a conviction.
It has happened thousands of times. And the beauty of it is that since the "wrong-doer" was not arrested, he/she had no rights. Of course, he could get a lawyer and fight the forfeiture. And, since there were no charges, no arrest and no conviction, he would get the money back. But what if the cost of hiring an attorney was more than the money involved?
And guess who gets the money forfeited? The same police who took it from you in the first place.
This scenario may, by now, seem common to Vera and you. 20 years ago...unthinkable.
The U.S.A. a totalitarian country? No. But we are less free than we were 20 years ago. And since 9/11, our remaining rights are taking a beating.
Let's us be vigilant.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 07:10 pm: Edit|
My point was (by comparing to Argentina and whatnot) that this place ain't too shabby. In fact, it kinda kicks ass. We're stable. We have some shitty laws and some good ones, but overall, we're very free.
I've known a lot of people who do (or used to do) drugs. None of them are in jail or had any loss of life or liberty from Uncle Sam because of it. I think getting caught is often the crime (i.e., stupidity), rather than the consumption of the substances. YMMV. Maybe you know a lot of people who were on the wrong end of things. Sorry if that is the case.
As for the English/irony bit, that was a knock at Alanis ("Isn't it Moronic?"), not at you. Just used the opening to dis her.
No harm, no foul. Rock on.
|By Artist on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 05:27 pm: Edit|
Hmmm…go away for awhile and all heck breaks loose (just kidding).
Marc (hope the name's right - if not, meat nipples),
I appeared to have ruffled some feathers…maybe more then was intended…(that's one of the problems with non-conversational (in other words, not person to person) communication - emotion and inflection are hard to communicate).
My comment to you was at lease partially tongue in cheek (I even threw in some humor about those Swedish cars).
As you can tell by the comment in my response to your post I was reacting partially to your statement:
"Strangely enough I never realized how bizarre the female genitalia looked until I browsed your site."
Had you included "to me" after the word "looked", I think it would have softened it a bit, instead of implying that your comment is a fact (that "female genitalia look bizarre").
Of course, art, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.
My artist/creative process is made up of many things…but one major ingredient is working from life…
The She Wolf series (I am on number nine now), actually came into being as the result of working with a couple of women.
When I mused out loud about the idea of collaging together various parts to create a greater whole (no hole pun intended *groan*), one woman I was working with encouraged me to explore this idea. My first picture based on this idea looked nothing like a She Wolf…(someday, I may scan it in and post it for fun).
When I was working on the first She Wolf, I was debating putting teeth (fangs, actually) in the mouth and was worrying about being labeled as misogynistic. The woman sitting for the picture said that that was how she felt sometimes (teeth - and eyes - down there) and asked me to please put them in.
Something interesting, you may find, is that women generally react more comfortably to my more challenging pieces (the explicit nudes and the erotica). On the other hand, men elbow me nervously in the ribs and ask me if I sleep with all my models (no) or how do I sit there without getting a hardon (when you are doing something that is very important to you, sex is not always the first thing on your mind).
Many artists have used symbolism related to anatomy…
If I remember correctly, H. R. Geiger designed layout the interior of the home of the alien eggs after the internal reproductive organs of a woman for the film "Alien".
René Magritte did a famous painting called "The Rape", which is a picture of a woman's face, where he substituted a woman's breasts for her eyes and her pubic area for the mouth:
When you say the She Wolves (vaginal faces is what I believe you called them) were really creepy, that's fine. I hope that people take something from my art. Love/like it, hate/dislike it, cool. Be apathetic, and I am a little sad. (Remember, the opposite of love is apathy…love and hate are both on the same side of the coin.)
Art is not always pretty or cute (Kinkade or dogs playing poker), sometimes it is a reflection of society and is meant to make people think/react/examine…German expressionism (which I love, especially what the Nazi's called degenerate art) is a wonderful example of this.
Now, before I rattle on and on and on…
P. S. That puffy, fatty part that I think you are referring to is the mons pubis.
P. P. S. There is art out there in the world that is bad (in my opinion)…
|By Verawench on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 02:30 pm: Edit|
"That said, I think you may agree on this: the Government's reaction to very minor, victimless drug "crimes" is so absurdly cruel and disproportionate to the actual "wrong" commited as to become a violation of human rights."
That's going a bit far. It IS, however, a waste of time and resources that could be better channeled elsewhere. And talk about misplaced priorities.
"Thank God we have critics, too."
A good critic is an artist in his own right. I used to love Marc Savlov's reviews in the Austin Chronicle, not because his views reflected mine directly but because he worded my own thoughts much more precisely and noted things that slipped past me.
*sound of $0.02 dropping into the bottomless pit*
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 01:48 pm: Edit|
Chongy, I really didn't expect an argument about this. I like to support any art that I think is honest and was an attempt to express something personal. I make a personal choice not to get personal in my criticism of anothers art. I guess that is the distinction I should have originally made, dont personally insult an artists work because the creation of art is a very vulnerable thing. Thats how i feel. I really dont expect others to do the same, but it would be nice. And the whole balls thing was me being sarcastic. My balls don't tell me anything execpt whether or not their hot or cold.
|By Crosby on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 01:47 pm: Edit|
Listening to a dog did wonders for David Berkowitz. Be careful when your dogs balls say you should be picking off the neighbors.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:54 pm: Edit|
Chonger, I fail to see why you are so concerned about Argentina's banking system, but about the rest of my post, I will concede you have a point.
The U.S. is not a totalitarian nation. If it were, this very Forum would not exist.
That said, I think you may agree on this: the Government's reaction to very minor, victimless drug "crimes" is so absurdly cruel and disproportionate to the actual "wrong" commited as to become a violation of human rights.
About my misunderstanding of your English: we can conduct this argument in Spanish, if you wish.
|By Tavarua on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:48 pm: Edit|
If you're balls told you to start picking off the neighbors with an assault rifle would you? Of course not. You're balls do not always have all the answers. Once in a while, listen to your dog, he has a wealth of wisdom but no one ever bothers to ask him. Just my two cents.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:46 pm: Edit|
Also, let's review this logic:
[they're not] bad artists because obviously they had an impact on a lot of people
So popular = good? Popular = free from critcism?
Fuck that. Budweiser still sucks no matter how many people like it. Same goes for N'Sync.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:41 pm: Edit|
but you don't have a right to say they were bad artists
Sure I do: I have that absolute right. They're bad artists. There--I said it again!
And someone else can disagree.
I have the right to say they suck. You have the right to say they kick ass. What "rights" have we violated?
Criticism is not censorship. Repeat after me: criticism is not censorship.
Thank God we have critics, too. Not that I needed Roger Ebert to tell me that Black Knight is a shitty movie (figured that out on my own from the commercials), but that's better than Gene Shalit giving eveything a positive review.
I Chong the Body Electric
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:30 pm: Edit|
Well, you can say I dont like it or I dont think children should view it but my balls tell me that nobody has a right to say, "thats bad art". And noone ever has a right to completely censor any art. Keep it away from the children (a parents responsibility), maybe, but censor it from the public, no way. Bob, you are free to feel however you want about Robert Frost or Thomas Kinkade, but you don't have a right to say they were bad artists because obviously they had an impact on a lot of people otherwise you wouldn't know who they were (some people would argue that you just don't "get" their work). Art is art, you may not like it and you can say so, but someone else probably feels differently. To critize it outside your own opinion, to generalize it as bad, thats wrong. My balls tell me this, so it must be true, right?
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:13 pm: Edit|
Doc, that's not ironic at all (unless you're Alanis, who must've missed the English class where they distinguish between irony and misfortune).
I know the law. I choose to break it. BFD. That's precisely the point: BFD.
No one's kicking down our doors. C'mon, Doc. Less hyperbole would be a good thing here. We don't live in fucking China or anything close to it. A customs confiscation letter and a replacement shipment from SC is a far cry from the 1984/Midnight Express/Brokedown Palace/Brazil vision you pretend we live in.
And it sure as fuck beats Argentina. On a very real and very practical level, at least my money in the bank is worth the same (if not very slightly more) today as it was three days ago. Sadly, the good people of your homeland cannot say the same. Ask a million Argentinians if they could either repeal their drug laws or have all their money back, what do you think the outcome would be?
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:07 pm: Edit|
we have a responsibility to never criticize the art another creates or the way in which somebody else interprets that art
Horsehit! Grow a fucking pair, and say what you think. The world is not values-free. If anything, we have the absolute responsibility to always criticize whatever the fuck we want.
Robert Frost is a hack. Pet Sounds is overrated. Thomas Kinkade's paintings suck.
See how easy that is?
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 11:20 am: Edit|
"You know the law. You choose to break it. Big fucking deal"
I guess, Chonger, you don't see the irony of an absinthe buyer and drinker writing that...
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 11:17 am: Edit|
I don't usually see the external part of the female geitalia; the vulva which consists of the labia + clitoris + that puffy fatty part etc as being strange but your "vulva" face art wierds me, thats all. I am not a moron, though I dont routinely inspect my girlfriends genitals (maybe I should start?) I have had sex ed and know the difference between the birth canal (vagina) and the flower like lips of the labia. I don't find anything disturbing about the naked human form, it is a lovely expression of our closeness with god and nature. However, if the next time I am confronted with a close up of my ladies privates I see a wolf like face, I am going to be upset. Thats all I meant. You may have a hard time understanding my reaction, but that is the magic of all art; what is beautiful to one person may be upsetting to another. Thats why we have a responsibility to never criticize the art another creates or the way in which somebody else interprets that art (and I certainly did not intend to criticize your art, I really like some of it, a lot). To each his own I would say.
|By Bob_Chong on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 09:16 am: Edit|
Getcher head outta yer ass. Plants, schmants. Books, schmooks.
It's all about due process.
I'm sick of all this "Meow-meow-meow! America is totalitarian because I can't smoke my weed, man!" bullshit. Stop being a pussy. You know the law. You choose to break it. Big fucking deal.
Let's hear how great Argentina is. How's the run on the banks going? Did the whole fucking country collapse yet?
|By Artist on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 01:05 am: Edit|
Why thanks, Dr. O...That's quite the point about home farming...
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:41 am: Edit|
Artist, I checked your profile and I must agree with you that no sane person would agree with the insane American dichotomy between sex and violence.
People killing each other in the most gruesome way is allowed. A couple having sex TO HAVE A CHILD would be X-rated.
We can become very blind because we are used to seeing the wrong thing.
For example, we think of China as a totalitarian country. Why?
In China, government thugs can break into your house, terrorize your wife and kids, and, if they find banned books in your library, put you in jail.
In the USA, government thugs can break into your house, terrorize your wife and kids, and, if they find banned PLANTS in your garden, put you AND YOUR WIFE in jail, take away your kids, and take away your property. And your life's savings. And, basically, whatever they want.
Totalitarianism is not just about politics...
|By Artist on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 12:01 am: Edit|
Why Mr. Nipples...I do believe I do not have any pictures of vaginas or vaginal pictures (remember, the vagina is the birth canal). I do, however, have pictures of (and that also include) vulvas (although of NOT the swedish car Volvo -).
However, I do not think that female genitalia look bizzare. I find that they are very beautiful and are a part of the female form that I consider the epitome of beauty. Remember...when you give/receive flowers to show like/love/friendship/appreciation, you are giving or receiving the sexual organs of plants...
(By the way, thanks for your comment about my
And Technocide sounds cool...
|By Meat_Nipples on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 08:05 pm: Edit|
Wow, Artist. Strangely enough I never realized how bizarre the female genitalia looked until I browsed your site. Not that I don't like them, and not that a bunch of pictures of penises wouldn't seem just as or even more strange to me. The vaginal faces were really creepy. I like the blue painting in your profile a lot but the faces, they weird me out. Though, you are obviously very talented.
|By Louched_Liver on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 07:45 pm: Edit|
Well shit, if you are a sick man, you're back in pal!
|By Meat_Nipples on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 07:34 pm: Edit|
I know, I thought it was funny. I am a sick man.
|By Louched_Liver on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 07:32 pm: Edit|
You just did.
|By Meat_Nipples on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 07:25 pm: Edit|
I guess all it takes for a newbie around here to get their ass kissed is to put a picture of a blue vagina in their profile and throw around some gushy prose...... I see how it is....
:-) Just kidding, Artist seems nice enough to me and so does everyone on this forum. The real question of it all is how long can I maintain? How long before I start typing in all capitals using really bad grammar ranting about the DTs and the syphilis that are rotting my brain and the box of fetuses I believe are under my bed though there is nothing there except some old guitar magazines. How long I ask you, before I alienate myself?
|By Verawench on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 09:33 pm: Edit|
You may want to watch it with the smiley faces though.
Our famous troll flung them left and right like so much stale poo.
|By Artist on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 08:53 pm: Edit|
I'm blushing to a quite a lovely shade of Geranium Lake...
Why, thank you, Verawench...(and really, I didn't pay her to say that...J)
|By Verawench on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 08:28 pm: Edit|
This recent newbie has adapted nicely, introduced himself, reads the archives, tells good stories, isn't afraid to get involved in discussions, stays active, and picks up on various faux-pas. And paints rather well.
Considering this forum's history with trolldom, technical glitches, and fights, I am very glad to see him join in and become my official nomination for the Anti-Troll.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 03:29 pm: Edit|
"I am not toeing the dominant absinthe forum line with my selective view of history presented above."
Do you really think this forum is predominantly liberal? That surely wasn't my impression. Liberals don't usually argue and try to tear chunks out of Reds like me and I've had plenty of that on this forum.
Mind you, you are indeed the only Libertarian on the forum so I can empathise with your sense of "myself alone".
(Say what you think and don't give a shit who likes it or not. Be true to yourself without compromise.)
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 03:34 pm: Edit|
"I am not toeing the dominant absinthe forum line with my selective view of history presented above."
Do you really think this forum is predominantly liberal? That surely wasn't my impression. Liberals don't usually argue and try to tear chunks out of Reds like me and I've had plenty of that on this forum.
Mind you, you are indeed the only Libertarian on the forum so I can empathise with your sense of "myself alone".
(Say what you think and don't give a shit who likes it or not. Be true to
yourself without compromise.)
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation