emmanuelle cunt wrote:This is just so wrong. I'd really, really, really like to starve that guy to death in public for my personal economic benefit.
Fixed.
To let a dog starve: Art?
31Fixed.
Fixed.
To let a dog starve: Art?
33Actually, Colonel, Scot Tyler's work was much more nuanced and effective than this idiot who calls himself an artist. From what I heard, it really did make people think about what the flag, and what it represents, really meant to them.
Scot's a pretty cool guy. I've spoken to him a few times in the last year. He had an exhibit at a gallery in Chicago last spring, I believe, and spoke to him there. He also sent me full-sized copies of prints of pictures he had taken of my son at a show at the Metro when he was about 5 or 6 years old. These pictures are on display on Scot's website. One is a picture of my son with the singer from the Dicks. In the other picture, he is on the back of my friend Eric Brockman. They are very cool pictures.
Scot's a pretty cool guy. I've spoken to him a few times in the last year. He had an exhibit at a gallery in Chicago last spring, I believe, and spoke to him there. He also sent me full-sized copies of prints of pictures he had taken of my son at a show at the Metro when he was about 5 or 6 years old. These pictures are on display on Scot's website. One is a picture of my son with the singer from the Dicks. In the other picture, he is on the back of my friend Eric Brockman. They are very cool pictures.
Available in hit crimson or surprising process this calculator will physics up your kitchen
To let a dog starve: Art?
34Yeah I knew Scot too, back in the day. I always thought he was a decent fellow, though I do think that particular piece that got him so much attention was pretty cheap.
I think that making art like that, the kind of stuff that derives most of its impact by playing off hot-button issues is kinda too easy. And appearing on Chicago Tonight with his head shrouded in a Palestinian shemagh... On the one hand he's describing himself as a victim of prejudice but then he's presenting himself as a terrorist. That was a little bit over-the-top IMO.
But then again, he was really young.
I think that making art like that, the kind of stuff that derives most of its impact by playing off hot-button issues is kinda too easy. And appearing on Chicago Tonight with his head shrouded in a Palestinian shemagh... On the one hand he's describing himself as a victim of prejudice but then he's presenting himself as a terrorist. That was a little bit over-the-top IMO.
But then again, he was really young.
Last edited by Colonel Panic_Archive on Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To let a dog starve: Art?
35Colonel Panic wrote:Yeah I knew Scot too, back in the day. I always thought he was a decent fellow, though I do think that particular piece that got him so much attention was pretty cheap.
I think that making art like that, the kind of stuff that works by playing off hot-button issues is kinda too easy. And appearing on Chicago Tonight with his face shrouded in a Palestinian shemagh scarf... that was a little bit over-the-top IMO.
But then again, he was really young.
Yes, he was really young.
If you look at his website, he still creates work in that very political vein. Personally, I like his portraits more, but for explicitly political art, his stuff isn't bad. He is still a member of the RCP.
Available in hit crimson or surprising process this calculator will physics up your kitchen
To let a dog starve: Art?
36Well I didn't mean to say that what he did was anywhere near as bad as starving a dog in the interest of making no discernible point at all.
I was just saying that his work was based on cheap shenanigans, takiing aim at a very big and easy target. But then again, like I pointed out before, the SAIC in those days intentionally cultivated an environment that produced that kind of stuff.
Besides, it's really easy for somebody with enough affluence and leisure to afford an SAIC education to make a career out of talking about being a "revolutionary communist" in the United States of America these days.
I was just saying that his work was based on cheap shenanigans, takiing aim at a very big and easy target. But then again, like I pointed out before, the SAIC in those days intentionally cultivated an environment that produced that kind of stuff.
Besides, it's really easy for somebody with enough affluence and leisure to afford an SAIC education to make a career out of talking about being a "revolutionary communist" in the United States of America these days.
To let a dog starve: Art?
37Doesn't anyone just combine religious iconography and poop anymore?
tocharian wrote:Cheese fries vs nonexistence. Duh.
To let a dog starve: Art?
38lemur68 wrote:Doesn't anyone just combine religious iconography and poop anymore?
That is soooo 90's.
Available in hit crimson or surprising process this calculator will physics up your kitchen
To let a dog starve: Art?
39crap. questionable as to whether it's art. but crap nonetheless.
To me Steve wrote:I'm curious why[...] you wouldn't just fuck off instead. Let's hear your record, cocksocket.
To let a dog starve: Art?
40Personally I think the "is it art?" question is orthogonal to the "is it (morally) acceptable?" question.
In other words the morality of an action has nothing to do with whether the result is art or not.
And something being art or not has nothing to do with the action being moral.
Artists get no special moral rights. And morally correct actions get no special artistic consideration.
In other words the morality of an action has nothing to do with whether the result is art or not.
And something being art or not has nothing to do with the action being moral.
Artists get no special moral rights. And morally correct actions get no special artistic consideration.