This is why I hate modern Art! - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15193364
I must agree with @B0ycey thoroughly, that is awful.

I just scrolled through the whole thread, and was shocked that nobody before me mentioned Cockfosters.

Not in the name, but the sign is literally drawn with a set of balls.

Image
#15193429
Rugoz wrote:Looks like something Igor would come up with.

It's honestly obscene.

All I can see is a dick and a set of balls, across a hole, with the word 'cockfosters'.

The 'artist' is obviously trolling.

Kids have to see that shit. Hell, average people have to see that shit.
#15193432
Crantag wrote:
It's honestly obscene.

All I can see is a dick and a set of balls, across a hole, with the word 'cockfosters'.

The 'artist' is obviously trolling.

Kids have to see that shit. Hell, average people have to see that shit.



Maybe you / someone can clue me in, but is it really trolling / a giant fuck-you, as a matter of individual commercial clout, or is it a political settling-of-scores somehow, or is it actually *principled* somehow, like Duchamp -- ?



Readymades

Main article: Readymades of Marcel Duchamp

"Readymades" were found objects which Duchamp chose and presented as art. In 1913, Duchamp installed a Bicycle Wheel in his studio. However, the idea of Readymades did not fully develop until 1915. The idea was to question the very notion of Art, and the adoration of art, which Duchamp found "unnecessary".[38]

My idea was to choose an object that wouldn't attract me, either by its beauty or by its ugliness. To find a point of indifference in my looking at it, you see.[38]

Bottle Rack (1914), a bottle-drying rack signed by Duchamp, is considered to be the first "pure" readymade. In Advance of the Broken Arm (1915), a snow shovel, also called Prelude to a Broken Arm, followed soon after. His Fountain, a urinal signed with the pseudonym "R. Mutt", shocked the art world in 1917.[31] Fountain was selected in 2004 as "the most influential artwork of the 20th century" by 500 renowned artists and historians.[8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp#Readymades
#15193472
ckaihatsu wrote:Maybe you / someone can clue me in, but is it really trolling / a giant fuck-you, as a matter of individual commercial clout, or is it a political settling-of-scores somehow, or is it actually *principled* somehow, like Duchamp -- ?

All that it is is shit.
#15193477
ckaihatsu wrote:Is it a *state* thing, then -- London's counter-public messaging -- ?

A 'state thing'?

It is a shitty art thing.

It is absolutely awful.

It's the worst bullshit I've ever seen.

I am no art aficionado, but I wouldn't even call that dogshit art.

And, Cockfosters is drawn with a set of balls. I couldn't see that being anything other than trolling.
#15193478
Crantag wrote:
A 'state thing'?

It is a shitty art thing.

It is absolutely awful.

It's the worst bullshit I've ever seen.

I am no art aficionado, but I wouldn't even call that dogshit art.

And, Cockfosters is drawn with a set of balls. I couldn't see that being anything other than trolling.



Yeah, yeah, yeah -- but you're continuing to describe it *empirically*.

I'm asking why it was politically *approved* / greenlighted.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image
#15193479
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah -- but you're continuing to describe it *empirically*.

I'm asking why it was politically *approved* / greenlighted.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image

I am only aware of this because @B0ycey made a thread about it.

I'm calling it shit, non-art, which is also obscene.

You really get a kick of trying to dissect every topic, and always having the last word.

You even try it here.

Feel free to take the last word if you wish, but there ain't nothing here to dissect.

Why did they approve it? I don't fucking know. Because they are idiots, probably.
#15193480
Crantag wrote:
I am only aware of this because @B0ycey made a thread about it.

I'm calling it shit, non-art, which is also obscene.

You really get a kick of trying to dissect every topic, and always having the last word.

You even try it here.

Feel free to take the last word if you wish, but there ain't nothing here to dissect.

Why did they approve it? I don't fucking know. Because they are idiots, probably.



Okay, never mind then -- note that I was *asking*, not trying to be a dickhead.
#15193494
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, never mind then -- note that I was *asking*, not trying to be a dickhead.

You aren't being a dickhead, I just didn't understand, as I thought I already said my piece.

I can't beat topics to death and shit.


(Never mind *than*)

;) :lol:




(Credit @Potemkin for originially posting the clip the other day, but I think I'd seen it.)
#15193618
ckaihatsu wrote:Here -- found one you'll *like*, Crantag....


= D


Image


The Art Market is a Scam (And Rich People Run It)


I don't like that very much, and I'm not interested in a 20 minute video.

I'm not interested in art, period, but I have learned to appreciate it a little bit more since the time when I met my old college buddy from Oregon in Tokyo, and he dragged me to an art exhibit.

Yeah, I don't like that picture very much.

I think a rhinoceros is majestic enough, without sticking a tire in its ass.

But the whole basis of my entire initial point is that the 'artist' drew Cockfosters with a set of balls.

And also that the non-art is terrible.

I was only compelled to comment because I saw the set of balls on the Cockfosters sign, though.
#15193697
Crantag wrote:
I don't like that very much, and I'm not interested in a 20 minute video.

I'm not interested in art, period, but I have learned to appreciate it a little bit more since the time when I met my old college buddy from Oregon in Tokyo, and he dragged me to an art exhibit.

Yeah, I don't like that picture very much.

I think a rhinoceros is majestic enough, without sticking a tire in its ass.

But the whole basis of my entire initial point is that the 'artist' drew Cockfosters with a set of balls.

And also that the non-art is terrible.

I was only compelled to comment because I saw the set of balls on the Cockfosters sign, though.



*You're* a real crowdpleaser, huh -- ? (grin)


Rugoz wrote:
That's great, actually.



What do you like about it?
#15193725
Crantag wrote:
Do not compare me to @Rugoz .

He is probably a nice guy underneath it all, but he is neoliberal trash, and I quite resent the comparison.



Not really a *comparison* -- I was hoping for more of an art-world *cage match*.... (grin)

So isn't the piece an inherent critique of the modern world's impact on wildlife species -- ?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]