It's Personal...

[Ravengm]

How about we use a partial definition of "doesn't involve poop. Preferably doesn't involve urine or blood."?

I can wholeheartedly agree with this, unless it involves bat guano for explosive purposes.

[CatharzGodfoot]

How about we use a partial definition of "doesn't involve poop. Preferably doesn't involve urine or blood."?

[Prak]

How about we use a partial definition of "doesn't involve poop. Preferably doesn't involve urine or blood."?

I can wholeheartedly agree with this, unless it involves bat guano for explosive purposes.

Ok, sure. Though... ok, it depends on how the explosives are being used, I suppose.

@Catharz, wtf is that?

[Parthenon]

Its art, made out of shit. Review. TinEye is really useful for that sort of thing, and I've heard that Google is starting a reverse image search funtion.

Personally I'm of the opinion that if it is crafted solely to be art and more than the creator accepts that it is, then it is. The basic requirements are more than a modicum of effort, the intention, and the acceptance. It may be extremely terrible art and not worth anything, but it is still art.

On the other hand, you can have beautifully illustrated textbooks or amazing, soul-defining adverts, but they are aesthetically pleasing or emotionally moving example of other objects and not art.

[CatharzGodfoot]

@Catharz, wtf is that?

A fairly notorious work of art.

[Cynic]

Are we really having a discussion as to whether some people can respond t certain stimulii in a different way than other people?


Especially if the idea is that the only right answer is *THIS* answer.

Art can be provoking just not dirty? Art can be sexual, arresting, thought-provoking, and political. But if uses those parts of us that we'd normally like to forget about, then it's bad?

To me the idea you seem to presenting isn't that "X,Y, and Z cannot be art." It's more along the lines of "X, Y, and Z aren't types of arts that are pretty/provoking/???"

[Prak]

*reads review*
Damnit. I try to get people to agree that poop isn't art, and then there are cultures that see elephant dung as sacred.

Fuck it, I'm back to Art being a completely subjective thing full of no true scotsmens, and I just fucking hate, and cannot understand "performance art" when it could be better described as a modern freakshow.

[Calibron]

I have no problem with any medium being art, including "disgusting" things. I stand behind my earlier statement and definition and see no compelling reason not to.

[K]

*reads review*
Damnit. I try to get people to agree that poop isn't art, and then there are cultures that see elephant dung as sacred.

Fuck it, I'm back to Art being a completely subjective thing full of no true scotsmens, and I just fucking hate, and cannot understand "performance art" when it could be better described as a modern freakshow.

I'll agree with you that the vast majority of Modern Art has stopped trying to be beautiful or profound, and now simply tries to provoke an authentic response (like your disgust or confusion). That's about as good as it gets.

I also think that in 200 years the guys doing DnD promotional art with be worth as much as Picasso. Art snobbery takes years, sometimes centuries, to adapt to new things.

[Starmaker]

I also think that in 200 years the guys doing DnD promotional art with be worth as much as Picasso. Art snobbery takes years, sometimes centuries, to adapt to new things.

I think in 200 years no one would give a damn about unique art objects. Duplication devices will be sufficiently advanced that Joe Average will be able to just press a button and have a Mona Lisa that is indistinguishable to human eye from the original and made from superior materials that won't fade or whatever. Large art objects would be harder to produce at the press of a button, but those with money to own enough space to put one will order one made at a 3d print shop if it strikes their fancy. Home 3d printers will be so culturally ingrained that the idea of owning something unique will seem absurd to common people. The production of art, including performance art, will still be a source of income, with human-assisted interactivity having the largest market share and employing the largest number of people, from lowly npc roleplayers to celebrity Game Directors.

[PoliteNewb]

I also think that in 200 years the guys doing DnD promotional art with be worth as much as Picasso. Art snobbery takes years, sometimes centuries, to adapt to new things.

I think in 200 years no one would give a damn about unique art objects. Duplication devices will be sufficiently advanced that Joe Average will be able to just press a button and have a Mona Lisa that is indistinguishable to human eye from the original and made from superior materials that won't fade or whatever. Large art objects would be harder to produce at the press of a button, but those with money to own enough space to put one will order one made at a 3d print shop if it strikes their fancy. Home 3d printers will be so culturally ingrained that the idea of owning something unique will seem absurd to common people. The production of art, including performance art, will still be a source of income, with human-assisted interactivity having the largest market share and employing the largest number of people, from lowly npc roleplayers to celebrity Game Directors.

Hell, we can already produce prints of high enough quality that most people probably don't care about the difference. Nobody owns an original Picasso because it's nicer-looking than a print. They own it because it's "authentic". And that desire to own something original and unique will probably never go away.

If you're saying basically that "forgery will get so good that authenticity will be impossible", you may be correct. But I doubt it. And it won't be from lack of demand. The desire to have something that nobody else has is not universal among humanity, but it is a pretty common form of greed/power-tripping.

[K]

Yeh, in the age of mechanic reproduction it's never about quality, but about being the original.

I mean, people pay serious money for World Series baseballs, and those are just fucking $6.00 baseballs, but they are the baseball of that historic game.

Never underestimate the enduring psychological power of fetishes.

[Red_Rob]

Case in point - we can now make synthetic diamonds that are indistinguishable from the real thing except by spectroscopic analysis. DeBeers is still in business.

[Blasted]

Case in point - we can now make synthetic diamonds that are indistinguishable from the real thing except by spectroscopic analysis. DeBeers is still in business.

I believe that this has a lot to do with the cost of artificial diamonds. They're incredibly expensive. A counter argument would be created rubies, sapphires and so on, which have seriously affected the price of those gems.

[K]

Case in point - we can now make synthetic diamonds that are indistinguishable from the real thing except by spectroscopic analysis. DeBeers is still in business.

I believe that this has a lot to do with the cost of artificial diamonds. They're incredibly expensive. A counter argument would be created rubies, sapphires and so on, which have seriously affected the price of those gems.

The interwebs say that modern methods of making synthetic rubies are indistinguishable from natural rubies, so it stands to reason that flooding the market with perfect imitations where no one can tell what is real or fake is why the price is bottoming.

Also, DeBeers has mercenary armies that control the price of diamonds. That helps a lot.

Of course, for art there is a providence (a record of sales that can be checked and a guarantee from a museum or auction house). This means that no one is going to buy your replica of this if they know it's hanging at the Tate:

[tzor]

I think in 200 years no one would give a damn about unique art objects. Duplication devices will be sufficiently advanced that Joe Average will be able to just press a button and have a Mona Lisa that is indistinguishable to human eye from the original and made from superior materials that won't fade or whatever.

Your argument definitely applies at the level of the Mona Lisa, but that is because such items are inherantly expensive (in terms of insurance / security costs alone) and that replications are just as good. But then again, this has been going on for centuries in one way or another.

Your argument breaks down at the local level. Once you drop the famous out of the equation (and I've been in the MoMA enough times to see famous modern painters duplicate themselves again and again so that when their collections come together it's kust like looking at a dozen coppies of the same damn thing) then the question of who and where enters into play. A "local" artist with a "local" scene of value to the person buying the item cannot be easily discounted.

And, actually, that is how a lot of great modern artists started. And in this we find an important key. As technology improves the ability to create personalization pushes out the general tendency for cloned objects. When it comes to living and office space (the two biggest locations for art) unique will always have a slight advantage over over coppied stuff.

[PoliteNewb]

I think in 200 years no one would give a damn about unique art objects. Duplication devices will be sufficiently advanced that Joe Average will be able to just press a button and have a Mona Lisa that is indistinguishable to human eye from the original and made from superior materials that won't fade or whatever.

Your argument definitely applies at the level of the Mona Lisa, but that is because such items are inherantly expensive (in terms of insurance / security costs alone) and that replications are just as good. But then again, this has been going on for centuries in one way or another.

Your argument breaks down at the local level. Once you drop the famous out of the equation (and I've been in the MoMA enough times to see famous modern painters duplicate themselves again and again so that when their collections come together it's kust like looking at a dozen coppies of the same damn thing) then the question of who and where enters into play. A "local" artist with a "local" scene of value to the person buying the item cannot be easily discounted.

And, actually, that is how a lot of great modern artists started. And in this we find an important key. As technology improves the ability to create personalization pushes out the general tendency for cloned objects. When it comes to living and office space (the two biggest locations for art) unique will always have a slight advantage over over coppied stuff.

That quote was Starmaker, dude. I made a very similar argument to the one you're making.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Ranty kind of rant in spoilers, don't read if you don't want to see me bitch.

I have to say one thing: I really hate hearing female coworkers talking about how hot male coworkers are. this is 100% due to envy, because no one ever talks about how attractive I am. Heck, I've had girlfriends that treated me like a freaking leper.

You know what I got from my Father when I was in Sweden? After months and months of working on losing weight (and being 50 lbs lighter than I was the last time he saw me), he gave me a lecture about how if I don't change my lifestyle I'm going to be too fat to even move by the time I get to be his age.

A female coworker seemed immensely upset that I didn't have sex with anyone while overseas. I was only there a week, and it usually takes 2 or 3 weeks of begging and pleading before someone has sex with me, do the fucking math. Not that I'm really willing to do that anymore; I've pretty much accepted that I'm going to be abstinent the rest of my life because I refuse to debase myself and I'm not really attractive or cool enough to get it any other way. Although I would argue that if not having sex means I keep my self-respect I'm calling it a bargain at twice the price, I still am bitterly envious of people that can have both.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Why do you think she acted upset?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Maybe that's poor word choice on my part, "disappointed" might be more accurate.

[Maj]

The interwebs say that modern methods of making synthetic rubies are indistinguishable from natural rubies, so it stands to reason that flooding the market with perfect imitations where no one can tell what is real or fake is why the price is bottoming.

Burma rubies will cost you through the nose - not only because they're the most prized ruby in the world for their quality and color, but because they're currently embargoed and it's illegal to deal in them.

Madagascar rubies are currently flooding the market because they have great color and look good, but they're fissure filled. Fissure filling uses a glass material that seals up the cracks in the stone to give a stone the illusion of [more] perfect clarity, even though it's laced with imperfections, but since it's not nearly as durable as corundum is, the stones are fragile.

The price of rubies is low because the ones flooding the market suck, not because synthetic rubies are driving the price down.

[Meikle641]

Case in point - we can now make synthetic diamonds that are indistinguishable from the real thing except by spectroscopic analysis. DeBeers is still in business.

I believe that this has a lot to do with the cost of artificial diamonds. They're incredibly expensive. A counter argument would be created rubies, sapphires and so on, which have seriously affected the price of those gems.

Gemesis continues to look pretty affordable to me

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Well, I have a couple of job leads to apply for tomorrow. I also have a couple numbers of people to call to hopefully get on antidepressants.

So many things irk me about that. First is admitting I'm too weak to control my own depression. Second is thinking about all the friends and loved ones I've hurt because I was depressed. A third is admitting that my sow of an ex-wife was right at least once: that I need to use drugs to kill my personality in order to be socially tolerable. But here I sit, finally abandoned by everyone I loved, breaking down to taking drugs so I can act like a human being.

And as much bravado as I put out there about not missing my ex girlfriend, I miss her so much. I know admitting that makes me a bitch, but I guess I'm a bitch. And thanks to my depression, I'll never have her back.

[tzor]

So many things irk me about that. First is admitting I'm too weak to control my own depression. Second is thinking about all the friends and loved ones I've hurt because I was depressed. A third is admitting that my sow of an ex-wife was right at least once: that I need to use drugs to kill my personality in order to be socially tolerable. But here I sit, finally abandoned by everyone I loved, breaking down to taking drugs so I can act like a human being.

I've never understood why problems in the body that result in conditions that appear in ones personality are somehow the person's fault while problems in the body that result in conditions that appear physically are not. The fact that your body creates conditions that can be mitigated by drugs and that these conditions result in depression is really no different from the conditions in my body that can be treated with drugs and results in high blood pressure.

It's easy to see the relationship between a physical problem and a physical cause. Our bodies are so complex it's not easy to see the problem between a mental or emotional problem and a physical cause. So she's wrong even then. The drugs don't "supress" your personality; they supress those conditions that fuck up your personality. The problem is that sometimes (a lot of times) no medicine is perfect and other conditons, side effects can also result.

[CatharzGodfoot]

First is admitting I'm too weak to control my own depression.

Right, just like Lance Armstrong was too weak to control his own cancer.