Author Topic: Confess! (Read 178381 times)

BP · « **Reply #510 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:02:35 PM »

This is Mario Kart Double Dash modding where the driver is swapped in and out.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #511 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:49:52 PM »

"Hi I'm The Chef!"

"Uh oh! BP time!"

"Hi I'm The Chef!"

"Uh oh! BP time!"

Weegee · « **Reply #512 on:** October 17, 2012, 11:14:02 PM »

IF YOU PRESS X ONE MORE TIME

Ym9iYnlzcTEzMzc equalsign · « **Reply #513 on:** October 18, 2012, 12:00:25 AM »

What's your team special power up?

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #514 on:** October 18, 2012, 12:03:35 AM »

Does this mean Thor is the kart?

Suffix · « **Reply #515 on:** October 18, 2012, 12:56:22 AM »

Quote from: Markio on October 17, 2012, 09:15:05 PM

I confess I don't know the specifics on how the forum is moderated. I imagine there must be a more tactful way than filling someone's post with your own separate conversation.

Allow me to explain. My own personal feelings aside, the filters have been the standard in passive moderation ever since I disappeared somewhere around three years ago, when this became the norm. I don't know what the post originally contained, but if it was covered by the filters, I'm afraid moderators have no control over such things, assuming it is not intended to emotionally harm other forum members. If, censored or not (but not seen worthy to be picked up by the censors), you feel the used language is too abrasive to deal with, I have previously proposed that moderators mention such problems with their own posts in reply.

I hope I'm in the gray zone concerning impersonation of moderators, here. It does feel rather invasive when notes are stuffed into somebody's post with the intention of replying to other notes.

Ah, and I suppose I ought to take the thread subject into consideration... I confess that I have not packed away any of the boxes I used when moving to my new apartment, two months ago.

Luigison · « **Reply #516 on:** October 18, 2012, 06:11:54 AM »

I confess that when I saw Thor's post edited by The Chef I wanted to add a comment like BP did, but I hadn't seen the pre-modded post so I wasn't sure if Thor simply posted the word and The Chef had his profile set to not censor, but thought Thor was avoiding the censor or if Thor had actually tried to avoid the sensor.

tldr; i can't make a coherent sentence with only three hours of sleep.

BP · « **Reply #517 on:** October 22, 2012, 09:07:26 PM »

I don't like/understand abstract paintings. To be clear, I like surrealism, weird art, designs, and strange imagery. I'm talking about the ones that are just, "I PUT PAINT ON A CANVAS." You know the kind, where you're in a gallery and the canvas is just slimed with paint that doesn't even look like something that doesn't look like anything. The kind that's not even a, "Well I used this extra canvas instead of throwing away my excess paint at the end of each session and this happened over time." The kind where it's just whatever, or less than whatever, and you find yourself thinking "a two-year-old could do that." And then the title implies it's some embodiment of feeling and the artist asks hundreds of dollars for it. And you're like,

But it's hard to tell what this means. Is it above me? Or is it not art after all? Or is that up to each of us to decide? Or what? As an artist I feel like I'm supposed to at least appreciate everything even if I don't like it... or, if it sucks, identify why it sucks and what could be done to improve it. But with the type of art I just described, I fail to come up with anything.

Weegee · « **Reply #518 on:** October 23, 2012, 03:02:03 PM »

We all feel that way deep down. Some of us just won't admit it.

I once read an article about an art collection that was ready to fetch a decent profit at auction until the proprietors learned it was drawn by a toddler. It just goes to show you're paying for the name, not the art.

Luigison · « **Reply #519 on:** October 23, 2012, 06:08:14 PM »

Abstract art = mud on a white van

Ninjap00 · « **Reply #520 on:** October 23, 2012, 07:20:06 PM »

Reactions such as your guys' to this kind of art are the same reactions that many of these artists are going for. The point is to push the boundary of what can be considered art.
This Wikipedia article is interesting and also relevant. What you could have done doesn't matter, only what you did.

Suffix · « **Reply #521 on:** October 23, 2012, 07:34:50 PM »

I think our biggest gripe is what the artists "didn't" do, which was create anything that could foster any sense of attachment. A scary looking preserved shark hardly qualifies as abstract art, and more importantly, I can imagine someone becoming attached to it.

It's not even about whether or not you "like" looking at the shark. It's about the reaction. I look at some sloppily and aimlessly brushed water colors and react in disdainful disgust (I did, just last week). Is that what the artist meant to do?

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #522 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:53:17 PM »

If people are arguing that something is not art, it is DEFINITELY art.

The opposite of art is, interestingly, art. For that reason.

The stuff that isn't art, no one is talking about.

The Chef · « **Reply #523 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:55:09 PM »

A lot of art snobs that speak highly of dada-ism (the movement that gave way to the kind of abstraction that BP is talking about) are actually the ones who fell for it. Dada-ism was a massive joke.

Example: Duchamp's Fountain. He basically made that just to see how people would react. Then when people loved it he wrote a scathing review of it in a magazine under an alias.

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #524 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:14:18 PM »

You don't know what you're talking about. But thanks for providing the very link that explains how inaccurate your post is in the post itself! Convenience, baby.

Contrary to not liking it, Duchamp resigned from the Society of Independent Artists in protest when they would not display it. He commissioned replicas in the '60s for a number of different museums. He wrote about his intent to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation.

But your link said all that. You apparently didn't read it.