It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Art or Crap?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
joi

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
If the "artist" had been self shooting his own images to capture the moment I might give him more credit from an artistic standpoint, but as it stands, it sounds like a huge publicity trip.
As an art photographer I have created and captured some pretty gruesome images, but they came from emotional reaction to bad times in my own life. There is the possibility that his work is fueled off his own desperation regarding 9.11, but somehow just bungee jumping off a building doesent seem to fill that niche for me.




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
To quote the immortal J. Jonah Jameson:

"Crap.....crap.....mega-crap!"



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by joi
".... but they came from emotional reaction to bad times....... There is the possibility that his work is fueled off his own desperation regarding 9.11...."


That's more or less what he said, yes.

It was an emotional reaction; his just differed a lot from (for example) mine.

Though that doesn't discount the publicity factor either....then again, I'm just a mean old cynic



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
It's not only NOT ART, it's also in the worse kind of taste I have ever heard of. I'm sure he could find something more productive to do with his time besides conjuring up images that we'd all like to forget about.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Art or Crap? I go with crap. It is insensitive and just plain dumb. I will never understand the human mind that enjoys such twisted things in life and actually, I never want to understand things like that.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cw034
It's not only NOT ART, it's also in the worse kind of taste I have ever heard of. I'm sure he could find something more productive to do with his time besides conjuring up images that we'd all like to forget about.


And you're deciding what's art and what's not, based upon......?

I can understand disliking it. I can understand the disgust, distaste and dismay. Fair enough. But you're not only imposing your ideals of what is and is not art - you're actually presuming to speak for everyone....and I'm pretty sure not everyone would agree with you.

He has just as much right to his art, as you have to NOT view it - but that doesn't mean you have any right to tell him what he should or shouldn't produce.

Your choice is simple - choose not to view it



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
Art or Crap? I go with crap. It is insensitive and just plain dumb. I will never understand the human mind that enjoys such twisted things in life and actually, I never want to understand things like that.


Yeap, I agree, it's more than a tad insensitive. Plain dumb? No, I don't think it qualifies. But perhaps more to the point - who decided that art must be "enjoyed" to be appreciated?

I can't stand the works of Dali - but I can appreciate them for their artistic merit. I can't stand Michael Moore's work - but yeah, I can appreciate that he does have a talent (even if I concede so grudgingly!), and his idea of art and mine are completely different.

That doesn't make either of us dumb.


Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not a valid artform.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
You are missing thews point, Tinkle, that is not art. Just because a moron takes a crap on the floor and calles it art doesn't mean I have to be stupid enough to agree with him.

I love that avatar. I agree.


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You are missing thews point, Tinkle, that is not art. Just because a moron takes a crap on the floor and calles it art doesn't mean I have to be stupid enough to agree with him.

I love that avatar. I agree.


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]


(it also doesn't make you any more right than your moronic artist.....but that's by the by)

Nah, no point is being missed.

The point I'm making is simple:

Who is (insert random poster/civilian/alien/whoever) to decide what is or isn't a valid artform to the artist?

Alas, I'm getting the distinct feeling that the topic has already been deemed judged and decided - perhaps worse though, so has the artist.

It would appear though that this has a painfully simple solution:

If you don't like it - don't patronize the exhibition/artist! Just don't make the assumption for everyone else. Let people choose for themselves.

(I love my avatar, too - sadly it never quite works as a wish or a prayer....)



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
if he wants to make it really art, he needs to get rid of the safety harness then "paint".

[edit on 17-6-2005 by deltaboy]


joi

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
There will always be the debate over what is art and what isnt.
Consider P*** Christ, a highly acclaimed and publicized photograph that was very well known. It was an image of a crucifix submerged in urine.
Art Critics praised the image via technique, and message while many were offended by the subject matter, and it was ultimately removed.
But there was a huge back lash regarding the removal being a violation of freedom of expression
sensitive material



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Tink...........Just as you have your opion I have mine, and I won't apologize for not wanting to see some "artist" make money off the most horrific incident on American Soil ever. If you want to consider this person that is your opinion, but don't shove your opinion down my through by telling me that I have to call him an artist simply because he came up with a concept. If I blow into a tin can am I a musician???? I think NOT....I have an opinion same as you and just remember All opinions are like A**H****, we all have one and they all stink



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by cw034
Tink...........Just as you have your opion I have mine, and I won't apologize for not wanting to see some "artist" make money off the most horrific incident on American Soil ever. If you want to consider this person that is your opinion, but don't shove your opinion down my through by telling me that I have to call him an artist simply because he came up with a concept. If I blow into a tin can am I a musician???? I think NOT....I have an opinion same as you and just remember All opinions are like A**H****, we all have one and they all stink


And there's need for such angered defensiveness....why?!

Goodness. It's a difference of opinion - not a personal attack.

(curiosity begs the question - is it the money part which really offends you, or the piece itself?)



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
What has it got to do with art exactly? I've thought about it and can't see the relevance, some idiot falling out of a window again and again and taking photographs. Exploitation and publicity comes to mind. Well, what's the point.
I'd buy the photographs if he did it without the safety lines, I'd buy a couple for sure, if he was taking snaps on the way down. That's art. :bash: Idiot...

[edit on 20-6-2005 by GlucoKit1]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
he wants to recreate the 9/11 for art. then let it be real art.

climb 40 stories up

jump with no bungee cord

then u will experience what they did

take a picture of that

i think he's disgusting



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
This whole thread makes me wonder about something.

Do you folks feel equally angry about Holocaust theatre productions? Art relating to the Holocaust, perhaps?

Movies about serial killers, true crime, etc?

I'm just curious. I'm truly not seeing much of a difference between these examples, and the artist's work.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Well, tinkle, while I agree with the point I believe you're trying to make, there is a distinction between jumping off a building to recreate the scenes of the deaths of people and showing a the Trials at Nuremburg or something - you don't have the wanton violence and disregard for mankind showin in graphic detail in the latter.

When it comes to movies, however, you're dead on. There's a lot of outrage over those at times, but I'm willing to bte most people are fine with something like "The Matrix" but could still be disturbed at this. Movies (especially Neo) are rarely considered to be the art form they are. I think touting this as "art" is what gets a lot of people irked.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Yes, I do think there's a lot of truth there, Amory.

The first movie that came to mind was Passion Of The Christ. Now..I'm a movie buff, a scientist-ish type who has seen all manner of real injuries (including one or two autopsies - not recommended as a passtime). But Passion was truly one of the most violent movies I've ever seen, as well as being one of the most graphic, showing in horrific detail the suffering endured by one man.

And yet...most people with whom I've conversed, designated Passion as a true work of art. I don't agree or disagree with that part, but it certainly does seem that it's ok to view suffering in some cases.....and not ok in others. Saving Private Ryan is another that springs to mind (those first 20 minutes....oy...!)

It's wonderful observing the reactions of people though; it would be truly fascinating to learn how and why people differentiate between one medium and another, as well as between different subject matter.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join