• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Delicate snowflake GOP congressmen triggered by painting. Need a safe space

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
That is "ThreadArting" By the way.I didn't bring up the human waste as art someone else did. Take it up with them.

If you don't like my post don't read them. They have an ignore feature for that very purpose.
^ About the last person to come to mind when anyone thinks of "art critic".
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
I hope the next time you go to the zoo, some monkeys hurl some art at you then.

After all they are just expressing themselves and their opinion.
He's right. Saying that animal behavior is close enough to humans and art is threadcrapping.

If any art happens it's the humans viewing it as such, not the monkeys.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Just a heads up that explaining things to simpleton tropes is an exercise in futility. I've literally never see one come to understand anything no matter how thorough the elaboration.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,546
1,759
126
He's right. Saying that animal behavior is close enough to humans and art is threadcrapping.

If any art happens it's the humans viewing it as such, not the monkeys.
It makes as much sense as you saying that a crucifix in a container of urine is art.

They also have elephants and monkeys that paint.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
It makes as much sense as you saying that a crucifix in a container of urine is art.

They also have elephants and monkeys that paint.
Again, the failure is not understanding that humans and animals are not the same in terms of sentience.

Elephants and monkeys don't paint as humans do. They are trained to splatter paint around so Christie's can sell it to the rich for their tax evasion.

The art that the elephants and monkeys produce is actually produced in the minds of humans. It is like Duchamp's urinal. It is the placement in an environment, the framing of something by humans that gets people to think it's art, not the object itself and especially not the intention of its creator.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
179
106
Again, the failure is not understanding that humans and animals are not the same in terms of sentience.

Elephants and monkeys don't paint as humans do. They are trained to splatter paint around so Christie's can sell it to the rich for their tax evasion.

The art that the elephants and monkeys produce is actually produced in the minds of humans. It is like Duchamp's urinal. It is the placement in an environment, the framing of something by humans that gets people to think it's art, not the object itself and especially not the intention of its creator.
The failure here is you not understanding basic reality and biology 101.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
The failure here is you not understanding basic reality and biology 101.
Much of the value in art isn't the artwork itself, but the conversation and time in history it lends itself to. In that sense it's not necessarily impossible for animals to create art, but rather unlikely barring extraordinary circumstances.
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
It is a disgusting piece of filth. Regardless of what the idiot that made it says.
I guess if you didn't have Jesus' cock up your ass you'd see it in a different light, you easily-triggered wise and beautiful woman.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
The failure here is you not understanding basic reality and biology 101.
Thanks for posting noise. If you want to actually post a rebuttal then explain what you're trying to say and post some shred of evidence to back it up.
In that sense it's not necessarily impossible for animals to create art, but rather unlikely barring extraordinary circumstances.
Yes, like animals becoming human. Albatross for president!
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,546
1,759
126
I guess if you didn't have Jesus' cock up your ass you'd see it in a different light, you easily-triggered wise and beautiful woman.
What is up with all the name calling and baiting? Not triggered, but it sounds like you were in your post.

I never once mentioned religion. My opinion has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

Enjoy your excrement. :)
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
OK, I'm done you want to think of human excrement as "Art". It's fine with me.


What is up with all the name calling and baiting? Not triggered, but it sounds like you were in your post.

I never once mentioned religion. My opinion has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

Enjoy your excrement. :)
Well then, feel free to fvck off retard.
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
Well that was a well thought out post. Need a safety pin?
You're the one having a fit over a painting...

"OK, I'm done you want to think of human excrement as "Art". It's fine with me."

I thought you said you were done with this thread - also wondering, why did you edit this grammatical masterpiece out of your original post? Didnt think quick enough while you were outraged and forgot how to English? You're too much of a whiny wise and beautiful woman getting offended over an art piece (of all things) that you need to shit your opinion and make it known you're offended - ironically - just like the regressive left you retards seem to hate yet love projecting yourselves against.

As others and I have said again, feel free to fvck off with your useless triggered opinion over a painting and stop being a little bitch about it.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,427
1,806
126
If you can't trivially find "both sides" in your posts and couple similar others above then I'm afraid it's a lost cause.



Figures that art which is supposed to make people think doesn't work on the mindless.
You didn't answer the question, and your dismissive attitude is an indication to me that your responses are arbitrary talking points reacting to a boogey man I never entered onto the field. More commonly known as a knee jerk reaction.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
179
106
Much of the value in art isn't the artwork itself, but the conversation and time in history it lends itself to. In that sense it's not necessarily impossible for animals to create art, but rather unlikely barring extraordinary circumstances.
Different individuals have different emotions/ideas/beliefs about what value is actually value.

In this case, a simple purposely painted expression of emotion, creativity, or meaning is more than sufficient to be considered art.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,527
18,079
136
Both Democrats and Republicans are hypocritical about what they want to be allowed in public. One has issues with confederate items, one has problems with this painting. Both complain they're offensive. That being said, if a painting was up that put black people in a stereotypical role, it's be called racist. And the Dems argument of free speech wouldn't be used, they'd be on the other side. The argument one needs a safe space and be used on both sides. As usual though, most don't see that Dems and Repubs are the same in a lot of ways.

The issue I have with the painting is that it paints an incorrect picture, perpetuates the lie what happened in Ferguson, which is what this painting is about. The false narrative that the media pushed and how it was portrayed. It's pretty good artwork though. I don't know the legality of it to be honest, being allowed on state property or not. But driving a wedge further between the community and police is not what we need. The relationship is worse than it has been in a very long time.

confederate items aren't art. They are monuments.

You should paint your own image of Furgusen to counteract this lie that has angered you.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,427
1,806
126
It looks like this painting did its job better than the artists could have ever hoped. Congrats to that student. :thumbsup:
Art should provoke conversation. In that sense, the painting succeeded. However, it is also worth mentioning that the conversation provoked is one that's been on an endless loop.

I vividly remember the conversations of the 90s around race, triggered by the crack epidemic, Rodney King verdict and riots and OJ verdict...all culminating with the emergence of the west coast rap scene as an artistic expression of inner city frustrations, particularly in south central LA.

The conversation provoked by "Fvck the Police" and this painting is the same conversation...just one raging fire of people angrily talking past one another. In this instance, I see art as gasoline.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,427
1,806
126
confederate items aren't art. They are monuments.

You should paint your own image of Furgusen to counteract this lie that has angered you.
My sculpting professor would disagree with that sentiment.

Governments commission artists to create monuments. The Vietnam Memorial is an expressive work of art, and I recall some veteran groups being quite upset about the design because it did not fit the common expectation of what a monument should be.

Mount Rushmore is a work of sculpted art that also happens to be a monument.

A statue of Robert E Lee is still art. You are free to debate and question the intent of a monument that incorporates the artistic expression of his image in statue form.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,527
18,079
136
My sculpting professor would disagree with that sentiment.

Governments commission artists to create monuments. The Vietnam Memorial is an expressive work of art, and I recall some veteran groups being quite upset about the design because it did not fit the common expectation of what a monument should be.

Mount Rushmore is a work of sculpted art that also happens to be a monument.

A statue of Robert E Lee is still art. You are free to debate and question the intent of a monument that incorporates the artistic expression of his image in statue form.
I'm not going to disagree with this because it's certainly quite true. Statues are one thing, even if the intent of their display may vary, but oftentimes when we are talking about something like the Confederate flag flying over a state capital or some redneck's garage, the intent isn't really "art."

At it's basest distillation, art merely exists to provoke a response--usually emotional and throughout that entire range, even visceral or violent. However, when we talk about the issue of "confederate art" that Ackmed is referring to, we are specifically talking about symbols that came into being in the late 50s and 60s, on display in public areas, for no other reason but to rebel against the Civil Rights movement. Not one single piece of confederate symbology that has been discussed over the last couple of years was erected as an "innocent display of southern pride." These were never historical pieces because they don't predate or reflect any other purpose but to proudly display this singular intent of the people that erected them: "We don't want to share our special freedoms with black people; and damned if that federal government will make us!"

That is what those specific pieces exist for, and nothing more. It is purely political, despite meeting the purest definition of art: Once a piece transcends an "innocent" emotional response and its existence is subjugated as an overt political movement to effect people and their pursuit of happiness, it ceases to become art. It is now a political tool. A statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest erected during the Civil Rights era is not there to champion confederate pride, it was only ever explicitly erected to remind blacky that they have no business living in that town.

Propaganda is "art" if you are simply looking at a poster; but no one disagrees that it is used as a political tool, with often nefarious intent.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,427
1,806
126
I'm not going to disagree with this because it's certainly quite true. Statues are one thing, even if the intent of their display may vary, but oftentimes when we are talking about something like the Confederate flag flying over a state capital or some redneck's garage, the intent isn't really "art."

At it's basest distillation, art merely exists to provoke a response--usually emotional and throughout that entire range, even visceral or violent. However, when we talk about the issue of "conservative art" that Ackmed is referring to, we are specifically talking about symbols that came into being in the late 50s and 60s, on display in public areas, for no other reason but to rebel against the Civil Rights movement. Not one single piece of conservative symbology that has been discussed over the last couple of years was erected as an "innocent display of southern pride." There were never historical pieces because they don't predate or reflect any other purpose but to proudly display the idea of the people that erected them: "We don't want to share our special freedoms with black people; and damned if that federal government will make us!"

That is what those specific pieces exist for, and nothing more. It is purely political, despite meeting the purest definition of art: Once a piece transcends an "innocent" emotional response and its existence is subjugated as an overt political movement to effect people and their pursuit of happiness, it ceases to become art. It is now a political tool. A statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest erected during the Civil Rights era is not there to champion confederate pride, it was only ever explicitly erected to remind blacky that they have no business living in that town.

Propaganda is "art" if you are simply looking at a poster; but no one disagrees that it is used as a political tool, with often nefarious intent.
I would throw in the adding of sculptures depicting the Ten Commandments to courthouses. There is a nefarious or imposing intent, using art to promote a particular view. I would prefer we artistically celebrate the Constitution in courthouses given that courts are the institution that protects it (sometimes from itself)

On the other hand, I find Christmas lights and nativity scenes to be things of beauty that transcend religious expression despite the obvious religious implications, and it saddens me that the politicizing of art has an unecessary censorship component as well that over sensitizes people in offense to such displays.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,527
18,079
136
I would throw in the adding of sculptures depicting the Ten Commandments to courthouses. There is a nefarious or imposing intent, using art to promote a particular view. I would prefer we artistically celebrate the Constitution in courthouses given that courts are the institution that protects it (sometimes from itself)

On the other hand, I find Christmas lights and nativity scenes to be things of beauty that transcend religious expression despite the obvious religious implications, and it saddens me that the politicizing of art has an unecessary censorship component as well that over sensitizes people in offense to such displays.
Yes, very much agreed here.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
I'd add one small thing to the painting, and that is Brown attacking the cop. Then we'd have the truth of the matter and that is the police are a problem but since this is about Ferguson we need to include the rest of the story.

Unless people are opposed to truth that is.

But it is a waste of time for congress to fight over this and I think it serves as a good example of the real world in a meta sense.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
15,872
3,449
136
I'd add one small thing to the painting, and that is Brown attacking the cop. Then we'd have the truth of the matter and that is the police are a problem but since this is about Ferguson we need to include the rest of the story.

Unless people are opposed to truth that is.

But it is a waste of time for congress to fight over this and I think it serves as a good example of the real world in a meta sense.
Except that's not what the painting is about.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY