Jump to content

Grow the Eff Up Artsy people


Boges

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because all these liberal and lefty artists are producing massive reams of brilliant stuff, in music, visual arts, movies and literature..

Really? Brilliant movies? Brilliant music? Visual arts? I wouldn't mind seeing some examples of this brilliance for to my mind none of it matches what was produced in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Brison said it best...

“This is one case where I think we really do need a Conservative cover-up,” said Liberal MP Scott Brison. “I guess you could say in this painting it’s quite obvious that the Prime Minister has very little to hide.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you asking for a cite that beautiful art is produced today?

Why not? Go for it. In a world populated by welfare artists (ie, artists who survive on government grants) I doubt there's much that comes close to matching what was produced in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Brilliant movies? Brilliant music? Visual arts? I wouldn't mind seeing some examples of this brilliance for to my mind none of it matches what was produced in the past.

We could get into a subjective yet interesting discussion of what does and does not constitute brilliant art--movies, for example, have been mostly garbage since the inception of the form (most certainly during the so-called "golden age of Hollywood" and "the French New Wave," for two cherished examples), and yet today, as before, wonderful films are produced. The same is true of music, literature, and on and on.

But this discussion would be at least somewhat beside the point. You made an August1991-like "observation" that "lefties" can do nothing good or original in art; and I countered that most art today is produced by liberals and lefties. The lion's share of it.

The main point, as per your original assessment, and one to which you didn't respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's strange to even ask for such a thing. How could you ever validate the art of a past era, let alone the present?

More than fair, your question.

Even if we were to determine some left vs right paradigm in artistic achievement, based on differing politics in disparate ages, it doesn't make any sense. The whole thing falls instantly apart for a hundred reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I wouldn't particularly want to go to the library and see that hanging on the wall. Wouldn't care to see a nude of Obama, either. I guess art, like humor, is personal and subjective, and there's nothing about this painting that particularly impresses me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could get into a subjective yet interesting discussion of what does and does not constitute brilliant art--movies, for example, have been mostly garbage since the inception of the form (most certainly during the so-called "golden age of Hollywood" and "the French New Wave," for two cherished examples), and yet today, as before, wonderful films are produced. The same is true of music, literature, and on and on.

But this discussion would be at least somewhat beside the point. You made an August1991-like "observation" that "lefties" can do nothing good or original in art; and I countered that most art today is produced by liberals and lefties. The lion's share of it.

The main point, as per your original assessment, and one to which you didn't respond.

I actually made no such comment (on art). My comment was on the lack of originality of the political Left. You then said most artists were lefties, and I said, well, I wasn't all that impressed with today's art either.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Go for it. In a world populated by welfare artists (ie, artists who survive on government grants) I doubt there's much that comes close to matching what was produced in the past.

Patronage and charity were so much more "creative"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually made no such comment (on art). My comment was on the lack of originality of the political Left. You then said most artists were lefties, and I said, well, I wasn't all that impressed with today's art either.

Well your tiresome denunciations of "the Left" aren't exactly brimming with insight and originality, either. I can read the same self-indulgent hate-fluff from any number of mouth-breathing reactionaries. You're over-emotional about the subject, like all who are hostile to thought.

And since your derision of lefties and art is by definition a comparative exercise, you should regale us with links to all the superior art produced by conservatives. Because if they aren't producing anything of originality and beauty, either, then your critique begins to seem a little bit masturbatory. Yes? Yes.

and I said, well, I wasn't all that impressed with today's art either.

You're not; ok.

But most people are. In fact, if we look at "art" properly, as literature, music, film, and so on...most people adore it. And with good reason.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well your tiresome denunciations of "the Left" aren't exactly brimming with insight and originality, either. I can read the same self-indulgent hate-fluff from any number of mouth-breathing reactionaries. You're over-emotional about the subject, like all who are hostile to thought.

Thought? Sorry, but that's never been a word I applied to most of the Left. When I think of Lefties I don't think of a brain whirring away, but a very large, open mouth and the sound of a braying ass.

But most people are. In fact, if we look at "art" properly, as literature, music, film, and so on...most people adore it. And with good reason.

Hmm. The problem with that theory is that what the artsy set considers to be 'quality' art is largely ignored by the mass of the population, and can only survive with government grants. Meanwhile, the more 'crass' stuff is widely popular and has any number of people willing to fork over their own money to see or hear it.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought? Sorry, but that's never been a word I applied to most of the Left. When I think of Lefties I don't think of a brain whirring away, but a very large, open mouth and the sound of a braying ass.

So you continually go to great deliberations to point out, always without demonstrating the competing genius of conservatism (or conservatives), or, for that matter, the self-described "centre."

Like two or three other self-described conservative posters here, your theory of what is wrong with the Left amounts to little more than screeching "the Left! The Left!"

Even we braying asses can recognize the empty sanctimony of your obssessive denunciations, and the lack of a coherent critique.

Hmm. The problem with that theory is that what the artsy set considers to be 'quality' art is largely ignored by the mass of the population, and can only survive with government grants. Meanwhile, the more 'crass' stuff is widely popular and has any number of people willing to fork over their own money to see or hear it.

Yes, but as you correctly touch upon with your use of quotation marks, the delineation between highbrow, middlebrow and lowbrow is not at all an easy matter. I was using it in its broadest sense: High-end visual arts, the novels of Mordecai Richler, the poems of Alden Nowlan (the only "people's poet" truly worthy of the honorific, in my view), and the films of the Coen brothers and Martin Scorcese, to name contemporary masters. That's what i mean when I say "art," mostly eschewing the notion of drawing sharp parameters around different...let's say classes of art, which have become increasingly artificial at any rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny. I see it as being about on a par with parodies of The Last Supper that replace Jesus and the apostles with familiar faces from pop culture. Or parodies of Michelangelo's God and Adam painting that have God lighting Adam's cigarette or so on. Putting a silly contemporary spin on classic artwork is fun, and to me it seems like this painting is in a similar vein.

-k

{reminds me a bit of the episode of The Simpsons where Mr Burns hired Marge to do a painting of him.}

Michelangelo did include parodies of the pope whom he battled with on the Sistine chapel ceiling...Rafael a bitter rival of Michelangelo painted unflattering/mocking images of Michelangelo into his work as well...parodies are part of the art world it's legitimate expressionism always has been and always will be...

archeologist have even discovered nasty/naughty parodies of the Egyptian pharaohs and their wives..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelangelo did include parodies of the pope whom he battled with on the Sistine chapel ceiling...Rafael a bitter rival of Michelangelo painted unflattering/mocking images of Michelangelo into his work as well...parodies are part of the art world it's legitimate expressionism always has been and always will be...

archeologist have even discovered nasty/naughty parodies of the Egyptian pharaohs and their wives..

Yes, but that's art, Wyly.

Doing it to our Prime Minister is simply Going Too Far, and it Isn't Real Art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelangelo did include parodies of the pope whom he battled with on the Sistine chapel ceiling...Rafael a bitter rival of Michelangelo painted unflattering/mocking images of Michelangelo into his work as well...parodies are part of the art world it's legitimate expressionism always has been and always will be...

Really? Did Michelangelo paint a naked pope with a tiny package? Are you really putting this hack welfare 'artist' in the same league as Rapfael? :rolleyes:

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Did Michelangelo paint a naked pope with a tiny package? Are you really putting this hack welfare 'artist' in the same league as Rapfael? :rolleyes:

I wonder if people would find humour if someone painted a portrait of a nude Libby Davies.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing, and some peoples over the top reaction(without a shred of merit to back them up) is silly beyond reason.

This was painted and shown a year ago to no fanfare.

For hundreds of years political people have been the target of polictical cartoons, exagerations of habits or bodily characteristics in the form of lampoons. Both sides of the political spectrum have been lampooned.

For one to get upset, or angered is being silly.

This one is no different. If anything, she made our PM skinnier , so she must be a Con supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Really? Did Michelangelo paint a naked pope with a tiny package? Are you really putting this hack welfare 'artist' in the same league as Rapfael? :rolleyes:

Your posts read a lot like a crying baby with your continued use of the insulting term "hack welfare artist." Get a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Did Michelangelo paint a naked pope with a tiny package?

Ah, so we arrive at the crux of your outrage.

Nude paintings and statues of naked heroes traditionally have "tiny package," yes.

If he had painted the PM as a porn star, would that have been preferable? Would the manliness of contemporary conservatism be more aptly delineated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...