-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Maggie’s What to do with a Fine Arts degree
- Thread starter hermosabeach
- Start date
This one tied herself naked by a foot into a tree
And was stuck upside nude for 3 hours
archive.ica.art
And was stuck upside nude for 3 hours
Hilde Krohn Huse
Clearly, another batch of witches that need to be burned. The European witches are typically less powerful, but a bit better looking than our domestic American iteration. Do not take them lightly however, in this way they are actually more dangerous.
The wife and I were on the local bus from Garmisch/Grainau to Eibsee in Germany and it was making all the whistle stops. We come around the corner towards the next stop, which had an outdoor parking lot right next to it. I look out the window and there's a guy that had dropped trou, squatting and droppin' a deuce right in the middle of the parking lot. About 2:00 O'clock in the afternoon. He wasn't hiding behind any cars, he was out in the wide open. If I was a resident, I'd be thinkin' "thanks a lot dude"........(and probably a lot more)
Not only are these ‘tards $100k In debt, they expect us to pay for this crap... and the student loans they took out. We should have defunded art degrees the minute tha Maplethorpe idiot arrived on the scene.
These people belong in asylums, not colleges. Oh, wait, same difference.
My bad.
Sirhr
These people belong in asylums, not colleges. Oh, wait, same difference.
My bad.
Sirhr
Believe it or not, it's quite simple what that is.
Big hole in the middle of every soul born.
Wow. I saw something similar in Bangkok... Actually in Amsterdam also. Those were ping pong and golf balls though.
The sign did say "Kuntsmarkt"! I don't think she would have had such a difficult time passing those things if those black boxes were blocking up the exits.
@TheGerman He has to see this.
The sign did say "Kuntsmarkt"! I don't think she would have had such a difficult time passing those things if those black boxes were blocking up the exits.
@TheGerman He has to see this.
She kinda looks like Maggie gyllenhaal.
At least remove the black bars. It’s art!
But seriously, I’m baffled by the “privacy screen” - she has no problem with people watching her push the eggs out, why hide when you’re putting them in?
At least remove the black bars. It’s art!
But seriously, I’m baffled by the “privacy screen” - she has no problem with people watching her push the eggs out, why hide when you’re putting them in?
I think everyone is better with an appreciation for and understanding of art of all mediums including performance art.
With that said, the "artist" in the first post is not one I would take seriously.
Even if erotica is considered art, she only managed to be "indecent" by most cultural standards. The "art work" created during the performance is at best random and can not express the themes she presented in the description of the video unless you believe shooting eggs out of a pussy has some connection to womanhood.
It seems to me that she either chooses to perform nude and in public to attract attention or because no one treats her seriously with her clothes on. I could be wrong about that in which case I encourage her to try being an artist without public nudity.
I encourage everyone to learn about art history, especially the last 200 years of it when abstraction, cubism, surrealism, absurdism, photography and performance art emerged. Some of it will not make sense unless you know the background, but knowing it will allow you to make an informed critique instead of a knee jerk reaction.
About the value of a fine arts degree, our society is better with artists and study makes artists better. Of course you can get a fine art degree even if you're a horrible artist. In that case it's a waste of money unless you use it to become an appraiser, a curator, a teacher or a critic. Unfortunately I think those entering the discipline are largely lost people who don't want a real job.
The opposite of these "artists" are unstoppable artists like my uncle who is a professor emeritus and founder of a college art department with thousands of art pieces sold and publicly displayed and people like me who dabble but realize we aren't good enough or dedicated enough to be a full time artist or justify a degree (even if some stuff makes it in to an exhibit in the Smithsonian, long term public display and books/documentary films/TV).
With that said, the "artist" in the first post is not one I would take seriously.
Even if erotica is considered art, she only managed to be "indecent" by most cultural standards. The "art work" created during the performance is at best random and can not express the themes she presented in the description of the video unless you believe shooting eggs out of a pussy has some connection to womanhood.
It seems to me that she either chooses to perform nude and in public to attract attention or because no one treats her seriously with her clothes on. I could be wrong about that in which case I encourage her to try being an artist without public nudity.
I encourage everyone to learn about art history, especially the last 200 years of it when abstraction, cubism, surrealism, absurdism, photography and performance art emerged. Some of it will not make sense unless you know the background, but knowing it will allow you to make an informed critique instead of a knee jerk reaction.
About the value of a fine arts degree, our society is better with artists and study makes artists better. Of course you can get a fine art degree even if you're a horrible artist. In that case it's a waste of money unless you use it to become an appraiser, a curator, a teacher or a critic. Unfortunately I think those entering the discipline are largely lost people who don't want a real job.
The opposite of these "artists" are unstoppable artists like my uncle who is a professor emeritus and founder of a college art department with thousands of art pieces sold and publicly displayed and people like me who dabble but realize we aren't good enough or dedicated enough to be a full time artist or justify a degree (even if some stuff makes it in to an exhibit in the Smithsonian, long term public display and books/documentary films/TV).
I could not agree more!
My issues are two-fold... first, there are tens of thousands of little whack-jobs getting these degrees then complaining that 'I can't get a job that I want.' Well, true. But a Fine Arts degree generally does no more than qualify you for some kind of entry-level job where a company will train you. But that's not what these little wizards want. They want to get a BA in Fine Arts and, the following week, be the curator of the 'Met. There are, (and I am guessing here) about 50 jobs a year for an entry level BA in Fine Arts... in their field. If they want to use the college process to prove they can learn, stick-to something, etc... and get a job in pharmaceutical sales or at a bank or an architects office, great! But they don't.... and then blame others for their 'lack of opportunity.' Or get a PhD... because that's who gets hired in the art field. And requires a ton of 'real' work and a loan you won't pay back unless you become Monet. (or learn how to forge them!)
Second, there is a difference between art that requires talent and pushing eggs out of your lady-places on a sidewalk. What passes for art today is really just some mentally-deficient histrionic personality disorder... It's not art. It is a cry for help. Plenty of 'modern' artists achieved their position base on talent! Van Gogh, Picasso, Andy Warhol. Henry Moore, Edward Hopper, Jackson Pollock... weird, especially in their time... yes. But all their works required real talent and WORK and they worke to create their genre. Putting a crucifix in a bottle of urine and photographing it using a taxpayer grant.... not so much. That's just being controversial for the sake of being controversial... and knowing that his 'edgieness' will find him buyers not based on talent, but based on controversy and outrage.
But art is subjective... and the subjective is based on my opinion... and that's my opinion. And since my tax dollars fund this crap.... I get to have it ;-)
Any degree can (or at least used-to) prove that a person can work in a system... learn, stick to something for four years... and colleges were a place to grow, learn new things (outside your field) and spread your wings. Now many are safe-spaces, indoctrination camps and an opportunity for wealth-redistribution as taxpayers fund these institutions... which turn into Communist think-tanks... using inflated student tuition payments and endowments... stolen from working people in the form of tax breaks.
Learning, in any form, is awesome! Medieval Plumbing, fine art... Canadian Studies... hockey-player astronomy... whatever.
But if you are an attention-seeking 'tard, no amount of education and no Fine Arts Degree will make up for the fact that you are a histrionic nut-job.
Cheers,
Sirhr
When it comes to art of the painted or sculpted variety, I strongly prefer those who have the talent, ability & patience to make realistic looking works that pay great attention to detail. My preference in paintings could probably be best explained by the most straightforward example: Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood style paintings. With works such as "The night of the Sun", "The Long Engagement", "Ophelia", "The pretty baa lambs", or "The light of the world" where the artists sometimes took months studying to get the shadows just right for a painting.
IF she only inserts one at a time its interesting BUT if she inserted all of them at once then popped them out individually then shes got skills and a booming career in the pleasure arts ahead of her... I once heard of a "dancer" who could pick up a stack of quarters by squatting over it and count you change; but I heard she was a thief and kept some for herself.
I appreciate the skill required to pull off realism but if that is as far as you are willing to go in art appreciation, you've closed your mind too far.
The number of poor "artists" trying to obscure their lack of talent by claiming abstraction does not help people appreciate the serious and talented artists who do great works in those styles.
I know some people just don't get it but I just hope they can realize that it isn't all crap and modern art is a relevant part of culture.
The definition of art is subjective for everyone. I'd say about 90% of modern art could be thrown out and the endeavour of artistic expression would not suffer even slightly. That's my opinion, though. I also think that "modern art" is a bit of a misnomer. There's nothing inherently modern about modern art, it's a construct, not a method.
I'll put it this way, you might like a certain genre of music, but you're probably not a fan of every song ever made— probably not even a large proportion of them. You can still tell when someone fucking blows at their instrument and their 12-minute post-modern black metal elf ballad with a motown dubstep outro isn't landing on the audience. Any audience, because it's shit.
This art is shit.
I'll put it this way, you might like a certain genre of music, but you're probably not a fan of every song ever made— probably not even a large proportion of them. You can still tell when someone fucking blows at their instrument and their 12-minute post-modern black metal elf ballad with a motown dubstep outro isn't landing on the audience. Any audience, because it's shit.
This art is shit.
When it comes to "Modern Art" especially "Modern Sculpture" I think what takes true artistic talent is to be able to find the rare piece that is not utter crap. You see these "modern art" sculptures around that cities and such spent all this money on, and I'm pretty sure you could have just gone to the quarry, picked up some rubble, power washed it & had a better result.
Same with most painting art of the "modern type" So much of it looks like you gave a monkey a paintbrush & then sold the results.
Performance Art in the modern sphere is even worse, just about all a bunch of people being ugly and horrid & expecting people to say how great it is. If they get government grants for their art, it's probably a fair bet to say it's utter rubbish and just putrid filth for the most part.
"Art" is in the eye of the beholder.
To me, a .50 cal Browning that is timed and true is "art"....
In my world, "art" has a function....though it may be a convoluted one, it is still art to me. And very little else.
To me, a .50 cal Browning that is timed and true is "art"....
In my world, "art" has a function....though it may be a convoluted one, it is still art to me. And very little else.
Probably not a native German. A "refugee", perhaps. Germany is on the fast track to becoming majority Middle Eastern very soon.
Didn’t get that close of a look, you could be right.
"Art" these days is just another convenient venue for those with serious psychological issues to manifest themselves and find other willing and perhaps not-so-willing participants to partake in their twisted little worlds. Been that way for quite a while too.
Google the 'NYC Club Kids' AKA "Party Monster" Michael Alig. They were already quite a weird bunch even for the 1990's but what really got them into notoriety was a drug transaction gone awry during one of their hookers n' blow orgies, leading to one of their cohorts being tortured for hours by having drain cleaner injected into his veins before he was beheaded, disemboweled and dumped into a river. Pretty nasty shit and a nasty little bunch of "avant garde artists".
Your prejudice is showing.
If you educate yourself enough to have an informed opinion, you would see that there is plenty of art that you don't personally appreciate but is legitimately appreciated by other people. This happens with both modern and classical art.
You kind of have to get to that level of understanding before you dismiss anything. If you don't, you're just acting on ignorance and prejudice.
Modern art is important and it's sad that some garbage is being passed off as art.
Failing to see the distinction just makes artists and collectors ignore your opinion.
About 100 to 300 years from now, very little of what modern stuff passes for "art", "music", "Literature" & "Entertainment" will still be of any importance.
Some will, but it will be a Very small percentage. Even as little as 50 to 75 years from now it will be a very small percentage.
But I would bet in 200 years from now, the art, music, performance & literature classics that are old classics & masterpieces today will still be well known and appreciated (assuming there is a civilization and things have survived & the Muslim empire hasn't destroyed it all).
Some will, but it will be a Very small percentage. Even as little as 50 to 75 years from now it will be a very small percentage.
But I would bet in 200 years from now, the art, music, performance & literature classics that are old classics & masterpieces today will still be well known and appreciated (assuming there is a civilization and things have survived & the Muslim empire hasn't destroyed it all).
You could say that only a small amount of art from 300 years ago is represented in art history books and considered significant enough to document.
In 300 years (if we make it that far), one thing we will have for sure is documentation of everything so it will be different in that way.
I think the understanding of our current era will be much more complete than even the recent past because of that and your prediction will not hold up.
In 300 years (if we make it that far), one thing we will have for sure is documentation of everything so it will be different in that way.
I think the understanding of our current era will be much more complete than even the recent past because of that and your prediction will not hold up.
I would like to study and pursue art more and if it sold, great. I used to really enjoy it and I'd like to get back into it.
I went to university to study math. I did take a few art history classes though, they were fun and a good way to approach history.
College isn't where you go to learn to be an artist though. It just isn't, it's not equipped or setup to do that.
If I wanted to learn painting, sculpture, true fine art, I go to an atelier, not a college. I like Juliette Aristides atelier in Seattle, too bad it's in Seattle. Working under a master for years is the only way to learn. You probably won't walk out with a ton of debt either.
Today's art world is driven by money and what's new. Shit that a child could do gets elevated to high art simply because someone is willing to pay a lot for it. That doesn't make it good, and I've heard of these collectors more than once discuss their collections by value, noting how much he paid for each one with his favorite being the one he paid the most for. Very little of it caught my eye. Like with much of the art of the past, I think we'll only discover the truly talented ones later on. I know of a lot of great technical artists, can paint to photographic quality, but they have almost no vision or composition. It's just a nice picture, and that's it.
Vermeer wasn't really discovered until over 100 years after he died. His painting used to sell for a few bucks. Now they're priceless treasures. They're also the ones I like to copy, when I feel up to it which is almost never.
I went to university to study math. I did take a few art history classes though, they were fun and a good way to approach history.
College isn't where you go to learn to be an artist though. It just isn't, it's not equipped or setup to do that.
If I wanted to learn painting, sculpture, true fine art, I go to an atelier, not a college. I like Juliette Aristides atelier in Seattle, too bad it's in Seattle. Working under a master for years is the only way to learn. You probably won't walk out with a ton of debt either.
Today's art world is driven by money and what's new. Shit that a child could do gets elevated to high art simply because someone is willing to pay a lot for it. That doesn't make it good, and I've heard of these collectors more than once discuss their collections by value, noting how much he paid for each one with his favorite being the one he paid the most for. Very little of it caught my eye. Like with much of the art of the past, I think we'll only discover the truly talented ones later on. I know of a lot of great technical artists, can paint to photographic quality, but they have almost no vision or composition. It's just a nice picture, and that's it.
Vermeer wasn't really discovered until over 100 years after he died. His painting used to sell for a few bucks. Now they're priceless treasures. They're also the ones I like to copy, when I feel up to it which is almost never.
Some colleges have fine art programs that do teach art. Of course they aren't as focused as studying under a master because they don't zero in solely on one medium and aesthetic.
My uncle's art department was a good example of that.
Other schools vary quite a bit.
My uncle's art department was a good example of that.
Other schools vary quite a bit.
The only art scene that i care for is from The Great Lebowski, and it really isnt the art either.
My art has also been described as "strongly vaginal".
Daddy just said I had pussy on the brain.
Daddy just said I had pussy on the brain.
Is THIS art? It was a lot of work but made me smile. Not the first target of the day (far from it) but it was the last. Glock 35 with 357SIG barrel and Trijicon RMR at 100 yards.
How'bout THIS? Its my last Qualification target. I scored 100; but it got me pulled into the boss' office for a counselling. A broke dick boss thought it was a bad idea to do all head shots because it didn't look good. I asked which strip on his sleeve was for being an art critic?
How'bout THIS? Its my last Qualification target. I scored 100; but it got me pulled into the boss' office for a counselling. A broke dick boss thought it was a bad idea to do all head shots because it didn't look good. I asked which strip on his sleeve was for being an art critic?
Yea.....show me a video of this being done at 100 yards...........or I also call BS.........I am guessing that someone can do it..............but I am questioning that you can............show me........
I don’t think art can be taught.
The old system was the best. A master takes on an apprentice.
He doesn’t teach him art. He improves the apprentice’s intrinsic skills.
Then the apprentice becomes the master and the cycle repeats.
As for modern art;
Take a classically trained artist and a modern artist and have them trade canvases.
The classically trained artist can easily paint modern. The modern artist cannot paint classically.
Of course this is my opinion and art is subjective. I’m not saying modern art isn’t art. I am saying that modern art is nowhere near the caliber of the classics.
I once shit on a piece of drywall. It was a turd. I framed it. Now it’s art?
The old system was the best. A master takes on an apprentice.
He doesn’t teach him art. He improves the apprentice’s intrinsic skills.
Then the apprentice becomes the master and the cycle repeats.
As for modern art;
Take a classically trained artist and a modern artist and have them trade canvases.
The classically trained artist can easily paint modern. The modern artist cannot paint classically.
Of course this is my opinion and art is subjective. I’m not saying modern art isn’t art. I am saying that modern art is nowhere near the caliber of the classics.
I once shit on a piece of drywall. It was a turd. I framed it. Now it’s art?
