Art!. Source: Simpsons.. Now ez art.. Art! Source: Simpsons Now ez art
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (54)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#7 - agentmoleman
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Now ez art..
User avatar #19 to #7 - screamz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Srsly man, you could've found some other nose of him, i got his ******* creepy ass face in my head now
User avatar #1 - randomfactcore
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Its true! In my drawing class I did everything with my non-dominant hand because I'm more of a photographer and cant draw for ****. Sketches, research, everything! For a whole year. Teachers jizzed so hard I got a perfect A+ and now I'm ambidextrous.
#2 to #1 - rainbowkindness
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
What the **** did I just read.
User avatar #3 to #2 - randomfactcore
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
How can I elaborate any more? I cant draw. So knowing my drawings will be ****, I use my left hand and produce super **** drawings. Art teachers like it based on the fact that I used my non-dominant hand. Give me a perfect grade.

You wan me to dumb it down further?
User avatar #4 to #3 - rainbowkindness
Reply -13 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Reread what you said. The structure of your sentence was pathetic. Insulting my intelligence was not needed.
User avatar #6 to #4 - randomfactcore
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's why I did art and not English. Just too excited about something I can relate to to make sentences!
User avatar #11 to #6 - rainbowkindness
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Ah well good job. My off hand sucks and probably always will.
User avatar #16 to #4 - kezel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
If you couldn't understand randomfactcore's sentence your intelligence does need some fine tuning. Seriously, it may not have been structured *perfectly* but it was still easily understandable.
Thumbed down, don't be an asshole for no reason.
User avatar #17 to #16 - rainbowkindness
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Meh it's late. I read it and it was confusing. His choice in vocabulary made it difficult >.>
User avatar #8 to #4 - TheHutchie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
I'm a moderately-experienced Grammar Nazi and I think it's no worse than the usual around here.

Quit your bitching.
User avatar #9 to #8 - rainbowkindness
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
If you say so.
User avatar #10 to #9 - TheHutchie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
I do say so.

You're the one who used the word "re-read" without a hyphen. Amateur.
#12 to #10 - rainbowkindness
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
User avatar #14 to #1 - goobyman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
gimme some proof/
User avatar #36 to #1 - ningyoaijin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
I do shodo with my right hand. It's surprisingly easy to learn how to do something you've never done before with your non-dominant hand.
User avatar #13 to #1 - MrJakkadakka
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Sorry... but that's what's wrong with art. If the drawings are, as you wrote in a different comment, ****.... then you do not deserve an A*. Quality matters.
User avatar #48 to #13 - randomfactcore
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
My pictures actually look cool. I meant **** in the sense that I can't draw with any realism and can't seem to draw what my eyes see. We had to draw fresh flowers and people, but with my left had the flowers looked dry and unnatural and the people looked *skeletal* for lack of a better word. I think the drawings themselves would have passed but adding in the concept of using my non dominant hand for everything including my research boosted my grade.

We got taught that art is subjective and what is considered art to one person might not be for another.
User avatar #50 to #48 - MrJakkadakka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
That actually makes a huge difference. If the drawings are still impressive, then it's a different story all together... the problem only arises when the concept overrides the quality.
User avatar #24 to #13 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Some times art is simply an idea or a concept.
#31 to #24 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
thats the modern approach.

but art is a craft... at least it has been for thousand of years. many people had great idea or concepts but were not good with theyr hands so theyr artworks are considered ****.
idea and concept are nice... but there has to be some skill.
User avatar #33 to #31 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
But I still think it's very subjective what you consider as art. Like there are things I wouldn't consider as music, but that's just my opinion.
#34 to #33 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
it's not that hard to have a definition after all. and yes it's very broad...

taste is subjective, but not art.
just because many people like something doesnt mean its art, and that many people dont like it doesnt mean it's not art.

if something is worth to be called art depends on the skills of the one who did it. not on the fact how many people like it...
User avatar #39 to #34 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Again, that's your opinion. I like skillful art too, but I also dig interesting art. It's an interesting idea.
#40 to #39 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
uhm... its not my opinion that there is a definition.
it's also not my opinion that taste is subjective.
it's also not my opinion that art is not subjective (the meaning or liking of it is)

it's also not my opinion that there's a difference between a "work" and an "artwork". its a difference per definition.
of course you can start argueing if one thing is a "work" or "artwork". thats true, but thats only because different people give it a different value.
per definition there is a clear line and differene between those two.

i also like all different kinds of work, even if they are not art. i like theyr creativity or theyr skill at some point, maybe just the setting or the story behind it. but not everything is art just because you like it...
(oh, and before i get another "thats just your opinion" here have this reaction pic!)
User avatar #41 to #40 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Oh so you've single-handedly defined art? Impressive.
#42 to #41 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
nope... that was done a few thousand years ago, and since has been...

if you are into history of the arts you will find out that it has only been very recent that some people tried to change the definition and went along with it, even though almost the whole rest of the world didnt agree with them.
the situation changed in times in wich there was more people who had money for art, and started searching for something more "special". as this happened many people that had rather low skills tried to establish themselves as artists. so they put more focus on the point of "entertaining", "let the audience participate", "meanings in the works", and as it went further even started saying "the work in itself is not important... important is what it stands for! and art you dont have to explain isn't even art..."

thats how it happened. you can easily read about it if you're interested. it's not something i came up with...
User avatar #43 to #42 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
It seems though, that it's wildly debated what art actually is. No one clear definition is agreed upon as far as I've ever heard. If you know one concise definition, then by all means do tell
#45 to #43 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
to say it easy: something, that doesnt involve practice cant be an art.

its not about the meaning of what you do, or the meaning or liking you put into it. its about the effort, the skills and the practice that are needed to produce it.
#44 to #43 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
as stated before.
for thousands of years there was a clear definition.

only recently has it started to get all kind of different definitions. and the reason why is also stated.

"The word Art defines in the broadest sense every developed activities that are based on knowledge, practice, perception, imagination and intuition. (art of healing, art of war, the art of drawing,...)" - had to translate it from my language, hope i did a good job
User avatar #46 to #44 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
For thousands of years we thought sickness was caused by gods, that doesn't make it a more powerful statement. Definitions change with times, and we're currently constantly challenging the idea of art. Does it take effort do make good art if you're talented enough? At some point you can make art with no effort whatsoever, does that not make it art? Hell, pure experience can make art.
Practice and all that is definitely a beautiful form of art, I can follow you that far, but some times someone gets an idea that is just so good out of nowhere. Something that doesn't take much practice or effort to execute, but which is still very interesting, thought-provoking and beautiful. I just don't want to exclude that.
#47 to #46 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
give me an example of something that was created this way and could be considered art.
something that someone made with no prior practice or knowledge... with almost no effort that could be considered art.

also: effort wasn't listed in the definition of art. and experience is a part of "knowledge" and "practice" and "perception":

and on the other side: just because it's interesting, thought-provoking and beautiful doesnt mean it's art. to me a machine is that too, science is that too. human relationships are too. sleeping with a woman is. pain and hunger are too. still they arent art. of course you can like a lot of works, you can like whatever you want. and that something isnt considered as art doesnt mean its not good.
its just something else. why should it be so important that it is labeled as art if you like it? i just think thats not fair... like it for what it is.
User avatar #49 to #47 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
Well it's not that important to me, honestly. I'm just very confused why YOU care so much about what I choose to call things
#51 to #49 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
because definitions and the language are some of the most important tools for mankind and civilisation.   
you can read aristotle,sokrates,kungfudsi, and many many more...   
the correct use of words and the correct definition is very important for cultures. words are only really useful if people have the same meaning in them.    
   
so sorry, its not about you... its just a topic thats somehow getting me serious... have this reaction gif as an analogy that i sometimes go overboard...
because definitions and the language are some of the most important tools for mankind and civilisation.
you can read aristotle,sokrates,kungfudsi, and many many more...
the correct use of words and the correct definition is very important for cultures. words are only really useful if people have the same meaning in them.

so sorry, its not about you... its just a topic thats somehow getting me serious... have this reaction gif as an analogy that i sometimes go overboard...
User avatar #52 to #51 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
Haha it's fine to be passionate about something man, I don't think I know enough about it to argue, compared to you. I'm simply saying my subjective opinion, and I don't back that up with anything.
#53 to #52 - kanedam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
you just remembered me of the book "revolt of the masses" by jose ortega y gasset.
here's something to think about:

"The Fascist and Syndicalist species were characterized by the first appearance of a type of man who did not care to give reasons or even to be right, but who was simply resolved to impose his opinions. That was the novelty: the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: 'the reason of unreason.'" (Chapter 8: Why the Masses Intervene in Everything and Why They Always Intervene Violently)
User avatar #54 to #53 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/26/2013) [-]
I realized that a while ago. I've always been the person who've mentally explained my every action to some voice inside my head (which has the side effect that I know my emotions very well and I'm very good at explaining myself), but at some point I just realized; **** it, I don't need reasons for everything.
User avatar #25 to #24 - MrJakkadakka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
No. Not acceptable. Sorry.
User avatar #26 to #25 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
I suppose it is subjective
User avatar #27 to #26 - MrJakkadakka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
It really is....
User avatar #28 to #27 - Kairyuka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Subjectivity is a bitch some times though. Like today, one of my pals sent me some music he loved, and it was all dubstep. I simply cannot for the life of me see anything positive about that kind of music at all. But I know he loves it.
User avatar #18 to #13 - ktbmnf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
because modern day art doesn't require much effort anymore. there was a black vertical line on a white field and it was sold for couple thousand or something. "art"
#29 to #18 - MrJakkadakka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
If you define modern day art by the ****** contemporary art you see, then yes you are correct. Technically, the sculptures I create are 'modern' because of the date... but, trust me... they take a massive amount of effort.
User avatar #20 to #18 - symustafa
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Different context. Done today, yeah, simply a line. Done as reactions to more complex art forms back in the day when art's definition was often questioned? Yeah.
#5 - anon id: 001ed1ac
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
hitler
#22 to #5 - nikster
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
#32 to #22 - childpls
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#30 to #22 - pikininja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #23 - decieverofthegods **User deleted account**
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
"Source: Simpsons"
Well, thanks for that. I couldn't work out which show had characters with bright yellow skin.
User avatar #35 to #23 - ningyoaijin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Someone's never watched The Jaundice Family.
User avatar #15 - captnnorway
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
If you are gonna give source... atleast tell us which season/episode. Everyone know what show it is.
#38 - anon id: 0ebc6e17
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
This is old.... very old....
#37 - liveane
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #21 - roguehazzard
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/25/2013) [-]
Why does she look like Kent Brockman?