Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

lowlifescarecrow    

Rank #3444 on Comments
lowlifescarecrow Avatar Level 298 Comments: Post Master
Offline
Send mail to lowlifescarecrow Block lowlifescarecrow Invite lowlifescarecrow to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Interests: Playing guitar, mandolin, and bass.
Date Signed Up:4/24/2012
Last Login:11/24/2014
Location:The Butthole of your mother
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3444
Highest Content Rank:#9885
Highest Comment Rank:#609
Content Thumbs: 207 total,  257 ,  50
Comment Thumbs: 10282 total,  11349 ,  1067
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 21 Content: Peasant → Level 22 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 81% (81/100)
Level 298 Comments: Post Master → Level 299 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:2
Content Views:15067
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:2217
FJ Points:6367
I finally decided to make an account. I don't wanna cause a ruckus.

latest user's comments

#85 - **** , uh... Voulez Vous! heh... 05/12/2014 on back street boys of the 60's 0
#10 - I heard she was a contestant on The Apprentice and that's how … 05/12/2014 on Repost +1
#78 - Do people seriously think Abba are actually that important to …  [+] (4 new replies) 05/12/2014 on back street boys of the 60's 0
#93 - Womens Study Major (05/12/2014) [-]
There's a reason we are still able to talk about Abba on an internet forum 40 years after their formation (30 years after their end) and EVERYONE knows dancing queen (ie. yes they are influential)
User avatar #190 - lowlifescarecrow (05/13/2014) [-]
I thought it was because they were famous for being so bad. I really doubt they had any influence outside of disco or pop.
#83 - strifethethird (05/12/2014) [-]
We heard you talking shit.
User avatar #85 - lowlifescarecrow (05/12/2014) [-]
Shit, uh...

Voulez Vous! heh...
#31 - You usually have to say something a bit cringey when flirting … 05/12/2014 on Pokemon battle -3
#55 - Every time this content comes up people seem to miss out and t… 05/12/2014 on My greatest hero ! -3
#4 - 13 sounds like a game from Mario Party or something. 05/12/2014 on More Weird Facts 0
#17 - She's clearly there with another man and doesn't want to kiss …  [+] (6 new replies) 05/12/2014 on My greatest hero ! -5
#22 - spoileralerts (05/12/2014) [-]
Do you bother reading other comments in a thread you're about to reply in or do you just naturally be retarded?
User avatar #55 - lowlifescarecrow (05/12/2014) [-]
Every time this content comes up people seem to miss out and that point, I didn't realise someone else had said it.
User avatar #36 - crimsonsunshine (05/12/2014) [-]
oh yeah you so want -400. such a lying sack of shit.
#53 - sinconn (05/12/2014) [-]
God, it's like people only disagree on comments so they can have some social interaction in their pathetic lives.
User avatar #82 - crimsonsunshine (05/12/2014) [-]
actually he PMed me early because I thumbed down some of his comments.
#79 - arstya (05/12/2014) [-]
I disagree.
#4 - This seems too stereotypical and over the top to be true. 05/12/2014 on Gay marriage issues solved 0
#123 - If you don't like Picasso then the amount of time and effort i…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... 0
#166 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
I don't like the modern art by Rothko and I don't like the art by Picasso either but when I look at Picasso I can go "I may not like it but i see the skill and talent of the artist" when I look at Rothko I go "I don't like it and it took absolutely no effort or skill to create." I don't like either piece but in one I see dedication, hard work, talent, and skill, in the other I see a cop out with none of this. And to use your example a novel that takes a year to right is higher literary quality then one page saying "Hello" over and over and over. Modern art can be phenomenal just like a short story can be great (To Build A Fire for example) but those that take the idea of modern art to the extreme are ruining the idea.

<- An artist bought 3 canvases gave then some BS meaning and now they hang in a museum. Yes some people may get some form of meaning from this but telling me this is on the level of Michael Angelo, or even Dali is just so wrong.
#41 - I didn't gloss over it, you just seemed to go back over what y…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -9
#46 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
You seem to be missing my point. You keep basically going back to the idea "maybe someone out there likes it" and "art that takes a lot of effort isn't always better than art that took 2 hours." And I will not argue your point, but my point is that a painting that took 500 hours, multiple techniques, and vast amounts of skill will be better/more impressive than one that took 30 minutes, 5 brush strokes, and literally no special skill 9 times out of 10. Time,skill, and detail don't always result in more interesting art but a majority of the time it does. This even holds true within each style.

You seem to be giving all modern art a free-pass on the chance a person somewhere out there likes it. When people look at something and only 10% have any kind of reaction to it is automatically less impressive than something that get a reaction 30% of the time. I don't like Picasso but when I see it I am still amazed at the technical skill and talent he had.
User avatar #123 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
If you don't like Picasso then the amount of time and effort it took shouldn't really matter, surely. It probably takes Dan Brown a long time to write his books, it doesn't make them any better than if it took him a shorter period of time.
#166 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
I don't like the modern art by Rothko and I don't like the art by Picasso either but when I look at Picasso I can go "I may not like it but i see the skill and talent of the artist" when I look at Rothko I go "I don't like it and it took absolutely no effort or skill to create." I don't like either piece but in one I see dedication, hard work, talent, and skill, in the other I see a cop out with none of this. And to use your example a novel that takes a year to right is higher literary quality then one page saying "Hello" over and over and over. Modern art can be phenomenal just like a short story can be great (To Build A Fire for example) but those that take the idea of modern art to the extreme are ruining the idea.

<- An artist bought 3 canvases gave then some BS meaning and now they hang in a museum. Yes some people may get some form of meaning from this but telling me this is on the level of Michael Angelo, or even Dali is just so wrong.
#39 - Yes, it is.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -11
#75 - dontread (05/11/2014) [-]
He's saying any actual reason to be impressed by the art was probably more work on YOUR part

(as in a stretch based on YOUR imagination/reasons for why this is art in the first place)

rather than the art itself holding it's own with the artist intentions, background/theme, and actual aesthetic work fors said artwork impressing you

Basically bullshit/
#67 - drdisrespect (05/11/2014) [-]
although i see what ur saying this is a little over the top
#36 - That analogy at the end doesn't work at all, apples and orange…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -10
#105 - rainbowrush (05/11/2014) [-]
"Well I'm glad you understand what everyone want"
#40 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
"Why does everyone assume art should be judged by how difficult it is to make? That more than anything is just a sign of ignorance." Well is appears that you also understand what everyone thinks as well. And you seem to have simply glossed over where I said "now there is modern art out there that is amazing"so I am obviously not dismissing the entire style. I love Kumi Yamashit, Jean Shin is pretty cool as well. But "art" by people like Mark Rothko or Armando Rascón being paraded around as something special, that's just sad. I do not dislike modern art as a concept. I dislike modern artists that slap junk together that takes no effort or talent stick some deep description on it and suddenly is then praised excessively, when in reality it has no redeeming quality.
User avatar #41 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
I didn't gloss over it, you just seemed to go back over what you'd said and implied that art is only good if it's very detailed because that's what impacts people.

The everyone was obviously referring to the massive amounts of comments making that point which always come up when content like this appears, don't be childish.

The point of art is that it's interpretive. It differs from person to person. I don't assume to know everything about art because you can't quantify it. Just because it has no redeeming quality to you does not mean that is how every other person feels, and it doesn't mean their opinion is necessarily less valid than your opinion either. The amount of time and effort put in to a certain work of art isn't always going to make it more interesting than one that took far less.
#46 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
You seem to be missing my point. You keep basically going back to the idea "maybe someone out there likes it" and "art that takes a lot of effort isn't always better than art that took 2 hours." And I will not argue your point, but my point is that a painting that took 500 hours, multiple techniques, and vast amounts of skill will be better/more impressive than one that took 30 minutes, 5 brush strokes, and literally no special skill 9 times out of 10. Time,skill, and detail don't always result in more interesting art but a majority of the time it does. This even holds true within each style.

You seem to be giving all modern art a free-pass on the chance a person somewhere out there likes it. When people look at something and only 10% have any kind of reaction to it is automatically less impressive than something that get a reaction 30% of the time. I don't like Picasso but when I see it I am still amazed at the technical skill and talent he had.
User avatar #123 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
If you don't like Picasso then the amount of time and effort it took shouldn't really matter, surely. It probably takes Dan Brown a long time to write his books, it doesn't make them any better than if it took him a shorter period of time.
#166 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
I don't like the modern art by Rothko and I don't like the art by Picasso either but when I look at Picasso I can go "I may not like it but i see the skill and talent of the artist" when I look at Rothko I go "I don't like it and it took absolutely no effort or skill to create." I don't like either piece but in one I see dedication, hard work, talent, and skill, in the other I see a cop out with none of this. And to use your example a novel that takes a year to right is higher literary quality then one page saying "Hello" over and over and over. Modern art can be phenomenal just like a short story can be great (To Build A Fire for example) but those that take the idea of modern art to the extreme are ruining the idea.

<- An artist bought 3 canvases gave then some BS meaning and now they hang in a museum. Yes some people may get some form of meaning from this but telling me this is on the level of Michael Angelo, or even Dali is just so wrong.
#34 - They probably also look at themes or methods and possible meanings.  [+] (7 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -17
User avatar #38 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
nigga its a line with blue
#93 - blancka (05/11/2014) [-]
Yeah, and the mona lisa is nothing more than a portrait of some bitch. We got HD cameras now and CG and shit that looks much better, but that doesn't matter.

I'm not arguing that the white line through some blue thing is some masterpiece. A lot of modern art is complete shit. But lowlifescarecrow is entirely correct when he says it shouldn't be judged on how hard it is to make. Art isn't about the struggle of making it, but what it means and in the case of paintings how much can be said in one picture.

The painting above is utter shit. Not arguing that, but the message behind the post is completely wrong. Difficult art is not always good art, and good art is not always difficult.
User avatar #156 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
The Mona Lisa has layers so thin its thinner than human hair
for the time it was a shining miracle of art

It goes without saying that difficulty doesn't define art, but we don't call the line with blue bullshit because it was easy to make, we call it bullshit because it's bullshit.
#153 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
What you're saying is that you can also find some meaning in art, that doesn't require an actually well drawn painting. This is true, but what you're forgetting is that if this isn't made in a way that entertains people and if it isn't made in a way, so that the meaning becomes explicit, complex and interesting, then saying "it's about the deeper meaning" is just childish, because the deeper meaning you COULD find, serves no purpose.

Besides, the Mona Lisa IS just a portrait of some bitch. There are paintings with deep meanings and the Mona Lisa isn't one of them. You could just as easily find a meaning in the blue painting above.
User avatar #39 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
Yes, it is.
#75 - dontread (05/11/2014) [-]
He's saying any actual reason to be impressed by the art was probably more work on YOUR part

(as in a stretch based on YOUR imagination/reasons for why this is art in the first place)

rather than the art itself holding it's own with the artist intentions, background/theme, and actual aesthetic work fors said artwork impressing you

Basically bullshit/
#67 - drdisrespect (05/11/2014) [-]
although i see what ur saying this is a little over the top
#30 - I imagine a lot of these people don't really know that much ab…  [+] (10 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -20
User avatar #32 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
Art, drawing and painting specifically, is literally judged on the pretense of face value.
#37 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
Only by idiots.
User avatar #34 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
They probably also look at themes or methods and possible meanings.
User avatar #38 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
nigga its a line with blue
#93 - blancka (05/11/2014) [-]
Yeah, and the mona lisa is nothing more than a portrait of some bitch. We got HD cameras now and CG and shit that looks much better, but that doesn't matter.

I'm not arguing that the white line through some blue thing is some masterpiece. A lot of modern art is complete shit. But lowlifescarecrow is entirely correct when he says it shouldn't be judged on how hard it is to make. Art isn't about the struggle of making it, but what it means and in the case of paintings how much can be said in one picture.

The painting above is utter shit. Not arguing that, but the message behind the post is completely wrong. Difficult art is not always good art, and good art is not always difficult.
User avatar #156 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
The Mona Lisa has layers so thin its thinner than human hair
for the time it was a shining miracle of art

It goes without saying that difficulty doesn't define art, but we don't call the line with blue bullshit because it was easy to make, we call it bullshit because it's bullshit.
#153 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
What you're saying is that you can also find some meaning in art, that doesn't require an actually well drawn painting. This is true, but what you're forgetting is that if this isn't made in a way that entertains people and if it isn't made in a way, so that the meaning becomes explicit, complex and interesting, then saying "it's about the deeper meaning" is just childish, because the deeper meaning you COULD find, serves no purpose.

Besides, the Mona Lisa IS just a portrait of some bitch. There are paintings with deep meanings and the Mona Lisa isn't one of them. You could just as easily find a meaning in the blue painting above.
User avatar #39 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
Yes, it is.
#75 - dontread (05/11/2014) [-]
He's saying any actual reason to be impressed by the art was probably more work on YOUR part

(as in a stretch based on YOUR imagination/reasons for why this is art in the first place)

rather than the art itself holding it's own with the artist intentions, background/theme, and actual aesthetic work fors said artwork impressing you

Basically bullshit/
#67 - drdisrespect (05/11/2014) [-]
although i see what ur saying this is a little over the top
#28 - I don't know what point you're trying to make here.  [+] (12 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -16
User avatar #29 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
people judge bullshit art because it's bullshit
User avatar #30 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
I imagine a lot of these people don't really know that much about art though, and are just judging it on face value.

"might be hard to take a dump sometimes but shit is still shit" does not at all reflect what you were trying to say.
User avatar #32 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
Art, drawing and painting specifically, is literally judged on the pretense of face value.
#37 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
Only by idiots.
User avatar #34 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
They probably also look at themes or methods and possible meanings.
User avatar #38 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
nigga its a line with blue
#93 - blancka (05/11/2014) [-]
Yeah, and the mona lisa is nothing more than a portrait of some bitch. We got HD cameras now and CG and shit that looks much better, but that doesn't matter.

I'm not arguing that the white line through some blue thing is some masterpiece. A lot of modern art is complete shit. But lowlifescarecrow is entirely correct when he says it shouldn't be judged on how hard it is to make. Art isn't about the struggle of making it, but what it means and in the case of paintings how much can be said in one picture.

The painting above is utter shit. Not arguing that, but the message behind the post is completely wrong. Difficult art is not always good art, and good art is not always difficult.
User avatar #156 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
The Mona Lisa has layers so thin its thinner than human hair
for the time it was a shining miracle of art

It goes without saying that difficulty doesn't define art, but we don't call the line with blue bullshit because it was easy to make, we call it bullshit because it's bullshit.
#153 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
What you're saying is that you can also find some meaning in art, that doesn't require an actually well drawn painting. This is true, but what you're forgetting is that if this isn't made in a way that entertains people and if it isn't made in a way, so that the meaning becomes explicit, complex and interesting, then saying "it's about the deeper meaning" is just childish, because the deeper meaning you COULD find, serves no purpose.

Besides, the Mona Lisa IS just a portrait of some bitch. There are paintings with deep meanings and the Mona Lisa isn't one of them. You could just as easily find a meaning in the blue painting above.
User avatar #39 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
Yes, it is.
#75 - dontread (05/11/2014) [-]
He's saying any actual reason to be impressed by the art was probably more work on YOUR part

(as in a stretch based on YOUR imagination/reasons for why this is art in the first place)

rather than the art itself holding it's own with the artist intentions, background/theme, and actual aesthetic work fors said artwork impressing you

Basically bullshit/
#67 - drdisrespect (05/11/2014) [-]
although i see what ur saying this is a little over the top
#27 - >Something that took hours upon hours Yes, because…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -12
User avatar #104 - rainbowrush (05/11/2014) [-]
You obviously don't think from many points of views so I'll be simple.

"Oh wow that must have taken ages!"

Art and a lot of other stuff, usually something similar, get judged in thousands of different ways. Saying people won't get baffled by the share man-hours put into something is just stupid. Of course people don't think "that must have taken ages" for most pieces, though there is no "most" anymore, as there are so many different genres. Imagination is a strong sign of intelligence.

Let's take an example of where people might get an impact by the time something took, rather than how hard it was to make.
We can look at either pyramids or the Great Wall of China. Though both took some planing and maths, most of the work was plain and simple hard labor.

A lot of shit gets judged by perseverance rather than ability. You can't judge everything by the same standards. Something is judged by perceverance, other stuff gets judged by ability, popularity, meaning, intelligence, plain and simply looks, and a lot of other, mostly obvious stuff.


Most modern art doesn't get judged by any of this. IF some art doesn't fit skill, time spent, looks, meaning, etc... it's understandable that a lot of people will attack it. A lot of art these days are just statements with as much weight as any thing I do. Art shouldn't be formed by the thoughts of the creator and be completely unrelated to the actual piece, which is also common. It is, however, in some cases fine for art to need context.

There is so much different art, and very definitions of art out there. There is something for everyone, so please don't decide what creates an impact on people and what doesn't.
#33 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
Its not the fact that it took and extensive amount of time but rather the result of said time. The detail, dedication, and skill that went into these hours to create something, every hair individually painted, encapsulating humanity in artistic form. This is was impacts people. And i love you focus on literally a tiny side not of what I said and completely ignore the concept of skill and talent.

Oh and I'm sure thinking "Oh wow that circle is blue!" is what creates an impact on people. What is more impressive seeing man lift 15lbs or 500lbs? The more challenging something is the more impressive it is, period. It is more impressive because it take actually talent and effort to succeed.
User avatar #36 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
That analogy at the end doesn't work at all, apples and oranges.

Seeing a painting and noticing that each individual hair has its own detail, while obviously more impressive than a blue circle on a technical level, isn't necessarily going to have a greater meaning or have more depth.

>This is what impacts people - Well I'm glad you understand what everyone wants, people mustn't appreciate modern art at all then if that's the case.

Wait...

And yes, maybe there is less skill and talent involved, but there's less skill and talent involved in rock music than there is in experimental jazz, but I still prefer it.

Think about Andy Warhol's work and how much simpler it is to a lot of the work that preceded it. I'm sure when he was coming up he got the same flak, as did rock music when it was just starting. Being experimental sometimes means getting things wrong, just because some people probably are just taking the piss and getting away with it doesn't mean the whole idea should be dismissed.
#105 - rainbowrush (05/11/2014) [-]
"Well I'm glad you understand what everyone want"
#40 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
"Why does everyone assume art should be judged by how difficult it is to make? That more than anything is just a sign of ignorance." Well is appears that you also understand what everyone thinks as well. And you seem to have simply glossed over where I said "now there is modern art out there that is amazing"so I am obviously not dismissing the entire style. I love Kumi Yamashit, Jean Shin is pretty cool as well. But "art" by people like Mark Rothko or Armando Rascón being paraded around as something special, that's just sad. I do not dislike modern art as a concept. I dislike modern artists that slap junk together that takes no effort or talent stick some deep description on it and suddenly is then praised excessively, when in reality it has no redeeming quality.
User avatar #41 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
I didn't gloss over it, you just seemed to go back over what you'd said and implied that art is only good if it's very detailed because that's what impacts people.

The everyone was obviously referring to the massive amounts of comments making that point which always come up when content like this appears, don't be childish.

The point of art is that it's interpretive. It differs from person to person. I don't assume to know everything about art because you can't quantify it. Just because it has no redeeming quality to you does not mean that is how every other person feels, and it doesn't mean their opinion is necessarily less valid than your opinion either. The amount of time and effort put in to a certain work of art isn't always going to make it more interesting than one that took far less.
#46 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
You seem to be missing my point. You keep basically going back to the idea "maybe someone out there likes it" and "art that takes a lot of effort isn't always better than art that took 2 hours." And I will not argue your point, but my point is that a painting that took 500 hours, multiple techniques, and vast amounts of skill will be better/more impressive than one that took 30 minutes, 5 brush strokes, and literally no special skill 9 times out of 10. Time,skill, and detail don't always result in more interesting art but a majority of the time it does. This even holds true within each style.

You seem to be giving all modern art a free-pass on the chance a person somewhere out there likes it. When people look at something and only 10% have any kind of reaction to it is automatically less impressive than something that get a reaction 30% of the time. I don't like Picasso but when I see it I am still amazed at the technical skill and talent he had.
User avatar #123 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
If you don't like Picasso then the amount of time and effort it took shouldn't really matter, surely. It probably takes Dan Brown a long time to write his books, it doesn't make them any better than if it took him a shorter period of time.
#166 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
I don't like the modern art by Rothko and I don't like the art by Picasso either but when I look at Picasso I can go "I may not like it but i see the skill and talent of the artist" when I look at Rothko I go "I don't like it and it took absolutely no effort or skill to create." I don't like either piece but in one I see dedication, hard work, talent, and skill, in the other I see a cop out with none of this. And to use your example a novel that takes a year to right is higher literary quality then one page saying "Hello" over and over and over. Modern art can be phenomenal just like a short story can be great (To Build A Fire for example) but those that take the idea of modern art to the extreme are ruining the idea.

<- An artist bought 3 canvases gave then some BS meaning and now they hang in a museum. Yes some people may get some form of meaning from this but telling me this is on the level of Michael Angelo, or even Dali is just so wrong.
#21 - Why does everyone assume art should be judged by how difficult…  [+] (26 new replies) 05/11/2014 on There’s Art and there’s... -26
User avatar #88 - PlagueDoctor (05/11/2014) [-]
because you wouldnt listen to an album of just a guy randomly mashing piano keys either
User avatar #26 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
might be hard to take a dump sometimes but shit is still shit
User avatar #28 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
User avatar #29 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
people judge bullshit art because it's bullshit
User avatar #30 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
I imagine a lot of these people don't really know that much about art though, and are just judging it on face value.

"might be hard to take a dump sometimes but shit is still shit" does not at all reflect what you were trying to say.
User avatar #32 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
Art, drawing and painting specifically, is literally judged on the pretense of face value.
#37 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
Only by idiots.
User avatar #34 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
They probably also look at themes or methods and possible meanings.
User avatar #38 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
nigga its a line with blue
#93 - blancka (05/11/2014) [-]
Yeah, and the mona lisa is nothing more than a portrait of some bitch. We got HD cameras now and CG and shit that looks much better, but that doesn't matter.

I'm not arguing that the white line through some blue thing is some masterpiece. A lot of modern art is complete shit. But lowlifescarecrow is entirely correct when he says it shouldn't be judged on how hard it is to make. Art isn't about the struggle of making it, but what it means and in the case of paintings how much can be said in one picture.

The painting above is utter shit. Not arguing that, but the message behind the post is completely wrong. Difficult art is not always good art, and good art is not always difficult.
User avatar #156 - infinitereaper (05/11/2014) [-]
The Mona Lisa has layers so thin its thinner than human hair
for the time it was a shining miracle of art

It goes without saying that difficulty doesn't define art, but we don't call the line with blue bullshit because it was easy to make, we call it bullshit because it's bullshit.
#153 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
What you're saying is that you can also find some meaning in art, that doesn't require an actually well drawn painting. This is true, but what you're forgetting is that if this isn't made in a way that entertains people and if it isn't made in a way, so that the meaning becomes explicit, complex and interesting, then saying "it's about the deeper meaning" is just childish, because the deeper meaning you COULD find, serves no purpose.

Besides, the Mona Lisa IS just a portrait of some bitch. There are paintings with deep meanings and the Mona Lisa isn't one of them. You could just as easily find a meaning in the blue painting above.
User avatar #39 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
Yes, it is.
#75 - dontread (05/11/2014) [-]
He's saying any actual reason to be impressed by the art was probably more work on YOUR part

(as in a stretch based on YOUR imagination/reasons for why this is art in the first place)

rather than the art itself holding it's own with the artist intentions, background/theme, and actual aesthetic work fors said artwork impressing you

Basically bullshit/
#67 - drdisrespect (05/11/2014) [-]
although i see what ur saying this is a little over the top
#23 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
Because art is designed to have an impact upon a person, and you know what is more impressive and creates a bigger impact? Something that took hours upon hours and requires immense skill. Looking at the work of DaVinci, Rembrandt, Picasso, Goya, etc and weather you like them or not, their work is at the very least intriguing and skillfully done. Modern art on the other hand is typically not impressive it is not innovative it is not impressive. A blue square elicits nothing, no reaction, no intrigue, its simply exists. Now there is modern art out there that is amazing, but unfortunately most is derivative and pathetic.
User avatar #27 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
>Something that took hours upon hours

Yes, because I'm sure thinking, "Oh wow that must have taken ages!" is what creates an impact on people.
User avatar #104 - rainbowrush (05/11/2014) [-]
You obviously don't think from many points of views so I'll be simple.

"Oh wow that must have taken ages!"

Art and a lot of other stuff, usually something similar, get judged in thousands of different ways. Saying people won't get baffled by the share man-hours put into something is just stupid. Of course people don't think "that must have taken ages" for most pieces, though there is no "most" anymore, as there are so many different genres. Imagination is a strong sign of intelligence.

Let's take an example of where people might get an impact by the time something took, rather than how hard it was to make.
We can look at either pyramids or the Great Wall of China. Though both took some planing and maths, most of the work was plain and simple hard labor.

A lot of shit gets judged by perseverance rather than ability. You can't judge everything by the same standards. Something is judged by perceverance, other stuff gets judged by ability, popularity, meaning, intelligence, plain and simply looks, and a lot of other, mostly obvious stuff.


Most modern art doesn't get judged by any of this. IF some art doesn't fit skill, time spent, looks, meaning, etc... it's understandable that a lot of people will attack it. A lot of art these days are just statements with as much weight as any thing I do. Art shouldn't be formed by the thoughts of the creator and be completely unrelated to the actual piece, which is also common. It is, however, in some cases fine for art to need context.

There is so much different art, and very definitions of art out there. There is something for everyone, so please don't decide what creates an impact on people and what doesn't.
#33 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
Its not the fact that it took and extensive amount of time but rather the result of said time. The detail, dedication, and skill that went into these hours to create something, every hair individually painted, encapsulating humanity in artistic form. This is was impacts people. And i love you focus on literally a tiny side not of what I said and completely ignore the concept of skill and talent.

Oh and I'm sure thinking "Oh wow that circle is blue!" is what creates an impact on people. What is more impressive seeing man lift 15lbs or 500lbs? The more challenging something is the more impressive it is, period. It is more impressive because it take actually talent and effort to succeed.
User avatar #36 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
That analogy at the end doesn't work at all, apples and oranges.

Seeing a painting and noticing that each individual hair has its own detail, while obviously more impressive than a blue circle on a technical level, isn't necessarily going to have a greater meaning or have more depth.

>This is what impacts people - Well I'm glad you understand what everyone wants, people mustn't appreciate modern art at all then if that's the case.

Wait...

And yes, maybe there is less skill and talent involved, but there's less skill and talent involved in rock music than there is in experimental jazz, but I still prefer it.

Think about Andy Warhol's work and how much simpler it is to a lot of the work that preceded it. I'm sure when he was coming up he got the same flak, as did rock music when it was just starting. Being experimental sometimes means getting things wrong, just because some people probably are just taking the piss and getting away with it doesn't mean the whole idea should be dismissed.
#105 - rainbowrush (05/11/2014) [-]
"Well I'm glad you understand what everyone want"
#40 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
"Why does everyone assume art should be judged by how difficult it is to make? That more than anything is just a sign of ignorance." Well is appears that you also understand what everyone thinks as well. And you seem to have simply glossed over where I said "now there is modern art out there that is amazing"so I am obviously not dismissing the entire style. I love Kumi Yamashit, Jean Shin is pretty cool as well. But "art" by people like Mark Rothko or Armando Rascón being paraded around as something special, that's just sad. I do not dislike modern art as a concept. I dislike modern artists that slap junk together that takes no effort or talent stick some deep description on it and suddenly is then praised excessively, when in reality it has no redeeming quality.
User avatar #41 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
I didn't gloss over it, you just seemed to go back over what you'd said and implied that art is only good if it's very detailed because that's what impacts people.

The everyone was obviously referring to the massive amounts of comments making that point which always come up when content like this appears, don't be childish.

The point of art is that it's interpretive. It differs from person to person. I don't assume to know everything about art because you can't quantify it. Just because it has no redeeming quality to you does not mean that is how every other person feels, and it doesn't mean their opinion is necessarily less valid than your opinion either. The amount of time and effort put in to a certain work of art isn't always going to make it more interesting than one that took far less.
#46 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
You seem to be missing my point. You keep basically going back to the idea "maybe someone out there likes it" and "art that takes a lot of effort isn't always better than art that took 2 hours." And I will not argue your point, but my point is that a painting that took 500 hours, multiple techniques, and vast amounts of skill will be better/more impressive than one that took 30 minutes, 5 brush strokes, and literally no special skill 9 times out of 10. Time,skill, and detail don't always result in more interesting art but a majority of the time it does. This even holds true within each style.

You seem to be giving all modern art a free-pass on the chance a person somewhere out there likes it. When people look at something and only 10% have any kind of reaction to it is automatically less impressive than something that get a reaction 30% of the time. I don't like Picasso but when I see it I am still amazed at the technical skill and talent he had.
User avatar #123 - lowlifescarecrow (05/11/2014) [-]
If you don't like Picasso then the amount of time and effort it took shouldn't really matter, surely. It probably takes Dan Brown a long time to write his books, it doesn't make them any better than if it took him a shorter period of time.
#166 - Womens Study Major (05/11/2014) [-]
I don't like the modern art by Rothko and I don't like the art by Picasso either but when I look at Picasso I can go "I may not like it but i see the skill and talent of the artist" when I look at Rothko I go "I don't like it and it took absolutely no effort or skill to create." I don't like either piece but in one I see dedication, hard work, talent, and skill, in the other I see a cop out with none of this. And to use your example a novel that takes a year to right is higher literary quality then one page saying "Hello" over and over and over. Modern art can be phenomenal just like a short story can be great (To Build A Fire for example) but those that take the idea of modern art to the extreme are ruining the idea.

<- An artist bought 3 canvases gave then some BS meaning and now they hang in a museum. Yes some people may get some form of meaning from this but telling me this is on the level of Michael Angelo, or even Dali is just so wrong.
#17 - They'll probably die of starvation or something, with only 10 million. 05/08/2014 on Random Fact Comp. 26 +44
#2 - Yer, even the elephant man looked at himself in the mirror som… 05/07/2014 on I couldn’t help but... +4
#4 - Isn't deviantART where you get Sonic fanfic and that person wh… 05/07/2014 on and then there is us +9
#2 - That chicken doesn't look right. 05/07/2014 on Never able to un-see +4
#70 - That's pretty edgy. 05/07/2014 on TL;DR Wikipedia Compilation... 0
#41 - Okay, your point?  [+] (1 new reply) 05/06/2014 on Kurt Cobain 0
User avatar #42 - theugandanhero (05/06/2014) [-]
Didn't say I had one.
#33 - If you're the frontman of a band and you write like 99% of the…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/06/2014 on Kurt Cobain 0
User avatar #40 - theugandanhero (05/06/2014) [-]
Lead vocals half the time: "HEYYEYEHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHH"
User avatar #41 - lowlifescarecrow (05/06/2014) [-]
Okay, your point?
User avatar #42 - theugandanhero (05/06/2014) [-]
Didn't say I had one.
#179 - Comment deleted 05/06/2014 on The Differences Between... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 550

Comments(71):

[ 71 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #67 to #66 - jenno (10/10/2012) [-]
...Go **** yourself. You wish you could have a piece of my little gooby ass.
User avatar #69 to #67 - lowlifescarecrow (10/10/2012) [-]
I've never been so turned on by "gooby"
User avatar #70 to #68 - jenno (10/10/2012) [-]
B]
User avatar #71 to #70 - lowlifescarecrow (10/10/2012) [-]
y u no luv me
#60 - jenno (07/17/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #2 at Dammit Shannon **
User avatar #59 - jenno (07/02/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 15**
User avatar #58 - jenno (07/01/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 1**
#57 - jenno (07/01/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #6132692 at FJ Pony Thread **
#56 - jenno (07/01/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random comment #115 posted by ragingbrony at Butthurt Motherfucker ** :
**jenno rolled a random comment #115 posted by ragingbrony at Butthurt Motherfucker ** :
#55 - jenno has deleted their comment [-]
#54 - jenno (07/01/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #6364202 at FJ Pony Thread **
#53 - jenno has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #35 - jenno (06/25/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 36** nope, they're a little further in the bag, are these them?
User avatar #36 to #35 - lowlifescarecrow (06/25/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 42** Looking for these?
User avatar #37 to #36 - jenno (06/26/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 98** No, they kind of look like these though.
User avatar #38 to #37 - jenno (06/26/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 80** possibly these.
User avatar #39 to #38 - lowlifescarecrow (06/26/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 58** This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with dubs.
User avatar #40 to #39 - jenno (06/27/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 43** OH ****
User avatar #41 to #40 - lowlifescarecrow (06/27/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 83** We can not roll dubs.
User avatar #42 to #41 - lowlifescarecrow (06/27/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow has an idea**
User avatar #43 to #42 - lowlifescarecrow (06/27/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 86** Check my singles.
User avatar #45 to #44 - jenno (06/27/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 57** Check 'em.
User avatar #46 to #45 - jenno (06/27/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 050** how old I'm going to be when I die...
User avatar #47 to #46 - lowlifescarecrow (06/28/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 411** **** one.
User avatar #48 to #47 - jenno (06/28/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 049** Nah, was only joking. This is the actual age I'm gonna die.
User avatar #49 to #48 - jenno (06/28/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 340** Holy **** O_O I meant this...
#50 to #49 - lowlifescarecrow (06/29/2012) [-]
Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Since you're only gonna live to 50, you might want this.
User avatar #51 to #50 - jenno (06/29/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 716,414** This is the real one.
User avatar #52 to #51 - lowlifescarecrow (06/29/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 977,096,396** Bitch please.
User avatar #34 - jenno (06/25/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 41** Oh sorry, I meant to give you these.
User avatar #33 - jenno (06/25/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 71** Here you go.
#30 - jenno (06/18/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #5732 at Cadence's Place **
#23 - jenno (06/17/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #143 at Makes me laugh every time **
User avatar #24 to #23 - lowlifescarecrow (06/17/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 22**
#25 to #24 - lowlifescarecrow (06/17/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolled a random comment #6062790 posted by killakahn at FJ Pony Thread ** :**killakahn rolls 660** What if 666? 
    
   
That. ^
**lowlifescarecrow rolled a random comment #6062790 posted by killakahn at FJ Pony Thread ** :
**killakahn rolls 660** What if 666?


That. ^
User avatar #26 to #25 - jenno (06/17/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 983**
User avatar #27 to #26 - lowlifescarecrow (06/17/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 399** Ooooooh, you mean this.
User avatar #28 to #27 - lowlifescarecrow (06/17/2012) [-]
Can you imagine?
User avatar #29 to #28 - jenno (06/18/2012) [-]
**jenno rolls 048** Imagine all the people?
User avatar #31 to #29 - lowlifescarecrow (06/18/2012) [-]
**lowlifescarecrow rolls 067** Imagine there's no heaven?
#32 to #31 - jenno has deleted their comment [-]
#22 - jenno (06/17/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #5956978 at FJ Pony Thread **
#21 - jenno (06/16/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #326 at Oh the feels **
#20 - jenno (06/16/2012) [-]
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #33 at Welcome Friend. **
**jenno rolled a random image posted in comment #33 at Welcome Friend. **
[ 71 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)