Poll

What makes art Art?

if a single person thinks its art, then it is.
2 (11.8%)
some things are art, others are not. that simple.
5 (29.4%)
it depends on the time and effort.
2 (11.8%)
it sadly depends on if the artist is famous/dead.
0 (0%)
anything and everything is art in its own way.
8 (47.1%)

Total Members Voted: 17

Art

  • 63 Replies
  • 14919 Views
*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Art
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2009, 04:46:16 PM »
    For Heidegger, art was something that brought forth some true being into existence. A good example for him is the concept of poesis (root of poetry) as a "bringing forth" something that wasn't there. Art lies in the relationship between the artist and the "thing" of art, and involves a responsibility on the viewer to ask the appropriate questions.

   Another element to art in Heideggers view was that art is inherently involved in the transcendence where "earth" meets "world." World being (simply) described as the world of ideas, or values, whereas Earth is defined as the "stuff" that makes the world, essentially objective existence. Heidegger used the example of Van Gough's shoes as an example of art.


 
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

cramerian1

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Beware the FAT NINJA!!
Re: Art
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2009, 09:07:31 PM »
Obviously the splashed paint on canvs was art, because it sparked a fervent debate on what is art. What is art? Its something that makes someone think. There is no good, no bad. Art is art, the only way to scale it is by the amount of thinking and the passion in the though brought out by it. Also, there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.
Some people say women age like wine: With age, comes increased beauty. I respectively disagree. I say women age like milk: if they get to old, they become sour and lumpy. Maybe my hypothesis is related to my current bachelorhood...

*

Guessed

  • 5376
  • +0/-0
Re: Art
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2009, 09:15:39 PM »
there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

It's that kind of thinking that caused the U.S patent office to debate closing in the late 1800's because they believed everything had been invented. Variations are not the same as the original. Would you claim that the motorized car was not an original thought because it was based off the horse and buggy? Or what about electricity, or the telephone? To say that originality does not exist is to (ironically) play into the same cliche that every pseudo-intellectual hepcat has ever taken part in and quite frankly it's just lazy academia.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


?

cramerian1

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Beware the FAT NINJA!!
Re: Art
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2009, 09:28:45 PM »
there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

It's that kind of thinking that caused the U.S patent office to debate closing in the late 1800's because they believed everything had been invented. Variations are not the same as the original. Would you claim that the motorized car was not an original thought because it was based off the horse and buggy? Or what about electricity, or the telephone? To say that originality does not exist is to (ironically) play into the same cliche that every pseudo-intellectual hepcat has ever taken part in and quite frankly it's just lazy academia.

No, what I'm saying is that all things are built upon older things. Nobody just makes something radically different then everything. Thing develop, and are based on other things.
Some people say women age like wine: With age, comes increased beauty. I respectively disagree. I say women age like milk: if they get to old, they become sour and lumpy. Maybe my hypothesis is related to my current bachelorhood...

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7071
  • +0/-0
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Art
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2009, 09:31:48 PM »
there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

It's that kind of thinking that caused the U.S patent office to debate closing in the late 1800's because they believed everything had been invented. Variations are not the same as the original. Would you claim that the motorized car was not an original thought because it was based off the horse and buggy? Or what about electricity, or the telephone? To say that originality does not exist is to (ironically) play into the same cliche that every pseudo-intellectual hepcat has ever taken part in and quite frankly it's just lazy academia.

No, what I'm saying is that all things are built upon older things. Nobody just makes something radically different then everything. Thing develop, and are based on other things.

Please explain what a tv is based off of?
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

?

cramerian1

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Beware the FAT NINJA!!
Re: Art
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2009, 09:35:52 PM »
there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

It's that kind of thinking that caused the U.S patent office to debate closing in the late 1800's because they believed everything had been invented. Variations are not the same as the original. Would you claim that the motorized car was not an original thought because it was based off the horse and buggy? Or what about electricity, or the telephone? To say that originality does not exist is to (ironically) play into the same cliche that every pseudo-intellectual hepcat has ever taken part in and quite frankly it's just lazy academia.

No, what I'm saying is that all things are built upon older things. Nobody just makes something radically different then everything. Thing develop, and are based on other things.

Please explain what a tv is based off of?

Radio, movies, etc.
Some people say women age like wine: With age, comes increased beauty. I respectively disagree. I say women age like milk: if they get to old, they become sour and lumpy. Maybe my hypothesis is related to my current bachelorhood...

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Art
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2009, 11:10:12 PM »
YOU BITCHES DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MY HEIDEGGERS
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • +0/-0
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Art
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2009, 11:37:44 PM »
YOU BITCHES DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MY HEIDEGGERS
sorry :P

i think that it is perfectly ridiculous that all things have already been created/thought of in some way. At what point did this happen? Surely the human race would have had a time when everything was new, or else where did all the old things come from?? When did we reach idea optimality? Even the phrase "There is nothing new under the sun" was NEW when it was first said. In fact, that entire bogus philosophy disproves itself simply by coming into existence!
[/rant]

lastly, i agree with the whole "anything is potential art" idea, but it created a problem with me that i cannot work around. What is art if not something distinguishable from other "stuff"? All things evoke feeling, or can if someone frames them. Then if everything is art, art becomes somewhat of a deity in that it exists in all things... shouldnt art have a concrete way to at leat describe itself?
Right now, it is so ambiguous that it may fall apart all together. Also, billions of dollars and countless industries make profit from art, are they just channeling the essence of beauty from random objects? I think not...

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: Art
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2009, 04:26:56 AM »
YOU BITCHES DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MY HEIDEGGERS
sorry :P

i think that it is perfectly ridiculous that all things have already been created/thought of in some way. At what point did this happen? Surely the human race would have had a time when everything was new, or else where did all the old things come from?? When did we reach idea optimality? Even the phrase "There is nothing new under the sun" was NEW when it was first said. In fact, that entire bogus philosophy disproves itself simply by coming into existence!
[/rant]

lastly, i agree with the whole "anything is potential art" idea, but it created a problem with me that i cannot work around. What is art if not something distinguishable from other "stuff"? All things evoke feeling, or can if someone frames them. Then if everything is art, art becomes somewhat of a deity in that it exists in all things... shouldnt art have a concrete way to at leat describe itself?
Right now, it is so ambiguous that it may fall apart all together. Also, billions of dollars and countless industries make profit from art, are they just channeling the essence of beauty from random objects? I think not...

When we reduce art to something we stare at in museums I think we lose a vital part of our human spirit to see art in anything and, arguably, everything.

Down my way there are fantastic pictures and expressions on the grubby wall of the canal. they will never feature in a museum, they will never sell for a penny, hell they've already been covered up by other graffiti, does that mean that they're not art?

I'm happy to leave art as an ambiguous phrase because it allows for infinite creativity, imagination and appreciation. Imagination is I think the most special ability we have as a species yet we smother it with a grey, dull school system, work, worries, I don't want to see art go the same way.

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7071
  • +0/-0
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Art
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2009, 09:57:22 AM »
See, like I said, anything we make is potentially art. But the driftwood example isn't art. It might look cool, and can go next to art, but it can't be considered art.
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

?

cramerian1

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Beware the FAT NINJA!!
Re: Art
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2009, 12:00:30 PM »
All things are art. Art isn't to be decided by individuals or groups. The very fact that someone can argue something is art proves that thing is art.
Some people say women age like wine: With age, comes increased beauty. I respectively disagree. I say women age like milk: if they get to old, they become sour and lumpy. Maybe my hypothesis is related to my current bachelorhood...

*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Art
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2009, 04:27:00 PM »
That's a very strange statement, honestly. I still think that there much be some sort of standard for art. Otherwise, I could just build something random with legos and put it in a flower pot, and I could call it art, when it isn't art at all.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • +0/-0
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Art
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2009, 06:05:15 PM »
See, like I said, anything we make is potentially art. But the driftwood example isn't art. It might look cool, and can go next to art, but it can't be considered art.
so is that just copyrighting natue a bit too much?
like a photograph of driftwood would work instead?

is it about effort or the fact that the drifwood was not the work of the artist?

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • +0/-0
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Art
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2009, 06:10:40 PM »
That's a very strange statement, honestly. I still think that there much be some sort of standard for art. Otherwise, I could just build something random with legos and put it in a flower pot, and I could call it art, when it isn't art at all.
actually that would be somewhat artistic, possibly in photograph form.

anyways, i agree with Mr. Spaghetti that art has potential to be in everything and should be apreciated on a case by case basis. I'm not one to judge what art is and is not, as i have seen some freaky and useless "art".

What are your (anyone's) views on other forms of art, such as musical copyrights or performance arts?
do the same rules apply? If so, then every action we take could be seen as a performance, every word a song. This makes art even more opaque.

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7071
  • +0/-0
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Art
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2009, 06:52:08 PM »
See, like I said, anything we make is potentially art. But the driftwood example isn't art. It might look cool, and can go next to art, but it can't be considered art.
so is that just copyrighting natue a bit too much?
like a photograph of driftwood would work instead?

is it about effort or the fact that the drifwood was not the work of the artist?

It's the fact that there wasn't any work done. But a photo of the wood is art. Also, Wendy, I would think that legos in a flower pot can be art, because you take some thing and make something else out of it, therefore you created something.
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Art
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2009, 06:38:22 AM »
YOU BITCHES DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MY HEIDEGGERS
sorry :P

i think that it is perfectly ridiculous that all things have already been created/thought of in some way. At what point did this happen? Surely the human race would have had a time when everything was new, or else where did all the old things come from?? When did we reach idea optimality? Even the phrase "There is nothing new under the sun" was NEW when it was first said. In fact, that entire bogus philosophy disproves itself simply by coming into existence!
[/rant]

lastly, i agree with the whole "anything is potential art" idea, but it created a problem with me that i cannot work around. What is art if not something distinguishable from other "stuff"? All things evoke feeling, or can if someone frames them. Then if everything is art, art becomes somewhat of a deity in that it exists in all things... shouldnt art have a concrete way to at leat describe itself?
Right now, it is so ambiguous that it may fall apart all together. Also, billions of dollars and countless industries make profit from art, are they just channeling the essence of beauty from random objects? I think not...

Heidegger is thinking way above everybody's head. He wrote on "Being," essentially the 'everything' that ever was, is, could be. It uncovers itself, and we uncover it, as the caretakers of Being through speech. When we speak, we bring Being into language. With art, it has to uncover Being in some way, or it's not art.
 
  This answers the question as to whether corporate "art", like graphic designs for advertisements, would not usually be considered art. An example would be the Nike logo. It provides a brand and a way to identify a product, but does little if anything (in most situations) to bring forth Being.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 06:43:01 AM by Benocrates »
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

grogberries

  • 3468
  • +0/-0
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Art
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2009, 11:35:17 AM »
So i was sitting in the reception area of my doctor's office to confirm my concerns about a sinus infection. (i was right, i got it bad) Anyways, across the walls were different pieces of artwork from two artists. Both were large (4X4ft) paintings on canvas, but both very different. One was a piccaso-style macabre doctor-themed artist. His/Her paintings were unmarked, and were funny yet somewhat strange.

The other artist had very basic acrylic paint seemingly dribbled and splashed on the canvas in randomness. There were three colors used at max, and barely covered 30% of the canvas area. It was interesting to see for me, but only to imagine a crazy or lazy person flicking a paintbrush at a canvus until it had some random design.
These pieces were labled, with simple phrases like "The Dance" that seemed fortune-cookie like in the way that they would fit any painting that they were attatched to. They also had a pricetag. $2000 a pop.

So, to me the random splatter was in no way aestheticly pleasing yet were the most expensive. They clearly showed little to no effort, and no thought to the title. The other paintings had such a unique style, and humor. The artist had attention to detail, mutiple layers, facial expressions, and yet they were not priced. They were a donation, it seemed.

Does a large pricetag increase value at all? Possibly. Had i seen random splatter on the sidewalk, would i have thought to take a picture and sell it for a couple grand? No... So is value of art in the effort? Clearly no. What about the overall aesthetics? Pleasing to some, but not to others... This would suggest that art is subjective. If this is so, then why do people make money by selling random splatters? Because many others find them attractive?

In addition, art as a subjective force breaks down all that art should be. Refined, masterful, not just a stump in a ditch. If that is art, then so is everything else and paintings should be worthless. But they arent. So where does the value of art come from?

First of all I think you are a bit naive about how much it costs for an artist to make a painting. If I wanna work on canvas, for instance and I am a serious artist, I will not buy prestretched canvas on a stretcher. First I have to build a stretcher. I make mine out of wood. It takes about two days to complete. I usually spend 30 dollars on lumber to make  a stretcher. Then I have to have a miter saw to cut 90 degree angles to join the wood at angles. I then have to buy the canvas and stretch the canvas which is a laborious processes that takes another day depending on the size. Then I have to seize the canvas with sieze, then I have to prime the canvas in many layers. I do about 4 layers each time I have to wait for the coat to dry and then I have to sand it with fine grit sand paper before the next layer.

So before I even started the painting, I've invested around 50+ dollars and several days of work on making something to paint on.

Then artist grade paint is not cheap!  I've spent over 200 dollars on paint on one painting alone!  The acrylic paint you were using probably cost 5 dollars a tube. The paint I use is probably around 20 dollars a tube and more sometimes depending on the pigment. I work in oil. So i also have to buy paint, paint thinner, oil medium, varnish, and not to mention brushes. The paint thinner I use is a petroleum product that is extremely refined so my house doesn't smell like a gas station and so it wont kill me. A gallon of that cost me 40 dollars! With painting also comes a knowledge about paint. Paintings will fall apart and fade and crack. This will be expedited if the painter is not knowledge able about his materials. A jackson pollock will not be in good shape now because he used house paint. They have to be continuously repaired to last.

But I do agree that art is overpriced many of the time. But the price is determined by how willing a person is to pay, not by the painting.

This part of Art is not subjective. The interpretation of art is highly subjective. If that bothers you, you should just get a book of math equations and do those all day. I am not that convinced that you are that interested in visual arts to begin with.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2009, 11:47:35 AM by grogberries »
Think hard. Think Flat.

?

C-Ray

  • 706
  • +0/-0
Re: Art
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2009, 11:44:02 AM »
Ever heard of Jackson Pollock?
The Earth is Round.

?

C-Ray

  • 706
  • +0/-0
Re: Art
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2009, 11:52:05 AM »
Art is something that one creates. If I found driftwood and put my initials on it, that isn't art.
I think it is, depending on the circumstance. If you find something beautiful that nature made, isn't that art? By that same logic, one might argue that nature photography isn't art, because you didn't create the subject, you just used it.

So you mean that you are condemning a picture because it's a portrait? ::)

Yes they are boring, and shouldn't be considered, well not art, but something like that. Portraits are more like a memory, or a namesake, and used to remember people, and hang over the mantle piece. Like every monarch has a portrait, why isn't King George II's portrait as popular Mona Lsa.

Because it was made by another, less famous artist, who didn't inspire people as much, and because it was from a different place, created under different circumstances, and the simple fact that it was finished may also contribute to its lesser popularity.

Then you wouldn't say what Ansel Adams did was artistic?  You can't be so literal with your definition.  Art has as much to do with technique as it does subject matter, whether it's abstract or not.
The Earth is Round.

?

grogberries

  • 3468
  • +0/-0
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Art
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2009, 11:55:23 AM »
YOU BITCHES DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT MY HEIDEGGERS
sorry :P

i think that it is perfectly ridiculous that all things have already been created/thought of in some way. At what point did this happen? Surely the human race would have had a time when everything was new, or else where did all the old things come from?? When did we reach idea optimality? Even the phrase "There is nothing new under the sun" was NEW when it was first said. In fact, that entire bogus philosophy disproves itself simply by coming into existence!
[/rant]

lastly, i agree with the whole "anything is potential art" idea, but it created a problem with me that i cannot work around. What is art if not something distinguishable from other "stuff"? All things evoke feeling, or can if someone frames them. Then if everything is art, art becomes somewhat of a deity in that it exists in all things... shouldnt art have a concrete way to at leat describe itself?
Right now, it is so ambiguous that it may fall apart all together. Also, billions of dollars and countless industries make profit from art, are they just channeling the essence of beauty from random objects? I think not...

Heidegger is thinking way above everybody's head. He wrote on "Being," essentially the 'everything' that ever was, is, could be. It uncovers itself, and we uncover it, as the caretakers of Being through speech. When we speak, we bring Being into language. With art, it has to uncover Being in some way, or it's not art.
 
  This answers the question as to whether corporate "art", like graphic designs for advertisements, would not usually be considered art. An example would be the Nike logo. It provides a brand and a way to identify a product, but does little if anything (in most situations) to bring forth Being.

Visual symbols are very similar to words. How is this not language?
Think hard. Think Flat.

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • +0/-0
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Art
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2009, 11:56:06 AM »
Ever heard of Jackson Pollock?

 Results 1 - 10 of about 1,400,000 for jackson pollock

www.jacksonpollock.com/

If you haven't, you need to go there.  Not one of my favorite artists, but decent.

I prefer:

http://www.imaginistix.com/   Boris over Julie,

http://www.luisroyo.com/  and

http://www.royoart.com/  Both Royos...

http://www.kuniyoshiproject.com/

That is all art...  but that stuff I write is art as well, despite not being the best kind of art.

An artist is someone that creates something that moves you in some way.  Stephen King causes horror and terror.

Norman Rockwell evoked feelings of family and nostalgia.  Whatever they evoke, if a person uses any medium to evoke a feeling in other people, paint, words, music or motion, they have created art.
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Art
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2009, 11:59:56 AM »
Art is something that one creates. If I found driftwood and put my initials on it, that isn't art.
I think it is, depending on the circumstance. If you find something beautiful that nature made, isn't that art? By that same logic, one might argue that nature photography isn't art, because you didn't create the subject, you just used it.

So you mean that you are condemning a picture because it's a portrait? ::)

Yes they are boring, and shouldn't be considered, well not art, but something like that. Portraits are more like a memory, or a namesake, and used to remember people, and hang over the mantle piece. Like every monarch has a portrait, why isn't King George II's portrait as popular Mona Lsa.

Because it was made by another, less famous artist, who didn't inspire people as much, and because it was from a different place, created under different circumstances, and the simple fact that it was finished may also contribute to its lesser popularity.

Then you wouldn't say what Ansel Adams did was artistic?  You can't be so literal with your definition.  Art has as much to do with technique as it does subject matter, whether it's abstract or not.

I was arguing for the exact opposite of what you are saying. I am arguing that, even though Ansel Adams didn't make the objects he photographed, it's still art, because he shot the photos in an artistic way.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

grogberries

  • 3468
  • +0/-0
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Art
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2009, 12:02:03 PM »
All things are art. Art isn't to be decided by individuals or groups. The very fact that someone can argue something is art proves that thing is art.

I agree with this individual. Art, especially what we remember from the past, is entirely social and has a political structure.
Think hard. Think Flat.

?

C-Ray

  • 706
  • +0/-0
Re: Art
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2009, 12:09:32 PM »
Art is something that one creates. If I found driftwood and put my initials on it, that isn't art.
I think it is, depending on the circumstance. If you find something beautiful that nature made, isn't that art? By that same logic, one might argue that nature photography isn't art, because you didn't create the subject, you just used it.

So you mean that you are condemning a picture because it's a portrait? ::)

Yes they are boring, and shouldn't be considered, well not art, but something like that. Portraits are more like a memory, or a namesake, and used to remember people, and hang over the mantle piece. Like every monarch has a portrait, why isn't King George II's portrait as popular Mona Lsa.

Because it was made by another, less famous artist, who didn't inspire people as much, and because it was from a different place, created under different circumstances, and the simple fact that it was finished may also contribute to its lesser popularity.

Then you wouldn't say what Ansel Adams did was artistic?  You can't be so literal with your definition.  Art has as much to do with technique as it does subject matter, whether it's abstract or not.

I was arguing for the exact opposite of what you are saying. I am arguing that, even though Ansel Adams didn't make the objects he photographed, it's still art, because he shot the photos in an artistic way.

Sorry, I misunderstood.
The Earth is Round.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Art
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2009, 01:29:31 PM »
That's a very strange statement, honestly. I still think that there much be some sort of standard for art. Otherwise, I could just build something random with legos and put it in a flower pot, and I could call it art, when it isn't art at all.

You just described modern art.

Look up enemart then give up on humanity.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Art
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2009, 01:31:03 PM »
Why didn't I see that coming? Who appreciates that?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Art
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2009, 01:31:39 PM »
Why didn't I see that coming? Who appreciates that?

I have no idea.

*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Art
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2009, 02:07:16 PM »
lol, still no worse than menstrual art.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Art
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2009, 02:10:26 PM »
What, a woman just sits on the canvas for a bit? Why not just fill a photocopier with blood and sit on that at any other time of the month, it'll achieve a similar result and you'll get hundreds.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Art
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2009, 02:14:50 PM »
Tubgirl art. You do a tubgirl except with paint too.