Rules:
1. Sincere posts only
2. No modernism
EmanuelaBrolandi was probated until (April 17, 2012 10:56:58) for this post!
GoldenLionTamarin posted:
Rules:
1. Sincere posts only
2. No modernism
the monkey has access to THE BUTTON in order to enforce these rules people. you have been warned
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
What if me and Shermanstick sincerely believe what we post is high art?
i'll let a tiny brazilian primate be the qadi of that
high art
let's just say i've got some philip glass on the old iTunes
getfiscal posted:what're your feelings about middle-brow art.
let's just say i've got some philip glass on the old iTunes
no
LandBeluga posted:
Yes! Yes! Yes!
GoldenLionTamarin posted:Yes! Yes! Yes!
LandBeluga posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:Yes! Yes! Yes!
Ahh! Yes! Yes!
crustpunk_trotsky posted:
getfiscal posted:i'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but have you considered take on me by a-ha as performed by a north korean accordian ensemble?
interesting anecdote about take on me covers. that site yourscenesucks says this on the "rude boy" page:
the rude boy was never good at any sports, so instead he opted to join the marching band which, incidentally, led to the formation of his own group. the band enjoyed their biggest success at a recent high school battle of the bands, where they showcased their originality by covering the reel big fish cover of a-ha’s “take on me”.
i did not think anything of this passage until i found out one of the local ska bands was actually doing a cover of the reel big fish cover of take on me. i really hate ska
getfiscal posted:i'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but have you considered take on me by a-ha as performed by a north korean accordian ensemble?
On a not-entirely-unrelated note, is this permissible?
LandBeluga posted:
It's possibly the best music I've heard on instruments co-opted from Trini culture by white folk.
screencap from the food network's newest daytime program
adorno was a big ole sourpuss elitist really, he was right about a lot of stuff but unlike benjamin he didnt really 'get' it
Rumi posted:
"Hallaj"
Hallaj said what he said and went to the origin
through the hole in the scaffold.
I cut a cap's worth of cloth from his robe,
and it swamped over me from head to foot.
Years ago, I broke a bunch of roses
from the top of his wall. A thorn from that
is still in my palm working deeper.
From Hallaj, I learned to hunt lions,
but I became something hungrier than a lion.
I was a frisky colt. He broke me
with a quiet hand on the side of my head.
A person comes to him naked. It's cold.
There's a fur coat floating in the river.
"Jump in and get it," he says.
You dive in. You reach for the coat.
It reaches for you.
It's a live bear that has fallen in upstream,
drifting with the current.
"How long does it take!" Hallaj yells from the bank.
"Don't wait," you answer. "This coat
has decided to wear me home!"
A little part of a story, a hint.
Do you need long sermons on Hallaj?
GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i dont get cubism. is it one of those things where im supposed to look at it and think its pretty and feel things, or one of those things where im supposed to admire the form or whatever but not actually like it
"...This is important, because to make something from what is really there—something which is neither obviously determined by what offers itself to us nor simply ignores what offers itself to us in order to impose its own subjective idea—this is what all true artistic creation does, according to Heidegger's view (presented in section 3.7). As we saw, every “authentic” hermeneutics must do this; to interpret any great work of art, “you yourself” have to struggle to bring forth its hidden riches, just as the farmer must struggle with the earth to bring forth the bounty nurtured within it. To engage in such phenomenological hermeneutics, we might thus say, is to encounter oneself as a farmer of meaning. For, such an encounter allows us to understand for ourselves what it is like when the earth comes to inform our worlds with a genuine, partly independent meaning which we ourselves brought forth creatively and yet did not simply make-up or project onto the work. When we catch ourselves in the act of making-sense of an artwork in this way, then we experience for ourselves that fundamental making-sense from which, for Heidegger, all genuine meaning ultimately derives."
mistersix posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i dont get cubism. is it one of those things where im supposed to look at it and think its pretty and feel things, or one of those things where im supposed to admire the form or whatever but not actually like it"...This is important, because to make something from what is really there—something which is neither obviously determined by what offers itself to us nor simply ignores what offers itself to us in order to impose its own subjective idea—this is what all true artistic creation does, according to Heidegger's view (presented in section 3.7). As we saw, every “authentic” hermeneutics must do this; to interpret any great work of art, “you yourself” have to struggle to bring forth its hidden riches, just as the farmer must struggle with the earth to bring forth the bounty nurtured within it. To engage in such phenomenological hermeneutics, we might thus say, is to encounter oneself as a farmer of meaning. For, such an encounter allows us to understand for ourselves what it is like when the earth comes to inform our worlds with a genuine, partly independent meaning which we ourselves brought forth creatively and yet did not simply make-up or project onto the work. When we catch ourselves in the act of making-sense of an artwork in this way, then we experience for ourselves that fundamental making-sense from which, for Heidegger, all genuine meaning ultimately derives."
that sounds kinda gay, dude.
GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i dont get cubism. is it one of those things where im supposed to look at it and think its pretty and feel things, or one of those things where im supposed to admire the form or whatever but not actually like it
cubism is interesting because it straddles the boundary between representation and abstraction, its art that forces you to recontextualise the way you approach the world and objects around you, in that way its effect is an intellectual one but i get a real aesthetic sense out of the form and composition of a lot of the paintings..... of course as ever its rarely enough to look at a picture on the internet, you kinda have to go to a gallery and see the damn thing to experience it properly
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger-aesthetics/
GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i like representational art. i have a big reproduction of this painting on my wall
http://www.oilpaintingswholesalefromchina.com/oilpaintingshop/Hudson%20River/Thomas%20Cole/040.jpg
thats like barely one step up from thomas kinkade
deadken posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i like representational art. i have a big reproduction of this painting on my wall
http://www.oilpaintingswholesalefromchina.com/oilpaintingshop/Hudson%20River/Thomas%20Cole/040.jpgthats like barely one step up from thomas kinkade
the color scheme in that image is a lot different than the actual work. also, remember that i can probate you, ken.