I see some resemblence. Would like to see it superimposed. By the way, there is a section of the art world who are really kooky and we can't stop their ideas of what ART is supposed to be, so we live with it. I say down with funding for the ARTS.
Sharon | 02.03.06 - 10:07 am | #

To be honest, I don't understand why there is such a thing as a public fund for arts.

(shrugs)

If there was to be a fund for arts, it should go directly to the art programs in public schools. Nowhere else.

Artists (including me) are perfectly capable of bringing our visions into existence on our own and they can sell it at a higher price to make a profit on it.

Better than taking advantage of the taxpayers.
Banjo | Homepage | 02.03.06 - 10:43 am | #

I'm in support of public funding for arts and culture for kids but then again one runs into the definition of what is "art"??? Art to me is not draping the islands with ribbon. Sooooo....

I don't CHOOSE to see Bin Laden. Perhaps that is where the difference lies. Art is all about interpretation. It doesn't mean one is wrong if they see "Bin Laden".

However Laden is an offensive person so I only see him in photographic images. That's just me!
Sherry | 02.03.06 - 12:26 pm | #

Art is a product of human creativity.

Yes, you are right... art is all about interpretations. An eaten apple may not seems like an art to you, but it may to somebody else.

Everybody has their ideas of what defines a product of the arts.

It's a concept where so many different opinions varies.

I don't know too much about that painting that was posted on Koko's, all I can say is that it doesn't interest me nor do I find it impressive.
Banjo | Homepage | 02.03.06 - 3:20 pm | #

I don't call it art. If it doesn't appeal to me, it's not art. And no one can tell me otherwise, either.
mcconnell | Homepage | 02.03.06 - 4:01 pm | #

I thought it rather amateurish myself.
Sherry | 02.06.06 - 1:34 pm | #