Red Tory v.2.0
Interesting.
Remainds me of the Voice of Fire.
I saw the travelling Warhol exhibit in Victoria last week. That too was interesting in a off centre kind of way.
Oh, Tomm... I just knew someone would draw a comparison with VOF. Thanks for being right on cue.
Why though is beyond me... What possible resemblance or similarity is shared between the two?
Nothing, except the strange artistic linkage between the two.
What possible resemblance or similarity is shared between the two?
Don't play dumb, Red. They were both produced by and for élite, liberal, lesbian-or-transgendered, non-Albertan, non-American, Islamofascist, thug-hugging, feminazi, eco-jihadi, latté-sipping, vegan, Trudeaupian, crack-head welfare mothers.
And, worst of all, Tomm doesn't like them--reason enough to consign them both to the bonfire of the vanities, really.
Oh, of course. Silly me.
Contrary to VOF I thought this piece was wonderfully accessible and enjoyable on all sorts of different levels.
Sir Francis,
Bad day?
I'm worth attacking why?
You certainly are the gatekeeper of good thoughts.
A shark filled with formaldehyde suspended in a tank of "whatever" liquid in the middle of a museum is a form of art because...?
I found it interesting, I think it would be amusing to see, it may even be art, I'm no art critic. I think I've seen something like this sort of thing come out of a taxidermist's shop, without the water of couse.
600K to process the shark seems a little bit of a risk. If you or I had done it and then tried to get it shown and perhaps find a buyer?
I don't think so. Just like Andy Warhol, it is famous because of the person that did it. That doesn't make it art.
Voice of Fire. I think Barnett was the first person I was aware of to have the audacity to paint something that mundane and expect somebody buy it for a large sum.
Other than my thinking the whole thing is a little humorous, neither bothers me until public money is thrown on the table.
So now you're the Canadian censor and would like me not to comment?
I thought you were for free expressions of thought? I guess only thoughts of yours, or by people you wish to see elevated onto the soapbox.
Glad you're not in charge.
By the way, I did feel a sense of "home" when you ripped off all those stereotypes. I'm flattered you remembered.
Tomm:
Bad day?
On the contrary: any day spent outside of an oxygen tent is a good day. My needs are few.
I'm worth attacking why?
For old time's sake, and because you're probably quite adorable in person.
I'm no art critic.
We are all art critics. We are either good ones or bad ones. That is all.
A shark filled with formaldehyde suspended in a tank of "whatever" liquid in the middle of a museum is a form of art because...?
Because the flagrantly preposterous thing can be sold on the open market for more than eight-hundred times what I make in a year, which should impress a free-market shark such as yourself.
You don't get it. Hirst is a business man. By creating a perpetually appreciating commodity in this one piece of absurdity, Hirst has probably created more wealth than you could hope to do if you had dozens of lives to live. Where's your respect for capitalism, you elitist bugger?
Just like Andy Warhol, it is famous because of the person that did it.
And what's wrong with wanting to be one's own work of art?
Again, I would argue that we are all our own works of art--the only question being whether one is a Watteau or a Bateman.
I think Barnett was the first person I was aware of to have the audacity to paint something that mundane and expect somebody buy it for a large sum.
Tomm, boringly painted pieces of shit are sold for huge sums every day. They're called "suburban bungalows".
So now you're the Canadian censor and would like me not to comment?
As you can probably guess, I dearly wish we had an official Censor (which the republican Romans, sensibly, held to be a worthy and noble office).
Alas, we do not. If we did, I would gladly serve, but only for a massive pay packet, I can assure you. The monumental task of suppressing the acres of bad Canadian poetry would, in itself, shorten my life span by a full decade.
I thought you were for free expressions of thought? I guess only thoughts of yours...
"Free expression of thought" is a necessary evil. I am "for" it in much the same way I am "for" defecation: I'll live with it, but I wish I didn't need to.
Glad you're not in charge.
To be quite candid, you only think you are.
I did feel a sense of "home" when you ripped off all those stereotypes...
Never say I don't give you anything.
Commenting by HaloScan
