When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

[honestrosewater]

You are talking about ideas here, and not art.

Sorry, I was talking about the actual words used, as in my example. And ideas are certainly presented in art, as your examples show.

In fact, about a bezillion writers have written a bezillion books that boil down to the question "To be or not to be," or "Is life worth living?" The greater or lesser success of any of them is completely independent of their having that question as their base. The success of their writing depends on how well they explore the question, and how interestingly they write in general.

My question was whether you think a writer would think twice about using the actual phrase "to be, or not to be." It is an incredibly well-known phrase, so when people read it, there's a good chance that they will recognize it and think of Hamlet. If a writer wants to use the phrase but doesn't want to make the reader think of Hamlet, they have a problem.

No, authenticity should be the goal. If you are true to your own vision of things, originality comes of its own.

So that's a clear no? You think originality should not be a goal? You seem to imply that it should be a goal but that people just don't need to consciously try to achieve it, so I'm still a bit confused. Is originality good or not?
And seriously, how can a person guarantee that beng true to their own vision will result in an original work? I don't think they can. It is leaving it to chance, which, in my personal opinion, is irresponsible.

I think everyone starts out in the arts because they're impressed by what other artists have done. To the extent their own stuff remains locked on sharing in that; wanting to do what other artists have done, there will always be a rut of imitation right next to them that they must consciously avoid falling into. But artists who shift to getting their inspiration directly from life, rather than from other artwork, don't have to worry about a constant effort to be original.

I'm not suggesting that people should copy each other - I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. I think that artists should try to be original and genuine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what is your next painting going to be,

I draw, not paint and I use regular pencil, or colored pencils.

do you ponder for ages, pick
some thing you know you can do justice to, decide at the spur of the
moment, or wait for inspiration.

All of the above. I suffer from binges. I may draw straight for four months, doing little else, and then drop it for several months in favor of some other binge, like reading or movie watching. Sometimes I'll rent three or four movies a day for weeks straight. At other times I'll spend eight hours a day reading for weeks straight.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry, I was talking about the actual words used, as in my example.

So, you were asking if it's OK to plagiarize? No.

And ideas are certainly presented in art, as your examples show.

Am I smelling a straw man here, from the mistress of Logic? Yes, ideas are presented in art, but they aren't the art, aren't what's artistic about the art. Writers often think they need a new idea. What they really need is to be able to write well about anything. It's like Math Is Hard once said about Morgan Freeman: he's such a good actor that you could sit and listen to him read the phone book. A good writer can write grippingly, and compellingly about the phone book, and a good artist can paint a really fascinating phone book.

My question was whether you think a writer would think twice about using the actual phrase "to be, or not to be." It is an incredibly well-known phrase, so when people read it, there's a good chance that they will recognize it and think of Hamlet. If a writer wants to use the phrase but doesn't want to make the reader think of Hamlet, they have a problem.

This whole question is just plain silly. Using Shakespeare's exact words is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether you credit him or try to make people think his words are yours.

And seriously, how can a person guarantee that beng true to their own vision will result in an original work?

This quetion would only occur to someone obsessed with the notion of originality over authenticity. To the extent your work may overlap with anyone elses it simply means you're both human. No one is so unique that their work doesn't overlap with someone somewhere in some way shape or form.

Back when I was doing sculpture, I happened to end up in the same gallery as a sculptor who happened to be using a device very similar to mine, which was putting mask-like faces on solid backgrounds, and painting over all of it. Some people, of course, thought one of us had started copying the devise from the other, but I'd been working with masks since I was eight years old, and he happened to arrive at this structure in his own way, for his own reasons independently of me.

Our stuff was similar only in that overall structure: his stuff had a more "freeform", spontaneous feel to it, and mine was very structured and formal, geometric. We were both a bit perplexed by the accidental similarities of form, but neither of us changed for fear of being unoriginal. We both knew that the idea of a mask-like face on a background panel painted over in acrylic paint, was mere structure, and that the way we each approached it was vastly different.

When I think about the issue of originality I'm never concerned about the possibility of repeating something someone else has done. I'm much more concerned that I don't mindlessly repeat myself: keep cranking out the same drawing over and over. A critic once complained that Vivaldi had written the same concerto 800 times, and in a sense, he had: they're all too similar to each other.

If you are inadvertantly picking up on other people's style, copying their turns of speech and what is particularly unique about them, then, yes, you have a problem and need to concentrate on finding your own "voice". There is a difference between finding your own voice, and doing anything so long as it's original. Originality for originality' sake with the proclaimation: "No one else has ever done it before!" frequently results in pointless and unsatisfying results. "Originality above all" should not be a goal, no.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm trying to find an article on it and can't but not that long ago I read an article about a new "Art Movement" based around plagiarism. The guy heading it up is a professor who apparently really considers it a new artistic expression. Reading his rationale it's really just a bunch of bologna.

On a subject close to plagiarism there is a famous painter by the name of Elmyr de Hory who is actually famous for being a forger of master pieces. It is very possible that several of his paintings are currently in galleries and museums today being displayed as the work of Monet or Picasso.
There was a book written about him called Fake! (a title that Lisa! would love) by an author named Clifford Irving who himself is notorious for having written a fake Howard Hughes autobiography. Orson Welles made a film called "F for Fake" based on both stories, considered a brilliant piece of film making art in itself. I really need to see it.

Wolram the earlier Dali painting is called "One Second Before Awakening From a Dream". It depicts a reversed food chain, sort of. The pamegranate or pamegranate seed was used in Renaissance art to symbolize life or the origins of life. There's also the pamegranate with the bee hovering around it at the bottom of the painting that I always thought depicted a symbiotic relationship. I bought a print of that painting once but gave it to a lovely lady that I had a crush on as a gift.
http://bertc.com/subthree/images/dali2c.jpg

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is a strange and interesting book (true story) called The Three Christs of Ipsilanti which is about three mental patients at the same intitution who all thought they were Jesus.

One of them, later in the book, developed a peculiar new delusion: he began going to the library and copying all the great works of literature over in his own hand, thereby becoming their "author", in his own mind. Apparently being Jesus wasn't enough for him, he wanted to be the author of the world's great literature as well.

The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger.

 

[arildno]

"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.

 

[wolram]

Wolram the earlier Dali painting is called "One Second Before Awakening From a Dream". It depicts a reversed food chain, sort of. The pamegranate or pamegranate seed was used in Renaissance art to symbolize life or the origins of life. There's also the pamegranate with the bee hovering around it at the bottom of the painting that I always thought depicted a symbiotic relationship. ]

Ah, enlightenment, It sort of makes sense to me now, Thanks

 

[honestrosewater]

zooby,
My examples and explanations have been trying to clarify your answer to this:

It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.

IOW, no artist ever needs to think about being original. That is obviously false to me, so when you said that you thought it was true, I wanted to be sure that you understood what I was asking. But your responses suggest that this isn't what you really think.

So, you were asking if it's OK to plagiarize? No.

Am I smelling a straw man here, from the mistress of Logic? Yes, ideas are presented in art, but they aren't the art, aren't what's artistic about the art. Writers often think they need a new idea. What they really need is to be able to write well about anything. It's like Math Is Hard once said about Morgan Freeman: he's such a good actor that you could sit and listen to him read the phone book. A good writer can write grippingly, and compellingly about the phone book, and a good artist can paint a really fascinating phone book.

This whole question is just plain silly. Using Shakespeare's exact words is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether you credit him or try to make people think his words are yours.

This quetion would only occur to someone obsessed with the notion of originality over authenticity. To the extent your work may overlap with anyone elses it simply means you're both human. No one is so unique that their work doesn't overlap with someone somewhere in some way shape or form.

Back when I was doing sculpture, I happened to end up in the same gallery as a sculptor who happened to be using a device very similar to mine, which was putting mask-like faces on solid backgrounds, and painting over all of it. Some people, of course, thought one of us had started copying the devise from the other, but I'd been working with masks since I was eight years old, and he happened to arrive at this structure in his own way, for his own reasons independently of me.

Our stuff was similar only in that overall structure: his stuff had a more "freeform", spontaneous feel to it, and mine was very structured and formal, geometric. We were both a bit perplexed by the accidental similarities of form, but neither of us changed for fear of being unoriginal. We both knew that the idea of a mask-like face on a background panel painted over in acrylic paint, was mere structure, and that the way we each approached it was vastly different.

When I think about the issue of originality I'm never concerned about the possibility of repeating something someone else has done. I'm much more concerned that I don't mindlessly repeat myself: keep cranking out the same drawing over and over. A critic once complained that Vivaldi had written the same concerto 800 times, and in a sense, he had: they're all too similar to each other.

If you are inadvertantly picking up on other people's style, copying their turns of speech and what is particularly unique about them, then, yes, you have a problem and need to concentrate on finding your own "voice". There is a difference between finding your own voice, and doing anything so long as it's original. Originality for originality' sake with the proclaimation: "No one else has ever done it before!" frequently results in pointless and unsatisfying results. "Originality above all" should not be a goal, no.

As I already said, I don't think "originality above all" should be a goal either.

I think that artists should try to be original and genuine.

You say 'authentic', I say 'genuine', I mean the same thing. Artists can have more than one goal. It's crystal clear to me that you think authenticity should be a goal. You say it should be the goal but give examples where originality is also a goal, so I still have two questions:

Do you think originality should be among an artist's goals? Yes, no, sometimes?
If originality is among an artist's goals, do you think an artist needs to make a conscious effort to achieve that goal? Yes, no, sometimes?

If you don't want to answer, fine. I'm not even arguing about your answers - I'm just trying to figure out what your answers are. You don't need to give any support or explanation - a simple yes, no, or sometimes is all that I want.
To be clear, I am not asking what all of an artist's goals should be or how they should rank in importance or about the difference between an idea and its presentation, or what all makes an artist or piece of art successful.

 

[wolram]

HRW, it seems you need taghairm, but will the lady of the lake find it

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.

To Zooby, yes I realize there's a differance. Thinking about plagiarism brought him to mind though. And thanks for bringing up that book by the way, I'll have to remember that.

Alrildno, de Hory's painting actually go for in the vicinity of twenty thousand dollars a piece from what I found while looking up that link. There are also apparently people who forge Elmyr de Hory forgeries lol. I originally read about him in one of the Cosmic Trigger series by R.A. Wilson. He was discussing the topic of art and what constitutes art, probably another reason why he came to mind.

I forgot earlier to relatea story that came to mind. A good friends brother went to art school. He apparently was quite busy and didn't get around to working on a project that he was supposed to have finished by the next day. So he went out to his car and cleaned out all the trash on the floor of it then brought it in and plastered it all to a canvas. He turned it in as his project the next day. When asked to explain it he said that it was a statement about society being constantly busy and the trash that they fill their lives with due to popular media and commercialization blah blah blah... he more or less pulled a line of garbage out of his rectum like he pulled the garbage on the canvas out of his car. He apparently received a good mark on the project.
I put something like this on par with Worhals soup can. I don't think it is really deserving of being called "art".

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you don't want to answer, fine. I'm not even arguing about your answers - I'm just trying to figure out what your answers are. You don't need to give any support or explanation - a simple yes, no, or sometimes is all that I want.

Phrasing the quetion this way makes it an improper question. The correct response to the question "Should originality be among an artist's goals?" is not one of three, one word choices.

My feelings about originality and artists are clear by now. I have been addressing the best proper questions I can see lurking behind all the improper quetions you have been posing. I don't think you will arrive at a good answer until you get some insight into the impropriety of your questions; questions that strangely allow for plagiarism to be confused with lack of originality, and that present choices of two or three, one word answers, to issues that require much more than that to adequately address.

I can't answer Yes, No or, Sometimes, and also be giving a correct answer. I have to say it like this: In general, artists don't have to have originality as a goal; it will arise naturally from their simply being authentic to their own aesthetics. Some artists may have to adopt it as a goal if they happen to have an unfortunate proclivity for imitating other artists. Those are special cases, though. Also, all artists should think in terms of being original when it come to the issue of repeating themselves: they should strive to break new ground vis a via what they, themselves, have already done, to avoid stagnation and treading water.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.

I saw a TV special about an art forger a few years back and it may be the one mentioned by TSA. In any event, he was superb at it.

It seems to me that it has to take a great deal more skill to exactly reproduce a given masterwork than it would to create an original painting working from the comfort of your own style, so I couldn't really understand why the man didn't try becoming an artist in his own right: he could, apparently, have painted anything he wanted in any style from photorealism to abstract. Was he really, really addicted to the thrill of the "con"? Or did he just draw an insurmountable blank when it came to the notion of expressing any personal vision of things? I couldn't understand it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I saw a TV special about an art forger a few years back and it may be the one mentioned by TSA. In any event, he was superb at it.

It seems to me that it has to take a great deal more skill to exactly reproduce a given masterwork than it would to create an original painting working from the comfort of your own style, so I couldn't really understand why the man didn't try becoming an artist in his own right: he could, apparently, have painted anything he wanted in any style from photorealism to abstract. Was he really, really addicted to the thrill of the "con"? Or did he just draw an insurmountable blank when it came to the notion of expressing any personal vision of things? I couldn't understand it.

If it is the same forger, Elmyr de Hory, then apparently he had accidentally stumbled into doing fogeries when he sold a copy of a Picasso he had painted and the buyer had believed it was the real thing. He had tried to start painting his own work but found that he couldn't sell it so he went back to painting forgeries. At the end of his career he tried painting his own work again but made little profit. Even a good painter isn't going to be able to fetch the price for their paintings that a Picasso or a Matisse can.

 

[honestrosewater]

Phrasing the quetion this way makes it an improper question. The correct response to the question "Should originality be among an artist's goals?" is not one of three, one word choices.

My feelings about originality and artists are clear by now. I have been addressing the best proper questions I can see lurking behind all the improper quetions you have been posing. I don't think you will arrive at a good answer until you get some insight into the impropriety of your questions; questions that strangely allow for plagiarism to be confused with lack of originality,

I was never talking about plagiarism; You took my example to be about plagiarism, but I didn't want to keep getting sidetracked, so I let it go. My example was about two people presenting the same idea in the same way, purely by coincidence.

and that present choices of two or three, one word answers, to issues that require much more than that to adequately address.

Okay, I wasn't trying to back you into a corner or anything - I specifically said that I wasn't necessarily asking for an adequate address. I realize that a one-word answer might not provide enough detail about your opinion, but your explanations confused me, so I was trying get to the bottom of things. It doesn't look like I'm going to get much further with that, so I'll just drop it.
But I still don't think my questions are improper. Whatever your opinion is, I think it must fall under at least one of the answers. For each individual case, either originality is a goal or originality is not a goal. For all cases combined, originality is a goal in either all, some, or none of them. What are the options not covered by 'is or is not' and 'all, some, or none'?

I can't answer Yes, No or, Sometimes, and also be giving a correct answer. I have to say it like this: In general, artists don't have to have originality as a goal; it will arise naturally from their simply being authentic to their own aesthetics. Some artists may have to adopt it as a goal if they happen to have an unfortunate proclivity for imitating other artists. Those are special cases, though. Also, all artists should think in terms of being original when it come to the issue of repeating themselves: they should strive to break new ground vis a via what they, themselves, have already done, to avoid stagnation and treading water.

Just to show what I mean, from this last explanation, it seems your answers would be:
Do you think originality should be among an artist's goals? Sometimes.
If originality is among an artist's goals, do you think an artist needs to make a conscious effort to achieve that goal? Sometimes.
I understand how a 'sometimes' answer begs further explanation. I was just trying to get past that first step.
And BTW, it initially seemed like your answer to both quesitons could have been 'no', so I think we've made some progress despite our communication problems.

 

[arildno]

But, hrw, wouldn't you say that in as much as an artist is dissatisfied if thinks his work unoriginal, then we could say that it is precisely because it isn't HIS individuality he's managed to express, it is someone else's (i.e, the previous artist)?
That is, he has not lived up to his own standard of authenticity..

 

[honestrosewater]

But, hrw, wouldn't you say that in as much as an artist is dissatisfied if thinks his work unoriginal, then we could say that it is precisely because it isn't HIS individuality he's managed to express, it is someone else's (i.e, the previous artist)?
That is, he has not lived up to his own standard of authenticity..

I guess that could happen. There are situations where originality and authenticity conflict, but I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking of.

It can happen that two people are just very similar; They have the same beliefs, opinions, tastes, etc. I feel this way about another writer. If my only goal were to be authentic, I might be perfectly content creating work that happened to be very similar to this other writer's, i.e., containing nothing really new, because I know that I'm just being 'true to myself', to who I am at the moment. But I don't write only for myself or only for the moment - I have a wider audience in mind. So I have to think about what would benefit my intended audience, myself included. What good am I doing if I just give them what they already have, if I don't give them anything new? This is where my conflict lies - in being true to myself and still creating something that my audience needs, something that doesn't already exist, something better than what already exists. Being authentic and original are equally important to me - the whole struggle is trying to not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. This is what drives and feeds me, exhausts me at times but ultimately makes me grow. This effort to make real progress is what I was trying to get across before and what I think Hemingway is talking about.

How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.

 

[arildno]

I guess that could happen. There are situations where originality and authenticity conflict, but I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking of.

It can happen that two people are just very similar; They have the same beliefs, opinions, tastes, etc. I feel this way about another writer. If my only goal were to be authentic, I might be perfectly content creating work that happened to be very similar to this other writer's, i.e., containing nothing really new, because I know that I'm just being 'true to myself', to who I am at the moment. But I don't write only for myself or only for the moment - I have a wider audience in mind. So I have to think about what would benefit my intended audience, myself included. What good am I doing if I just give them what they already have, if I don't give them anything new? This is where my conflict lies - in being true to myself and still creating something that my audience needs, something that doesn't already exist, something better than what already exists. Being authentic and original are equally important to me - the whole struggle is trying to not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. This is what drives and feeds me and makes me grow.

I guess we're sorting discussing this more because we associate different nuances with our concepts than with very deep disagreement.

What I find is so easily a tendency in the "originality search", is that the end product seems contrived, as if merely designed on purpose distinct from other art works.

While in earlier times, when most art was made in order to please the tastes of the super-rich&powerful (like the Medici's), and hence, slavishly followed in certain conventions with the artist rarely daring to stake out his own path, I now feel that the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction, in that artists seem to fear as if they do not do something shocking, or utterly weird&contrived, then they will simply not be noticed.

This wasn't much of a reply, I guess, rather a hasty jotting of some disconnected thoughts..

 

[honestrosewater]

I guess we're sorting discussing this more because we associate different nuances with our concepts than with very deep disagreement.

Yeah, I think so too. Asking you guys questions didn't work out so well, so I'm switching to just explaining my opinion.

What I find is so easily a tendency in the "originality search", is that the end product seems contrived, as if merely designed on purpose distinct from other art works.

While in earlier times, when most art was made in order to please the tastes of the super-rich&powerful (like the Medici's), and hence, slavishly followed in certain conventions with the artist rarely daring to stake out his own path, I now feel that the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction, in that artists seem to fear as if they do not do something shocking, or utterly weird&contrived, then they will simply not be noticed.

This wasn't much of a reply, I guess, rather a hasty jotting of some disconnected thoughts..

I understand. I don't see the point in doing what hasn't been done. I want to do something that needs to be done. Maybe there's a lesson that has already been taught but that needs to be presented in a way that more people will want to learn it. Maybe there's some new problem that needs to be addressed. I may have more social freedoms, so I can make explicit what others had to imply. Maybe there's a great story out there that people don't want to read because it's presentation is antiquated or not to their taste. Giving old stories a facelift is another possibility. It doesn't need to be absolutely new - just new to its audience.

For example, say I want to write a story about addiction - addiction in general, of any form. Some people might identify strongly with addiction to alcohol or some kind of drug, while others may not identify with this at all. Maybe this other group would identify with an addiction to achievement and recognition, to having to please everyone and be the best. Though they would both be the same basic story, with the same basic message, I would consider them different in the way that matters - they are valuable to and meet the needs of different people. Does that make sense?

I might like to see a new Hamlet with Hamlet as a woman. I don't mean just a superficial change of sex; If Hamlet really were a woman, the story could change in meaningful ways. I don't know exactly what would change, but I've thought a little about it before. Imagine keeping everyone else the same sex. How would Hamlet's relationship with Horatio and Ophelia change if Hamlet were a woman? His relationship with his mother, father, and stepfather? I would like to do this and see how few changes I could get away with while still making the changes worthwhile. Actually, I think I'll resurrect this project.
Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part: How much would you pay to see the newest film adaptation, Hamlet, Princess of Denmark?

 

[arildno]

I want to do something that needs to be done. Maybe there's a lesson that has already been taught but that needs to be presented in a way that more people will want to learn it. Maybe there's some new problem that needs to be addressed. I may have more social freedoms, so I can make explicit what others had to imply. Maybe there's a great story out there that people don't want to read because it's presentation is antiquated or not to their taste. Giving old stories a facelift is another possibility. It doesn't need to be absolutely new - just new to its audience.

Perhaps most of all, it should be a story YOU need to tell, because you identify with the issues there?

For example, say I want to write a story about addiction - addiction in general, of any form. Some people might identify strongly with addiction to alcohol or some kind of drug, while others may not identify with this at all. Maybe this other group would identify with an addiction to achievement and recognition, to having to please everyone and be the best. Though they would both be the same basic story, with the same basic message, I would consider them different in the way that matters - they are valuable to and meet the needs of different people. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

I might like to see a new Hamlet with Hamlet as a woman. I don't mean just a superficial change of sex; If Hamlet really were a woman, the story could change in meaningful ways. I don't know exactly what would change, but I've thought a little about it before. Imagine keeping everyone else the same sex. How would Hamlet's relationship with Horatio and Ophelia change if Hamlet were a woman? His relationship with his mother, father, and stepfather? I would like to do this and see how few changes I could get away with while still making the changes worthwhile. Actually, I think I'll resurrect this project.
Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part: How much would you pay to see the newest film adaptation, Hamlet, Princess of Denmark?

Could be interesting; I enjoyed, for example, Akira Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (like Ran).

Besides, I've always wanted Hamlet to horate someone..

 

[honestrosewater]

Perhaps most of all, it should be a story YOU need to tell, because you identify with the issues there?

Absolutely. Er, the two goals still being equal. ;)

Could be interesting; I enjoyed, for example, Akira Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (like Ran).

Oh, I've never heard of him(?). Ah, Ran is Lear with sons, I see. I've been trying to get people to read or watch Shakespeare for years - and I almost always fail! The biggest complaint is that they don't understand the language - I didn't understand much of it at first either. A close second is that it's not relevant to their modern lives - if only they'd give it a chance! I think I've solved both problems, but it's really difficult to explain - it's a vision ;) Hamlet is crammed full of visual imagery, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. Now, I swear there was a begging for money thread around here somewhere...

Besides, I've always wanted Hamlet to horate someone..

Haven't we all.

 

[arildno]

Oh, I've never heard of him(?). Ah, Ran is Lear with sons, I see. I've been trying to get people to read or watch Shakespeare for years - and I almost always fail! The biggest complaint is that they don't understand the language - I didn't understand much of it at first either. A close second is that it's not relevant to their modern lives - if only they'd give it a chance! I think I've solved both problems, but it's really difficult to explain - it's a vision ;) Hamlet is crammed full of visual imagery, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. Now, I swear there was a begging for money thread around here somewhere...

You don't need to try to get me to read Shakespeare; I do so on my own regularly.

 

[wolram]

What is so good about WS, he was a cider soaked poacher.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is so good about WS, he was a cider soaked poacher.

Is this a story about him poaching deer or something?

 

[arildno]

He shook his spear, threw it and killed a deer??
Or:
He loaded his gun, just for fun, shot, and narrowly missed a nun??
(Was she on the way to a nunnery?)

 

[wolram]

Is this a story about him poaching deer or something?

A parliment member, a justice of peace
at home a poor scarecrow, at London an asse;
If lousie is Lucy, as some folk miscalle it,
Then Lucy is lousie, whatever befalle it.
He thinks himself greate,
yet an asse in his state
we allowe by his eares but with asses to mate:
If Lucy is lousie, as some folk miscalle it,
Sing lousie Lucy, whatever befalle it

Yes and his revenge.

 

[arildno]

..but with asses to mate:

Eeh? ..

 

[wolram]

Eeh? ..

He probably wrote that while under the influence, there are many folk lore
tales about his visits to orchards and cider drinking, he was a bad lad.

 

[arildno]

he was a bad lad.

He wrote beautiful sonnets, though..

 

[wolram]

He wrote beautiful sonnets, though..

Yep, quill in one hand and a tankard of cider in tother.

 

[lunarmansion]

Art-architecture, music, the fine arts- is a reflection of the spirit and culture of the times. I also cannot understand a great deal of modern art such as "abstract expressionism" , but am reluctant to place a value judgment. The paucity of art in our times says not so much about the artists but rather the fragmented nature of modern day civ. A style does become exhausted for the time-unless, to take the example I have seen in art history with regard to chinese painting, old styles are revived and kept alive for hundreds of years.

 

[nannoh]

What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?

The meaning is that the art is adaptable to poor handling. If it retains a pleasing and controversial composition when its upside down that means its a piece of art that works well with any outfit!

It is also a fact that the human eye sees the world upside down until the brain takes the visual stimulus and turns it rightside up. The painting hung upside down is displayed in a manner that is actually truer to our mechanism of perception than when hung rightside up. It also shows versitility to the point of sustaining its function as art in an anti-grav environment.

 

[grafica]

hai
manytime in modern art i don't understand as what it actually means to

 

[tormund]

hey, if it looks good on skin, its good to me

 

[baywax]

In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.

Well then, you might confine your viewing of art to Pokemon cartoons and disney fantasies and let the real manly/womanly artists continue their trade without your viewership eh wot?!

 

[Dadface]

I looked at a picture yesterday.

A modern artist is one who throws paint on a canvas,wipes it off with a cloth and sells the cloth.......anon

Modern art is when you buy a picture to cover a hole in a wall,and then decide the hole looks much better......anon