Music Banter
Page 4 of 9 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)
-   -   Artistic Statement? (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/29824-artistic-statement.html)

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Starving-Artless (Post 469327)
The whole point of the exhibit was to show you that no one gives a **** about a starving dog when you see it wandering around, but all of a sudden it's in an art gallery and it's animal cruelty. People live with food and resources in their homes and there are animals starving in the town you live in, probably... is that animal cruelty?
Apparently the artist doesn't really give a **** either. Tying it up and letting it starve and preventing it from scavenging is murder. The artist also said it died of natural causes, getting involved basically ruins the natural cause factor.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 06:27 PM
'artist' said dog didn't want to eat anyway so was definitely going to die whether he starved him or not...

whatever, I have seen dogs about to die and were rescued. This man is no artist, he is a torturer.

CAPTAIN CAVEMAN 04-13-2008 06:29 PM
its art, whether you like it or not

The Unfan 04-13-2008 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469343)
This man is no artist
See page 2 of this thread.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Starving-Artless (Post 469338)
how so?

he couldn't just take a picture because people see pictures all the time. big deal. its the idea that you go into the art gallery and actually see the dog starving in front of you. the very idea that the dog was chained up in an art gallery is enough for it to be cruelty, just seeing a picture of some starving dog on the street is "sad", but not "cruelty"... so no one gets uppity about it and the artist doesn't get his point across
HOW is he being a hypocrite? Are you pretending to be stupid?

He is trying to show how no one cares about a starving dog so he, himself, starves a dog? I can think of a hundred other ways to get across a similar message. How about he invites people to an animal shelter to show off all the animals there?

Anything can be ****ing art these days. Ridiculous. Let's slaughter some babies and called it anti abortionist.

The Unfan 04-13-2008 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469350)
He is trying to show how no one cares about a starving dog so he, himself, starves a dog?
He's part of everyone.

CAPTAIN CAVEMAN 04-13-2008 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruise violet
He is trying to show how no one cares about a starving dog so he, himself, starves a dog? I can think of a hundred other ways to get across a similar message. How about he invites people to an animal shelter to show off all the animals there?
are YOU pretending to be stupid?

that would be nowhere near as effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruise violet
Anything can be ****ing art these days. Ridiculous. Let's slaughter some babies and called it anti abortionist.
making mountains out of molehills here

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 06:40 PM
I don't honestly care about the effectiveness of art when a dying dog is concerned. Like I said, I used to see that stuff every day when I worked in an animal shelter. So obviously, if you can think logically that is, I would never, ever think that such a thing should be allowed, especially as 'art'.

Mountains out of molehills, really now is killing babies a step over the line or is that still allowed to be art?

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 06:41 PM
lol, taking a life to prove taking a life is wrong is counterproductive. No amount of "LOLS IM INTERNET CONTROVERSIAL!" is really going to change that.

The Unfan 04-13-2008 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469366)
I don't honestly care about the effectiveness of art when a dying dog is concerned. Like I said, I used to see that stuff every day when I worked in an animal shelter. So obviously, if you can think logically that is, I would never, ever think that such a thing should be allowed, especially as 'art'.

Mountains out of molehills, really now is killing babies a step over the line or is that still allowed to be art?
Again see page 2 of this thread. Killing babies is art as long as we consider killing to be altering, and babies to be natural.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 PM.
Page 4 of 9 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.