Things that make you go.......WTF?

Post by **think positive** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:34 pm

1061 wrote:I find the menstrual blood in the wool thing disgusting so I must be a neanderthal.

Me too happy to say

Post by **think positive** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:36 pm

stui magpie wrote:
David wrote:
5150 wrote:Imagine the uproar if I filmed myself knitting using my dick as a spool.

The positive would be I am able to hold enough wool to knit a jumper for Clive Palmer
Clearly you're not familiar with Pricasso...

www.pricasso.com

I think the point is, ridiculous performance art is more fun with genitalia.
I've seen that guy at sexpo. You need some length on the brush to avoid rubbing off the painting with your stomach, 5150 might have some issues there

Yeah saw that a couple of years ago, at least it had a giggle factor!

And 5150 where's the pics?

Hope it's not a US size 14 crochet hook?

Post by **stui magpie** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:41 pm

think positive wrote:
1061 wrote:I find the menstrual blood in the wool thing disgusting so I must be a neanderthal.
Me too happy to say

It's just absolutely unnecessary. You want to knit, great. You want to shove stuff in your vagina, good for you. You want to combine the two and somehow pretend it's some kind of art form, please spare me from your pretensions.

What's next? A doll castle built out of used tampons, cemented together with used condoms?

Post by **think positive** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:49 pm

stui magpie wrote:
think positive wrote:
1061 wrote:I find the menstrual blood in the wool thing disgusting so I must be a neanderthal.
Me too happy to say
It's just absolutely unnecessary. You want to knit, great. You want to shove stuff in your vagina, good for you. You want to combine the two and somehow pretend it's some kind of art form, please spare me from your pretensions.

What's next? A doll castle built out of used tampons, cemented together with used condoms?

Ugh just ugh!

Something's really are better left, um, in the toilet!

I could get really gross and share some intermate female details, but I'll spare you and say, they can't make those withdrawal strings long enough!

Post by **David** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:07 pm

5150 · Post by **5150** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:08 pm

5150 · Post by **5150** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:10 pm

stui magpie wrote:
David wrote:
5150 wrote:Imagine the uproar if I filmed myself knitting using my dick as a spool.

The positive would be I am able to hold enough wool to knit a jumper for Clive Palmer
Clearly you're not familiar with Pricasso...

www.pricasso.com

I think the point is, ridiculous performance art is more fun with genitalia.
I've seen that guy at sexpo. You need some length on the brush to avoid rubbing off the painting with your stomach, 5150 might have some issues there

I can suck it in long enough to get a few strokes in.

5150 · Post by **5150** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:15 pm

stui magpie wrote:
think positive wrote:
1061 wrote:I find the menstrual blood in the wool thing disgusting so I must be a neanderthal.
Me too happy to say
It's just absolutely unnecessary. You want to knit, great. You want to shove stuff in your vagina, good for you. You want to combine the two and somehow pretend it's some kind of art form, please spare me from your pretensions.

What's next? A doll castle built out of used tampons, cemented together with used condoms?

If you could insulate the roof with soiled incontinence pads and carpet the floor with discarded merkins from Judith Lucy I may be interested.

Post by **Jezza** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:30 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEdRLlqdgA4

Is this real or fake?

Post by **think positive** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:48 am

Post by **think positive** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:49 am

Jezza wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEdRLlqdgA4

Is this real or fake?

I reckon it's a really good finger painting done with a Photoshop kind of programme, that morphs into an actual photo

Wokko · Post by **Wokko** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:53 am

think positive wrote:

David's it's not really taboo, I think most of the less than 60 years olds don't have much problem talking about it when they have to, but it's like the consistency of your morning poo, not something you really need to discuss unless there's a problem, and then your see a doctor!

I don't think art needs to be about these body functions, however I will agree that a lot of so call dart is.....poo

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... ng_on_art/

Leaving aside his other views, Andrew Bolt has always crusaded (I believe crusade is his default setting) against this kind of art that only survives on arts grants from government. Here's an article about some performance art with a scatalogical theme.

Post by **David** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:03 pm

An easy target, but once again: how can such a universal human experience be considered off-limits for art?

I think some people (Bolt in particular) have a very limited appreciation of what art can be. For them, it's beautiful sunsets and classical paintings. What they don't get is that art doesn't have to be beautiful and doesn't have to be tasteful either (or, needless to say, the sort of thing readers of The Herald Sun would enjoy).

Having said that, I do think grants should be reserved for proposals with serious merit. Whether or not all grant-funded works qualify under that criterion. I wouldn't be confident enough to say (but in some cases, the answer intuitively seems to be 'no').

Wokko · Post by **Wokko** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:11 pm

David wrote:An easy target, but once again: how can such a universal human experience be considered off-limits for art?

I think some people (Bolt in particular) have a very limited appreciation of what art can be. For them, it's beautiful sunsets and classical paintings. What they don't get is that art doesn't have to be beautiful and doesn't have to be tasteful either or the sort of thing readers of The Herald Sun would enjoy.

Having said that, I do think grants should be reserved for proposals with serious merit. Whether or not all grant-funded works qualify under that criterion. I wouldn't be confident enough to say (but in some cases, the answer intuitively seems to be 'no').

I agree that art doesn't need to be uplifting and beautiful, but that art is what many, many people like to see. I toured the galleries of Europe as a 7 year old and could fully appreciate the masterworks I saw, they burrow into your soul, but watching people take a dump brings nothing but a sneer at someone who is trying so hard to shock.

There are some brilliant 'uncomfortable' artworks from plays and books, to disturbing paintings but I find this whole 'shock for the sake of it' performance art to be a horrifying indictment on society. If art reflects the society that spawns it then we should wipe off the shit and menstrual blood and take a good hard look at ourselves.

Post by **think positive** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:37 pm

David wrote:An easy target, but once again: how can such a universal human experience be considered off-limits for art?

I think some people (Bolt in particular) have a very limited appreciation of what art can be. For them, it's beautiful sunsets and classical paintings. What they don't get is that art doesn't have to be beautiful and doesn't have to be tasteful either (or, needless to say, the sort of thing readers of The Herald Sun would enjoy).

Having said that, I do think grants should be reserved for proposals with serious merit. Whether or not all grant-funded works qualify under that criterion. I wouldn't be confident enough to say (but in some cases, the answer intuitively seems to be 'no').

hmm yes us herald sun readers (I read it during footy season anyway, well when the pies are on the cover!!) like to see what our art is!!

ps snob

and also ps, I hope they don't give any of my tax dollars to a woman to put balls of wool in her fanny, if so let me know, ill express her a box of tampons

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Things that make you go.......WTF?