HOME | DD
mysteryguy9215 — ART
Published: 2014-06-23 02:36:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 5630; Favourites: 2; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
LOOK. LOOK AT THIS ART. ISN'T IT BEAUTIFUL? CAN'T YOU ALL SEE HOW HARD I AM ARTING? HOW PRETENTIOUS I AM BEING BY OBVIOUSLY SATIRIZING WHAT MODERN ART IS? HOW ANNOYING THIS IS AND HOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BOOBS? SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING! DEAL WITH IT!!I honestly have no idea why I bothered making this, or why I am actually submitting it to dA. I was bored. :I Seriously though, I am writing. Just got done with another chapter. This art took like 5 minutes to make. Literally. 5 minutes. Give or take.
Made with deviantART muro cuz boy, is it intuitive.
Related content
Comments: 15
This really isn't a bad looking piece in my opinion, satirical or not. I'm not going to get into the debate about whether or not it's art: I'm not terribly confrontational, and I consider the definition of art to be so subjective that people can argue in circles for eternity and ultimately get nowhere. All I know is that I like pictures and stories and movies and TV shows and music and all that jazz. Take that for what it's worth.
P.S. I've been meaning to get a profile picture for a little while and that "T" there on the end looks mighty appealing. I was wondering if you'd mind me using it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure, go for it. If it looks good to you, feel free to do whatever you like.
I like a lot of different things myself, as well, and I can be somewhat picky in my tastes. But not so much that I'm afraid of trying new things, or trying to wrap my mind around soemthing that I just can't get. It can be fun most of the time, really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Andy Warhol made a film called 'Empire' which is just 9 hours of him filming the Empire State Building, and he called it 'art'. Art can be anything and everything. It's the subjective aspect of all of the humanities. In math, there is usually only one right answer. In art, writing, literature, and psychology, etc... There is no wrong answer, EVERYTHING is the right answer, if you believe it is the right answer and can find some way to justify your opinion from the evidence at hand. It is what I love about writing, and stories, and poetry. You aren't creating answers. You are creating 'impressions' of answers that your audience can summarily choose to accept or reject.
I like your 5-minute art better than 9 hours of watching the Empire State Building.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but Andy Warhol also made that one Velvet Underground & Nico album with the banana, so I'd say he still wins here
All jokes aside, art really is near impossible to define because of how wide everyone's opinion is of it, I agree. Throwing things to the wall and seeing how they stick is a fun way to create things, even if everyone else just writes it off as "nonsense" or lazy". I don't really think art can be lazy, even if it only took 5 to ten minutes. Its still technically art on some level.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oooooh, a discussion about what art is. I want a piece of this
I personally dislike the distinction between Art (capital 'A') and popular entertainment. That doesn't mean I evaluate art solely in terms of how much skill went into it (though that's a factor) or in terms of how much I enjoy it (though, even if I don't 'enjoy it', it has to click with me somehow). It means more that I don't like 'Art' as a privileged, heavy-handed concept that elevates artists to a near spiritual status. First of all, I think even the best artists are human beings like the rest of us; they just tend to see things a bit differently. Second of all, I think 'High Art' is largely a class distinction. In other words, it's High Art if I have to pay a lot of money to enjoy it, either up front, say, when I buy expensive tickets to the Symphony, or indirectly, by taking a lot of higher education classes that will help me understand it. Either way, Art with a capital A is something that you pay lots of money for; entertainment is something that you pay a little money for (if any). I'm not saying that I think The Big Bang Theory is as good as Picasso (I don't), or that Stephanie Meyer is as good as Shakespeare (I really don't). I'm not saying that I think there's something pretentious about having a profound reaction to a piece of art (I do myself, sometimes). I'm just saying that I think that everything from the basest dreck to the most stunning aesthetic achievements is all art. It's just that some of it is good and some of it is bad. I don't believe in a privileged category.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed. The key word in either form of Art is "perspective", and each individual has their own unique version of it. Even if what we do is not Art with a capital 'A', its still, on whatever level you spoke of, be it lower level or what have you, art, no matter what arrogant stick-in-the-mud thinks otherwise.
Thank you for the input, this discussion about something I slapped together in 5 minutes has been very interesting, I didn't really expect any sort of response.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When you think about how what "art" is to the general public, is essentially this:
Pretty pictures.
The average person is incredibly ignorant of the history of art, and what it actually is. The modern era has relegated art to being a sort of specific process of creative activity, rather than something more nebulous. No internet institution is more guilty of this than DA. On DA, you have millions of users whose concept of art is; "when someone whose really good at drawing draws a really complicated, pretty picture that I couldn't draw". It's gotten to the point where the word "art" has become SYNONYMOUS with word "drawing", and if you are practicing drawing in any capacity, you are an "artist" whom is doing "art".
This is just fucking stupid. This is why people claim they don't "get" modern art, and why people gush over hyper-realism styles. To them, art is strictly a skill, and the quality of a particular piece of art is in direct correlation with how hard they perceive it would be to create. They see art as nothing more than another industry where craftspeople produce what is essentially in the end, a product. Art is a product to these people. It is created in assembly lines by career "artists", it is trotted out for everyone to gawk at and gush over it's beauty and the skill of it's creation, and then it's tucked away and forgotten about until the next picture comes out of the assembly line so the process can repeat itself, again, and again, and again.
There's nothing wrong with pretty pictures, but these ideas about what art HAS to be, has produced a society of people who in the end, really don't give a shit about art. Even people who claim they are "artists" themselves. They don't want art. They don't want creativity. They want pretty stuff produced by highly skilled artists where each picture takes hours and hours of work to produce yet another hyper-realistic dreamscape, that they can Ooo and Ahhh over and talk about "the lighting" and "the color contrast" and whatever other bullshit that comes out of their mouths like they are art critics.
Me? I never in all seriousness consider my stuff "art". If I use that word, it's only out of convenience. I don't make art. I make drawings. Drawings of glorious, huge tits. Images of strictly aesthetic merit. This is just an image hosting and community website for me. If I wanted to make "art", that would require a different process.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting point of view, and I pretty much agree with you on it, though making broad generalizations of how people behave in general, in the long run, is both incorrect and a bit brash. I agree that a large some of people see "art" as just what you said: drawings. But really, it can be literature, movies, music, nature, architecture...anything that really needs creativity or ideas behind it.
In terms of the female form, it falls under "erotic art". Whether it be expanded or not, its still art, imo. Yeah, I realize that most guys when confronted with a woman with a slim figure and big ol' boobs/a nice ass, they see her as nothing more than just something to have sex with (in terms of irl) or jerk it to, and then they move on (in regards to the internet, mostly). But there are some (like myself) that seriously see the human form, male and female, as pieces of art in themselves, though the erotic part comes to the part that you and I are particularly attracted to, aka boobz and booteez.
And that probably sounds crazy pretentious to a lot of people. That's the sad part. Anytime you think something is "art", people write you off as a snooty McArtsy Farts Mcgee or whatever the fuck, and I'm just like "no, seriously, I find this to be stimulating on multiple levels" and they just continue to talk down my actual opinion and it gets to the point where I just go "fuck off" and ignore them. Its fucking annoying. Art and pretensiousness are synonymous in the modern era, but back in Greek and Roman times it was a sign of intellect and, well, creativity. Now? You're just some shallow dickhead trying to make money off of shit that's been done a million times. I really hate that that's how it is.
And by no means is what I did actual art. Its satirical as fuck, and I did it as a joke. I was bored and wanted to try Muro and really see if its as shitty as people said. Its pretty shitty. I make actual digital art, and all I do is have fun with it, dick around with various filters and effects until something happens. Experimentation and creativity can yield some incredible art. But does anyone else see it? Of course fucking not! No one gives a SHIT about abstract digital art. Its all about "whose that iconic figure you decided to draw in a new hip sort of way?" That's 80% of "art" these days: a reference to TV shows like Game of Thrones or Pokemon (not a knock to either of those shows, but merely the concept). I'm not saying I'm worthy of recognition or that I do it to have people suck my dick and tell me "ooh, you're soo creative". Fuck that shit, I know I'm creative, I don't need some random strangers on the internet to give me some sort of ego trip. I do it cuz its fun and other people might actually enjoy it. Its the same ideology I have when I make music, or when I write.
So I do get what your saying, I guess I just wanted to throw my two cents on the whole "art" debate. I think art is a mix of creativity, effort, and experimentation. Trying new things without relying too hard on old ideas or methods, but in this day and age, its near fucking impossible to do because of how everything has been done to death. But I guess that's where actual creativity lies. But whatever, I'm gonna go back to writing about growing tits again and wash my brain of all this bullshit. Sorry I ranted directly at you, most of this was not really directed at you, it kinda just happened. I talk out my ass a lot. Anyways, thank you for the thorough comment, I do enjoy perspectives, they're incredibly fascinating to me
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To me, art has such an expansive definition, that it defies definition.
Except. For. One. Key. Factor.
To me, art can be almost anything, but it has ONE, requirement, in order to be "art": It has to actually take some effort in it's creation.
If it didn't take any effort, whether physical, mental, or through the extensive investment of one's own time, then it's not art. If someone else could do it without even trying, it's not art, because it's not unique. All these bullshit, pretentious "performance art" pieces you hear about every now and then at a local college or whatever, where someone does something like stands on stage and just breaths into a mic for 5 minutes... like, I'm sorry if someone disagrees, but that shit isn't art. It took no effort, no skill, no thought, no nothing. The extent of it's creativity, is that someone thought: "Hmm whats something really weird and really easy that I could do on stage, and then pretend like it has a deeper purpose or meaning, so that people will think I'm a really avant-garde artist, and if they don't like it, I can just say they don't 'get' it."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the little text saying 'boobs' over and over again makes me think of the people who draw something obviously overly sexualized and fetishy and are all "NO IT'S ART MAN WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh wow you found the deep and inner meaning of my incredibly well thought out piece of art. Congratumalations lol.
But seriously, I've given a whole argument for how fetish/sexualized things are a whole different sort of art, but that falls on deaf ears, for the most part. Ah well
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm pretty insightful like that.
But yeah. Fetish art can still totes be art. You just gotta be honest about it, you know?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For sure. Don't try to pretend its more than it really is. Most fetish artists I know are aware of the purpose of their art, which is good, but I'm sure there are some out there who are trying to pass it off as whatever else...but hey! Not exactly my issue anyways
👍: 0 ⏩: 0