The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Pluto wrote:The snot piece would say hey dummy look at this.

And some dummy would.

Pluto wrote:

So, tell me. What does the metaphor of money boiling mean?

That's what I've asked myself. But then realised that the thing (sculpture) in itself is enough. Remember we are communicating with materials, not words. The materials put together in such a way would produce a meaning or metaphor outside language.

Words would play catch-up to the thing shown

Nah!

i.e. It don't mean shit.

Pluto wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Not sure what your sculpture says about cloud cuckoo land?

The image is interesting but I'd reverse the cloud and have the anvil up in the air full of helium, with the solid cloud on the ground. That would at least hint at cloud cuckoo land.

fyi
I seem to remember that cloud cuckoo land is a reference to Aristophanes' The Clouds

The normal world is cuckoo that is the idea. You by turning gravity on its head take the normal world (your world) as okay and correct, you think you must invert it for it to be cuckoo.

.

Humour in art is s good thing.

Harbal wrote:

Pluto wrote:The snot piece would say hey dummy look at this.

And some dummy would.

Yes, but s/he'd probably think it was rubbish art.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Pluto wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Not sure what your sculpture says about cloud cuckoo land?

The image is interesting but I'd reverse the cloud and have the anvil up in the air full of helium, with the solid cloud on the ground. That would at least hint at cloud cuckoo land.

fyi
I seem to remember that cloud cuckoo land is a reference to Aristophanes' The Clouds

The normal world is cuckoo that is the idea. You by turning gravity on its head take the normal world (your world) as okay and correct, you think you must invert it for it to be cuckoo.

.

Humour in art is s good thing.

Yes it is. I can't view this due to my location but perhaps others can:
http://www.pbs.org/art21/films/humor

http://www.artnews.com/2004/09/01/whats ... orary-art/

TV
An old television sits on the floor of the gallery, close to and at a slight angle to the gallery wall, it is plugged in, on its screen is snowy interference, with undulating bands of fuzz pushing repeatedly up the screen, on an endless loop. The sound could be turned up, down or completely off, depending on what you want the piece to do.

Pluto wrote:TV
An old television sits on the floor of the gallery, close to and at a slight angle to the gallery wall, it is plugged in, on its screen is snowy interference, with undulating bands of fuzz pushing repeatedly up the screen, on an endless loop. The sound could be turned up, down or completely off, depending on what you want the piece to do.

How about throw it out of the window?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: How about throw it out of the window?

Or at least tune the damn thing into a channel.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Pluto wrote:TV
An old television sits on the floor of the gallery, close to and at a slight angle to the gallery wall, it is plugged in, on its screen is snowy interference, with undulating bands of fuzz pushing repeatedly up the screen, on an endless loop. The sound could be turned up, down or completely off, depending on what you want the piece to do.

How about throw it out of the window?

Yes, not bad, a bit clichéd but an old favourite so it could work, as a recording on a tv though, or as a performance? If it was recorded and played on a screen, it would negate itself, in a way, you still need the screen to show the recording. As a performance it would be over within minutes and the act itself would sit within negation, a destructive act, which would perhaps actually garner sympathy for the tv, within the audience who witnessed it. A better idea might be to try to push, in a positive way, the meaning of television into a place where it has transcended its old meaning and capabilities.

Or as a critique of television's hold on the viewer you could attach the plug-in cord to a helmet, and then walk around the gallery, trying to drag the thing with your head. That could be funny, but also quite boring. I still think the best one yet is a tv with a snowy picture turned up loud. It's subtle yet the meaning of it is unstable, not fixed. It's not easy to use a tv as an artwork. What do you do with it. It is so absolutely fundamental to the lives of millions of people around the world.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: How about throw it out of the window?

Or at least tune the damn thing into a channel.

Yes but which channel, or doesn't it matter? Why is tuned in better? What about tuned out, a reversing of the 60s slogan. Turn on, Tune in, Drop out, Turn off, Tune out, Drop in.

This is a painting by Mark Flood. He writes 'watch tele-vision' yet it comes over as a critique of tv in the way it's been painted.

Pluto wrote:This is a painting by Mark Flood. He writes 'watch tele-vision' yet it comes over as a critique of tv in the way it's been painted.

Flood_WATCH-TELEVISION_email[1].jpg

Don't mean shit.
You could take it either way. It's just poorly executed art.

Don't mean shit man, why are you sounding like a 70s character from a film with pimps in it. I want a normal gun for a normal person.

The way something is made is part of the communication yes.

It's just poorly executed art.

I think that's the idea, dodo.

Pluto wrote:Don't mean shit man, why are you sounding like a 70s character from a film with pimps in it. I want a normal gun for a normal person.

The way something is made is part of the communication yes.

It's just poorly executed art.

I think that's the idea, dodo.

Bullshit. It's just an excuse to be lazy.