Philosophy Now Forum

Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself

rodin.png

His barber should be the immortalized artist...

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

rodin.png

He wears the right kind of hat.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

rodin.png

He wears the right kind of hat.

That's no beret; that's his morning flatbread.

Dalek Prime wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

rodin.png

He wears the right kind of hat.

That's no beret; that's his morning flatbread.

Ah, that explains his furrowed frown and deep eyes.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:
He wears the right kind of hat.

That's no beret; that's his morning flatbread.

Ah, that explains his furrowed frown and deep eyes.

Damn. I hate it when something I say explains anything.

Little did he know he would be spoke of in such childish terms by those who would come after him - or not, the hat and beard could've been amusement to those of his own time. For me he looks good. Not like a cartoon

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

rodin.png

He was a man of humble beginnings, who proved himself the greatest of all France's sculptors. He was internationally recognised as one of the greatest of all time.
From the books I've read about it, your words make no sense whatever.

Pluto wrote:Little did he know he would be spoke of in such childish terms by those who would come after him - or not, the hat and beard could've been amusement to those of his own time. For me he looks good. Not like a cartoon

His work is pearls before swine on this Forum.
His look was not unusual or particularly remarkable for the late 19thC.

BradburyPound wrote:

Pluto wrote:Little did he know he would be spoke of in such childish terms by those who would come after him - or not, the hat and beard could've been amusement to those of his own time. For me he looks good. Not like a cartoon

His work is pearls before swine on this Forum.
His look was not unusual or particularly remarkable for the late 19thC.

It makes sense that crass, cultureless Amercans would find him unpalatable and confusing. Ronald McDonald would be more to their taste in sculptural excellence.

BradburyPound wrote:

Pluto wrote:Little did he know he would be spoke of in such childish terms by those who would come after him - or not, the hat and beard could've been amusement to those of his own time. For me he looks good. Not like a cartoon

His work is pearls before swine on this Forum.
His look was not unusual or particularly remarkable for the late 19thC.

Unmistakably a work by Hobbsy, if I'm not mistaken ?
Why the change of name ?

Pluto wrote:Little did he know he would be spoke of in such childish terms by those who would come after him - or not, the hat and beard could've been amusement to those of his own time. For me he looks good. Not like a cartoon

I am sure he wouldn't give a damn. For what it's worth, I loved the photograph you provided. It gives a sense of the man. Hat an' all.

BradburyPound wrote:

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

rodin.png

He was a man of humble beginnings, who proved himself the greatest of all France's sculptors. He was internationally recognised as one of the greatest of all time.
From the books I've read about it, your words make no sense whatever.

Books are dead and rarely speak ill of an artist - and my quote is not meant to belittle the guy, how could I, I am no-one compared to him. Though we both share the label artist. He created bulky heavy sculptures, to lighten himself up. To throw out the heavy weight of existence as sculpture.

Pluto wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:

Pluto wrote:Maybe the guy was more interesting than his work: his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself, being interesting and great

rodin.png

He was a man of humble beginnings, who proved himself the greatest of all France's sculptors. He was internationally recognised as one of the greatest of all time.
From the books I've read about it, your words make no sense whatever.

Books are dead and rarely speak ill of an artist - and my quote is not meant to belittle the guy, how could I, I am no-one compared to him. Though we both share the label artist. He created bulky heavy sculptures, to lighten himself up. To throw out the heavy weight of existence as sculpture.

You have no warrant for your view, and decrying books as being uncritical is irrelevant. Your ignorance is your only tool.
" his work was the crap he had to offload to continue being himself" Is not a compliment.

An artwork has many functions, one being its potential to exorcise the input of contemporary society and turn it into an output, something processed by the artist and then got rid of. Freeing up the artist's inner self to source deeper insights. To paraphrase Boris Groys talking about Joseph Beuys, the things made are more like relics of his existence rather than artworks. The output of an artist can function in many different ways. Sometimes the work and the artist are equally exceptional like in the case of Picasso perhaps. The idea of an artwork existing as the transformed input into output, or the waste perhaps would work well with the Italian artist Piero Manzoni and his canned shit artwork.