Philosophy Now Forum

Typically art is attractive, often eye pleasing. Now I'm looking at it from the other side of the coin. Can it be repulsive and yet, have desirable qualities?

What do you think?

PhilX

When you ask such question, it's just evidence that you don't go much outside, and seems like a sheltered person, that needs very simple things explained and spelled out, because you are so unimaginable stupid and completely retarded.

HexHammer wrote:When you ask such question, it's just evidence that you don't go much outside, and seems like a sheltered person, that needs very simple things explained and spelled out, because you are so unimaginable stupid and completely retarded.

You have not answered the question with your retarded, unintelligent post.

I have something for you to help you out at the library:

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-ga ... its-2015-9

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Typically art is attractive, often eye pleasing. Now I'm looking at it from the other side of the coin. Can it be repulsive and yet, have desirable qualities?

What do you think?

PhilX

Art can definitely be disturbing, shocking and/or unsettling. Francis Bacon's paintings, Artaud and Marlowe's plays, and the film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre come to mind. However, if the art crosses into being literallly repulsive--and not just to a few perceivers--it fails to be either beautiful or sublime...just viscerally offensive.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:When you ask such question, it's just evidence that you don't go much outside, and seems like a sheltered person, that needs very simple things explained and spelled out, because you are so unimaginable stupid and completely retarded.

You have not answered the question with your retarded, unintelligent post.

I have something for you to help you out at the library:

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-ga ... its-2015-9

PhilX

Nor do you ever answer any of my question, but dodges them because you are too stupid to answer, let's try again.

What relevance do correct spelling have? ..why don't you fuck off and go back to the forum from where you came?

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:When you ask such question, it's just evidence that you don't go much outside, and seems like a sheltered person, that needs very simple things explained and spelled out, because you are so unimaginable stupid and completely retarded.

You have not answered the question with your retarded, unintelligent post.

I have something for you to help you out at the library:

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-ga ... its-2015-9

PhilX

Nor do you ever answer any of my question, but dodges them because you are too stupid to answer, let's try again.

What relevance do correct spelling have? ..why don't you fuck off and go back to the forum from where you came?

When you ask about the relevance of correct spelling retard, you show two things: disrespect for the person you're trying to communicate with and disrespect for yourself. Spelling is part of grammar and the meaning of sentences become unclear and even changed so that you fail to communicate. Now why don't you fuck off and go back to the forum you came from? Oh yes that's right tard of tards, that's because Scott BANNED you from OPC. BANNED YOU. And you're taking out your frustrations on the good members over here with your babble and spam.
That's why.

PhilX

White Sky wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Typically art is attractive, often eye pleasing. Now I'm looking at it from the other side of the coin. Can it be repulsive and yet, have desirable qualities?

What do you think?

PhilX

Art can definitely be disturbing, shocking and/or unsettling. Francis Bacon's paintings, Artaud and Marlowe's plays, and the film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre come to mind. However, if the art crosses into being literallly repulsive--and not just to a few perceivers--it fails to be either beautiful or sublime...just viscerally offensive.

Do you think Alfred Hitchcock falls into this genre? (The Birds comes to mind)

PhilX

Yes, Hitchcock definitely falls in the disturbing, shocking, and /or unsettling...but not the repulsive. And while The Birds is definitely an example, I would say Psycho is even moreso. He literally bragged he was ending the 50's with the film and helped do so by perverting the "family as center" theme of the 50's, killing off a major 50's star in the first 15 minutes, and doing so in a violent fashion threatening our most vulnerable domestic space--the shower.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:When you ask about the relevance of correct spelling retard, you show two things: disrespect for the person you're trying to communicate with and disrespect for yourself. Spelling is part of grammar and the meaning of sentences become unclear and even changed so that you fail to communicate. Now why don't you fuck off and go back to the forum you came from? Oh yes that's right tard of tards, that's because Scott BANNED you from OPC. BANNED YOU. And you're taking out your frustrations on the good members over here with your babble and spam.
That's why.

PhilX

When english isn't my first language, then I show disrespect? ..that's the most retarded statement you have made so far, only showing how utterly stupid you are!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:When you ask about the relevance of correct spelling retard, you show two things: disrespect for the person you're trying to communicate with and disrespect for yourself. Spelling is part of grammar and the meaning of sentences become unclear and even changed so that you fail to communicate. Now why don't you fuck off and go back to the forum you came from? Oh yes that's right tard of tards, that's because Scott BANNED you from OPC. BANNED YOU. And you're taking out your frustrations on the good members over here with your babble and spam.
That's why.

PhilX

When english isn't my first language, then I show disrespect? ..that's the most retarded statement you have made so far, only showing how utterly stupid you are!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet you still misspell in any language, loser, so you're only laughing at yourself, horse's ass. Now go play your video games like a good little boy so you can get more intelligent, OPC reject.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I bet you still misspell in any language, loser, so you're only laughing at yourself, horse's ass. Now go play your video games like a good little boy so you can get more intelligent, OPC reject.

PhilX

Spelling correctly only requires good memory, not intellect. You haven't displayed any intellect so far ..LOL!!

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I bet you still misspell in any language, loser, so you're only laughing at yourself, horse's ass. Now go play your video games like a good little boy so you can get more intelligent, OPC reject.

PhilX

Spelling correctly only requires good memory, not intellect. You haven't displayed any intellect so far ..LOL!!

Did you figure that out all by yourself? Those video games must be doing something for you. At least you're getting something out of your library tard.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Typically art is attractive, often eye pleasing. Now I'm looking at it from the other side of the coin. Can it be repulsive and yet, have desirable qualities?

What do you think?

PhilX

I have this to read and also Eco's History of Beauty.
http://www.amazon.com/Ugliness-Umberto- ... mberto+eco

How about "Guernica" by Picasso ?
Disturbing, not pretty to look at.

But it´s art because made by an undisputed artist.

Art requires some mastery of expression.

A selfie of a battle-field would hardly be "art".

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Spelling correctly only requires good memory, not intellect. You haven't displayed any intellect so far ..LOL!!

Did you figure that out all by yourself? Those video games must be doing something for you. At least you're getting something out of your library tard.

PhilX

I'm quite intelligent enough to figure that out myself.