a gem in art restoration

[ConVicT]

man, I'm inebriated

[Word]

Are you ACTUALLY saying if it weren't for these crappy paintings, we'd have no medicine?

I'm saying that the anatomical studies of Leonardo are still valid. They weren't published for a long time until after his death, but even now scientists are still surprised how detailed they are (you can find lots of articles like that around the web if you'd bother to search; of course you don't). The Mona Lisa is like a visual summary of all he ever did. Let me know when Ubisoft found a cure for cancer. And even works of art without any scientific significance are a little more than just decoration for some philistine's shitty house.

[ConVicT]

Have fun with your house though, while you still can.

Sold that little belter for quarter of a mil.
Money is meaningless, unless you're a greedy ******.
Art is useless (I have money) pieces of crap on someone's wall, or museum. As I said, SHITE, PRETIENTIOUS, BS.
Another way for the rich to be richer, simple.

PS. I ****** up that investment and I'm an everyday normal guy... meh!

[Word]

You still confuse creating, owning and appreciating art. You want to punish the artists and people who enjoy what they see because you hate the rich.

Ugh, I think I need a break from the forums now.

[ConVicT]

You still confuse creating, owning and appreciating art.

Sorry you feel that way, that's just how it is... boohoo

I understand and appreciate your points before my last post (That I didn't see before posting for some reason).
...But you can't say that any of this wouldn't have been discovered without him.
I'm sure someone would have, and we'd be praising a different name.

Or, do you think if it weren't for him we'd all be riddled/dead?

[Word]

I'm sure someone would have, and we'd be praising a different name.

I won't deny that, but it doesn't change a thing. It's still an achievement one can enjoy, be inspired by and learn from, especially if it's displayed in a public museum.

[ConVicT]

In-case of people like him. (I'm an Atheist) It is sort'a thing that makes me believe we have a purpose for being.
God/whatever you want to call It/Him/Her, gave this one guy everything, but only let him be appreciated after his time.
Which also makes me believe in an afterlife.
How can anyone (even a god) be as sick as to let someone achieve so much and never let them be proud?

I know this is bringing up a whole new topic but I want it to just stand for this question to "Word"

[ConVicT]

I'm sure someone would have, and we'd be praising a different name.

I won't deny that, but it doesn't change a thing. It's still an achievement one can enjoy, be inspired by and learn from, especially if it's displayed in a public museum.

Yes it can, and will be, without my input.
Just that saying "there's always someone better than you"
I would like to know who was better than him at that point in time... lazy bastard.

[Word]

Yeah, time for a break from the forums. You can reconcile your brain's hemispheres on your own once you're sober.

[ConVicT]

Someone add a delete button, please.

This used to be drunken crap, just ignore.

Edit: the rest of it too, judge for yourself lol

[Lucifer]

Is this an appropriate time to post a, uh, um, well, er, a picture of my penis?

I'm sure I can do it in UTF8! And it won't take many characters!

[/dev/null]

DICKS OR GTFO.
<snip>


It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image.
Thats what your broke ass forums told me Imagine I used a normal sized one.

[Durf]

@/dev/null: That image would be too large to put in as an IMG bbcode anyway.
Besides that, is that allowed? Besides that...LOL. (also lol @ monet.com)

So...links to inappropriate images are ok? But no links to a streaming website? (as told by Z-Man)
Hmm...these continuous contradictions are getting curiouser and curiouser.
If your post remains unedited, then it is clear that they selectively enforce, what are only, token rules against those they have a personal problem with.
I guess this proves that, around here, it only matters who you know, not what you know.


@Lucifer: You're being off topic.



@everyone: oh noes! lengthy post imminent!



@Word:

Where?

Pay attention now:

Do you think the New Yorker editors uploaded that article to bore and mislead people as "open-minded" as you? If someone spends hours to program some code that will revolutionize computers, do you think it's OK if people who have no clue about programming come at him and tell him "that code sucks", even if, say, that programmer's work has always been flawless and only very few IT professors are able to grasp the brilliance of his idea? Oh yeah, totally subjective.

The last line there is either meant to be interpreted as sarcastic (you did not mean to say what they words themselves are saying for their literal meaning, rather the opposite), or it was meant to be interpreted very literally. Followed by:

Oh yeah, totally subjective. You. are. wrong. It's obvious to everyone except yourself. Oh, actually even you see it, but now you're blaming the staff of the magazine for not changing their headline to "ATTENTION DURF! THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS SATIRE!"

If we interpret the line as literal - then you contradict yourself and the value of the argument you try to make becomes worthless.
If we interpret it as sarcastic, then you are saying that the content on the New Yorker (and any code written by IT professionals) or any comedy for that matter, is not subjective; this means that you either believe that comedy, and such "satire" articles are not art, or that art itself isn't subjective.
(next time use your brain, I have to explain everything to you like you're 5 years old)

I said you can't criticize even something as subjective as art properly if you're ignorant and don't care about it in the first place.

^ this is a perfect example of the definition of pretentious. I wasn't just using a word to try to sound smart - I chose the word for it's meaning. Get a dictionary.
The fact that you think you can even say this shows how you're too pretentious to actually care for the truth of the opinions of others, or the truth about art. You deem yourself as superior to definitions. That is, in itself, pretentious. If you don't like the label, don't be pretentious. If you don't care, then admit to being pretentious and embrace what you are.

You dedicate 5 paragraphs to a sentence you fail to understand, call me names, accuse me of being pretentious and always rule out the possibility that your opinion doesn't at least carry as much weight as someone else's, all this while you didn't comprehend the original statement in the first place and then reply to some oversimplified shit (so whatever I say is degraded to nothing more than an opinion out of many) your brain made out of it (of course your opinion is úsually a little more right than those of others - or what you made out of them, since yours is devoid of the emotions, historical context, or common knowledge). There are more examples for that behaviour in your post, but I'm done now.

Dedicating 5 paragraphs probably has more to do with how you seem to want to grasp at straws. Everything since my previous post (I urge you to go through and read it) has literally been nothing but you trying to get something on someone else just so you can validate the overall thought that you know a thing or two about art. When will you realize that no one cares? No one has to care - and it's not pretentious of them to not care for your education or opinion. People should be FREE to have their own.

I understood what you said better than you did apparently - I seemed to have proven that in the beginning of this post. Meaning the rest of your rant is worthless to you, and everyone else reading. You're bitching about me failing to understand when you failed to understand why I said what I said and continued on your rant anyway since you thought you knew that I didn't know what I was talking about (hypocrisy).

Saying that anyone's opinion doesn't carry as much weight is pretentious. Or let me put it another way: Are you saying that someone who has never seen a work of art in their life, was never taught about art or what art is, literally had no exposure to art at all; are you saying their opinion of a work of art is meaningless? Do you really think your opinion is so much more valuable than theirs? What can you buy with that opinion? Who will pay for it? Let me tell you something about REAL art (since you are blinded by your so-called education): a true work of art will make people want to know who the artist was, not the other way around (as you implied there is value in who the artist was, and the historical context of the work of art). One can appreciate anything for its historical context and value - but if that thing is art, that historical context does not define it as good art. Put simply, if I saw a work of art, and I don't care to know who did it; it wasn't good enough to make me want to know. So how exactly does an opinion of the historical context change the work of art? (I'm not suggesting that it doesn't, but it does...only for you - art is subjective).

Name-calling? You're like a fat person who's too fat to fit in an area, and when they are informed of the situation (as it is fact), they get offended and think the person is only trying to offend them. You were being pretentious, and all it takes is a dictionary to prove it. Not to mention how you try to impose your opinion as superior with no real basis. Besides this appearing as arrogance, you are basically asking for this criticism by your word choice.
Here's a basic version of the type of stuff I'm talking about: "I know more about art than you, that is why what you say means nothing" <-- this in itself has no value - nothing verifiable and you expect us to just take your Word for it - when, you've already proven to everyone here how you can't defend anything you say and are full of shit anyway.
If you don't want to be "called names", then don't be the thing you're being called.

Accuse? I think I've shown enough reasoning for a majority of people to agree. If you can't see how it makes sense that what you said is pretentious (even if it was poor word choice) then you are being unreasonable (oh noes! another insult! >_> please, if I wanted to insult you, I wouldn't take it lightly). If you have a problem with my reasoning, then go through it with me instead of bitching about it. Show your own reasoning to refute mine. I've done more than accuse, I've taken steps to proving it as truth.

You contradict yourself by saying that what you say amounts up to just another opinion. You're now saying that everything you've said so far has been your subjective opinion. So...why are you having such a problem with the opinions of others? You allow yourself entitlement to your own opinion, and even claim it is superior, but why won't you allow others to have their opinion? Get over it, people are different and you choose to get offended over a difference of opinion? Over art no less? I hope you are proud of yourself - you really are doing something worthwhile for the next generations >_> (sarcasm)

You said you were done before, and you apparently weren't. Even so, you said you were done yet again, and yet again were not.
Stop grasping at straws, stop fighting something that isn't there.
I don't have anything against you Word, but there's no reason for you to be an asshat in this thread.
The behavior (of mine) that you focused on were the very things that define you as being pretentious. It is the belief that your definition of what is required to have an opinion of art as absolute that is the problem. Literally everything you've mentioned (like historical context) means nothing when it comes to interpreting art, as it is subjective. The very reason why people argue over art is because some choose to appreciate a work specifically for it's historical context, while others don't, yet neither are willing to discuss it to find out the cause of the difference; leaving them to end up hating each other.
Put simply, if you didn't jump to the conclusion that the only way to see things (art) is your way, then you wouldn't be pretentious, and we might even be able to get along, and you might even be able to deal with (and move past) the fact that someone had a different opinion than your own.

Durf conspiracy again. Granted, you're saying things that are so pathetic and dumb that I wondered whether you really mean and know what you say. Apparently you don't know what you're saying but you really mean it, so we are done talking.

I said that there was a deeper psychological problem between you and I. You have used the word "conspiracy" before as if to dismiss every concern I've raised about users mistreating each other (not just me) as false or just a delusion. I wouldn't be saying anything if there wasn't something to talk about; not only would that be stupid of me to do, but you would be able to refute it with minimal effort if it did not exist.
But let's go with that word choice since you're so keen on it:
Did you forget the PMs we had? Did you forget how you were entirely unwilling to work things out and get along? You chose to hate. That is your responsibility.
Did you forget that my post was fairly ordinary? An opinion? And what did you do? You incessantly had a problem with it and are trying far too hard to combat something you simply can't.
If you want to call this a conspiracy of one, then there's plenty of evidence to show how you just have a problem with me - shall I point people to your posts in other threads to? Quite literally every time you respond to me or make a post directed towards me, it is because you have a problem with me. And yet, even though I have asked you countless times by now to make the problem known, to be clear, to say what you mean and mean what you say, you fail each time to actually explain what it is you're after. So far you have proven that you have an illogical hate for me. You see "Durf" and go hulk smash. If this isn't the case, then you can explain the pattern of behavior regarding multiple threads and the PMs. <P.S - I know what you think I don't know, but let's leave it at that because you like to play games>

About "conspiracy" and how this involves other people: I could point you to where Lucifer has made an edit to a post specifically to antagonize me (but I think it was to make a statement as an abusive moderator). Now, if such an action was entirely unprovoked, yet he did it for me, then how is it not a conspiracy? Are you saying that each of the users involved are merely doing these harassing actions on a whim? Because they feel like it? The only thing that would make it not a conspiracy is if it wasn't planned. The fact remains that I've had to deal with more harassment than the average user has, and for what exactly? Presenting a valid case that the moderators can't use their usual tyrannical tactics against? God forbid someone does something the right way around here....one would think that would be the moderator's job.
Because you brought this up as a "conspiracy", I will not be mentioning anymore names (as those users have learned to be a little more open minded when talking to someone they might not understand so easily) - they have earned not having their past shit brought up on them like that. But the more you try to fight what simply isn't there; the more unwilling you are to just work things out and get along, the less deserving you become.

And you ended that post in response to me with something incredibly pretentious, and there's no way for you to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about (just as there aren't many ways you could prove your "credibility" when it comes to your opinion of art - subjective matters). Even so, how many times have you challenged me? How many times have I actually spoken without being prepared or being able to explain myself? I haven't been making the same mistakes as you have been. You can try to dismiss my reasoning as a "lengthy post" or "rants" but that is doing something that you never do: provide reasoning, support for what I say.
Put simply, if this was just to assert yourself as some art authority, congratulations on making yourself a pretentious ass. Maybe if you learned WHY art is subjective, you wouldn't have tried in the first place.



The rest of your posts in this thread:
More pretentiousness.
Comparing other users to terrorists because of the different opinion they have (or because they lack the "education" you apparently have) or because they choose not to appreciate works of art for the same reasons you do, is harassment.
You're adding up to nothing more than a cyber-bully - all because people have a different opinion...you bigot.
Referring to the thought that art is for the rich is talking about something else entirely (not related to art itself) - we live in a world of business and corporations. Money is a resource that is traded, and items (such as art) can appreciate or depreciate in value (the market) - businessmen, and THEIR JOBS, is to manipulate this market to their advantage. To them, art means nothing. And guess what sells a worthless piece of art? The associations with historical context. Making a fool believe that they are buying something of value when it is worthless is THEIR JOB (not saying that is the case every time). The money in art means nothing in relation to WHAT art is.
You say something like "don't blame the works of art" then say something stupid like having to appreciate art for it's historical context (it's not "stupid" in itself, it is an opinion - trying to say that opinion as if it was objective is stupid). Like I've said before, if the work of art was good enough, then it could stand alone without an artist's name (in fact that might increase it's value in the market), without historical context, and be praised for being a good work of art...but that's my personal opinion and choice when it comes to art (paintings).
Asking another user of these forums what they have done to make life worth living for future generations is uncalled for and unnecessary pressure. Some people might not be in a situation to do such a thing (or are otherwise incapable) and this would just be more of your pretentious superiority. Besides that, can you answer your own question? You ask others what they've done, but what about you? Do you think being a pretentious ass is making life better for future generations? One could argue that putting in effort to be tolerant of others' opinions and to be willing to work out any problems towards a peaceful solution would be more beneficial than the attitudes you have been displaying recently. Better decide sooner rather than later too, because you form habits over time and once you're set on your path, you will stay on it unless you have the conviction to change.

Is that question rhetorical? I don't. Why build a house to live a life that is boring, shallow and useless for everyone except oneself? I think many art lovers would prefer being homeless if they could secretly own a masterpiece. Oh wait, in fact paintings can help the homeless as well!

^ this post is an example of how you grasp at straws to make an attempt to support something that cannot be supported. You twist words around to manipulate the interpretation.
To be clear, I agree: Why build a house to live a life that is boring? (literally who does that for that purpose?)
To be even more clear: Houses are not related to how entertaining one's life can be.
Another way to put it: People build houses to have walls to hang their paintings on (nearly every wall in my house has a painting).
Art lovers prefer being homeless if they could secretly own a masterpiece?!? LMAO this is so close to choosing death over a material object that is shows just how stupid people are....the funny part is that you tried to use this point to increase the credibility of all "art fanatics", but all you ended up doing was making them look stupid. If a homeless person prefers to own a painting that would be considered a "masterpiece" by art fanatics (only), the decision itself isn't necessarily stupid, it could very well be a lifestyle choice to live without a home (like nomads, but staying in one place). The stupid part is when you say that many art lovers would RATHER a masterpiece than a home (implying that their lifestyle is to normally have a home to live in).
The ONLY thing that would make that scenario worthwhile is the business aspect - owning a masterpiece for a time such that it appreciates in value, then selling it for profit - which is for the businessman, not the art lover.
This ^ and "paintings can help the homeless" are just examples of you trying far too hard to validate your own claims - stop grasping at straws. Even helping the homeless, it's the business that helps, the money...not the art. You can give a homeless person food, you can give them drugs, you can give them money, you can give them an umbrella or a coat to wear. Each of those provides a function that is readily available upon giving it to them. If you give a homeless person a painting however, they have no where to store it, they cannot preserve it as well as they should, and it's only real value to them is to sell it (for money or food). Even if they wish to keep it simply because they love it, it is only something else they have to carry around - if you started carrying all your possessions, you would quickly rethink the worth of what you carry.
This post was an example of how you will basically try anything at this point just for the remote chance that you are validated for what you've said so far - stop trying so hard. Or is the artist inside you crying? Do the emotions within need to be tended to? Do you really think it's wise to have such an emotional attachment to an object at the cost of housing? (without consideration of the business implications)

Your video games would look a little different if nobody had written a book about vanishing points in 1436 and any surgery you ever undergo would likely result in your death. Have fun with your house though, while you still can.

^ are you saying that video games and medicine depended on paintings?! Because I'm fairly certain that without the book about vanishing points, there are plenty of other books that discuss the same topic - even if there weren't, the concept itself would be learned as video games were being made simply because that is the nature of progression. Do you honestly think people would be doomed to an existence without vanishing points? Plus, do you know just how dependent videogames are on the concept of vanishing points? (hint: they aren't - there's a ton of different types of virtual perceptions, you don't know what you're talking about at this point).
Do you really think that a painting influenced the practice of medicine so much more than actual autopsies? You're trying to use historical context (example: how a painting can combine everything a single person has learned) as ultimately valuable to fields like video game development and medicine. Ignoring how this is just grasping at more straws to prove an invalid point, even if that were the case, the medicinal context of the painting is minimal at best and worthless to a doctor who is about to perform surgery - they ALL would rather have a corpse as reference. Don't even get me started on the video game part; you treat this as though no one but the artist has eyes to see with - vanishing points is nothing (child's play when it comes to more advanced video game development).
Remember when I asked if you really wanted to argue about something subjective? I asked that because it is complete bullshit points like these, that you try to make, that turn a thread into nonsense. You're trying to defend something that should be accepted as subjective, as if it were objective. Stop trying so hard; see where the problem is and make an attempt to solve it - you're getting far too caught up in your own nonsense to realize that you're just spewing garbage now.
Have fun with your house? As a Canadian, I can easily say, have fun being in the cold for 6 months; I'm sure you can use that painting to keep yourself warm.

You apparently hate it because you lack imagination and knowledge.

People have their own opinions - just like yours is to think that it is a requirement to even have imagination and knowledge to appreciate art (guess what? It's NOT!).
As an entirely subjective matter, this post is also being pretentious; you are trying to say that others lack imagination and knowledge because of a disagreement.
If you realized how art is subjective, then you might begin to realize how you're being an ass to other users who don't actually have a problem with you, but you have a problem with them simply for thinking differently than you do...bigot.

I'm saying that the anatomical studies of Leonardo are still valid. They weren't published for a long time until after his death, but even now scientists are still surprised how detailed they are (you can find lots of articles like that around the web if you'd bother to search; of course you don't). The Mona Lisa is like a visual summary of all he ever did.

Again, trying to validate your points on a subjective matter as if it was objective. Scientists are appreciating the SCIENTIFIC value of a work of art; being surprised at it's accuracy does not mean that the work of art was actually of value or influential in the development of modern medicine. All it says is that Leonardo was also a scientist, as well as an artist; and his art has a context for science. Not everyone has to appreciate that context; get over it. Modern medicine and surgical procedures never depended on the Mona Lisa. Stop pretending like it did - stop grasping at straws.

Let me know when Ubisoft found a cure for cancer. And even works of art without any scientific significance are a little more than just decoration for some philistine's shitty house.

Why are you expecting Ubisoft to make a cure for cancer? How is this making a point in support of art or artists (or your supposed "education")? Ubisoft makes entertainment (art) - so what exactly is the issue you have? The last line of that last quote is an opinion - not to be interpreted as fact. People are free to see art as they please.

You still confuse creating, owning and appreciating art. You want to punish the artists and people who enjoy what they see because you hate the rich.

Ugh, I think I need a break from the forums now.

Your accusations are unfounded and based on pretentious assumptions. Nobody wants to punish anybody, but for whatever reason, you feel an emotional response because of a difference in opinion. Is art a sensitive subject for you? Does bitching about the different opinions make you feel better? (I bet it doesn't).
Likewise, you want to punish the viewers who don't enjoy what they see because you think (assume) they hate the rich.
You are the one that confuses creating, owning, and appreciating art - you jump from reason to reason with your post and you lack conviction.
The reason why I say you grasp at straws is because when one of your reasons utterly fails, you'll try to justify it with another bullshit reason, and when that fails...etc. You are exhibiting a pattern of cyclical behavior...what are you fighting exactly? What are you trying to prove?
Art (and money), is about the business. When someone says that it's a way for the rich to get richer, that is EXACTLY what it is. Not because it is a monopoly controlled by the rich (though technically it is) but because the rich are those people who make it their job to exploit the market for profit. The art market IS just another way for them to make money - it IS just another market in the business world.
This isn't about hating rich people or assuming who is doing what because of what we assume about how much they make. Art is not for rich people - but the art market is (this means that a poor person would not only be unable to afford the money-making paintings, but they lack the skills to make MORE money from the market).
Word, "practice what you preach" - take your break already, you should have stopped the first time the thought crossed your mind. But by all means, give me more to work with - just how stupid will you make yourself look in this thread?

I will ask you one last time:
Are you sure you want to argue about something that is subjective? (just so we're clear on that - what is your purpose)

[Word]

Everyone: Enjoy the attachment at the bottom of this post.

Durf:

Why are you expecting Ubisoft to make a cure for cancer?

That you're still lecturing me about subjectivity/the definition of art/my supposed pretentiousness to justify that you can't detect art/satire/hyperbole/sarcasm/comprehend a text/a stylistic device when you see it - that is so tragic that I almost dropped my monocle. I'll just reply in a meta-way, this is my final statement.

To be even more clear: Houses are not related to how entertaining one's life can be

are you saying that video games and medicine depended on paintings?!

"I know more about art than you, that is why what you say means nothing" <-- this in itself has no value

Modern medicine and surgical procedures never depended on the Mona Lisa. Stop pretending like it did - stop grasping at straws.

Art is not for rich people - but the art market is

More stuff I haven't said or even implied. The conversation was about art in general. And while I clearly stated that the art market appeals to rich people (or didn't I?), the art/artists want to earn some money as well, the logical consequence being that they have their buyers in mind when they're working. Have you ever seen family portraits? Art is rarely created in an economic vacuum.

are you saying their opinion of a work of art is meaningless? Do you really think your opinion is so much more valuable than theirs?

Someone who is exposed to satire/art for the first time usually grasps that there is some concept behind it/that it is satire/art even if he still has no name for it and no dictionary at hand. You don't detect it although you're obsessed with dictionary links, so your opinion matters little. You didn't say the article was bad satire, you said it wasn't a very convincing collection of diary entries and, after the joke was explained, tried to weasel your way out by claiming it was also bad satire and made for pretentious people only. You treat it the way you treat everything that exposes your ignorance. Convict, on the other hand, is a typical philister whose opinion can't be taken seriously because he's ignorant and not even ashamed of that. That doesn't mean one can't take the attitude seriously.

Comparing other users to terrorists

As someone who already compared the moderators to Nazis as solemn as a judge, you just shattered the glasshouse you were sitting inside.

The ONLY thing that would make that scenario worthwhile is the business aspect

As you said yourself, you don't read emotion. And who says you can't find a shelter during the winter somewhere in Canada? Are Canadians that hostile?

Your accusations are unfounded and based on pretentious assumptions.

Can't you at least try to sound less like a broken record?

You said you were done before, and you apparently weren't. Even so, you said you were done yet again, and yet again were not.

I know. I'm not forced to reply here, but if someone misunderstands what I said, I usually clarify. In your case that's probably pointless, since you stay disrespectful either way and drag everyone into your intellectual abyss. You said earlier it takes you no effort to refute my claims. Probably because you don't really put effort in it at all?

Did you forget the PMs we had? Did you forget how you were entirely unwilling to work things out and get along? You chose to hate. That is your responsibility.

I remember "unfounded assumptions"/"I can show you the truth"/"stop harassing me by replying to my posts in public, or else I won't stop PM'ing you" - whiny phantasmagoria and self-victimization, abusive language and blackmail which I reported after you failed to cease PM'ing me as requested several times. Also, sampled from the last two posts in no particular order:

asshat pretentious ass pretentious ass bigot pretentious asshat idiot ass

If you hadn't said you're an autist, I'd suspect you have tourette's. I'm getting the feeling that you're constructing your posts like meaningless morse code to intersperse a few insults here and there (I had some time on my hands, see attachment. I suggest you read this while having the other post in a different tab). Someone can make a bingo sheet out of this.

[/dev/null]

That's the kind of opinion that doesn't mean much because it's completely barbarian, disgusting, worthless, uninformed and false.

I love all of those things, who do I talk to for my merit badge.