|
|
Post by ladyluvssummer on Dec 7, 2007 16:38:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. It looks more like mutilation than art to me.
|
|
genia
Katmandu Member
Posts: 26 
|
Post by genia on Dec 8, 2007 13:46:20 GMT -5
yuk!
|
|
tioneb
Oh Very Young
Posts: 24
|
Post by tioneb on Dec 10, 2007 14:32:31 GMT -5
very yuk
|
|
|
|
Post by HardheadedSofthrtd on Dec 10, 2007 21:52:54 GMT -5
Guess I'm odd, then, because I find it intrigung. The mirror underlying the burnt-out images causes the viewer to see themselves "through" (or within?) the various well-known subjects in each photograph, thus feeling, via reflection (literally and figuratively) momentarily intertwined with them. I think it's a particularly relevant expression of how the masses feel about celebrities, musicians in particular. Many of us find ourselves deeply touched by their lyrical and musical output, identifying on some level with the experiences and emotions put forth in their work. So why not an art exhibit where, quite literally, we see ourselves through them? I like it.
-Joanne
|
|
|
|
Post by boneheadedwoman on Dec 12, 2007 13:58:31 GMT -5
Yes, it's interesting that it's the eyes (mirrors of the soul) and the mouths (words) that have been burned out. I don't find it attractive, but I don't think that's the intent anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by suncatcher on Dec 12, 2007 23:04:24 GMT -5
If this were a "verdict . . . on Cat Steven's conversion to Islam" then it would have been a picture of Yusuf, not Cat. What do you think the intent is? To get attention and money? Pathetic. These ugly pictures with their mirrors are a reflection of the "artist" rather than his victims. And you make a great point, boneheadedwoman, about the eyes being the "mirrors of the soul:"  Case closed as far as I'm concerned. ~Sun~ |
|
|
|
Post by suncatcher on Dec 15, 2007 14:16:36 GMT -5
so, is self-expression "art" if it makes you think?!  Hi, LadyD I enjoyed reading everyone's ideas on this exhibit. Joanne's post in particular was very articulate and interesting to read. It would be so boring if we all thought the same way and had the same opinions on everything. I don't really know the answer to your question - but if you mean by "makes you think" that someone's self-expression takes us out of our comfort zone, then I think that it's certainly possible for self-expression to do that, but that doesn't necessarily make it "art'". For example, it seems to me that self-expression is no longer "art" (even it it makes us "think") when it is illegal, destructive, or can cause harm - and the line where this occurs is not easy to define. Personally, my favorite kinds of self-expression and art bring me back into my comfort zone. I like happy endings! ~Sun~ |
|
|
|
Post by flemmishfangent on Dec 16, 2007 9:08:25 GMT -5
It don't say me much.There is already much destruction in the world to see ,rather like building positive expressions.Regii Thinks that give you hope
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucy13 on Dec 16, 2007 12:56:59 GMT -5
What Joanne said is indeed intriguiging. WE, more often than not, are actually the artist. We make them what they are. They wouldn't exist as they are without their reflection in us. And -- at our most extreme -- we don't fully exist unless we see ourselves in them. However, why use a burn? Why not a tear or a cut-out? More random that way -- arbitrary, natural. Good observation, too LadyD -- about the celebrity "burn-out". The losing of a part of themselves through us. And vice versa too -- the burnout of being a fan. Seeing ourselves through a distorted mirror -- thinking we see the artist, but we don't really. We see ourselves and the beautiful hair, the glow, the body, but we don't realize, we're so fixated on ourselves that we don't see what's actually happened to the artist. Or to ourselves. The eyes, the soul. It's really just us. And it's reality, tinged with painful ugliness surrounded by beauty. Art doesn't have to be beautiful -- it just has to make you think. It can even raise up disgust within you. Then you know it's effective. I love the Gene Simmons one -- he hardly looks any different! How does Joanne feel about the Bowie ones? The one is almost hagiogenic! (I didn't see PT in there. Whew!  ) LadyD -- you find the neatest things. |
|
|
|
Post by HardheadedSofthrtd on Dec 17, 2007 6:40:51 GMT -5
Lucy, you said it much better than I ever could have. I knew I could count on you! How does Joanne feel about the Bowie ones? The one is almost hagiogenic! She likes 'em both. Your question prompted me to flip through the collection once again. Upon second viewing, I have to say I prefer the more random burn-outs as opposed to the ones that seem more "thought out". One might get the impression that the artist got too comfortable with the idea of burning out the eyes and mouths of several subjects. The shapes of the voids are too controlled for my taste. But other than that, I still like it. -Joanne |
|
|
|
Post by ladyluvssummer on Dec 17, 2007 8:51:02 GMT -5
Sorry....they still look like ghouls to me. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by suncatcher on Dec 17, 2007 12:59:55 GMT -5
I didn't see PT in there. Whew! It's one line, but it speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucy13 on Dec 17, 2007 23:20:29 GMT -5
Lucy, you said it much better than I ever could have. Thanks Joanne. Except that I can't spell intriguing! I totally agree with you: that randomness wins out over "thought-outness". You were brilliant to have come up with that mirror-interpretation to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucy13 on Dec 17, 2007 23:22:20 GMT -5
I didn't see PT in there. Whew! It's one line, but it speaks volumes. As they say, less is more! |
|
|
|
Post by cyndym2001 on Dec 28, 2007 16:41:01 GMT -5
Too weird for my taste.
|
|
)