Society/Culture Geoffrey Rush named Australian of the Year

[nicky]

FFS, how difficult is this to understand.

I stated that art is no longer relevant. Chief then said its used as a communications tool. Fair enough, that's his opinion.

I then said it hasn't been relevant for 100 years..

Wow, I've never noticed a poster I disagree with 100% of the time like i do you. I've not seen one post of yours that I agree with or respect.

As for the OP, i love Geoffrey rush and think he's one of the best actors around. I also don't follow this award, at all so couldn't say who would be a more appropriate winner.

 

[Daytripper]

Wow, I've never noticed a poster I disagree with 100% of the time like i do you. I've not seen one post of yours that I agree with or respect.

I'd be worried if you did.

 

[skilts]

My life's great skilts.
I've got two fantastic kids, a wife, a house and a job. That's what I'm focused on.

Would be better if the Bombers won a flag sometime soon though....

So, it's true. Ignorance is bliss. Of what use are you to your family if you only make available to them such a limited take on life. You are consigning another generation to an artistic and intellectual desert, the occupation of which you seem to so vigorously celebrate.

 

[Blessed]

Art for art sake, money for God's sake.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Tell me someone just didn't ask the question of whether we could consider Andrew Bolt to be art just because Dickens and Twain can be considered art.

 

[Daytripper]

So, it's true. Ignorance is bliss. Of what use are you to your family if you only make available to them such a limited take on life. You are consigning another generation to an artistic and intellectual desert, the occupation of which you seem to so vigorously celebrate.

Don't know what the problem is here skilts. Its all a matter of terminology. You classify Dickens and Twain as artists. I classify them as writers. Doesn't mean either of us don't respect their body of work.

I have got about 500 books at home. Because I classify the writers of those books as authors and not artists does that mean I live in an ''artistic and intellectual desert'. Of course not.

As I said, I understand yours and Chief's POV. I really do.
I just happen to disagree. Maybe having a more pragmatic nature I'm inclined to look at things in a more black and white sense than in a misty sense.

 

[nicky]

I would love to understand how he equates being pragmatic with being black and white.

Actually, no i wouldn't.

 

[Chief]

I prefer to think of art as being pictures (drawing and polaroid), sculptures etc.

So not one painter or sculptor has said one single thing with their work in hundreds of years?

Be honest: you can't even name a single painter beyond the big names like Picasso and Monet, (and maybe you saw that movie with Elle MacPherson's boobs about that guy in the Blue Mountains but you don't remember who he was) let alone a single sculptor.

Some poetry I guess could be classified as art but seriously poetry as a communication form is basically non existent these days - save for Barmy Army and football chants.

I understand your POV though and get where you're coming from.

And yet you still put smilies in your posts as if having no idea what art actually is, is something to laugh about.

 

[Chief]

So, it's true. Ignorance is bliss. Of what use are you to your family if you only make available to them such a limited take on life. You are consigning another generation to an artistic and intellectual desert, the occupation of which you seem to so vigorously celebrate.

Normally I'd hesitate to include someone's family in an argument, but this is a valid point.

 

[Daytripper]

So not one painter or sculptor has said one single thing with their work in hundreds of years?

Not for a long time IMO.

Been overtaken by mass media and the digital age.

Be honest: you can't even name a single painter beyond the big names like Picasso and Monet, (and maybe you saw that movie with Elle MacPherson's boobs about that guy in the Blue Mountains but you don't remember who he was) let alone a single sculptor.

Correct (except for the Elle McPherson bit). Art in that context doesn't appeal. And given that most art galleries have to be subsidized by the government, then I'm hardly on my own. Put it this way, if it was hugely popular then they could do it as a stand alone and not need to go begging to government.

And yet you still put smilies in your posts as if having no idea what art actually is, is something to laugh about.

Has no appeal to me like it has no appeal to most people Chief.

But you like it and good for you. World would be a pretty boring place if we all liked the same things.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Not for a long time IMO.

Been overtaken by mass media and the digital age.

Which you conveniently sweep aside because you don't consider it as fitting your very narrow-minded definition of art.

Are you saying this digital piece of art didn't communicate a powerful message?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And what about this sculpture, do you think it isn't communicating a powerful message?

Context

 

[Daytripper]

Which you conveniently sweep aside because you don't consider it as fitting your very narrow-minded definition of art.

Are you saying this digital piece of art didn't communicate a powerful message?

So to disprove my argument that art has been overtaken in this digital age, you produce, a 'digital' photograph.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

So to disprove my argument that art has been overtaken in this digital age, you produce, a 'digital' photograph.

Nooo, it was to disprove your point that digital media isn't art. Like I said, you have a terminally narrow-minded definition of what is and isn't art. It is art and it is art that can and does communicate powerful messages every single day, despite your half-arsed attempts to deny it.

You seem to know as much about art as you do about heroin or the environmental movement, i.e. sfa. No wonder you hate Teh Left so much, you're really hating a caricature you've constructed in your mind that has no basis in reality.

 

[Daytripper]

And what about this sculpture, do you think it isn't communicating a powerful message?

If you showed that to 1000 people without the accompanying explanation, then I could almost guarantee that 990 of them would not even know who it was.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

If you showed that to 1000 people without the accompanying explanation, then I could almost guarantee that 990 of them would not even know who it was.

So we can lump statistics into the myriad of things you know nothing about but are prepared to confidently assert yourself an authority on?

 

[Daytripper]

Nooo, it was to disprove your point that digital media isn't art. Like I said, you have a terminally narrow-minded definition of what is and isn't art. It IS aart and it is art that can and does communicate powerful messages every single day, despite your ha;lf-arsed attempts to deny it.

In your opinion.

What does it matter anyway?
Who cares?

You call it art. I call it media or television or writing.
My definition of art is what basically sits in art galleries with a few odd exceptions.

But if you want to sit around and call everyone an artist then I'm not going to stop you.

 

[Daytripper]

So we can lump statistics into the myriad of things you know nothing about but are prepared to confidently assert yourself an authority on?

BP, I would be happy to stand on Bourke St with you and show that picture to 1000 passes by.

What do you reckon?

 

[MC Bad Genius]

While I understand the discrimination between art and literature/music/poetry/drama/dance etc, most people would collectively refer to them as "the arts". It is a fluid term though ...

But even if we narrow it to art, there is plenty of evidence within the last century that art is still a powerful form of communication. One of the most striking pieces of art has already been quoted in this thread (the Obama/Hope picture), but what about the photo of the children running from war in Vietnam? Or the propaganda art in USA, Germany, China and pretty much every CPU try at war? Or even more simply, national flags?

These images all hold significance for a lot of people and communicate a message through them. I think you should probably rephrase your position to be that art has meant nothing to you personally for the last hundred years.

 

[Max zero]

the most influential person in 2011 throughout this whole world was the man championing freedom of the press and transparent goverment.

he was never going to get it , was he?

Should of been Times person of the year too. Shoe in for the Australian of the year.

Won't be though.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

BP, I would be happy to stand on Bourke St with you and show that picture to 1000 passes by.

What do you reckon?

You'd probably get the same response as you'd get if you stood in the Washington Mall with a picture of the Burke and Wills statue, or the statue of Trafalgar. But if you asked the people to whom the sculpture is communicating I'm sure you'd find most Americans would find it and its message immediately recognisable.

The problem with most of your assumptions about art is that you are assuming that everyone else is as ignorant and insular as yourself.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I think you should probably rephrase your position to be that art has meant nothing to you personally for the last hundred years.

QFT

 

[Max zero]

The tilt of the statue's head in juxtaposition to the airborne urine moves me.

 

[Clay Davis]

My definition of art is what basically sits in art galleries

So basically just like those works I posted earlier that were produced by one of the richest companies on the planet that also happens to produce devices for communication. That kind of art?