The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english /entertainment/arts/newsid_1869000/1869104.stm
(Remove space)
-----
Can a display of real, dead (some would say mutilated) human bodies be considered art?
German Professor Gunther von Hagens seems to think so.
I could understand this - probably - if it were a scientific display at a museum.
But as art? Not in my book.
(Remove space)
-----
Can a display of real, dead (some would say mutilated) human bodies be considered art?
German Professor Gunther von Hagens seems to think so.
I could understand this - probably - if it were a scientific display at a museum.
But as art? Not in my book.
Page:
Drat
I think you'll find that says Parker is an artist.
I have my all-areas pass from when we played Sound at Xmas, it says
"Artist: Parker"
I'm an artist, and I have the paper that says so.
Nyah nyah nyah
"Artist: Parker"
I'm an artist, and I have the paper that says so.
Nyah nyah nyah
Just like to add the definition of an artist
"One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts"
"One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts"
Sorry, my last post was in reply to Snuggly.
I believe so.
Apparently there is one touching someone elses a**e.
With their tongue...
Apparently there is one touching someone elses a**e.
With their tongue...
No its not art - One of the MP's who has seen it says :
it was not gruesome but "very medical" and "the most fascinating anatomical exhibition of all time".
That is what it is - an anatomical exhibition and should be treated as such - it should be in the science museum not in an art gallery (I couldn't see which gallery it is being shown in).
All this business of showing Piles of Bricks and dead Horses and switching lights on and off and claiming it is art is a nonsense.
Here is a dictionary definition I found of ART
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic medium"
Note the word Beauty - what is beautiful about these "Modern art" pieces ?
it was not gruesome but "very medical" and "the most fascinating anatomical exhibition of all time".
That is what it is - an anatomical exhibition and should be treated as such - it should be in the science museum not in an art gallery (I couldn't see which gallery it is being shown in).
All this business of showing Piles of Bricks and dead Horses and switching lights on and off and claiming it is art is a nonsense.
Here is a dictionary definition I found of ART
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic medium"
Note the word Beauty - what is beautiful about these "Modern art" pieces ?
I define art as something I couldn't do myself if I had the inclination.
I'm rubbish at painting etc, but I can lop a cow in half or arrange corpses.
This isn't offensive at all to me, it's purile
I'm rubbish at painting etc, but I can lop a cow in half or arrange corpses.
This isn't offensive at all to me, it's purile
Are the bodies all arranged in comedy positions, touching each others bottoms, doing catalogue poses etc.?
Page: