More Bad Art
I recently wrote an article about this seemingly money-making scam art, and it was linked by Reformed Chicks Blabbing, which I appreciate very much.
What I thought was cool was a link that one of the RCB commenters shared on mathematical photography that is being portrayed as art.
H*ll, I can write, or photograph, a bunch of frickin' numbers/mathematical problems on a canvas, give it a title, and sell it as art, too, but I don't because it's NOT ART!
Not in my opinion, anyhow.
Maybe it's just my dislike of math speaking, lol.
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns






















Comments
But $ee, if you were truly $mart with number$, you'd go ahead and $ell that $tuff a$ art.
Posted by: Jeff H | July 5, 2006 02:49 PM
1+1=4-stupid=2
See I just dund some art.
Posted by: MacBros | July 5, 2006 03:27 PM
Exactly, Jeff H.
Macbros - sell it, make millions
Posted by: Sam | July 5, 2006 04:36 PM
Thank you for finding this! I was just talking about this stuff...all it takes is one person to buy the number 684 on canvas and other people will follow. dumb.
Posted by: jocelyn | July 5, 2006 07:57 PM
Thanks for the link. If you compared the numbers to the formulas, I would pick the formulas.
Posted by: Michele | July 5, 2006 10:17 PM
jocelyn - ya, I think I'll start writing the alphabet, perhaps I can sell two at a time, if someone were smart enough to buy the "f" and the "u" together. Or, perhaps someone will think to buy the "i", "r", and "s", then go home and burn them, lol.
Michele - ya, if I had to, I'd go with the formula, too.
Posted by: Sam | July 5, 2006 10:52 PM
That's about like the Natioanl Endowment for the Arts grant for a poem which was
LIGHGHGHT
No that wasn't the title that was the whole poem
Note it has been awhile since I read about this so I may have the number of GHs in it off.
As I recall a Congressman objected and was told by the Commitee that he just did not UNDERSTAND poetry.
Yes I was wrong it was Lighght
How much would you pay to read the poem ‘lighght?’ This is not a typo, nor is it the title of the work. The entire poem is ‘lighght,’ and the "artist" received a $1,500 grant for it.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed071698c.cfm
It's a good thing I checked my version might have cost the taxpayer 2 grand instead of 1500
Posted by: Dan Kauffman
|
July 6, 2006 06:16 AM
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa137.html
The NEA has been more patronizing than patron to the towns and villages of Middle America. An example: in 1969 NEA grantee George Plimpton, editor of the American Literary Anthology/2, confounded observers by paying $1,500 for a poem by Aram Saroyan consisting of the single misspelled word, "lighght."
When an assistant to an Iowa congressman asked Plimpton what Saroyan's poem meant, the editor replied, "You are from the Midwest. You are culturally deprived, so you would not understand it anyway."(54) We are subsidizing superciliousness; taxpayers are mulcted and then mocked, and if they complain, it is "good old-fashioned American small town hysteria,"(55) in one NEA staffer's phrase.
Posted by: Dan Kauffman
|
July 6, 2006 06:33 AM
PS thanks for the mental jog I am going to use the above for a post on
Why our educational system keeps going down hill while we have tripled funding.
Posted by: Dan Kauffman
|
July 6, 2006 07:08 AM