Who else hates modern art?


A mannequin with blue hair having sex with a bicycle is not art. A bunch of garbage is not art. Pieces of metal twisted into a random shape is not art.

You can say that it is a commentary on the innate apathy of humanity to the plight of the unwed teenage mother, but in reality, you are just trying to get attention with your BS pseudo-art.

Furthermore, leaving a piece of art "open for the public's interpretation" is not unique or creative. People will have thoughts regardless of your *beep* monstrosity of a sculpture. You did not create anything.

If you think you are important enough that your political/philosophical views must be heard, find a better way to represent the idea than a bunch of paperclips glued to a dead cat.

Real art takes talent and has meaning.

This movie is a prime example of stupid "art" with no meaning that only fake idiots pretend to enjoy. There are always the pretentious "artists" who say that this movie is a masterpiece that evokes emotion with images and blah blah blah. No, it doesn't. It's all about shock factor and originality. Cutting some girl's eye open doesn't say anything other than, "Whoa! Look out audience! I just blew your mind!"

The gore is no longer impressive enough to be entertaining. The movie was never brilliant.


reply

[deleted]

I feel the same way about 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I only like Un chien andalou because of Dali's affiliation. Yes, cutting an eye is a cheap trick and a mild gag when compared to today's horror films, but considering its from 1929, you gotta give it credit for experimenting when film was still relatively young.

reply

Here's a funny thread by people who like 'modern' art, in the comments of the same movie. That one's witty & enjoyable, so read that instead of this kvetching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/board/nest/85640194

reply

This movie is a comedy.

reply

Are you quite finished? God forbid someone likes this film!

"Whoa! Look out audience! I just blew your mind!"

Did you not consider that was Dali and Bunuel's intent? No, because you were too busy pushing your own "modern art is bad" agenda. Of course this film is art. The very fact that you're slagging it off proves this.

I guess this makes me a "fake idiot". Seeing as you know everything, I think I'll just go and bury my face in a bucket of sand. Maybe I'll do it in an art gallery just to piss you off.

reply

Hey! Check out dasher11! He knows the true purpose of art!
Can you tell me about the purpose of life? That one's been bugging me for awhile.

"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the alps!" - The Big Lebowski, edited for TV

reply

If you think modern art is simply about random shapes then you obviously don't know what your talking about . I'm sure any idiot would see your logic if it was true .

reply

Go on then, dasher11. Define "real" art.

'Never rub another man's rhubarb'

reply

I basically just as surrealism as 'recreating dreams' and really not much more. I don't care how many film scholars and art aficionados describe it... that's how I see surrealism as.

I hate labeling movies as 'art' and whether they are art or not. I just enjoyed this movie because it's so ****ing weird. I got a kick out of it.

reply

This is not art you snobbish pieces of feces. Eraserhead is a better example if you want a surrealistic film, this is just crap.

They must've said; lets film this, oh! and lets film this- while they were on the set.

I could film myself taking a dump and you dumbasses would call it art as long as I credited Dali(who is a fantastic artist when it comes to PAINTINGS/PHOTOS!) or some other snobbish douchebags.

Always the same: Naaahhh you aren't smart enough to understand the movie.
- Yes I am. There is no meaning, just crap that snobby little hipster-douchebags hype up way too much.

reply