I thought I had seen it ALL.....

[pribeiro]

One thing is a stuffed pet, which I can live with that. Another thing is a stuffed-toy pet.
This is only a personal opinion, I do respect any opinion different from mine.

[Pizzaman]

Originally Posted by RMi Release Group

hmm, a whole nation...

NOW EVERYONE PLZ STOP BITCHING ABOUT KITTYKOPTER!!!

well, is that a 'form of subsidised art', sort of??

[Paul_in_DC]

Originally Posted by gears

There are no words for this except, O....M...F...G!!!!

It is soooooo wrong!!!!!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...ed-helicopter/

Yeah, saw that the other day. That's beyond creepy.

[Kazumi]

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

Why don't we eat humans that died of natural causes, or make leather out of their skin and such? Logically it would make sense, waste-not-want-not. But we aren't just emotionless machines or reactionary animals, we have the capacity to decide what we will tolerate and what we won't. In other words, cultural and societal illogical sensibilities aren't a bad thing, it's what separates us from the animals and machines.

And use their bones as weapons? Well,... why would we?

If it would be really useful we maybe do or better said still do. What about organ transplants? I bet there are cultures who find that weird and "sick" and using organs from dead people don't necessarily change that. For me the thought of it is still a bit sick, if you want to put it that way... it's more like machine thinking replacing a part with a donor part if it belonged to another human. But it can be kinda useful...

The cat on the other hand... it's not like it's a helicopter you can transport or even save people (or cats...) like what can be done with real helicopters. It's just for that guys amusement.

Originally Posted by ChrisDanger

I find it odd that people put up such a stink about using cat skin to make a purse, while they clutch their cow skin purse. The cultural filter through which we view the world is distorted and misunderstood.

And yeah, that guy's a bit odd, at worst, for turning his pet into a toy. But it really isn't anywhere near the extremes of depravity of which humankind is capable.

- Well... using the gifts of nature has brought us here. Cats are small and not worth hunting. But what about tigers and maybe other felines.

He didn't make a purse he made a helicat... or catcopter... for no use.

- Good point. Some people see their (living) pets as just toys. That isn't right either...

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by Kazumi

If it would be really useful we maybe do or better said still do. What about organ transplants? I bet there are cultures who find that weird and "sick" and using organs from dead people don't necessarily change that. For me the thought of it is still a bit sick, if you want to put it that way... it's more like machine thinking replacing a part with a donor part if it belonged to another human. But it can be kinda useful...

That's pretty much my point, some cultures would consider organ transplants acceptable, but turning skin into leather unacceptable. Taken at face value, both are using the corpse to do something useful, society has just illogically decided that one is ok and the other isn't. My opinion is that such a decision, while illogical at face value, is not a bad thing, as it makes sense emotionally.

[Pizzaman]

Originally Posted by Kazumi

He didn't make a purse he made a helicat... or catcopter... for no use.

Eh well. It did have an use. He makes a living off it, as a state-subsidised artist.
In fact, all the Dutch civilians have contributed tax money to this.

I object to the fact that my tax money went to this.
I'd rather have somebody wipe their '' with it.

I can live with catcopters, but I think it is very VERY lame and useless.
tax-payer-sponsored-jackass-level-semi-supposed-art.

[dedeer]

I see a movie in that

[Raymond Lucardie]

Originally Posted by Pizzaman

I object to the fact that my tax money went to this. I'd rather have somebody wipe their '' with it.

I can live with catcopters, but I think it is very VERY lame and useless.
tax-payer-sponsored-jackass-level-semi-supposed-art.

Well, that’s an interesting point. First of all: should art only be subsidised if a majority of people appreciate it? In times of economic crisis some people suddenly become art critics.
And second: how much taxpayers’ money do you think was actually spend on the catcopter? A taxidermist to prepare the cat, a craftsman to build a lightweight frame, a couple of model airplane engines and a RC unit?
We’re not talking about huge amounts of money here. Spending money on a mission to Kunduz or ordering JSF planes is far more money down the drain in my honest opinion.

[Pizzaman]

Originally Posted by Raymond Lucardie

Well, that’s an interesting point. First of all: should art only be subsidised if a majority of people appreciate it? In times of economic crisis some people suddenly become art critics.

I have been a critic of these so-called 'arts' since I was at 'college' (HBO),
in which they also had an arts department (HBO beeldende kunst).
I think it is really worthless stuff that is produced there.

People do not suddenly become art critics. It is just the internet has provided a source of information,
therefore we can now see what gets put up where, and what it did cost.

S-called art projects have been a minor hate for me a long time.
Example: kabouter butplug (Rotterdam). Cost 200.000 euros for a statue nobody wants.

Originally Posted by Raymond Lucardie

And second: how much taxpayers’ money do you think was actually spend on the catcopter? A taxidermist to prepare the cat, a craftsman to build a lightweight frame, a couple of model airplane engines and a RC unit?

That, and a nice sum for his advisory agency, of which he is the CEO.
As I am a CEO myself I know the income must be ~42.000 euro per annum,
(this is legally so) and as such he must have made quite a lot of money from this project.

Originally Posted by Raymond Lucardie

We’re not talking about huge amounts of money here. Spending money on a mission to Kunduz or ordering JSF planes is far more money down the drain in my honest opinion.

Agreed on that. I think we have more similarities of opinion than differences there.

[Viper]

Originally Posted by Pizzaman

S-called art projects have been a minor hate for me a long time.
Example: kabouter butplug (Rotterdam). Cost 200.000 euros for a statue nobody wants.

You are sh... errr.. shooting me!

How in the name of Zeus' thunderclapping butthole can that thing cost €200.000?

[redi]

Originally Posted by Viper

How in the name of Zeus' thunderclapping butthole can that thing cost €200.000?

It's the huge underlying cultural value, you barbarian.

[Pizzaman]

Originally Posted by redi

It's the huge underlying cultural value, you barbarian.

Yeah probably. It's not at all so-called 'art experts' making
'money for nothing and the chicks for free'.

BTW it is not sure how much te Kabouter has cost.
The only thing that is known is for how much it was bought.
BE SCARED this is the cost of 'art'.

Actually there is even people BELIEVING that this kind of sh... is art.
I once met Herman Brood, and he told me the true art is making people pay good money for this @#@#$

[Raymond Lucardie]

Originally Posted by Pizzaman

Actually there is even people BELIEVING that this kind of sh... is art.

I wonder what your definition of art is, it’s function in society and culture. I could take a cheap shot and claim that labelling contemporary art as sh** is very much the same thing as what the Communists and the Nazi’s did when they labelled 20th century art as 'anti communist' or 'Entartete Kunst'. Did I take that cheap shot? I’m afraid I just did.

Paul McCarthy’s sculpture 'Santa Claus' , commonly known as 'Kabouter Butplug', is a piece of art created in the long standing tradition of commissioned art. Throughout the ages, the procedure has always been very much the same. An artists is chosen to create a piece of art and is paid for his expenses.

If art equals freedom of expression, and I believe this should always be the case, an artist must not be limited in any way and offered total freedom to create whatever he wishes to create. Too bad if some people disaprove of the works of art that are created, but it is the very essence of commissioned art. Take it or leave it.

[MickeyMouse]

Reminds me of Yoko Ono's very impressive art exhibits.

"Apple"


"To the Light"


Seriously, how does she come up with such amazingly complex works of art? I can now truly see why people are so enthralled by modern art.

[Pizzaman]

Originally Posted by Raymond Lucardie

I wonder what your definition of art is, it’s function in society and culture. I could take a cheap shot and claim that labelling contemporary art as sh** is very much the same thing as what the Communists and the Nazi’s did when they labelled 20th century art as 'anti communist' or 'Entartete Kunst'. Did I take that cheap shot? I’m afraid I just did.

As you realise it IS a cheap shot, well, I think you didn't.
Besides that, what the nazis called 'Entartete Kunst' was based on their 'religion',
not on wether it was any good or anybody thought it was.

Originally Posted by Raymond Lucardie

Paul McCarthy’s sculpture 'Santa Claus' , commonly known as 'Kabouter Butplug', is a piece of art created in the long standing tradition of commissioned art. Throughout the ages, the procedure has always been very much the same. An artists is chosen to create a piece of art and is paid for his expenses.

I'd say it was a 'friends service' paid for by governement money.
And I bet I know where the plug was modelled on.
How do they call that, a pay-off?

Originally Posted by Raymond Lucardie

If art equals freedom of expression, and I believe this should always be the case, an artist must not be limited in any way and offered total freedom to create whatever he wishes to create. Too bad if some people disaprove of the works of art that are created, but it is the very essence of commissioned art. Take it or leave it.

We have no option to leave it, as tax money goes to where talentless gitbags say it will.

So, I'd gladly 'take it', and then 'leave it' in the proper position.
Somehow that santa plug seems to me more artistic when stuck up the behind
of the bugger that squandered the taxpayers money on it. May he enjoy it

(and I may get my chance to do that, too, LOL)

[mrpowcz]

Artists should be free to create whatever they want, for whatever purpose they want and call art whatever thety want, yes.
No, they shouldn't be given tax payers' money though. They should finance it all with their money.

I could also take a s**t on a street and ask for 100000 euro and call it art then.

[mrpowcz]

Which reminds me.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit

[Copyright]

Originally Posted by mrpowcz

Artists should be free to create whatever they want, for whatever purpose they want and call art whatever thety want, yes.
No, they shouldn't be given tax payers' money though. They should finance it all with their money.

I could also take a s**t on a street and ask for 100000 euro and call it art then.

True. We have photos now, so no need for art to be a realistic representation. This means art that many people don't get and don't care for, 'challenging perceptions of what is art'...

While sometimes I can appreciate quite a lot of modern art, many 'big exhibits' are purely about ego. Should they be able to vomit on a canvas and find deep meaning in it, absolutely. Should we pay for it? Well that's a harder question. While it is beneficial to fund many artistic projects such as local plays that would otherwise fail to gather any funds and never turn a profit, other items, such as pieces should be paid for by who ever wants it.
Want a statue of a glass shard piercing a turd? Fund it yourself. Want an accurate painting of your wife? Fund it yourself.

[Raymond Lucardie]

Originally Posted by mrpowcz

Artists should be free to create whatever they want, for whatever purpose they want and call art whatever thety want, yes.
No, they shouldn't be given tax payers' money though. They should finance it all with their money.

Paul McCarthy was asked to make a sculpture for the 'Internationale Beelden Collectie' in Rotterdam, it is a piece of commisioned art. People may not like the sculpture, and I can fully understand why, but I don't think it's wrong to fund an art collection with tax payers'money.

[Pizzaman]

Does it really matter if, when an artist produces a horrid piece of #@$,
wether he gets paid by tax money, or it gets pre-ordered by somebody that pays with tax money?

One way or the other, it is a waste of tax payers money.
Just in the case of kabouter B. we can clearly point to the responsible person.

But, McCarthy can't help it if he is paid big money for which is basically a very big garden gnome (commisioned or not).
In fact he'd be stupid NOT to take the money. Almost as stupid as the ones that get robbed from it.
The art is, as Herman Brood explained to me, in finding an idiot paying such money.

Funding an art collection with tax payers money is not wrong.
Many things I do not like, but hey some are definately art even if I do not like them.
Paying for overpriced garden gnomes and flying cats, IMO, is another matter.
The idiot that sanctions that, should be put on display. LIKE THIS.

BTW I suppose there is no need to explain what I'd do to the numbskull that would pay tax millions for that Yoko Ono apple.
And yes, it involves the apple. I guess you could call that 'performance art'.

[PeteDanger]

I think the cat looks happy....