Now hear this! Now hear this! More funny pictures....less jibber jabber!

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 21, 2024, 05:00:37 PM...  I'm sure there's some symbolic meaning, but to me, it's literally like taking a photo of my pantry. Sure, I could do it, but would it be important or mean anything?

It wasn't about who, but when. Historical context. In a world pop art didn't exist, where art is understood very differently, it is/was very important. So, a very long story short, it's exactly what it is.

Warhol hated the certain set of circumstances and ideas imposed on/about art. Like 'high art' or 'low art', that art was accessible by the elite, and understandable-enjoyable by the educated or certain milieu only. Especially in a world that was/is thriving on consumerism, commercialism, and mass production. 

So, basically this was the way of him saying "Fuck You!" In a nutshell, when you draw anything from 'nature', you imitate nature too... So, it "...conveys a truth."

chatgpt:

QuoteAndy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans series, created in 1962, holds a pivotal place in art history for several reasons:

1. Pop Art Movement:

Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are a defining work of the Pop Art movement, which emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Pop Art challenged traditional fine art by incorporating imagery from popular and commercial culture. By using a mundane, mass-produced product as his subject, Warhol blurred the boundaries between high art and everyday life.

2. Commentary on Consumerism:

The series critiques and celebrates consumer culture. Warhol chose Campbell's Soup cans because they were familiar and ubiquitous, representing the standardization and mass production prevalent in mid-20th-century America. The work reflects society's increasing dependence on mass-produced goods and the rise of consumerism.

3. Repetition and Mass Production:

Warhol's use of repetition mimicked industrial production techniques. By replicating the same image multiple times, he highlighted the uniformity of consumer goods and questioned the notion of artistic originality. This approach challenged traditional concepts of uniqueness in art and mirrored the mass production of consumer products.

4. Democratization of Art:

Warhol believed that art should be accessible to everyone, not just the elite. By using familiar consumer goods as subjects, he made his art relatable to the general public. His work suggested that art could be found in everyday objects and experiences, democratizing the art world.

5. Artistic Innovation:

The Campbell's Soup Cans series was innovative in its use of silkscreen printing, a technique that allowed Warhol to produce multiple copies of the same image. This method aligned with his interest in mass production and further blurred the lines between fine art and commercial art.

6. Cultural Icon:

The series has become an iconic representation of 20th-century art and American culture. It has been widely reproduced and referenced in various media, solidifying Warhol's place as a central figure in contemporary art.

7. Personal Significance:

Warhol's choice of Campbell's Soup was also personal. He claimed that he ate Campbell's Soup for lunch every day for 20 years, making the cans a part of his daily life. This personal connection adds a layer of intimacy to the work, blending the personal with the commercial.

In summary, Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are significant because they encapsulate key themes of the Pop Art movement, such as the critique of consumerism, the use of mass production techniques, and the democratization of art. The series challenges traditional notions of art and continues to influence contemporary artists and culture.

Further reading...chatgpt:

QuoteThe concept of the "philosophical disenfranchisement of art" refers to a perspective within the field of philosophy that tends to undermine or diminish the value, significance, and autonomy of art. This idea is associated with the argument that philosophical discourse has historically marginalized or subordinated art, treating it as less serious or important compared to other forms of knowledge and inquiry. Here are some key points related to this concept:
Historical Context

    Plato's Critique:
        One of the earliest examples of this disenfranchisement comes from Plato, who famously critiqued art in his dialogues. In The Republic, Plato argued that art is an imitation of reality and thus a copy of a copy, leading people further away from the truth. He believed that art could be deceptive and morally corrupting.

    Philosophical Hierarchy:
        Throughout history, many philosophers have placed reason and rational thought above the sensory and emotional experiences evoked by art. This created a hierarchy where philosophy was seen as a pursuit of truth and wisdom, while art was relegated to mere entertainment or distraction.

Key Themes

    Mimesis and Representation:
        The idea that art is merely mimetic, or representational, has contributed to its philosophical disenfranchisement. If art is only an imitation of reality, it might be considered less valuable than direct engagement with the world through science or philosophy.

    Autonomy of Art:
        The disenfranchisement often involves denying the autonomy of art, treating it as a tool for moral, political, or educational purposes rather than recognizing its intrinsic value. This utilitarian view reduces art to its potential instrumental effects rather than appreciating its unique contributions to human experience.

    Epistemological Concerns:
        Philosophers have sometimes questioned the epistemological status of art. If knowledge is defined in terms of propositional truth and logical argumentation, the non-discursive, often ambiguous nature of art can seem less capable of contributing to knowledge.

Contemporary Perspectives

    Aesthetic Philosophy:
        In the 20th and 21st centuries, philosophers such as Arthur Danto and Hans-Georg Gadamer have argued against the disenfranchisement of art, advocating for its unique capacity to convey meaning, truth, and understanding in ways that are different from but equally valuable as philosophical or scientific discourse.

    Art's Cognitive Value:
        Contemporary aesthetics often emphasizes the cognitive value of art, arguing that art can provide insights, foster critical thinking, and offer profound experiences that contribute to our understanding of the world and ourselves.

    Interdisciplinary Approaches:
        There is a growing recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary approaches that bridge the gap between philosophy and art. This includes considering how philosophical concepts can be explored and expressed through artistic practices, and vice versa.

Key Figures

    Arthur Danto:
        Danto's work, particularly his concept of the "artworld," argues for the philosophical recognition of the unique ways in which art creates meaning and engages with reality.

    Hans-Georg Gadamer:
        Gadamer's hermeneutics emphasizes the interpretive and experiential dimensions of art, highlighting its role in expanding our understanding through engagement with aesthetic experiences.

    Maurice Merleau-Ponty:
        Merleau-Ponty explored the phenomenology of perception and the ways in which art can reveal aspects of our embodied experience and our engagement with the world.

In summary, the philosophical disenfranchisement of art refers to the marginalization of art within philosophical discourse, treating it as less serious or important than other forms of knowledge. Contemporary philosophers and aestheticians, however, have challenged this view, advocating for the recognition of art's unique and valuable contributions to human understanding and experience.

-------------------

(God, I love AI. )

In my original post, I didn't mean Baudrillard said the Warhol's soup cans were the last original thing we produced -it looks like that. I meant, he pointed out that, since Renaissance humanity has failed the produce anything original. Personally, I'm not sure about that either.

Probably, that's why we have produced postmodernism, why it is garbage, and everything we love is also the product of postmodernism...



 

Ever experience a movie or video game's story that was so bad, you felt compelled to fix it? As a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog, a serious plagued with lackluster storytelling, I've spent way too much time doing that. Well, this is a thread for doing that. Is there a story that is so bafflingly stupid, you think you could have done better? Write what you would have done differently here.

I'll start with something the internet collectively shat on as soon as the first trailer, and for good reason: Megamind VS the Doom Syndicate. Everything about this movie is terrible, from the animation, the lack of Will Ferrell, the character designs, to the nonsensical story. It's wild to think that the sequel was written by some of the same people who wrote the original movie. You'd think their target audience would be the people who saw the original movie back in 2010, but instead they seem to be targeting little children, who weren't alive back then and mostly only know about Megamind because of this meme:



Despite all this, I do think a sequel for Megamind does have potential. And while the chances of a sequel being as inventive and fun as the original are slim, it could still be something worth watching. So I'll try to fix the story of this movie with as few changes possible to make it less...bad.

First of all, I'd change the villains who make up the team. They're all very forgettable, uninspired characters, with ugly designs. One of them literally looks like a Skylander. First, the movie isn't actually where the "Doom Syndicate" original came from. There was a video game where Megamind fights a villain team by this name. It's probably not considered "canon," but it's villains are way more imaginative and original. Use some of them instead.


Alternatively, you could make entirely new characters. I saw one video where someone used AI to come up with better villains. And while I do not approve of AI being used as an alterative for real writers, they are useful for just finding inspiration, or a starting point to work with.


The Pigeonator is a wonderfully silly idea, and I think they would have fit right in with the original cast. But with that out of the way, I'll just be referring to the "Doom Syndicate" as a collective, rather than as individuals, for the sake of simplicity, with the exception of Machiavillain.

To start with, I'd have the movie open with Megamind as a child in prison. Machiavillain is there, as a leader of a prison gang, and he takes the blue boy under his wing as his mentor. Years later, he gathers a group of villains together and forms the Doom Syndicate. However, a rift forms between Megamind and Machiavillain. The former is more interested in the silly, cartoony villain type of schemes, while Machiavillain has become bloodthirsty and legitimately dangerous. When Machiavillain reveals his plan to infect the entire city with a deadly virus, and to hold the only antidote as ransom, Megamind feels like he needs to step in. In secret, he contacts Metroman using a disguise, and he tells the hero the Doom Syndicate's plan. Metroman defeats the syndicate, nearly killing Machiavillain in the process and locking him and the rest of the syndicate in separate jails to prevent him from organizing an escape. The syndicate waits in prison for their one remaining member, Megamind, to come and bust them out.

Skipping to present day, Megamind is fighting crime in the city. No people in stupid fish costumes; just normal criminals like thieves. He finds his new role as hero to be incredibly exhausting. It turns out trying to fill Metroman's shoes was harder than he thought. Minion suggests that Megamind make a new team to work with, but Megamind shuts down this suggestion quickly, saying that he works alone. Next day, Megamind is meeting with Roxanne, where she's discussing her campaign strategy. She is running as mayor, a position in which she thinks she could make a lot of positive change. Megamind is trying to listen, but he keeps nodding off. Having been up all night fighting crime, he can barely function during the day. She reiterates to him how he is spreading himself too thin, and he needs help, but Megamind insists he can handle it, chugging an entire pot of coffee to wake himself up.

There's a big explosion, and Megamind races into action. When he arrives, he finds his old team, minus Machiavillain. They've just broken themselves out of prison. Being completely unprepared for this, he attempts to take the villains down, but is quickly overpowered. Thinking quickly he tells them that the whole hero thing was just a ruse, to gain the city's trust. He claims that once he finds the secret location of Machiavillain's prison, he plans to strike while the city is defenseless. The syndicate buy this lie, and they agree not to ruin his cover, making it appear as if Megamind has defeated them and then making their escape.

Immediately after this, he returns to his lair. In a panic, he tries to come up with a plan, but before he can get far, the syndicate appear at his doorstep and make themselves at home. For the next several days, they have this pattern where they'd start trouble, then he'd show up to stop them, they'd let him win, and they'd run away. He experiments with new weapons and devices, and some of them work well enough that the villains start to get suspicious, but he tells them he "has to make it look good." Eventually, the villains begin to get tired of this game, and they begin asking questions. Like why, after all these years, he'd never tried to break them out. They begin demanding things from him. New weapons, letting them win every once and a while, but he always has an excuse to keep from helping them. The team decides they've had enough and turn on him, overpowering him and Minion and locking them in a cage. As they're discussing how to dispose with the traitor, suggesting various forms of execution, Minion speaks up saying, "Wait! I know where Machiavillain is!"

Ignoring Megamind's orders to keep quiet, Minion pushes him away, claiming that he liked being a villain better. In exchange for sparing their lives, Minion helps the syndicate bust their leader out of prison. Once they bring him back, Machiavillain, now reduced to a brain in a jar, takes Megamind's watch and disguises himself as Megamind. With this disguise, he tells the real Megamind that he will destroy his reputation, making it so the city hates him like they did before, to remind Megamind who his "real friends are."

This plan works for the most part, but while the rest of the city turns against Megamind, Roxanne is not fooled by the disguise. She can see that Megamind is acting out of character, and she knows something is up, so she goes to confront him. Minion steps in, acting like he's going to take her somewhere else to execute her. Once they're out of earshot, he tells her what's really going on. While Minion keeps the others distracted, Roxanne sneaks over to Megamind's cage and frees him. Once free and in safety, Megamind finally admits that he's way over his head. He was afraid to let others help, because he didn't feel like he could trust anyone else. He pulls out a vial filled with a super serum similar to what he used to create Titan. Handing it to Roxanne, he tells her that she is the only person in the world he can trust to use her powers for good, and to never abuse them. Minion acts offended, but when Megamind reminds him of a time he almost smashed a hot dog stand because they forgot his pickle, he nods and says, "Fair enough."

Megamind creates some upgrades on Minion's robot body, makes some new tools for himself, and they confront the Doom Syndicate. After defeating the villains, Megamind has them locked away in a more secure facility, on the Moon. Roxanne decides to keep her super powers a secret, going by the name Megamight. After becoming mayor, she passes a motion to create a new super team led by Megamind. As a reward for his service, Megamind gives Minion a "promotion," changing his name to Ol' Chum.

Midway through the credits, we see a spaceship approaching Earth, with a group of blue men and women on board. "So, you're sure this is the planet he was sent to?"

"Yes, sir. The natives call him Megamind."

"Land the ship. It's time to lay claim to our new home."

Well, the painting on was display at the MOMA IIRC, so being the eastern pole of posers in the US it was going to be a hit. (MOMA is in NYC, for reference.)

And I think it was MOMA, wasn't that interested in it to begin with.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 21, 2024, 06:44:09 PMThe Pop Artist, Andy Warhol, painted a Campbell's soup can. Imitation is the most vapid form of flattery.

I didn't mean "I don't understand what's compelling about it" in the sense of "oops, I fell and hit my head and never heard of one of the most famous American painters ever", I meant it more like "why the fuck would anyone go to an art museum with the express purpose of seeing a painting of soup cans?" with the implication that that's boring and (if the can is empty) literally rubbish.

Van Gogh, I can understand.  Any of the Renaissance Turtles, I can understand.  Zdzisław Beksiński, I can really understand.  Warhol's soup cans (and going on a limb, the entirety of his career), I don't understand.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 21, 2024, 05:07:37 PMMy favorite artist is M. C. Escher. I just got a book of Escher prints at a thrift store the other day for $5.
His work called Drawing Hands is my metaphor for friendship, since it involves mutual creation.

The flowing waters was rather cool. He created the big dead alien in "Alien".

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 21, 2024, 05:00:37 PMI never understood what was so compelling about soup cans that they made their way into art history textbooks.

The Pop Artist, Andy Warhol, painted a Campbell's soup can. Imitation is the most vapid form of flattery.

He also made an eight hour movie of a man sleeping. Nothing but that, just sleeping. Posers were all over it, gushing.

My favorite artist is M. C. Escher. I just got a book of Escher prints at a thrift store the other day for $5.
His work called Drawing Hands is my metaphor for friendship, since it involves mutual creation.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 21, 2024, 08:11:59 AMYour punishment is to sit through a traditional history of art course until a soup can drawing appears. :p

I never understood what was so compelling about soup cans that they made their way into art history textbooks.  I'm sure there's some symbolic meaning, but to me, it's literally like taking a photo of my pantry.  Sure, I could do it, but would it be important or mean anything?

All cards on the table, my own biases/assumptions:
* classical/medieval/renaissance naturalism = chef's kiss
* impressionism = made an impression
* surrealism = not bad
* abstract expressionism = can be good in small doses
* cubism = seek mental help
* postmodernism = literal garbage