Originally posted by Viking
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
I don't really know how to introduce this
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by CardiacCoug View PostThe McNaughton piece is clearly idiotic and offensive (indicting college professors, the media, etc. as unChristian and painting the Deist Founding Fathers as Christian right-wingers). No intelligent person could ever think that painting made any sense, and yes that generalization is appropriate here.
What you posted is just a basic "public service message" against homophobia.
Yeah, there is a big difference. You really think they are equivalent?
They are equivalent because they are both art and controversial ... look at how much vitriol McNaughton's work has created ... how much publicity ... lol
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View Postis there a difference between Mcnaughton's art and, say, this piece:
http://www.betweenbridges.net/Wojnarowicz_card.jpgFitter. Happier. More Productive.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by TripletDaddy View PostOne is a painting and the other looks like some sort of ad. Is that the sort of thing you were looking for?
Is Mr. Mcnaughton on par with Mr. Wojnarowicz in terms of significance. Not likely. Is his earnestness on par. Most certainly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View PostLook up: David Wojnarowicz (nsfw)
Is Mr. Mcnaughton on par with Mr. Wojnarowicz in terms of significance. Not likely. Is his earnestness on par. Most certainly.
It truly is a ridiculous piece and while I find that moose painting you linked to be silly in its own right, the moose painting is not intended to convey a religious and political message and therefore would likely be held to less scrutiny, if any.
You are one of the few on this board that actually has any legitimate bona fides in this field. All kidding aside, what do you think of the painting, esp the explanatory detail provided as you scroll over the various figures? You tend to lean conservatively (absolutely nothing wrong with that) and you also appreciate and understand art from a technical perspective. What is your take?Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by TripletDaddy View PostI'm not entirely sure anyone disagrees with you. From what I gather and recall about this thread, the criticism centered on the over the top and often ridiculous religious stereotyping portrayed in the painting. I think few doubted his earnestness or belief in what he was doing. I think this guy definitely believes what he is painting and really considers it a bit of Gods work.
It truly is a ridiculous piece and while I find that moose painting you linked to be silly in its own right, the moose painting is not intended to convey a religious and political message and therefore would likely be held to less scrutiny, if any.
You are one of the few on this board that actually has any legitimate bona fides in this field. All kidding aside, what do you think of the painting, esp the explanatory detail provided as you scroll over the various figures? You tend to lean conservatively (absolutely nothing wrong with that) and you also appreciate and understand art from a technical perspective. What is your take?
Both pieces are more significant than the Moose painting by Robert Bateman. The interesting thing to me, I'm willing to bet, is that many posters here have a Bateman, or something similar in terms of significance, hanging in their home—especially those individuals who have been highly derisive of McNaughton.
Technically speaking, the McNaughton painting demonstrates wonderful craftsmanship. The ideas behind the piece, or ideas that motivated it's creation, are a sincere honest attempt to convey his ideology. I can respect that.
Do I agree with his ideology? No. Would I buy a print of his work and hang in my home? No. Regardless, I'm not going to deride him for those ideas, no more than I would attempt to deride Wojnarowicz for his art and ideology. However, I do find each respective artists earnestness compelling.Last edited by tooblue; 04-29-2011, 08:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View PostI find the McNaughton piece no more ridiculous than the piece by Wojnarowicz, of which multiple prints hang in multiple museums, least of all the MOMA.
Both pieces are more significant than the Moose painting by Robert Bateman. The interesting thing to me, I'm willing to bet, is that many posters here have a Bateman, or something similar in terms of significance, hanging in their home—especially those individuals who have been highly derisive of McNaughton.
Technically speaking, the McNaughton painting demonstrates wonderful craftsmanship. The ideas behind the piece, or ideas that motivated it's creation, are a sincere honest attempt to convey his ideology. I can respect that.
Do I agree with his ideology? No. Would I buy a print of his work and hang in my home? No. Regardless, I'm not going to deride him for those ideas, no more than I would attempt to deride Wojnarowicz for his art and ideology. However, I do find each respective artists earnestness compelling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View PostI find the McNaughton piece no more ridiculous than the piece by Wojnarowicz, of which multiple prints hang in multiple museums, least of all the MOMA.
Both pieces are more significant than the Moose painting by Robert Bateman. The interesting thing to me, I'm willing to bet, is that many posters here have a Bateman, or something similar in terms of significance, hanging in their home—especially those individuals who have been highly derisive of McNaughton.
Technically speaking, the McNaughton painting demonstrates wonderful craftsmanship. The ideas behind the piece, or ideas that motivated it's creation, are a sincere honest attempt to convey his ideology. I can respect that.
Do I agree with his ideology? No. Would I buy a print of his work and hang in my home? No. Regardless, I'm not going to deride him for those ideas, no more than I would attempt to deride Wojnarowicz for his art and ideology. However, I do find each respective artists earnestness compelling.Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View PostI find the McNaughton piece no more ridiculous than the piece by Wojnarowicz, of which multiple prints hang in multiple museums, least of all the MOMA.
Both pieces are more significant than the Moose painting by Robert Bateman. The interesting thing to me, I'm willing to bet, is that many posters here have a Bateman, or something similar in terms of significance, hanging in their home—especially those individuals who have been highly derisive of McNaughton.
Originally posted by tooblue View PostTechnically speaking, the McNaughton painting demonstrates wonderful craftsmanship. The ideas behind the piece, or ideas that motivated it's creation, are a sincere honest attempt to convey his ideology. I can respect that.
Originally posted by tooblue View PostDo I agree with his ideology? No. Would I buy a print of his work and hang in my home? No. Regardless, I'm not going to deride him for those ideas, no more than I would attempt to deride Wojnarowicz for his art and ideology. However, I do find each respective artists earnestness compelling."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Tooblue makes some valid points. McNaughton's piece should not provoke any more eye-rolling or derision than "Piss Christ." (Google that if you aren't familiar with the work.) Still, it's disturbing to me (a political conservative) that a significant number of Mormons hold so strongly to views that are so misinformed and so polarizing. To me that's what the painting represents.“There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
― W.H. Auden
"God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
-- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Comment
-
Originally posted by LA Ute View PostTooblue makes some valid points. McNaughton's piece should not provoke any more eye-rolling or derision than "Piss Christ." (Google that if you aren't familiar with the work.) Still, it's disturbing to me (a political conservative) that a significant number of Mormons hold so strongly to views that are so misinformed and so polarizing. To me that's what the painting represents."In conclusion, let me give a shout-out to dirty sex. What a great thing it is" - Northwestcoug
"And you people wonder why you've had extermination orders issued against you." - landpoke
"Can't . . . let . . . foolish statements . . . by . . . BYU fans . . . go . . . unanswered . . . ." - LA Ute
Comment
-
I dont believe TB is making a political or cultural or aesthetic statement. I believe he's making an artistic statement.
I dont think you can infer TB's political position from his posts above. I think you can infer his artistic position.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tooblue View PostI find the McNaughton piece no more ridiculous than the piece by Wojnarowicz, of which multiple prints hang in multiple museums, least of all the MOMA.
Both pieces are more significant than the Moose painting by Robert Bateman. The interesting thing to me, I'm willing to bet, is that many posters here have a Bateman, or something similar in terms of significance, hanging in their home—especially those individuals who have been highly derisive of McNaughton.
Technically speaking, the McNaughton painting demonstrates wonderful craftsmanship. The ideas behind the piece, or ideas that motivated it's creation, are a sincere honest attempt to convey his ideology. I can respect that.
Do I agree with his ideology? No. Would I buy a print of his work and hang in my home? No. Regardless, I'm not going to deride him for those ideas, no more than I would attempt to deride Wojnarowicz for his art and ideology. However, I do find each respective artists earnestness compelling."Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
Comment
-
Originally posted by DU Ute View PostI always knew pellegrino was agodlesscommunist, but not you too LA!Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
God forgives many things for an act of mercyAlessandro Manzoni
Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.
pelagius
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostSorry TB, you are wrong. This is like saying "You've Got Mail" is a fine piece of art. Mcnaughton's piece is a sappy pile of crap."Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader
Comment
Comment