Hahahah
That quote is from 'Girls Talk' by Nick Lowe
AICMFP
Edit: Have you had a good day ? (*Sniggers*)
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:20,
archived)
AICMFP
Edit: Have you had a good day ? (*Sniggers*)
I can draw spiders...
That's actualy really fucking impressive!
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:11,
archived)
Even with a source pic,
it's amazing. I have the drawing ability of a 2 year old at times.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:18,
archived)
yeah...
i was trying to think of a way to comment on her gaping part without sounding like a perv.
don't get me wrong though -- she is fully woo.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:25,
archived)
don't get me wrong though -- she is fully woo.
ha, yeah
it serves me right for not looking at stuff properly and thinking its finished
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:26,
archived)
beauty!
the black and white version is my desktop image, i'll have you know
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:17,
archived)
I guess if mother nature was an actual person
then it would be fair to say we were riding roughshod over her feelings by breeding animals and growing crops for our own comfort. But there is no real person called mother nature involved here, just a bunch of chickens and the mechanism of evolution, which is cruel and aimless and has no opinions.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:16,
archived)
but that mechanism
and everything behind it created and adapted everything on the planet to become most suitable for life on earth, and continues to do so , you may think its aimless, thats part of the delusion of our culture, but in reality its methods is what keeps everything rolling on, and our interference ( our cultural vision) is acting against all these laws of nature, against the process of life itself, which is why the shit will hit the fan more and more the harder we try to control everything.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:25,
archived)
Why do you have so little faith in intelligence?
Intelligence is much faster than evolution, and has all kinds of added extras like the ability to plan ahead, and value things theoretically rather than just produce empirical results. Us intelligent lifeforms are the new generation, and evolution is our senile old grandparent.
All evolution is good for is proving what kind of organisms can live, and it never makes its mind up.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:36,
archived)
All evolution is good for is proving what kind of organisms can live, and it never makes its mind up.
..
Not every culture is deluded by our cultures delusion, aboriginals, small isolated hunter gatherer tribes and certain american indian tribes ( to name a few) still has intelligence, but our agricultural cultures have forgotten this intelligence because they have been deluded by the lies of our culture.
If we re-learnt this intelligence and 'had' intelligence like you mention we would not interfere.
What you see as intelligence in our cultural vision is founded on lies.
Why do you have so little faith in nature ?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:48,
archived)
If we re-learnt this intelligence and 'had' intelligence like you mention we would not interfere.
What you see as intelligence in our cultural vision is founded on lies.
Why do you have so little faith in nature ?
Just as a thought experiment:
suppose Lembit Öpik has his way and we develop sophisticated anti-meteor devices. Then suppose a huge asteroid is discovered heading for earth. Presumably you'd argue that we should let nature take its course, rather than deflect the asteroid? If so, what good does that do? If not, is the asteroid not part of nature in your estimation?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:55,
archived)
there was a study
on asteroids that showed that we can not deflect them as shown in hollywod blockbusters due to the composition of their structures, our efforts with missiles would be absorbed and would create a nuclear fallout on top of the asteroid hitting us.
Space sails will not work either as the size of them would not be sufficient to do anything.
There would be nothing we could do apart from go underground and hope.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:59,
archived)
Space sails will not work either as the size of them would not be sufficient to do anything.
There would be nothing we could do apart from go underground and hope.
I saw that study too
which is why I didn't specify how this system would work. You have to suppose that we've thought of an effective way, for the purpose of the question.
I think it might put you in a dilemma. You mustn't avoid the dilemma by putting up technical obstacles.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:02,
archived)
I think it might put you in a dilemma. You mustn't avoid the dilemma by putting up technical obstacles.
we would not get that far
if we created something that could do that, it would be used on earth for other means or by unavoidable accident before hand and we would wipe ourselves out anyway ,so we would not have to ( or would be able to )worry about the asteroid/
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:06,
archived)
But your lack of faith in technology aside,
the interesting question is whether supposing the situation arose you would side with people, technology and life, or nature, burning space rocks, and death from above.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:10,
archived)
the only solution would be
to leave the earth in space ships, but agriculturists in space will never work, and id hate to be stuck in a smaller space-ship with loads of people that believe agricultural lies drifting in the hope of finding somewhere to go, so i would stay on the earth.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:13,
archived)
It's an asteroid-deflector
that works in an unspecified way.
It's not a giant escape pod. We haven't got one of those, in this thought experiment. What we've got is a device capable of deflecting the asteroid. Is it acceptable to you to use this device, or not?
I'm getting the impression the answer is no...
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:15,
archived)
It's not a giant escape pod. We haven't got one of those, in this thought experiment. What we've got is a device capable of deflecting the asteroid. Is it acceptable to you to use this device, or not?
I'm getting the impression the answer is no...
i think you live in hope
too much of our culture.. maybe it was too many scifi films of man conquering everything ray harry-housen could throw at us.
This device would destroy us anyway, so why bother.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:21,
archived)
This device would destroy us anyway, so why bother.
I know you think that.
I'm getting that message loud and clear.
But you won't answer the question.
It's a hypothetical question to test your consistency. It doesn't have to have any likelihood of happening.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:22,
archived)
But you won't answer the question.
It's a hypothetical question to test your consistency. It doesn't have to have any likelihood of happening.
destruction by asteroid
or destruction by man made asteroid/planet killer,,
death both ways...
at least if we dont try to build an asteroid killer we half the destruction possibilities
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:24,
archived)
death both ways...
at least if we dont try to build an asteroid killer we half the destruction possibilities
The asteroid-deflector doesn't have the incidental effect of killing us all.
You just made that part up, because the idea that technology might save life on earth from a natural disaster would undermine your whole value-system (in which nature is a benevolent god and technology only causes harm).
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:28,
archived)
it depends
you can have technology thats good and tech thats bad.
With our current cultural vision designing it we will fail and double our chances of detruction, it would become inevitable.
But if we had a cultural change to our vision ( that has happened lots of times in human history) to bring it more in line with the cultural vision that evolved with man from the start of time then we would have every hope of surviving.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:31,
archived)
With our current cultural vision designing it we will fail and double our chances of detruction, it would become inevitable.
But if we had a cultural change to our vision ( that has happened lots of times in human history) to bring it more in line with the cultural vision that evolved with man from the start of time then we would have every hope of surviving.
depends what happens to man
the tech and intelligence we know today , NO, it would not work.
The tech of a new ( remembered )vision driving us, YES.
Hypothetical question for you :
If you realised everything your cultural vision was founded on was a lie and would lead to human extinction, would you still believe the lies and carry on to fit in with the flock ,or would you drop that cultural vision ?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:39,
archived)
The tech of a new ( remembered )vision driving us, YES.
Hypothetical question for you :
If you realised everything your cultural vision was founded on was a lie and would lead to human extinction, would you still believe the lies and carry on to fit in with the flock ,or would you drop that cultural vision ?
I'll come back to that, because we haven't got to the best bit yet.
You've chosen to deflect the asteroid. This is because, in the judgement of you, a human, it's what's best for nature. Are you comfortable with that?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:43,
archived)
your trying to put words into it
you put into the hypothetical question an asteroid mechanic that was foolproof and not dangerous to life on earth in any way, something that we will NEVER reach with our current cultural vision. So in your hypothetical question that will never come true the answer would be yes, but in reality the answer would be no.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:51,
archived)
So
you're not in principle adverse to deciding what's best for nature.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:52,
archived)
every creature
on the planet has an inbuilt desire to live,
thats part of nature, to deny it is to deny you are part of nature.
To sometimes give as good as you get is part of nature too.
But to try to conquer is not.
To think ( agricultural vision) you are above nature and outside of its laws is foolish, and unintelligent.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:58,
archived)
thats part of nature, to deny it is to deny you are part of nature.
To sometimes give as good as you get is part of nature too.
But to try to conquer is not.
To think ( agricultural vision) you are above nature and outside of its laws is foolish, and unintelligent.
Hmmmm
I don't normally take part in these sort of debates, but I'm kind of duty bound to respond here. The way I see it, the 'problem' with intellect and logic is that they're practiced by fallible, emotion-driven humans. There is no such thing as an unbiased intellect except in the most rarified, trivial circumstances. Human intellect is almost always informed by need or desire, perceived or actual, however unwittingly or covertly. For this reason it is flawed when use as a sole tool for human improvement, not in theory perhaps, but almost always in actuality.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:08,
archived)
I'm not sure what you're saying
but I'm big on fallibility.
What's the implied other tool for human improvement?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:14,
archived)
What's the implied other tool for human improvement?
he trying to explain
in the grand scheme of things whats bad for you may not be bad for other things, and that our delusion of controlling things is affected by our delusion that what is good for us 'must be good for everything else'
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:18,
archived)
:)
I mean I'm not big on intellect, but you already knew that :)
Ha ha, the other tool for human improvement? None was implied (or at least that was not my intention... I see now how you drew that conclusion though). 'Improvement' is relative, changeful, in the eye of the beholder, and therefore ultimately illusory: Medicine improves in efficiency, so more people survive, so more people need food, so more people starve. An extreme and probably silly example, but you know what I'm saying.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:19,
archived)
Ha ha, the other tool for human improvement? None was implied (or at least that was not my intention... I see now how you drew that conclusion though). 'Improvement' is relative, changeful, in the eye of the beholder, and therefore ultimately illusory: Medicine improves in efficiency, so more people survive, so more people need food, so more people starve. An extreme and probably silly example, but you know what I'm saying.
not just people
the more people and more food for people there are, the less of all other life on the planet there is,
the planet only has a limited amount of bio-mass that it can support.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:25,
archived)
the planet only has a limited amount of bio-mass that it can support.
Sounds a bit buddhist.
I think progress occurs. New solutions lead to new problems, of course, but that's the joy of living. Though I do agree, in a way, that it's all pointless. But we should keep striving forward anyway, 'cos it's fun.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:37,
archived)
no
there is a way that everything 'works', and thats if we leave nature alone.
These problems only occur when we interfere, and we create 'programmes' to try to compensate for the flaws that this interfering creates.
To keep on reinforcing the flaw will just leave a lot more to crumble.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:42,
archived)
These problems only occur when we interfere, and we create 'programmes' to try to compensate for the flaws that this interfering creates.
To keep on reinforcing the flaw will just leave a lot more to crumble.
Hehe, sounds like laissez-faire economics.
I wish you were a free market advocate instead of a back-to-nature type. You'd be great at it.
By the way, I like problems. Having no problems to solve would be terminally boring. It would be a static situation, like an argument without criticism.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:45,
archived)
By the way, I like problems. Having no problems to solve would be terminally boring. It would be a static situation, like an argument without criticism.
its not static
every creature encounters problems that it needs to overcome all the time, even un-agricultural man..
but to create programmes to try to get around the flaw that your vision creates will just make things worse
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 4:53,
archived)
but to create programmes to try to get around the flaw that your vision creates will just make things worse
I'll go to bed now, since it's 5 in the morning and I might have work tomorrow afternoon.
Was fun ranting with you, as usual.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 5:00,
archived)
Ah, sweet delicious Tim Horton's doughnuts, I....HEY!?!?!
sweet delicious Tim Horton's doughnuts I....HEY!?!?!
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:53,
archived)
I agree...
...having a few extra pounds myself. But I did it to enrage people on craigslist. It's fun.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:56,
archived)
I have a couple of extra fatty points too.
Made a cake today that's 2 layers or chocolate sponge, filled with chocolate chips. Chocolate fudge between the layers, covered in chocolate fudge and decorated in White and Milk chocolate buttons.
It makes you feel fat just looking at it.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:00,
archived)
It makes you feel fat just looking at it.
Cool!
Post a picture of your cake and I'll photoshop a picture of Jesus Himself eating it.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:05,
archived)
There's only about a quarter of it left.
Me and a brother have pigged out on it. I'm packed up to the lungs with cake and swiss roll.
I'm like some sort of baking genius. Only not. Oh shut up Aaron.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:09,
archived)
I'm like some sort of baking genius. Only not. Oh shut up Aaron.
Jesus can show his face
and lick my knacker sack, the big puff!
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:21,
archived)
You'll eat the goddamn chocolate Timbits...
...and you'll LIKE THEM, MISTER.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:00,
archived)
CDC eh?
Have a repost:
I was bored waiting for the bus the other night and there was fresh gravel down...
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 3:13,
archived)
I was bored waiting for the bus the other night and there was fresh gravel down...
Twould be better, if I
weren't, effectively, drawing with a bar of soap.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:11,
archived)
that's what happens when you draw with soap?
why have I been using this damn tablet?
*throws against window*
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:11,
archived)
*throws against window*
I'll swap you!
Stupid apple soapmouses! too darn cumbersome is what they are.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:12,
archived)
It's a big stupid mac as well.
The screen is far too large, yet useful since i use it as a TV as well.
still, i'd like a nicer mouse that's not like a bug lump of hard to move around.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:16,
archived)
still, i'd like a nicer mouse that's not like a bug lump of hard to move around.
MIND FOG
artpad.art.com/gallery/?ioj8c61hz6v0
FIND MOG!
GOM NIFD!
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:35,
archived)
FIND MOG!
GOM NIFD!
"Compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including lung, breast, prostate, leukaemia, lymphoma and skin cancer."
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 2:24,
archived)
you have
a very competent cat.
it draws far better than i can (not difficult)
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:32,
archived)
it draws far better than i can (not difficult)
*tries to resist pointing out that if it were a negative the picture would be inverted*
*fails*
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:27,
archived)
sheesh...
if it were a negative, it would not be in colour.....
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:29,
archived)
Maybe...
it's the dreaded "Double Negative" our grammar teachers always warned us about?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:30,
archived)
it's a car that is driving through those breakable secret passageways like in Sonic 1
/geek
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:15,
archived)
That's all well and good
but what happens when you get to a roundabout?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:15,
archived)
The rear windshield
broke into teal and purple pieces and then floated away
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:17,
archived)
Is that car b0rked, or is it art?
(on a slightly unrelated note, has anyone been to the tate modern recently? what are all those white boxes about?!)
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:18,
archived)
(on a slightly unrelated note, has anyone been to the tate modern recently? what are all those white boxes about?!)
They're an exhibit
the white repesents the blankness and nothingness that is all around us, and that we don't usually recognize it because of our chaotic lifestyles. The fact that they are cubes rather than spheres or some other shape is to emphasize the convention with which we see things.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:20,
archived)
I don't know
I made that up, I don't know what's going on. Where am I?
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:21,
archived)
Oh
Fair enough. Almost as confusing as the jester bloke on the tv's going "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!"
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:21,
archived)
No
If I had that kind of money I'd buy copious amounts of alcohol, and maybe a molecular bio lab.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:23,
archived)
i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/maggot_b/Image093.jpg
Boxes... lots of them... Biggerified pic, beware (took it on me mobile)
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:27,
archived)
Boxes... lots of them... Biggerified pic, beware (took it on me mobile)
Those are giant sugar cubes
being stock piled for National Tea Day
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:28,
archived)
If only... they're just plastic boxes. Can't even move most of them. BOOOORIIIING!
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:29,
archived)
a possibly unintended layer ...
tate made all his money as half of tate and lyle, selling sugar.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:31,
archived)
[wallpaper 1280x1024]
[wallpaper 1024x768]
previously: www.b3ta.com/board/5190602
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
woooooo
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:52,
archived)
woooooo
Have a call centre sperm.
For no other reason than that I made it and it has nowhere else to go.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:40,
archived)
For no other reason than that I made it and it has nowhere else to go.
if your sperm are that big, you're wasting your time.
you would have to ejaculate by cesarian
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:46,
archived)
its a pic i just made for a seminar thing i have tomorrow
i have to talk about said damien hirst work. you seem smart... what are your thoughts and opinions ?
it seems i havent prepaired anything.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:42,
archived)
it seems i havent prepaired anything.
Well.
It's a pickled shark.
You could copy the BBC news and mention how this year's turner prize entries are less shocking (though still strange) than previous Turner-nominated artworks such as this shark. Perhaps being shocking is passé. Might get some mileage out of that.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:46,
archived)
You could copy the BBC news and mention how this year's turner prize entries are less shocking (though still strange) than previous Turner-nominated artworks such as this shark. Perhaps being shocking is passé. Might get some mileage out of that.
i dunno
its rotting away. which is isnteresting i suppose.. brings up issues of value.. originality... idea over substance... fuck knows.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:48,
archived)
That's all good
if you want to busk it.
If you feel compelled to think of something truly meaningful to say about it, though ... you might be in trouble.
It's conceptual art, which is where the artist shoves something in your face and says "this is art" and you recoil slightly and say "oh right" and look dubious. Duchamp did it first with his urinal. This pickled shark is a more interesting object than a urinal. But most of the value of conceptual art comes from not expecting it. An endless series of irrelevant objects labelled as art would become boring fast (and in fact have, and this is called "The Tate Modern").
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:50,
archived)
If you feel compelled to think of something truly meaningful to say about it, though ... you might be in trouble.
It's conceptual art, which is where the artist shoves something in your face and says "this is art" and you recoil slightly and say "oh right" and look dubious. Duchamp did it first with his urinal. This pickled shark is a more interesting object than a urinal. But most of the value of conceptual art comes from not expecting it. An endless series of irrelevant objects labelled as art would become boring fast (and in fact have, and this is called "The Tate Modern").
i have to talk
about the philosophical ideas surrounding it.. as well as maybe an opinion or two... shouldnt be too hard.. especially with my funny as hell picture of giraffe.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:01,
archived)
Wikipedia says his older son is called Connor.
So... just go ask your dad why he pickled a shark.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:04,
archived)
come to think of it
my dad is actually damien hirst. cheers felix.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:10,
archived)
Doh. It's always the obvious things you miss.
I think maybe Hirst meant the title of the piece seriously. Which is hard to believe, since it's a shark. But I think he thinks he's really communicating something about being frustrated with the fact that he's going to die, and wanting to live forever, which seems to be the sort of thing that bothers him philosophically. That and other human limitations like not being omnipresent, not being friends with everybody in the world, and little things like that.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:13,
archived)
i sort of got the serious thing as well.
its not stritctly postmodern in the sense of just being bold and random to take the piss out of modernism.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:21,
archived)
Possibly the difficulty of identifying with a shark
relates to the "impossibility of death in the mind".
I notice that it doesn't work at all without the title to hint at an explanation. Maybe it would be good if a whole bunch of conceptual artists gave different titles to the same object. Would save space and money. Bargain.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:32,
archived)
I notice that it doesn't work at all without the title to hint at an explanation. Maybe it would be good if a whole bunch of conceptual artists gave different titles to the same object. Would save space and money. Bargain.
If
you can get a copy of Sundays independant there is an interview with him in the magazine.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:51,
archived)
he studied
just down the road, here in Leeds.
In part of what is now the dental hospital which looks like a decayed molar.
They use formaldehyde to store medical and dental specimens, as well as sharks.
He designed a bar that looked like a chemist's.
There's a pub called the Fenton, which used to have blobby wallpaper a bit like the spot paintings but with fewer colours.
So mebbe a lot's just found or half-remembered rather than imagined.
Good businessman, though.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:01,
archived)
In part of what is now the dental hospital which looks like a decayed molar.
They use formaldehyde to store medical and dental specimens, as well as sharks.
He designed a bar that looked like a chemist's.
There's a pub called the Fenton, which used to have blobby wallpaper a bit like the spot paintings but with fewer colours.
So mebbe a lot's just found or half-remembered rather than imagined.
Good businessman, though.
not that i know of.
the dental school/hospital is part of Leeds Uni, but at first they didn't have enough dental students to fill it so they lent some of it to Art.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:05,
archived)
Life of Guys Ep 8: Horses
More Life of Guys can be found here:
bodders.34sp.com/log/
This is the first proper LoG drawn by me. All done with Paint (using a touch pad mouse)
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:29,
archived)
More Life of Guys can be found here:
bodders.34sp.com/log/
This is the first proper LoG drawn by me. All done with Paint (using a touch pad mouse)
Wouldn't you feel awkward if your imaginary friend found out you liked horses in...that...special way?
I know my parents did
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:36,
archived)
I know my parents did
who cares about my imaginary friend?
he only speaks to me anyway.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:37,
archived)
My imaginary friend only speaks Hebrew
I can't understand anything he says
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 0:45,
archived)
advent children was everything i could have wanted and more
just my opinion.
( ,
Tue 18 Oct 2005, 1:12,
archived)
« Older messages | Newer messages »