Stumble This | You should also watch “Punk Rock - Mogwai (feat Iggy Pop) 2:08” |
(formerly:The Video That Sparked Two Minor Sift Wars (one is secret)., which in turn was formerly" Not Today Motherfucker)
I love this brilliant piece of low-brow, avant-gard, video punk rock. NOT TODAY MOTHERF@CK$R!
OH, COME ON you bunch of old fogies! Is dadaism dead? If you down vote, please comment first.
I love this brilliant piece of low-brow, avant-gard, video punk rock. NOT TODAY MOTHERF@CK$R!
OH, COME ON you bunch of old fogies! Is dadaism dead? If you down vote, please comment first.
If I was going to nominate for minor Sift War, it would be something like this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/ART-OF-SEDUCTION-Not-Pretty-Really
And a major Sift War would be this:
http://www.videosift.com/talk/TayTV-Situation
My number 1 reason for a downvote ALWAYS lies in my answer to this question: If I were coming to this site for the first time looking for something to satisfy my quest for thought or entertainment, and this was the first video I saw, would it turn me off to the site (or at least make me think twice about exploring further)? The answer to this video was "yes". I would think this were a "youtube part II"
1.Art that you don't like is still art.
2.Art need not be in a museum to be art.
3.Just because the artist may not know what dadaism is, doesn't mean her/his creation is not dadaist.
4.Art isn't inherently good.
1. Not everything that people say is a good sift is actually a good sift.
2. A sift need not be art to be shitty.
3. Just because people say something is sift-worthy, doesn't mean something is sift-worthy.
4. Sifts aren't inherently good.
I don't think this is art, nor do I particularly care to argue the point. This sift is crap one way or the other, and all the airy ruminations in the world aren't going to change that fact. Nothing against you personally, but I hope this sift dies a painful death and that its bleached bones on the broken road of discarded posts will warn future posters of the hazards of posting awful sifts. In conclusion:
Not today, motherfucker.
Mycroft: "Not today motherfucker."
A: Fish.
Absolutely. Taste is entirely subjective. You have no obligation to agree with other opinions.
"2. A sift need not be art to be shitty."
Duh, shit comes in all flavors.
"3. Just because people say something is sift-worthy, doesn't mean something is sift-worthy."
You just reworded point #1 and labeled it #3. You owe me another point.
"4. Sifts aren't inherently good."
You, again, just reworded point #1 and labeled it #4. Now you owe me two.
Last point. Calling something art is not a value judgement, just a description.
For instance: The video created by the crying Brittany Spears guy is by definition art. I personally find it stupid and annoying, but that does not strip it of its definition.
Not Today Motherfucker is comprised entirely of elements that we find culturally offensive: Profanity, poor special effects, low resolution, bad music, a generic one liner is the only dialog, it's titled after said one-liner, the title card is as long as the movie, the UFO seems to be pretty easily destructible, the sound effects are jarring, etc.
Separately, these elements are commonplace and dull, but put them together and I'm amused.
rember not liking this makes me like it more. That is part of the fun of both punk and the avant gard.
Airy, pretentious, snobby? I won't object if you call me those things.
Who is right and/or wrong? Both of us.
I never thought I'd be writing a dissertation on the aesthetics of Not Today Motherfucker, but why not.
...it's Art. Don't judge me for it.
art1
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
so by this definition, the video of the crying brittany spears guy is not "art" and neither is this video. no upvote for you.
but then, to play devils advocate, the definition itself is very vague, based on the differences of human beings themselves. what is art? is art simply someone doing something they love to the best of their ability? if picasso was having a shitty day and made an equally shitty painting, is it still art? if i paint a POS better than anything i've ever done before, is it as much a piece of art as the mona lisa?
i think artwork is too abstract to even have a definition. but hey, this is the inter-butts, im sure theres someone out there who can (and will) correct me.
(and i also giggled a little at the video. there i said it.)
I once took an art theory course, though I would hardly call myself an expert. In the course, our professor's main objective was to get us to ask the question what is art. I think by the end of the course, I felt like for me art was defined as anything the artist feels a need to do, and would do without the regard of others.
So, maybe, this guy felt a need to make this maybe he didn't. But I would not go so far as to say this does not qualify as something that could be art.
Mycroft pretty much nailed it.
Defining art could fill many pages. Here is my best attempt at a definition of art.
Art is something - created by an individual or group - with no utilitarian function other than to be observed.
=]