None of you, including CNN have a clue as to how to address this issue. I couldn't care less whether other people - people I don't care about - decide to let themselves become obese. It's their choice, and good luck to them. God knows there's enough information and pseudo-health-care hectoring out there that we really DO NOT need lecturing any more on the subject. However, when someone I care about - my brother, for example, and his wife get ever fatter I try to prod them about it. Keep your own damn opinions to yourself CNN and others. Don't judge other people unless they directly affect your own life in some way. It's the same as the sexual "perversion" or the drugs argument in my opinion. If it doesn't hurt anyone else - do it! The rest of us who stay thinner and healthier can enjoy ourselves fine, thanks very much. I could lose a few pounds myself, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it. And I'm damn sure I'm not going to play "holier than thou" on the people indicated on this map.
Shane - I'd agree with skh here and say that a lot of your comment is condescending, particularly "...I just don’t think anyone can categorically and simplistically dismiss something just because they don’t understand it...." I'm pretty certain Mark understands the con-job that the Rauschenberg/De Kooning piece is.
The first Impressionists were ridiculed but eventually accepted because their art is at least "pretty". I'm not about to define art here, but all you have to do is look at nature to realize there is beauty and there is also ugly-beautiful. We react to both first of all in an instinctive way and then on an intellectual level. If a piece of "art" only ever reaches us on an intellectual level and looks either ugly or neutral then I'd venture to say that it really doesn't rise to the level of art. It may do in the minds of elites and the fools who buy into these cynical ideas, but it will never cross that bridge in the same way the Impressionists did and gain acceptance by the vast majority of people, art-lovers or otherwise.
To take one example: Christo's work used to be beautiful and interesting on a conceptual level. He's now lost the plot in my opinion. His work isn't nice to look at and I have no idea what it's meant to mean either. He should stop pretending and just do Cirque du Soleil set decoration or something. (Maybe he already does...)
My point would be that mmmark's sentiments are equally worthless. "...imagine your parents, etc. being tortured and killed in front of you..." Those victims have NO interest in you or ten million like-minded people signing anything - except perhaps the Commander-In-Chief signing orders for military action against the offending regime.
Yes - the beauty of conceptual "art" like the Rauschenberg/De Kooning piece is that you don't need any talent or mastery of materials. sorry - did I say "beauty"? I meant "con job". Take a look at Yoko Ono's worthless conceptual pieces for the epitome of this sort of thing. I think she even went so far as to suggest that she could make conceptual art in her head and that it was just as much art as a real painting, or something along those lines. If the Rauschenberg/De Kooning piece blew you away Mick then think what a trip to The Uffizi might do for you: http://www.polomuseale.firenze.it/english/musei/uffizi/
True, monster - and mmmark - creating awareness is valid. However, Shamnesty International is a very partisan political organization that veers way left, so as a skeptic one needs to run their messages through a filter to try to discern what they're really saying. They do themselves and the victims they purport to be concerned about no favors when they alienate large portions of the population.
To clarify my original point - I personally think the message in this animation is counterproductive. It is vague about the specific locations of the atrocities portrayed and serves only to entrench the woolly beliefs of people who believe all they have to do to solve problems like this is to sign something, and to express that vapid "solidarity" feeling. What good is that to the victims they're supposed to be concerned about?
Ok Ayde - I've got a piece called "Dog sh*t and powdered sugar "that I'd like to sell you. I define it myself as art - because Shane says I can.
You can subscribe to this tiresome, cynical 20th century "modern art" dogma if you want, but it seems to me you're having the wool pulled over your eyes by the pretentious art elites. They seem to have done a grand job of this for the last 70 years or so.
Regarding the pieces in the article, I dare say that only the Picasso and the Lichtensteins are works you'd put up in your own homes, given the opportunity. The rest are miserable, joyless dreck.
At least Alex addresses OTOH's argument. I can only imagine that monster's sentiments are as woolly as the message in the animation. It's the usual lazy, wishy-washy way to address problems. All you have to do is sign something and it helps worldwide torture go away - somehow.
To Alex I would say that the second amendment - the right of a citizen to bear arms, etc. - could be as great a defender of oppressed people as anything else - if they benefited from living under it. Perhaps if all those massacred hundreds of thousands of Tutsi's in Rwanda had been air-dropped cheap firearms instead of being given platitudes by the UN they might still be alive. Sometimes guns ARE the answer.
I'm glad I brought it to your attention at least. I could care less if you think it's on subject or not. To/two/too many people can't even spell simple words correctly. :)
Why would you want to encourage the homeless to set themselves up outside your residence or business? And before you get all "holier than thou" on me ask yourself the question honestly. Would you REALLY want to do this and let random people from the street hang around your property?
Thanks Alex. I don't think I'd like to use the word myself as it doesn't give "proper recognition" to the original phrase, and thus seems to diminish the value of the intended compliment.
Definitely in the top five candidates for worst person in history.
However, when someone I care about - my brother, for example, and his wife get ever fatter I try to prod them about it.
Keep your own damn opinions to yourself CNN and others. Don't judge other people unless they directly affect your own life in some way. It's the same as the sexual "perversion" or the drugs argument in my opinion. If it doesn't hurt anyone else - do it!
The rest of us who stay thinner and healthier can enjoy ourselves fine, thanks very much. I could lose a few pounds myself, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it. And I'm damn sure I'm not going to play "holier than thou" on the people indicated on this map.
I'm pretty certain Mark understands the con-job that the Rauschenberg/De Kooning piece is.
The first Impressionists were ridiculed but eventually accepted because their art is at least "pretty". I'm not about to define art here, but all you have to do is look at nature to realize there is beauty and there is also ugly-beautiful. We react to both first of all in an instinctive way and then on an intellectual level. If a piece of "art" only ever reaches us on an intellectual level and looks either ugly or neutral then I'd venture to say that it really doesn't rise to the level of art. It may do in the minds of elites and the fools who buy into these cynical ideas, but it will never cross that bridge in the same way the Impressionists did and gain acceptance by the vast majority of people, art-lovers or otherwise.
To take one example: Christo's work used to be beautiful and interesting on a conceptual level. He's now lost the plot in my opinion. His work isn't nice to look at and I have no idea what it's meant to mean either. He should stop pretending and just do Cirque du Soleil set decoration or something. (Maybe he already does...)
My point would be that mmmark's sentiments are equally
worthless. "...imagine your parents, etc. being tortured and killed in front of you..."
Those victims have NO interest in you or ten million like-minded people signing anything - except perhaps the Commander-In-Chief signing orders for military action against the offending regime.
Take a look at Yoko Ono's worthless conceptual pieces for the epitome of this sort of thing. I think she even went so far as to suggest that she could make conceptual art in her head and that it was just as much art as a real painting, or something along those lines.
If the Rauschenberg/De Kooning piece blew you away Mick then think what a trip to The Uffizi might do for you:
http://www.polomuseale.firenze.it/english/musei/uffizi/
To clarify my original point - I personally think the message in this animation is counterproductive. It is vague about the specific locations of the atrocities portrayed and serves only to entrench the woolly beliefs of people who believe all they have to do to solve problems like this is to sign something, and to express that vapid "solidarity" feeling. What good is that to the victims they're supposed to be concerned about?
You can subscribe to this tiresome, cynical 20th century "modern art" dogma if you want, but it seems to me you're having the wool pulled over your eyes by the pretentious art elites. They seem to have done a grand job of this for the last 70 years or so.
Regarding the pieces in the article, I dare say that only the Picasso and the Lichtensteins are works you'd put up in your own homes, given the opportunity. The rest are miserable, joyless dreck.
To Alex I would say that the second amendment - the right of a citizen to bear arms, etc. - could be as great a defender of oppressed people as anything else - if they benefited from living under it. Perhaps if all those massacred hundreds of thousands of Tutsi's in Rwanda had been air-dropped cheap firearms instead of being given platitudes by the UN they might still be alive. Sometimes guns ARE the answer.
I could care less if you think it's on subject or not. To/two/too many people can't even spell simple words correctly. :)
Oh, and by the way, it took only two comments after mine to obey (almost) Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
See also: "their" - or "there" - for "they're"; "your" for "you're"; and a fair few others I don't care to remember right now (or to see ever again).