Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

behavioralscientist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–188 of 188 posts

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#181

Post by baud147258 »

jcranmer wrote: post #101
baud147258 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember right, in France arts pieces are not taxed as other assets (like flats) are. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth#Basis The English version is lacking some exempted elements compared to the French version, where works of arts are explicitly cited.

The French list is basically the same as the English list, except for the second and second-to-last lines which look like overly abbreviated translations: * objets d'antiquité, d'art ou tout simplement de collection, parts de sociétés civiles propriétaires de tels objets (antiques, art, collections, and shares in what I think are trusts of various kinds) * biens ruraux loués à long terme et participation dans des gro…

The "collection objects" term from the English version just seemed a little more restrictive than the French equivalent.

Also I didn't think about the ISF deletion then.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#182

Post by hopler »

TLAFanBoy wrote: post #156
PowerfulWizard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I personally get an emotional response to Pollock, especially that particular one, I actually have a MoMA catalog on my bookshelf with that entry bookmarked with my admission ticket from 2010 when I went to see it ( https://imgur.com/a/hFBR7Nu ). The size is a factor as well, there is no way to look at it on a computer screen that is close to how you look at it in person ( https://www.moma.org/wp/inside_out/wp-co…

I also get an emotional response to Pollack, similar to the emotional response I get to the painting of a colored square done on the TV show "House Refabbers" where they take a canvas, paint a background in one color and then a square on the background in another color. It's not a deep emotion, of course, it's a fleeting sensation, really, like smelling a flower or listening to a "boop boop" sound effect on the tram.…

The soviets are just craftsmen, people skilled at doing the mechanical work of a camera. They are precursors to the modern soap opera or shock website or GoFundMe scam. It's easy to elicit a strong emotional response by playing on the well understood heartstrings.

This game is silly. Denigrating a work of art for being different from another work of art is not critique, it is bitterness. Life is short. Speak up for the beautiful things you understand, not against the things you don't understand.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#183

Post by hopler »

paganel wrote: post #100
PowerfulWizard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I personally get an emotional response to Pollock, especially that particular one, I actually have a MoMA catalog on my bookshelf with that entry bookmarked with my admission ticket from 2010 when I went to see it ( https://imgur.com/a/hFBR7Nu ). The size is a factor as well, there is no way to look at it on a computer screen that is close to how you look at it in person ( https://www.moma.org/wp/inside_out/wp-co…

I tried to understand contemporary art, up to a point, there was a time when I used to buy each issue of the FT - Weekend Edition so that I could read Georgina Adam’s articles on what was the hippest thing being transacted and the like, but in the end pretty much all of it meant nothing to me. Reguarding the representation of war, I’m afraid 200-year old paintings don’t do it for me anymore, modern warfare is so much…

Contemporary anti Vietnam-War art was set up as Korean war or older. It's un-PC to directly criticize a current war, so artists apply a thin veil of barely plausible deniability to get past censorship.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#184

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

paganel wrote: post #67

Whenever people discuss about contemporary art I get reminded of these incredibly poignant Soviet war paintings [1] which manage to partially describe what the atrocities on the Eastern Front meant for the people involved, but which are nevertheless a lot less well-known compared to contemporary art "darlings" like Jackson Pollock whose works don't tell me absolutely anything and who had his career propped up by the…

These where made by people- for people. There was not market, thus there was no need for the meta-scam that art is today. All it was, was a way to eternalize the life and missery of people, capture those moments before we all vannish. It was art, while we have nun, but the one in a thousand photos we make.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#185

Post by oarabbus_ »

barbecue_sauce wrote: post #166
oarabbus_ wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Although, ironically, the hoax itself makes it a valid form of performance art anyway. This is the bullshit that makes people weary of modern art. If you disagree, you fail to realize that this post, and indeed hacker news itself, is postmodern performance/interactivity art. Your opinion is wrong and invalid if you disagree.

This is the bullshit that makes modern art more interesting than painters trying to represent reality on canvas.

Yeah when the neighborhood kids teepee your house that's modern art too.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#186

Post by barbecue_sauce »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #185
barbecue_sauce wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bullshit that makes modern art more interesting than painters trying to represent reality on canvas.

Yeah when the neighborhood kids teepee your house that's modern art too.

Nobody does that anymore.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#188

Post by jl2718 »

jl2718 wrote: post #127

This article is not really about art. My father was a “scrape yourself up from the bottom” guy. He was the hardest working person I’ve ever known, first as a physical laborer, then as an operating systems programmer. Microsoft used his Wang kernel for NT, but he never got on that train. He was deeply skeptical of all institutions of prestige and never attended college. His father was a professor, double math/physics…

Note: I think I was probably unfair to artists in this characterization. It's a hard path to follow; there must have been some deeper and more socially generative yearning than to make a fortune by pissing off art critics and confusing or offending normal folk. Art has historically been the enduring edifice of civilizations, and I appreciate anybody that builds and creates and invents.
Post reply on HN