March 19, 2002
12:54 AM   Subscribe

Dali + Lichtenstein = Massurealism? That's one ugly baby. Apparently a lot of the marketing and visual information we're presented with currently has roots in surrealism. But is it art?
posted by Su (4 comments total)
no, it isn't.
posted by Dom at 8:54 AM on March 19, 2002

Yes, it is. (Fight! Fight!)

This, however, is the kind of massurrealism I can get behind. (via memepool)
posted by furiousthought at 9:52 AM on March 19, 2002

But is it art?

why do people insist upon asking this absolutely unanswerable question?

spend time looking at a piece for what it is and what it means to you, not for whether it contains some essence that *makes* it art -- it's like looking for someone's soul. And hey, if it means nothing to you, well, then, feel free to say it's a terrible piece, or you hate it, or whatever -- just don't try and assert that because *you* don't like it, it's not art. If artists worried about what this "art" essence was and spent all their time trying to find and replicate it, well, they'd never get any damn work done.

sorry, su, no offense to you, and the link is great (it seems like this sort of movement has been somewhat overshadowed by the whole glut of and new media of the mid-nineties -- so I was interested to hear about it), but, well ... pet peeve.
posted by fishfucker at 10:38 AM on March 19, 2002

Okay, so pre-emptive sarcasm: not always a good idea.
Anybody who wants to bring me up on the Is It Art comment, please take a look at my posting history first. Not specifically directed at you, FF, just trying to keep the thread from going there.
posted by Su at 12:51 PM on March 19, 2002

« Older Take The Mensa Test   |   Damned if you do, damned if you're dead. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments