(NSFW)The Emperor Has No Balls

I can see its purpose and the statement being made by this piece of art, but I still think it's in poor taste.

TheDude wrote: I can see its purpose and the statement being made by this piece of art, but I still think it's in poor taste.

As someone that finds that "taste" and "art" should never be in on sentence i should remark that art is not always to please , but most certainly to shock aswell , so taste does not come in to art , purpose does , entertainment ..a little but thats just my opinion and that of the Fontys University of Art :laugh: ( very small Uni so no one needs to be offended loll )

Ow and i think its butt ugly too , but that is because what it represents is too ...

MartaLina wrote:

TheDude wrote: I can see its purpose and the statement being made by this piece of art, but I still think it's in poor taste.

As someone that finds that "taste" and "art" should never be in on sentence i should remark that art is not always to please , but most certainly to shock aswell , so taste does not come in to art , purpose does , entertainment ..a little but thats just my opinion and that of the Fontys University of Art :laugh: ( very small Uni so no one needs to be offended loll )

Ow and i think its butt ugly too , but that is because what it represents is too ...

I wholly support any kind of tasteful art, even if it's shocking or offensive. Trolling, for example, is usually a tasteful performance art. This statue is more of an insult than something with genuine artistic purpose. If it was meant to provoke anything, then I guess it did, because I'm wondering why any self-respecting artist with any sculpting ability would waste their time making it. If I spray paint over the mona lisa, I haven't created a piece of art, I've just been disrespectful.
As for art universities... Eh, modern art is a bit much for me. Saw a guy sell two rocks tied together with twine for nearly $100,000. Apparently it was connected to his Master's thesis in some art field. All I saw was something anyone could do in 60 seconds. Maybe if I were to write a 200-page paper about how spray painting the mona lisa is some kind of anti-establishment artistic statement of rebellion, it becomes art. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work.
In any case, there's a statue which isn't particularly appetizing sitting outside which isn't particularly well made. I'd consider it a public nuisance if it were in a park near me, and I'd petition to have it removed and placed in the creator's private gallery or something. I certainly wouldn't want to pass by it while trying to eat lunch or while going on a walk with my girlfriend.

Whatever opinions may be about this art work , there are a lot of people who walk by it and go "Ah yes , that is Trump , all words and no balls " there is much to agree or not agree on or to like or dislike but we don't get to decide what is art and what is not by subjective signification such as "tasteless" or "butt ugly" , art is many things to many people , and i have even seen someone refer to the statue as "magnificient " :laugh:

As much as I dislike Trump and everything he says and stands for, I don't feel like this is proper "art." It doesn't seem to say anything, just inappropriately mocking someone who isn't standing there to defend themselves.

Leah Starspectre wrote: So...you're dismissing this art installment because you don't like the artists previous work? Why not consider this one piece on its own? I shared it for the purpose of discussing it in its own context.

Your absolutely right I am dismissing it because of the "creators" (once again, they are NOT artists nor have they produced any previous works of art so the reference to any previous works becomes meaningless). Artwork is done for many reasons and not everyone will always agree with those reasons and that is the nature of what it is supposed to be. But there are creations that can be considered outside the realm of artwork just as easily. It is the creators will and intent that drive this aspect. These components are some of the most critical aspects of any creation.

If a creation is made with the will and intent of beauty, love, compassion, or creativity then no matter how skillful the creator these works become the bounty of life that we feast upon. Creations made under the will and intent of pain, suffering, injustice or even anger are just as relevant because they become the bitter pill that we swallow so that we may become better. However if a creation is made under the will and intent of cruelty, hate, exploitation or maliciousness these are poison and should be spit from our mouths! Indecline's creations are in good company with a few other groups such as Westboro baptist church or radical islamic terrorists. Although it took great planning, and amazing skill, driving a plane into the WTC is not a work of art! These types of works produce nothing of value that can, in no way shape or form, be considered art.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: So...you're dismissing this art installment because you don't like the artists previous work? Why not consider this one piece on its own? I shared it for the purpose of discussing it in its own context.

Your absolutely right I am dismissing it because of the "creators" (once again, they are NOT artists nor have they produced any previous works of art so the reference to any previous works becomes meaningless). Artwork is done for many reasons and not everyone will always agree with those reasons and that is the nature of what it is supposed to be. But there are creations that can be considered outside the realm of artwork just as easily. It is the creators will and intent that drive this aspect. These components are some of the most critical aspects of any creation.

If a creation is made with the will and intent of beauty, love, compassion, or creativity then no matter how skillful the creator these works become the bounty of life that we feast upon. Creations made under the will and intent of pain, suffering, injustice or even anger are just as relevant because they become the bitter pill that we swallow so that we may become better. However if a creation is made under the will and intent of cruelty, hate, exploitation or maliciousness these are poison and should be spit from our mouths! Indecline's creations are in good company with a few other groups such as Westboro baptist church or radical islamic terrorists. Although it took great planning, and amazing skill, driving a plane into the WTC is not a work of art! These types of works produce nothing of value that can, in no way shape or form, be considered art.

You're comparing this art installation to 9/11? Are you sure you don't want to throw Hitler in there to officially be every troll on the internet? Hitler *was* an artist after all!


By Hitler


Also by Hitler

I'm pretty sure this piece was make in the spirit of humour. 99.9% of people who saw it certainly found it humourous. Also as a reflection of what Trump himself speaks about. Also also, as a comparison to the story "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Just because the butt of the joke is someone you personally like/support, that doesn't mean it isn't art that has merit.

Let me remind you that nobody is being killed here (9/11), or being told they deserve to die (Westboro Baptist Church). Politicians have thick skins, and don't need you making a big fuss that someone said they were fat and had a small penis and no balls. I'm fairly certain that nobody thinks that this is meant to represent Trump's ACTUAL naked body.

steamboat28 wrote: As much as I dislike Trump and everything he says and stands for, I don't feel like this is proper "art." It doesn't seem to say anything, just inappropriately mocking someone who isn't standing there to defend themselves.

I dont agree he has most of the media at his disposal to defend himself

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: So...you're dismissing this art installment because you don't like the artists previous work? Why not consider this one piece on its own? I shared it for the purpose of discussing it in its own context.

Your absolutely right I am dismissing it because of the "creators" (once again, they are NOT artists nor have they produced any previous works of art so the reference to any previous works becomes meaningless). Artwork is done for many reasons and not everyone will always agree with those reasons and that is the nature of what it is supposed to be. But there are creations that can be considered outside the realm of artwork just as easily. It is the creators will and intent that drive this aspect. These components are some of the most critical aspects of any creation.

If a creation is made with the will and intent of beauty, love, compassion, or creativity then no matter how skillful the creator these works become the bounty of life that we feast upon. Creations made under the will and intent of pain, suffering, injustice or even anger are just as relevant because they become the bitter pill that we swallow so that we may become better. However if a creation is made under the will and intent of cruelty, hate, exploitation or maliciousness these are poison and should be spit from our mouths! Indecline's creations are in good company with a few other groups such as Westboro baptist church or radical islamic terrorists. Although it took great planning, and amazing skill, driving a plane into the WTC is not a work of art! These types of works produce nothing of value that can, in no way shape or form, be considered art.

You're comparing this art installation to 9/11? Are you sure you don't want to throw Hitler in there to officially be every troll on the internet? Hitler *was* an artist after all!

By Hitler

Also by Hitler

I'm pretty sure this piece was make in the spirit of humour. 99.9% of people who saw it certainly found it humourous. Also as a reflection of what Trump himself speaks about. Also also, as a comparison to the story "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Just because the butt of the joke is someone you personally like/support, that doesn't mean it isn't art that has merit.

Let me remind you that nobody is being killed here (9/11), or being told they deserve to die (Westboro Baptist Church). Politicians have thick skins, and don't need you making a big fuss that someone said they were fat and had a small penis and no balls. I'm fairly certain that nobody thinks that this is meant to represent Trump's ACTUAL naked body.

As a Jew and someone who always believes there is good in everyone , i like Hitlers paintings , i find them vulnarable and soft in colour , they represent the softer side of this man i have come to see as a Monster , he reminds me of our ability to do wrong and right and the choice that we all have . For me that is art , what he made ..

Leah Starspectre wrote: You're comparing this art installation to 9/11? Are you sure you don't want to throw Hitler in there to officially be every troll on the internet? Hitler *was* an artist after all!

I'm pretty sure this piece was make in the spirit of humour. 99.9% of people who saw it certainly found it humourous. Also as a reflection of what Trump himself speaks about. Also also, as a comparison to the story "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Just because the butt of the joke is someone you personally like/support, that doesn't mean it isn't art that has merit.

Let me remind you that nobody is being killed here (9/11), or being told they deserve to die (Westboro Baptist Church). Politicians have thick skins, and don't need you making a big fuss that someone said they were fat and had a small penis and no balls. I'm fairly certain that nobody thinks that this is meant to represent Trump's ACTUAL naked body.

What does Hitlers artwork have to do with anything? For that matter what does the subject of the creation that indecline did have to do with anything? Have I once said I don't like it because it depicts Trump in a negative light? No I have not. the subject is irrelevant and I would appreciate it if you would stop avoiding the points I have raised by trying to put words into my mouth.

As for Hitlers works of art, yes they are artwork because they were done in the spirit of art. As for trolling, you are the one that brought up Hitler, not I. I have never said Hitlers works were not art because they are. Nor have I ever demonized the members of indecline as complete monsters. What I have said is that their creations (past and present - political candidate or not) are done in the same spirit of hate and cruelty that other groups demonstrate and that in turn cannot be considered art.