2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

xer0s wrote:
They destroyed the natural formation of the bedrock. Defacing public natural areas for the sake of art and mystery is not cool...

ok karen.
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

Ultimately people just want to be able to tell someone else what to do. For whatever sad reason, they feel like they have a reason to whine and other people should accept and do their bidding. I find this outraged type of attitude stems from unrealistic expectations of others. There's reasonable expectations like don't murder me but then there's others... This art piece for example is well crafted and otherwise a neat piece out in the middle of nowhere. They didn't deface or destroy anything, they added to the overall appeal of that location. This is a net gain type of deal. Now, placing an obelisk in the middle of a traffic intersection of course would be not so great. Being able to differentiate the two is something you need to be mature enough to understand. As long as you're rigid in your expectations of others you'll never really be happy because you'll forever be let down when those expectations aren't met.
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

Κracus wrote:Ultimately people just want to be able to tell someone else what to do. For whatever sad reason, they feel like they have a reason to whine and other people should accept and do their bidding. I find this outraged type of attitude stems from unrealistic expectations of others. There's reasonable expectations like don't murder me but then there's others... This art piece for example is well crafted and otherwise a neat piece out in the middle of nowhere. They didn't deface or destroy anything, they added to the overall appeal of that location. This is a net gain type of deal. Now, placing an obelisk in the middle of a traffic intersection of course would be not so great. Being able to differentiate the two is something you need to be mature enough to understand. As long as you're rigid in your expectations of others you'll never really be happy because you'll forever be let down when those expectations aren't met.
What if I took a can of spray paint and tagged those rock walls around the monolith? Would that still be ok?

This art piece is well crafted? lol, it’s sheet metal, bent and riveted together. I could literally do the exact same thing in my shop. The only thing that makes it noteworthy is the location.

They didn’t deface or destroy anything? They cut into the bedrock. It will never be the same. They added to the overall appeal of that location? Thats subjective. I say they took a really cool natural formation and fucked it up by trying to be mysterious and clever...
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36007
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by seremtan »

BEDROCK CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME

ffs m8 it's rock, not a fragile ecosystem of faerie unicorns. if the people who manage the place pull it up and drop a load of sand into the hole no one would even notice anything after a week (or less)
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

Common sense man, it's a hard concept. Everything has to be black and white, no gray.
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

Let me ask the question again: If I spray painted the rock, would it be ok? What’s the difference? It’s the principle of the thing. If it’s public land, every citizen owns the land. Who is to decide what is acceptable?
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

Common sense man, so hard... so very very hard...
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

So your response indicates you have no retort...
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
User avatar
Transient
Posts: 11355
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Transient »

Obviously spraypainting is no good. It's just common sense that a 10' tall sheet metal column is totally fine!
User avatar
Transient
Posts: 11355
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Transient »

Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
Clever, did you see that on a t-shirt at thinkgeek?
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
So clever... :rolleyes:

And yet you can’t respond...
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

Transient wrote:
Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
Clever, did you see that on a t-shirt at thinkgeek?
I heard it first from George Takei but I'm sure it's existed before he said it.
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36007
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by seremtan »

nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration

i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

xer0s wrote:
Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
So clever... :rolleyes:

And yet you can’t respond...
You're literally asking me to explain common sense to you. I'm doing you a favor by not replying and treating you like an adult and assuming you know exactly what I'm talking about.
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

seremtan wrote:nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration

i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here
But I’m not arguing the quality of the “art”. Like I said, it’s not even that well done. Pretty simple really. But if a MS13 had sprayed the rock, or if Banksy had tagged it, it’s irrelevant. You are defacing a natural structure. A piece of public land. Why should anyone get to decide what is worthy of violating a public space?
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

Κracus wrote: You're literally asking me to explain common sense to you.
No you’re not, you fucking idiot... :olo:
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

xer0s wrote: Why should anyone get to decide what is worthy of violating a public space?
Good question, why should anyone get to decide that? Including the people that decided you can't.
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

You really are on the tier as Gramps...
User avatar
Transient
Posts: 11355
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Transient »

seremtan wrote:nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration

i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here
LOL if someone did that out in the middle of nowhere, I would have to call that number....
Don Carlos
Posts: 17508
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Don Carlos »

Eraser wrote:
Don Carlos wrote: I'd argue that Banksy is the most most well known artist that regularly bypasses laws in the name of his/her art and therefore is entirely on point.

Art, at times, is meant to be rebellious. Artists use rebellion as a way to empower and inspire individuals to overcome adversity and create a positive impact in communities. Or it's done to inspire wonder, provoke thought and thus, discussion.
Exactly because Banksy is widely recognized and successful, I'd say he's being cherry picked. It's hard to argue that Banksy's art isn't meaningful, thought provoking or doesn't lead to discussion. His art is appreciated and seen by many as a net plus to whatever the artwork was placed on. I certainly wouldn't want to argue about the (non-monetary) value of Banksy's art nor would I argue that he needs permission to place his artwork. But since art is such a subjective thing, the local neighborhood hoodlum who spraypaints his initials on every surface he can find could use the same argumentation. If I were to draw huge penises on the walls of buildings to "provoke thought", people wouldn't be as appreciative of it. Would my argument of being thought provoking and the topic of discussion be enough to warrant the drawing of penises everywhere? I doubt it'd stick. The trouble here is that it's hard to define a hard line between what's acceptable and what isn't. Such is the nature of art I guess.

I interpreted Whiskey's statement about needing permission first to spring from the idea of the latter type of art rather than what Banksy does. For me, a blanket "but art is meant to be rebellious (just look at Banksy)" statement is too wide a definition of what's acceptable. It also puts you on a slippery slope where actually harmful things could be done in the name of art. What if I tortured an animal in the name of art? Would that be OK, because there's some sort of deeper meaning behind it? So yeah, I think Banksy is a very safe example to come up with.
Don Carlos wrote:So far, this is exactly what has been done with this piece. If you fail to recognise it's intensions then more of this kind of thing is needed, to ensure that next time you do recognise what is going on.
Let me first say I don't have a problem with this particular piece but I don't appreciate it as art very much either. It's also not hard to recognize the intention behind it. I think it's too simple, actually. I'm sure something similar could've been done by a few drunk teenagers and people would call it vandalism, not art. There we're right back at the "art" label not being a get-out-of-jail-free card.

As I write this I find myself tempted by writing things like "if a piece of art is damaging, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable" but truth is, it's hard to make general sweeping statements like that. Dangerous is pretty self-explanatory, but what's damaging or otherwise unacceptbale? A butt-ugly spraypainted tag on a building wall is, IMO, unacceptable (despite this particular example being a homage to lost kin), but it might not be for someone else. A colorful artistic work right next to it is something I'm fine with. Would either "artist" need permission for their works? Hard to say. But IMO one of these two gets to call themselves an artist and the other is a vandal.

So tl;dr: I'm not arguing artists like Banksy should ask permission to do something, but the "but it's art" argument can't be applied to everything.
I love you, Jerry, and I want you to know that I am not being bellend when I reply to these. Intelligent debate is good and helps us broaden our horizons <3

Banksy, for the most part, is a political artist that tries to highlight the plights and highlights of the modern world and the impacts on it's citizens. Given Banksy is from Bristol in the UK, his work is more likely to resonate with the British people. What some people might see as nonsense isn't so for us over here. It's all about perspective. Spraying a cock on a wall in a South London borough isn't the same as spraying a child playing with a doll of someone in a medical uniform, discarding his batman or superman dolls who they might have seen as heroes previously (it might have been different super heroes in the actual picture). But having a load of cocks as a collection in Japan to celebrate Kanamara Matsuri is far more acceptable. Perspective and culture matter.

The torture of animals or people in the name of art is a difficult thing to swallow. But sometimes there is a cross over, as terrible as it might seem. Kevin Carter is a song by one of the greatest Welsh bands of all time, The Manic Street Preachers, and it's about a photographer who committed suicide because of his works. Now, where do you draw the line at art, reporting, highlighting issues with the world and where do you really look at subject matters being entirely repugnant? I am not going to post the pictures here, but Carters "works" drove him to suicide because he couldn't standing being an observer to the horrors of the world. Nature, in it's most visceral form is breathtakingly beautiful, brutal and cruel, all at the same time.

As for where I stand with the monolith art; it's in the middle of know where and has seemingly been there for quite a while. It's discovery has sparked conversation and wonder..."what if" moments for a lot of people. Based on 2001 A Space Odyssey, which many people regard as one of the finest pieces of forward thinking art the world has ever seen, by a director in Kubric that people see as a geniuses artist.

Blurred lines everywhere :)
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

I think of it like this. Today, scientists and historians freak out when they find paintings in caves. They love this shit and want to deservedly preserve it when they find it. They're historical artifacts that are fantastic to find, it lets us take a peek into our prehistoric past. Who suddenly gets to decide we can't do that anymore? Imagine going on an expedition and finding this monolith like those guys in the helicopter did. It's fantastic, now imagine all the folks that'll make expeditions to go see it? It's already happening. This is a cool prize to see at the end of an adventure now. People will make their way to see this in an otherwise not visited part of the world.

Also, that's the difference between this and random spray painting on a rock wall, no one is coming to see that shit. Unless it's good... or 20000 years old.
User avatar
Κracus
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:38 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by Κracus »

Can't read the article.
xer0s
Posts: 12446
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 8:00 am

Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey Monolith like object found in Utah

Post by xer0s »

Sure you can. Just click the link and then click the stop button on your browser before the page fully loads. Works like a charm. Been doing it for years...
Post Reply