Blinkatose
Created on: April 20th, 2007
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.69) | 95 | 3 | 56 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,373 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 45 | https://www.bing.com |
| 5 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 1 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 1 | http://zverocity.ru |
It's funny that you call Korf pretentious. It's your preconceived expectations about his site(s) having some deeper meaning that led you post over and over like a conceited douchebag. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If you just relaxed for once and took it at face value, it's pretty damn cool looking. Beautiful, even. Better than anything you or I could create.
"in fact korf, i'd go on a limb here and say that you are no better than any of the sites you critique because all you do is bitch about how unoriginal people are...yet you have a systematic way of making sites...rendering your sites predictable. f*ck off, die in a fire.com" That sounds like a personal attack. The one you mentioned was your attempt at waxing poetic. I wasn't impressed.
you know korf, if you weren't a f*ggot all the time you might get over yourself. alright! let's wax poetic!!!! also, it's easier to classify it as an attack, that way you don't have to respond about how stale your sites are getting. you're just some punk kid who always wants to start arguments, i just wanted to say i used to love your sites but all you're doing is making sites about a) your favorite movies (Rodger Dodger ) w/ your favorite songs (Horse the Band) that really don't add anything to thesite
You used to like my sites, yet when you characterized my major flaws you only mentioned my older sites? How is this site complex? It's got 3 elements. One being a static background. "yet you have a systematic way of making sites...rendering your sites predictable." My sites are predictable, yet you don't understand them? If you're saying that you predicted a site that you wouldn't understand, that is certainly a self fulfilling prophecy. Other than that, I can't answer vague unsubstantiated criticisms.
Okay, time for me to speak up and make a douche bag of myself. The purpose of art is to challenge the audience to think as much as it is to communicate on a wide spectrum. If art is so direct that one understands the entirety of the piece immediately, then it's probably not a great piece of artwork to begin with. My point? The best artwork should be subjective enough to be open to interpretation, and should draw a plethora of conclusions from an audience, rather than have only one intention
..as humor often does. The individual viewer of the art has as much interaction within the entire process as the artist, since it is the viewer's discretion as to what amount of substance they draw from the art. Instead of explaining in detail what *I* got out of this, I'll leave that to the imagination. It's something to be discussed through PM, not in the comment section of a YTMND. (I may be a douche, but I'm not going to ruin someone's site by spilling my own interpretations into comments)
I made some pretty serious contributions in the 20th century including some pretty incredible stick figures and some mad skilled finger painting. I really can't even put any of these cats in my class, and it'd be insulting to me to even consider that someone else may have rivaled my achievements and influence.
This is rather beautiful to me. That being said:
Why can't art just be a reflection of beauty? Sorry if I'm old-fashioned, but I think ideas are best expressed directly, in written-word or speech rather than hinted at visually. It eliminates confusion and misunderstanding. It's so much more efficient.
Futhermore, in my opinion (because that's really all anyone can have about this sort of thing, opinions), Pollock is overrated, with seemingly no real talent, like nearly all "abstract artists".
Also, to say that written speech expresses things "directly" is to say that you are excluding metaphor and... everything else that makes literature actually interesting to read. What you are describing is a dictionary: direct, sensible, understandable. While I think dictionaries are useful, I do not regard them as an intriguing art form. Call me new fashioned(?)
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link