First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Chimpanzee wins $10,000 in art competition
20644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
No no no, the picture is upside down!
37906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
He just won because he painted with his tongue.
53239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Norway.
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
A retired chimpanze painted this with his tounge... It's still better than most of the stuff that passes for art these days..
216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/1/13 , edited 9/1/13

37230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
I hope it wasnt lead paint
Sogno- 
45631 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/1/13
he can decorate his cage now
13564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / New York
Offline
Posted 9/1/13

GreatS wrote:


AshRandom wrote:

Chimps always win at art.

It takes the mind of an intellectual to achieve literary, philosophical, or scientific greatness.


And for real art you need intellect as well I mean, sorry to say so, but lots of modern "art" is just rubbish pushed forward by the believe that art should be unique and that the more unique it is the better it is... it's the world upside down, normally change comes because of the will for innovation and the search for perfection, in art change defines "perfection"... and the elite have to consider it beautiful *because* it's beautiful as defined by the forced change in "art". </rant> (think about it if you have a sec, what I said actually really does make sense )

In other words: what an ugly artpiece, but I hope they (the caretakers and the chimpanzees) had fun when they were making it and I hope this competition raised some money as well .


You make a good point, but there's a reason why chimps can achieve one, but not the other. Beyond simply getting into a discussion about why contemporary art worships ugliness, I would like to make the rather bold statement that even the most beautiful pieces still amount to an unimpressive display of brainpower. Besides, there are precious few examples of intelligent artists. This is probably because artistic people of intelligence put their minds to work in far more dynamic ways by becoming architects, engineers and technologists.

My contempt is simple. Creating an object purely for the sake of evoking emotion is a hollow endeavor.

Creating something functional which is also emotionally gripping is a work of genius. Even if the invention is brilliantly awful (as in the case of mankind's myriad lethal tools of war) it's still lightyears beyond any portrait on canvas, or sculpture on a lawn. The horror and terror of H.R. Geiger's work is dog food compared to the pure evil found in the sleek lines of an attack drone, stealth bomber, tomahawk missile, or nuclear submarine and the truly gut-wrenching horror and despair that seeing one deployed against you can evoke. The power and egotistically rampant pride people have in their bombs and guns has been evident for centuries, culminating in the strange unearthly beauty of devices like fat man and little boy to the point that even photographs of them end up framed and hung on walls. The beauty of the Mona Lisa pales in comparison to the comfort provided by a wind sheer hardened modern home situated in tornado alley, or the serenity and peace of mind working in a seismically retrofitted office building on the ring of fire can induce. Even the boggling effects on the mind's eye which MC Escher's works manage to evoke seems squalid compared to the dazzlingly complex origami-like nests of electronic circuitry found in most any modern computer. Just pull apart an old motherboard and try to follow the copper lines as they double back on themselves so mercilessly that you stop seeing them and instead start to see rows of folds and dark margins created in the negative spaces where they aren't even present.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
Man. Lucky chimpanzee. I could've bought a lot of bananas with that money.
17960 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 9/1/13
2Deep4Me
5145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 9/1/13

theYchromosome wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

I think all the entries were chimps.


Oh, so because he didn't beat humans, it doesn't matter? Don't belittle Brent's accomplishment! He was clearly making a statement about the inherent structure of the universe, one that touched me deeply and changed my life. This is clearly newsworthy, and is of direct consequence to all of humanity's future. Go be a buzzkill somewhere else negative nancy.

Jokes aside though, I'm more concerned that they consider a primate researcher to be a valid judge in an art contest. What are Mrs. Goodall's qualifications as an artist? I suspect foul play -- Brent probably had a hefty bribe of bananas saved up from his days as a research subject, and used them to gain an unfair advantage. This was clearly a political move. Why else would a primate researcher be in charge of art judgements? The contest was obviously rigged, and no one is doing anything about it. Just one more reason not to trust authority -- everything's corrupt and society's going down in flames because of travesties like this.

TL;DR: I don't really care who won a chimpanzee art contest.


Oh please, Girl, have you flipped out too? It was by the humane society, Judged by Jane Goodall, So what did the chimp win, oh the usual, a lifetime food suppy of bananas and a comfortable place to stay, In otherwords, nothing.
5145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 9/1/13 , edited 9/1/13

Sogno- wrote:

he can decorate his cage now


5145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 9/1/13

Sogno- wrote:

he can decorate his cage now


yeah, he'll eat the $10,000 and decorate his place with his feces.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/1/13

AcadGlade wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

I think all the entries were chimps.


Oh, so because he didn't beat humans, it doesn't matter? Don't belittle Brent's accomplishment! He was clearly making a statement about the inherent structure of the universe, one that touched me deeply and changed my life. This is clearly newsworthy, and is of direct consequence to all of humanity's future. Go be a buzzkill somewhere else negative nancy.

Jokes aside though, I'm more concerned that they consider a primate researcher to be a valid judge in an art contest. What are Mrs. Goodall's qualifications as an artist? I suspect foul play -- Brent probably had a hefty bribe of bananas saved up from his days as a research subject, and used them to gain an unfair advantage. This was clearly a political move. Why else would a primate researcher be in charge of art judgements? The contest was obviously rigged, and no one is doing anything about it. Just one more reason not to trust authority -- everything's corrupt and society's going down in flames because of travesties like this.

TL;DR: I don't really care who won a chimpanzee art contest.


Oh please, Girl, have you flipped out too? It was by the humane society, Judged by Jane Goodall, So what did the chimp win, oh the usual, a lifetime food suppy of bananas and a comfortable place to stay, In otherwords, nothing.


With the exception of the last line, it was 100% sarcasm. I don't care about this story, but thought I would have fun with it anyway. Nothing in the article was consequential at all ($10,000 for Chimp Haven or Save the Chimps or whatever doesn't really change anything), so for fun, I wrote as though it was the most important thing in the world to me. You are otherwise completely correct to point out that the chimp doesn't really gain anything from this.
15294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/2/13
this shit is bananas.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/2/13 , edited 9/2/13

AshRandom wrote:



You make a good point, but there's a reason why chimps can achieve one, but not the other. Beyond simply getting into a discussion about why contemporary art worships ugliness, I would like to make the rather bold statement that even the most beautiful pieces still amount to an unimpressive display of brainpower. Besides, there are precious few examples of intelligent artists. This is probably because artistic people of intelligence put their minds to work in far more dynamic ways by becoming architects, engineers and technologists.

My contempt is simple. Creating an object purely for the sake of evoking emotion is a hollow endeavor.

Creating something functional which is also emotionally gripping is a work of genius. Even if the invention is brilliantly awful (as in the case of mankind's myriad lethal tools of war) it's still lightyears beyond any portrait on canvas, or sculpture on a lawn. The horror and terror of H.R. Geiger's work is dog food compared to the pure evil found in the sleek lines of an attack drone, stealth bomber, tomahawk missile, or nuclear submarine and the truly gut-wrenching horror and despair that seeing one deployed against you can evoke. The power and egotistically rampant pride people have in their bombs and guns has been evident for centuries, culminating in the strange unearthly beauty of devices like fat man and little boy to the point that even photographs of them end up framed and hung on walls. The beauty of the Mona Lisa pales in comparison to the comfort provided by a wind sheer hardened modern home situated in tornado alley, or the serenity and peace of mind working in a seismically retrofitted office building on the ring of fire can induce. Even the boggling effects on the mind's eye which MC Escher's works manage to evoke seems squalid compared to the dazzlingly complex origami-like nests of electronic circuitry found in most any modern computer. Just pull apart an old motherboard and try to follow the copper lines as they double back on themselves so mercilessly that you stop seeing them and instead start to see rows of folds and dark margins created in the negative spaces where they aren't even present.


I get the feeling you're just using "art" as a word for "painting," but I consider things like mathematical proofs, works of engineering, and most science as a form of art as well, and based on the way you described things, it feels like you'd agree -- I'm pretty sure it's just a difference in semantics. I think it's more the case that science is artistically relevant, rather than that art isn't relevant to society. I kind of think of scientific endeavors as making art out of the world, and in that sense, I'd agree with you that it far surpasses painting. But the novelty and elegance of a simple and beautiful theory definitely qualifies as artistry, although like I said, I suspect it's just a semantic difference. I might be making too big a deal of this, but I just wanted to be sure you're not diminishing the value of something I find important.

Art isn't good because it's emotionally gripping, it's good because it's interesting -- it expresses something that's otherwise close to inexpressible through prose. Emotions are often thought of in that way, which is why so much art deals with emotion. But the best art out there isn't there to evoke emotion, it's there to give a new perspective on a problem (which often does evoke emotion, but the nuance is obviously different). You're right in saying that "creating an object purely for the sake of evoking emotion is a hollow endeavor," but good artists aren't trying to evoke emotion, they're trying to express a thought and perspective on something -- this is arguably what's going on when a scientist expresses a theory. I'll agree with you that paintings rarely do this (probably because, as you said, intelligence isn't requisite for a career painter), but they definitely can. I came to study mathematics as a result of poetry, and paintings are what introduced me to poetry. It's not really the emotional stimulation that I find valuable in poetry and painting. Rather, it's the introduction to a new way to think about something. Art has the rather peculiar capability to let you take a peek into someone's head, and when the things that are in that person's head are interesting, then so is the art. That's also why I'd call most of the things you mentioned in your post "art."
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.