Lesbian criticizes Picasso.

BidenPresident said:
Ok...trolling. Do better.
Click to expand...

As I suspected. You consider even a joke as "trolling". You can do better, too. Grow a thicker skin and learn that sometimes a joke is a joke. And if people disagree with you sometimes they aren't the monsters.

You are too much like Cypress. A humorless drudge wrapped up in their own view of the world to be able to understand other points of view.
 
Quincunx said:
As I suspected. You consider even a joke as "trolling". You can do better, too. Grow a thicker skin and learn that sometimes a joke is a joke. And if people disagree with you sometimes they aren't the monsters.

You are too much like Cypress. A humorless drudge wrapped up in their own view of the world to be able to understand other points of view.
Click to expand...

ok
 
BidenPresident said:
Sorry, where did you establish how he treated them?
Click to expand...

I posted two articles. I could post many more plus books.

None of those biographies you read discussed his relationship with women? When one topic is widely written about and nothing is printed to refute (or even question) those claims, evidence is fairly creditable.
 
BidenPresident said:
gosh
Click to expand...

You have a lot of good threads and comments here Sir!

So, I am not on your case at all.

But, when use- Lesbian does this- or Lesbian does that- in a Thread Title- Be expecting a Dumpster fire.

You could have just as easily used- Comedian said this- or Comedian said that- in your thread title.

Or even the comedians name!

Do you not get frustrated yourself when you see these racist son-of-a-bitches start their thread out with titles like- Black man did dis- or Black man did dat?

It does me- because I sense a prejudice and a poor disregard for Black People right from the get-go by the author- Before I even read the first line of text.

I still don't know if your thread's thrust was about criticizing Lesbians or Defending Picasso!

I mean, what were you aiming for- regarding responses?

Because you seemed to take some kind of offense to everyone who made a comment here.
 
Last edited:
Geeko Sportivo said:
You have a lot of good threads and comments here Sir!

So, I am not on your case at all.

But, when use the say- Lesbian does this- or Lesbian does that- in a Thread Title- Be expecting a Dumpster fire.

You could have just as easily used- Comedian said this- or Comedian said that- in your thread title.

Or even the comedians name!

Do you not get frustrated yourself when you see these racist son-of-a-bitches start their thread out with titles like- Black man did dis- or Black man did dat?

It does me- because I sense a prejudice and a poor disregard for Black People right from the get-go by the author.

I still don't know if your thread thrust was about criticizing Lesbians or Defending Picasso!
Click to expand...


https://www.economist.com/culture/2...tion-hannah-gadsby-takes-aim-at-pablo-picasso
[Gadsby] dismissed Picasso’s innovation of Cubism as “a kaleidoscope filter on [his] cock.”
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I think most American music goes back to Black Roots in one way or another.

We recently lost one of America's greatest Rock Stars ever, Tuna Turner. But, it was Her first husband, Ike, that is credited for being a part of the very first Rock & Roll song.

The 1951 classic Rocket “88” by Jackie Brenston and his Delta Cats has often been cited as the first rock 'n' roll record. Waxed at Sam Phillips' Memphis Recording Service, it was also the first No. 1 rhythm & blues hit for Chicago-based Chess Records. It is also the first song that used some type of distortion in a song's recording. Ike, one of rock's great guitar players, played the rinky-dink piano on this one.

Read the whole story here, if this interests you!

https://www.culturesonar.com/rocket-88-one-of-the-pioneering-songs-of-rock/

Love the song, but I've always credited Little Walter with My Babe that came out in 1951 (the year I was Born) also!
Click to expand...
Yes, having been a jump blues fan, I was familiar with that story and the song. Thanks.
 
NYTimes criticizes Gadsby's show as childish

Not long ago, it would have been embarrassing for adults to admit that they found avant-garde painting too difficult and preferred the comforts of story time. What Gadsby did was give the audience permission — moral permission — to turn their backs on what challenged them, and to ennoble a preference for comfort and kitsch.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/arts/design/hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-picasso.html
 
Most bizarrely, the routine rested on a condemnation of art as an elite swindle, and modernism got it particularly hard. “CUUU-bism,” went Gadsby’s mocking refrain, to reliable audience laughter. The sarcasm, from a comedian with moderate art historical bona fides, had a purpose: It gave Gadsby’s audience permission to believe that avant-garde painting was actually a big scam. “They’re all cut from the same cloth,” Gadsby told the audience in “Nanette”: “Donald Trump, Pablo Picasso, Harvey Weinstein” — and the art you never liked in the first place could be dismissed as the flimflam of a cabal of evil men.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/arts/design/hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-picasso.html
 
Here's a great story from NPR about some studies which show that great art is often not distinguishable except that it becomes POPULAR.

https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right

"Several years ago, Princeton professor Matthew Salganik started thinking about success, specifically about how much of success should be attributed to the inherent qualities of the successful thing itself, and how much was just chance. For some essentially random reason, a group of people decided that the thing in question was really good and their attention attracted more attention until there was a herd of people who believed that it was special mostly because all the other people believed that it was, but the successful thing wasn't in fact that special."

(Emphasis added)

THIS is why art is subjective. Great art is subjective. Picasso, in some people's opinion, is crap. I don't like Picasso. There are other artists who speak to me more. And Picasso sounds like he wasn't an appealing person either, so there's two strikes.

I don't have to like Picasso. If you like Picasso that's cool! I like Gerard David and Mark Ryden and Tod Schorr. That doesn't mean I'm right and those who don't like them are wrong. It's wholly subjective.
 
Quincunx said:
Here's a great story from NPR about some studies which show that great art is often not distinguishable except that it becomes POPULAR.

https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right

"Several years ago, Princeton professor Matthew Salganik started thinking about success, specifically about how much of success should be attributed to the inherent qualities of the successful thing itself, and how much was just chance. For some essentially random reason, a group of people decided that the thing in question was really good and their attention attracted more attention until there was a herd of people who believed that it was special mostly because all the other people believed that it was, but the successful thing wasn't in fact that special."

(Emphasis added)

THIS is why art is subjective. Great art is subjective. Picasso, in some people's opinion, is crap. I don't like Picasso. There are other artists who speak to me more. And Picasso sounds like he wasn't an appealing person either, so there's two strikes.

I don't have to like Picasso. If you like Picasso that's cool! I like Gerard David and Mark Ryden and Tod Schorr. That doesn't mean I'm right and those who don't like them are wrong. It's wholly subjective.
Click to expand...

Some day you may be ready to discuss the concept of subjective and objective.
 
Quincunx said:
Here's a great story from NPR about some studies which show that great art is often not distinguishable except that it becomes POPULAR.

https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right

"Several years ago, Princeton professor Matthew Salganik started thinking about success, specifically about how much of success should be attributed to the inherent qualities of the successful thing itself, and how much was just chance. For some essentially random reason, a group of people decided that the thing in question was really good and their attention attracted more attention until there was a herd of people who believed that it was special mostly because all the other people believed that it was, but the successful thing wasn't in fact that special."

(Emphasis added)

THIS is why art is subjective. Great art is subjective. Picasso, in some people's opinion, is crap. I don't like Picasso. There are other artists who speak to me more. And Picasso sounds like he wasn't an appealing person either, so there's two strikes.

I don't have to like Picasso. If you like Picasso that's cool! I like Gerard David and Mark Ryden and Tod Schorr. That doesn't mean I'm right and those who don't like them are wrong. It's wholly subjective.
Click to expand...

So, you conflate liking with quality. That is the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top