Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Schewe on March 29, 2018, 11:15:13 pm
-
Vanity Fair seems to like to stick it to former New Yorker Donald Trump and family. Enter Jim Carry's Art Hobby!
Eric and Donald Trump Jr.’s Big Game Hunting Hobby Inspires Jim Carrey’s Art Hobby (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/03/jim-carrey-eric-and-donald-trump-jr-art-elephant)
Jim Carrey, actor and self-described “unified field of nothing dancing for no particular reason (https://www.facebook.com/Maharishi.University/posts/10153085079052796)”, is also an artiste, and he made a few enemies this week through his artwork. He depicted presidential sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump impaled on an elephant’s tusks, then he tweeted it. Gun and Trump enthusiasts did not take kindly to the characterization, and at least one alerted the F.B.I. (https://twitter.com/ejudep/status/978980058525155328)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DZVZ38wVQAEeA7O.jpg)
Jim Carrey✔ @JimCarry (https://twitter.com/JimCarrey)
#teamelephant
7:14 PM - Mar 27, 2018
46.6K 12.2K people are talking about this
But it's not only "the kids" that Carrey is Tweeting...his painting is taking aim at all things Trump...
And while it may seem he's fixated on Trump, his painting is actually pretty interesting Here's a link to an article about his first show: Art Now and Then–Jim Carrey (http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.com/2017/08/jim-carrey.html)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4GKefpLEg/WYomrLUm8sI/AAAAAAAA82Q/kiB8RSkVm7w6inqTNC8M_Em5rCA5pHsiQCLcBGAs/s1600/Jim%2BCarrey%2527s%2Bfirst%2Bsolo%2Bshow%252C%2BNothing%2Bto%2BSee%2BHere.jpg)
Heck, even Breitbart took notice:
Jim Carrey Art Shows Trump Having Sex with Stormy Daniels (http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/24/jim-carrey-art-shows-trump-having-sex-stormy-daniels/)
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/03/CarreyStormyDonald1-640x480.jpg)
Check out Carrey's Twitter if you want to see some other, uh, "fun" images...
https://twitter.com/JimCarrey (https://twitter.com/JimCarrey)
(I first took notice of Carrey's paintings when Jerry Seinfeld did Jim Carrey in his Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee Netflix TV show...Season 6 (2015) Episode 3)
-
I think he's another of the Hollywood crowd that's gone childishly hysterical. I ignore him. ::)
Kent in SD
-
You call that
shit crap art?
-
You call that shit art?
Only if it contains sufficient Indexicality (as I recently learned in another thread on LuLa.) 8)
-
Only if it contains sufficient Indexicality (as I recently learned in another thread on LuLa.) 8)
And if the image lacks in indexicality, you can always increase saturation.
That's the best thing about Lula forum. Never a dull moment and always something new to learn.
-
You call that shit art?
I guess you don't get out to art galleries too much huh?
The 6 Rising Artists You Must Know In 2018 (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/6-rising-artists-to-watch-2018) and 9 Artists to Watch in January 2018 (https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/artist_to_watch/january-artists-to-watch-1-55196)
So, yeah, that shit is art...(well, Jim's other work...I think the stuff he's doing on Twitter is just to Twit the Trump)
-
Only if it contains sufficient Indexicality (as I recently learned in another thread on LuLa.) 8)
Wow, had to look that one up–and I still don't understand :~)
-
I guess you don't get out to art galleries too much huh?
So, yeah, that shit is art...(well, Jim's other work...I think the stuff he's doing on Twitter is just to Twit the Trump)
Being in a gallery neither makes it art nor stops it being shit. If it wasn't the talentless rubbish of someone famous and it didn't tap into anti-Trump sentiment, nobody would pay it a moment's attention.
Jeremy
-
Jim Carrey (like Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, and Charlie Sheen before him) is in the throws of a nervous breakdown. Anyone else pick up on this?
(http://digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/16/44/480x240/landscape-1478131403-mask.gif)
-
Being in a gallery neither makes it art nor stops it being shit. If it wasn't the talentless rubbish of someone famous and it didn't tap into anti-Trump sentiment, nobody would pay it a moment's attention.
Jeremy
Indeed; what it does show, though, is the need that galleries have for new blood. I suspect that a further problem is that art has been forced out of its comfort zone of "reliable" definitions by that pressure, and thus into adopting and promoting the outrageous upon whose shock value the new emperor is seated, like some Napoloeon on a stuffed, white horse.
Making the matter worse, the investor class is using art as a hedge against other commodities going sour. It matters not a damn if it is good or crap; if it retains or increases its monetary value, mission accomplished and both investor and gallery live on to glory in yet another day. Throw in glib, professional writers, specialists in the opaque and unintelligible, the sort that accompany the promotions and/or that can be found in the art review columns of a quality newspaper, then it must be true and you, the gentle reader who had never heard of nor seen such things before, has to be the uncomprehending idiot...
But then, the cult of the celeb has been able to promote and monetize almost anything for quite some time. When there are people in this world who care about the size of some famous-for-being-famous goddam woman's ass, where she spends her time etc. etc. then what can anyone expect? Society is in that runaway handcart.
-
Indeed; what it does show, though, is the need that galleries have for new blood. I suspect that a further problem is that art has been forced out of its comfort zone of "reliable" definitions by that pressure, and thus into adopting and promoting the outrageous upon whose shock value the new emperor is seated, like some Napoloeon on a stuffed, white horse.
Making the matter worse, the investor class is using art as a hedge against other commodities going sour. It matters not a damn if it is good or crap; if it retains or increases its monetary value, mission accomplished and both investor and gallery live on to glory in yet another day. Throw in glib, professional writers, specialists in the opaque and unintelligible, the sort that accompany the promotions and/or that can be found in the art review columns of a quality newspaper, then it must be true and you, the gentle reader who had never heard of nor seen such things before, has to be the uncomprehending idiot...
But then, the cult of the celeb has been able to promote and monetize almost anything for quite some time. When there are people in this world who care about the size of some famous-for-being-famous goddam woman's ass, where she spends her time etc. etc. then what can anyone expect? Society is in that runaway handcart.
As everybody knows, the now beloved impressionists were criticized by the conventional art community of the time. So, where does LuLa fit into the characterizations of art appreciation? I’d say we’re conventional with a slight nod to work that is beyond us but does not make us feel too much like dinasours.
-
...So, yeah, that shit is art...
And you have no problem and no shame of spreading that shit here? I wonder if you would show the same enthusiasm for shit (shitty enthusiasm?) if it were Malia and Sasha?
-
As everybody knows, the now beloved impressionists were criticized by the conventional art community of the time. So, where does LuLa fit into the characterizations of art appreciation? I’d say we’re conventional with a slight nod to work that is beyond us but does not make us feel too much like dinasours.
But there's a difference in that the Impressionists, by and large, were also able to take the conventional route, but just chose a different direction that demanded the same skills used differently. I have no problem with a trained or natural artist doing his thing, wherever it takes him; where I have a problem is where I think I see absence of skill getting promoted to the stratosphere.
Regarding LuLa's stance: I don't really think that it officially (or otherwise) has one on photographs. Having just written that, I must admit to having a narrow angle of looking: it's a very rare thing that in my LuLa searches for images I stray beyond the Abstracts, and whatever Without Prejudice offers. I get no thrill out of landscape, per se, and my regret is that the street people seem to be pretty thin on the ground. Of course, as everybody knows, street has many definitions, but whichever one you adopt, it ain't easy to do. Worse, unlike snaps of the natural world, when your image fails, it's obvious.
I don't really want to use Micheal as an example which might seem a little unkind, despite this being Easter etc., but where I found his pictorial input interesting was in his ability to see both landscape and street motifs and catch them pretty damned well. That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. I never knew the man personally, but from what I discovered here, he had a previous life in photojournalism, and that makes and keeps you pretty sharp! I suspect that his photographs did, perhaps, lend a sense of direction to the other posters, by paternal/managerial influence, if nothing more. The man had an abundance of style.
It's a common belief that technology has pretty much plateaued these days; perhaps a similar fate has befallen the world of images, too, where so much can be done almost automaticlly that many of the old skills have become redundant and, with them, some of the deeper insights into what one was doing. I believe there is no going back, and that the likes of some of the old stars will not appear again.
-
Painting such pictures is a good thing, especially for Jim Carrey. Never mind the artistic value, creating even sh*tty art can be a useful and calming therapy.
However, hanging and showing those pictures in a gallery could lead to more mental cases.
-
And you have no problem and no shame of spreading that shit here? I wonder if you would show the same enthusiasm for shit (shitty enthusiasm?) if it were Malia and Sasha?
There you go: believe it or not, I had to look those two names up for them to make any sense to me!
I guess it's what happens when you have no royalty: you need to have ever-changing substitutes who do not understand the form, the conventions and the demands of the rôles they attempt to play...
Like the French, you had all that and promptly threw it away, just as did I with my 500 C Series crown jewels. And for the three of us, it's too bloody late to undo our mistakes. It's hard enough to own up to them. The fine history of mistakes is slowly and painfully (and apparently unstoppably) repeating itself with Brexit, though that thought may get me cancelled. ( ;-) )
Rob
-
And you have no problem and no shame of spreading that shit here? I wonder if you would show the same enthusiasm for shit (shitty enthusiasm?) if it were Malia and Sasha?
Our own Laura Ingraham, eh?
Obama was satirized also, and the birther movement provided a lot of amusement for his detractors.
But there's a difference in that the Impressionists, by and large, were also able to take the conventional route, but just chose a different direction that demanded the same skills used differently. I have no problem with a trained or natural artist doing his thing, wherever it takes him; where I have a problem is where I think I see absence of skill getting promoted to the stratosphere.
Regarding LuLa's stance: I don't really think that it officially (or otherwise) has one on photographs. Having just written that, I must admit to having a narrow angle of looking: it's a very rare thing that in my LuLa searches for images I stray beyond the Abstracts, and whatever Without Prejudice offers. I get no thrill out of landscape, per se, and my regret is that the street people seem to be pretty thin on the ground. Of course, as everybody knows, street has many definitions, but whichever one you adopt, it ain't easy to do. Worse, unlike snaps of the natural world, when your image fails, it's obvious.
I don't really want to use Micheal as an example which might seem a little unkind, despite this being Easter etc., but where I found his pictorial input interesting was in his ability to see both landscape and street motifs and catch them pretty damned well. That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. I never knew the man personally, but from what I discovered here, he had a previous life in photojournalism, and that makes and keeps you pretty sharp! I suspect that his photographs did, perhaps, lend a sense of direction to the other posters, by paternal/managerial influence, if nothing more. The man had an abundance of style.
It's a common belief that technology has pretty much plateaued these days; perhaps a similar fate has befallen the world of images, too, where so much can be done almost automaticlly that many of the old skills have become redundant and, with them, some of the deeper insights into what one was doing. I believe there is no going back, and that the likes of some of the old stars will not appear again.
The critics of impressionism, at that time, felt differently than we do. Your view of what constitutes skill is not the same as what theirs was. Anyway, my point is about how taste/opinions change.
I do wonder whether it may be plausible to expand the scope of what LuLa might consider good photography. I think a couple of the recent grant awards went in a different and in my opinion good direction.
-
As far as I know, neither Malia nor Sasha have shot any elephants. The same picture replacing the Trumps with the Obamas would therefore have quite a different meaning, would be subject to quite different interpretations.
-
... Obama was satirized also...
Apples and oranges. I have no problem with satirizing any President, including Trump. I think I myself posted a visual joke at his expense once or twice on these forums.
It is the crassness of this latest attempt, along with that D-lister nut job’s “art” of holding a fake Trump’s decapitated and blooded head in her hand that caused, deservedly, a universal condemnation, on the left as well.
-
Apples and oranges. I have no problem with satirizing any President, including Trump. I think I myself posted a visual joke at his expense once or twice on these forums.
It is the crassness of this latest attempt, along with that D-lister nut job’s “art” of holding a fake Trump’s decapitated and blooded head in her hand that caused, deservedly, a universal condemnation, on the left as well.
Well, the severed fake head image didn't bother me. It was an obvious political opinion. But I guess the severity of our splintered modern world warrants a bit of caution. Who knows.
-
Well, the severed fake head image didn't bother me. It was an obvious political opinion...
And when was the left bothered by violence, fake or otherwise?
By the way, what was that "political opinion"... "Let's decapitate Trump"?
-
Trump art:
-
You call that shit art?
At least it gives Jeff another opportunity to bash the Trumps!
-
Trump art:
That’s innocuous. But I honestly think he should consider his health more.
-
You're fired!
You're fired!
You're fired!
You're fired!
(https://i.imgur.com/t5bpdo0.gif)
-
Wow, had to look that one up–and I still don't understand :~)
Check the thread on Meaning and Photography (or something like that.)
I read all about it and I still don't understand.
What I do understand is that it doesn't mean anything worth spending time on. A little like anything Trump says in that respect.
Maybe its a variant of Covfefe.
-
What I do understand is that it doesn't mean anything worth spending time on. A little like anything Trump says in that respect.
Do you not see how this is insulting to people who do think it's interesting? It's one thing to say that you don't find
it interesting, and quite another to offer a blanket statement.
I don't see how to interpret this any way other than a thinly, very thinly, veiled "you are dumb"
(cue the "you're just a sensitive little princess" crowd)
-
Perhaps what I should have said is:
"What I do understand is that it doesn't mean anything worth me spending my time on."
I'm sorry you were offended.
-
At least it gives Jeff another opportunity to bash the Trumps!
Well, that was Vanity Fair trashing Trump...I just pointed it out. Now CNN is in the act:
Jim Carrey has been trolling Trump and the GOP with paintings. Here are the top 11 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/jim-carrey-trump-paintings/index.html)
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180330150931-jim-carrey-donald-trump-large-169.jpg)
(CNN)Jim Carrey has found a muse in President Donald Trump.
The comedian has been channeling his artistic side over the last year to by painting a series of political portraits mocking Trump, his administration and a cast of Republican lawmakers.
His latest creation is a colorful portrait of a screaming Trump in a bathrobe eating two scoops of ice cream, which Carrey jokingly pitched to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, which houses portraits of all former US presidents.
(Trump told Time magazine last May that he always gets two scoops with his dessert, while everyone else gets one).
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DZeCOCSVwAEceG0.jpg)
Jim Carrey Verified account @JimCarrey (https://twitter.com/JimCarrey)
Dear Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery @NPG, I know it’s early but I’d like to submit this as the official portrait of our 45th President, Donald J. Trump. It’s called, 'You Scream. I Scream. Will We Ever Stop Screaming?'
9:27 AM - 29 Mar 2018
Eeeek! Wish I could unsee that...
-
From most the reactions posted here I don't think anyone here is qualified to know art from their ass except myself and Jeff. Anyone I left out, sorry.
Listen up folks, you're not photographers and you're not artists. And I'm now convinced you wouldn't know the difference between getting rich vs being enriched. It has something to do with the saying..."Where your heart lies so do your riches".
Jim Carrey has figured out a way to flesh out his consciousness about his love for life. They made a movie about Van Gogh doing the same thing called "Lust For Life". If all you numb nuts can think about is what's in front of your eyes then you need to go find another hobby because you certainly aren't an authority on anything creative and unique with regard to expressing yourself.
-
I guess you don't get out to art galleries too much huh?
The 6 Rising Artists You Must Know In 2018 (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/6-rising-artists-to-watch-2018) and 9 Artists to Watch in January 2018 (https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/artist_to_watch/january-artists-to-watch-1-55196)
So, yeah, that shit is art...(well, Jim's other work...I think the stuff he's doing on Twitter is just to Twit the Trump)
With all due respect. Is something art because someone tells you it is art? Lots of cultures have gone off the rails, with their cognoscenti informing the unwashed masses what is “good” and what isn’t. Not all have ennobled mankind, nor ended well. I’ve had a sneaking suspicion for a while that we may be in the process of joining in the parade.
Rand
-
.."Where your heart lies so do your riches".
Uh, um . . . I think you got that backwards.
Rand
M 6:21
-
With all due respect. Is something art because someone tells you it is art?
With all due respect, that wasn't the point...the point was that there is good art that came AFTER the Impressionists and that contemporary art is often on the bleeding edge that isn't understood (nor appreciated) by many. Such is the case with Jim Carrey it seems on LuLa...
:~)
Baffled by Conceptual Art? Maybe this is for you!
Baffled by Conceptual Art? So Are Will Ferrell and Joel McHale in This Museum’s Short Film (http://www.adweek.com/creativity/baffled-by-conceptual-art-so-are-will-ferrell-and-joel-mchale-in-this-museums-short-film/)
Eric Hirshberg directs the Hammer's self-deprecating comedy
Museums are often pretty humorless when it comes to their artwork. It’s rare for them to acknowledge that art can be confusing—particularly conceptual art, where the artist’s choices can seem self-indulgent or bafflingly arbitrary.
But the Hammer Museum at UCLA leans into that confusion in an amusing new short film made by some A-list talent in front of, and behind, the camera.
The six-minute spot stars Will Ferrell and Joel McHale as museum goers who are refreshingly honest—and funny—as they tour the Hammer’s new “Stories of Almost Everyone” (https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2018/stories-of-almost-everyone/) exhibition. Viewing piece after piece—guided by Hammer curator Aram Moshayedi—the pair are openly bewildered, sometimes verging on disparaging, by the everyday objects that make up the show.
-
With all due respect, that wasn't the point...the point was that there is good art that came AFTER the Impressionists and that contemporary art is often on the bleeding edge that isn't understood (nor appreciated) by many. Such is the case with Jim Carrey it seems on LuLa...
:~)
Baffled by Conceptual Art? Maybe this is for you!
Baffled by Conceptual Art? So Are Will Ferrell and Joel McHale in This Museum’s Short Film (http://www.adweek.com/creativity/baffled-by-conceptual-art-so-are-will-ferrell-and-joel-mchale-in-this-museums-short-film/)
Eric Hirshberg directs the Hammer's self-deprecating comedy
Jeff,
Thanks for the response. I don’t disagree re your comment about art post the impressionists. And I’m hardly baffled by conceptual art - but neither am I bamboozled by buffoonery, nor impressed by what some see as resplendence that is in reality the mere absence of clothing with ones buns (and other bits) flapping in the breeze. :-)
Rand
-
From most the reactions posted here I don't think anyone here is qualified to know art from their ass except myself and Jeff. Anyone I left out, sorry.
Listen up folks, you're not photographers and you're not artists. And I'm now convinced you wouldn't know the difference between getting rich vs being enriched. It has something to do with the saying..."Where your heart lies so do your riches".
Jim Carrey has figured out a way to flesh out his consciousness about his love for life. They made a movie about Van Gogh doing the same thing called "Lust For Life". If all you numb nuts can think about is what's in front of your eyes then you need to go find another hobby because you certainly aren't an authority on anything creative and unique with regard to expressing yourself.
Tim, an ad hominem attack diffusely directed at all members of the forum remains an ad hominem attack. If you are attempting irony, you are making a hamfisted job of it. Do it again and you will be banned. You have come perilously close with this offensiveness.
Jeremy
-
Being in a gallery neither makes it art nor stops it being shit.
Both true and objective
If it wasn't the talentless rubbish of someone famous and it didn't tap into anti-Trump sentiment, nobody would pay it a moment's attention.
Not so true and most definitely subjective.
One could make the same case about Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein and a host of others.
-
You call that shit art?
I thought you were the person offended by strong language?
-
I thought you were the person offended by strong language?
The days when "shit" could be described as "strong language" are, I think, long behind us.
Jeremy
-
Is Carrey's work any better or worse than Roy Lichtenstein's? Also note that this is only a portion of Carrey's oeuvre and he has painted some interesting things that are not Trump related.
-
From most the reactions posted here I don't think anyone here is qualified to know art from their ass except myself and Jeff. Anyone I left out, sorry.
Listen up folks, you're not photographers and you're not artists. And I'm now convinced you wouldn't know the difference between getting rich vs being enriched. It has something to do with the saying..."Where your heart lies so do your riches".
Jim Carrey has figured out a way to flesh out his consciousness about his love for life. They made a movie about Van Gogh doing the same thing called "Lust For Life". If all you numb nuts can think about is what's in front of your eyes then you need to go find another hobby because you certainly aren't an authority on anything creative and unique with regard to expressing yourself.
Goodness me, Lust for Life! I read that back in the 50s, I think it was.
-
Tim, an ad hominem attack diffusely directed at all members of the forum remains an ad hominem attack. If you are attempting irony, you are making a hamfisted job of it. Do it again and you will be banned. You have come perilously close with this offensiveness.
Jeremy
I feel in no way offended or attacked by Tim's comment. Was that because he used the word "ass"? You condone the use of "shit", which comes from the "ass", so why is one more offensive than the other?
Being from Portugal, I think people here spend too much time discussing Mr. Trump.
-
Not all art is artful. I'll leave it at that.
(https://i.iheart.com/v3/re/new_assets/5992177f422af2aa117f8a1b?ops=max%28750%2C0%29%2Cquality%2880%29)
-
Not all art is artful. I'll leave it at that.
Agreed. The white balance clearly is off.
(https://i.iheart.com/v3/re/new_assets/5992177f422af2aa117f8a1b?ops=max%28750%2C0%29%2Cquality%2880%29)
-
You call that shit art?
I would. I don't think I would hang it on my wall but that is true of a lot of art.
It's definitely something to stir the pot which in many cases is what art does.
If the former president's kids were adults working within the administration I think they would be just as valid as targets for satire as these "kids".
-
Not all art is artful. I'll leave it at that.
(https://i.iheart.com/v3/re/new_assets/5992177f422af2aa117f8a1b?ops=max%28750%2C0%29%2Cquality%2880%29)
This is the kind of thing that echoes P.T. Barnum's biting aphorism over and over: "There's a sucker born every minute." I think the frequency has increased since Barnum's time.
-
I feel in no way offended or attacked by Tim's comment. Was that because he used the word "ass"? You condone the use of "shit", which comes from the "ass", so why is one more offensive than the other?
Being from Portugal, I think people here spend too much time discussing Mr. Trump.
Paulo, perhaps you are being a little disingenuous... nothing to do with butts and everything to do with accusations of traits of the Philistine.
You know, gratuitous showers of acid from those who never post pictures that I remember having seen.
Insofar as Mr T is concerned, well, he does raise the traffic if not the tone.
:-)
-
Paulo, perhaps you are being a little disingenuous... nothing to do with butts and everything to do with accusations of traits of the Philistine.
You know, gratuitous showers of acid from those who never post pictures that I remember having seen.
Insofar as Mr T is concerned, well, he does raise the traffic if not the tone.
:-)
Precisely.
Jeremy
-
Precisely.
Jeremy
I was not being disingenuous. I really wanted to know why "ass" is offensive, and "shit" is not. I am not a English native speaker, and given the rapidity with which one can be banned these days, I want to be clear on what sort of language one can use here.
P.S. Not displaying or posting photos here should not be a criteria about the quality of one's photographic work.
-
P.S. Not displaying or posting photos here should not be a criteria about the quality of one's photographic work.
I agree, but it can be a criteria about your value to the site and the other members visiting here.
-
I feel in no way offended or attacked by Tim's comment. Was that because he used the word "ass"? You condone the use of "shit", which comes from the "ass", so why is one more offensive than the other?
For the record, 'shit' was a strictly 'verboten' word in Michael's day - enough to get you summarily banned with no further ado, assuming the offender survived the customary Schewe tongue lashing. The only acceptable form was either 'shyte' or 'BS'.
'Shit', is err ... 'shit' and, at the very least, indicates a startling lack of vocabulary.
Describing someone or somebody as an 'ass' is certainly less offensive than the use of the word 'shit' in whatever context. Anyway, ass is a shortened version of a 'horse's ass' as in 'don't be a horse's ass' , aka 'don't be a fool'.
Feel free to add to the etymology.
-
..'Shit', is err ... 'shit' and, at the very least, indicates a startling lack of vocabulary...
Or a succinct factual observation ;)
-
Or a succinct factual observation ;)
One doesn't preclude the other. [/levity]
-
For the record, 'shit' was a strictly 'verboten' word in Michael's day - enough to get you summarily banned with no further ado, assuming the offender survived the customary Schewe tongue lashing. The only acceptable form was either 'shyte' or 'BS'.
'Shit', is err ... 'shit' and, at the very least, indicates a startling lack of vocabulary.
Describing someone or somebody as an 'ass' is certainly less offensive than the use of the word 'shit' in whatever context. Anyway, ass is a shortened version of a 'horse's ass' as in 'don't be a horse's ass' , aka 'don't be a fool'.
Feel free to add to the etymology.
Not to forget Equus africanus asinus also known as African wild ass. Worldwide, there are about 40 million of them, so they produce a substantial quantity of the former matter.
-
Michael had a simple rule that has been often repeated but which bears repetition:
Use language that is acceptable around a friend’s (Michael’s) dinner table. If in doubt, please avoid the potential offense that questionable words and comments may cause.
-
Michael had good rules, Chris. That was one of them.
-
Wow, that's at least as good as Jeff's photography.
-
If we have a merciful God why can't The Coffee Corner be Closed Permanently? :'(
-
If we have a merciful God why can't The Coffee Corner be Closed Permanently? :'(
No one forces you to read Coffee Corner.
(https://pics.me.me/manypeople-dont-know-this-but-you-can-read-something-you-31652726.png)
-
If we have a merciful God why can't The Coffee Corner be Closed Permanently? :'(
As a humanist, I'll tell you that ain't gonna happen...
-
If we have a merciful God why can't The Coffee Corner be Closed Permanently? :'(
What is your problem re. CC?
Look at the pretty pictures instead. You are not obliged to read stuff you don't want to read. Leave those who do enjoy the CC in peace.
Rob
-
As a humanist, I'll tell you that ain't gonna happen...
And as a moderator, I'll endorse your view.
Jeremy
-
I agree, but it can be a criteria about your value to the site and the other members visiting here.
Why? I respect some members' opinion, and don't pay attention whether they post their photos here. I see no rule that demands that members need to post photos here.
-
And as a moderator, I'll endorse your view.
Jeremy
So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.
-
So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.
As a four letter word or in the form of those infantile illustrations?
-
So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.
Michael had a simple rule that has been often repeated but which bears repetition:
Use language that is acceptable around a friend’s (Michael’s) dinner table.
Well Chris, I’m pleased that I’m not the only one who remembers that one - and good to know that ‘s**t’ is still off the table. As an adjunct to the acceptable forms of ‘shyte’ and BS then, I’d suggest adding another polite alternative, the Greek version - ‘skata’, which is, of course, the word from which ‘scatology’ was derived.
Far more palatable.
-
As a four letter word or in the form of those infantile illustrations?
As a four letter word, I prefer to be clear rather than infantile.
-
To satisfy Paolo's appetite for... clarity, I edited my initial response (#2).
-
Why? I respect some members' opinion, and don't pay attention whether they post their photos here. I see no rule that demands that members need to post photos here.
Why are you assuming my position? And I never said there was a rule for people to post images here, those are your words.
I just said it was a criteria, how one applies it is entirely up to the reader. If someone thinks that the value is higher without photo's that's fine.
It's just one of the criteria (there can be many more) to judge people's value here, that's all I wanted to say. No more, no less..
-
So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.
Paolo, read my my first post as moderator (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123678.0). I will very seldom take action against people who use particular words but I will not enter into discussions over which words are permitted and which are not. There are worse guidelines than these (http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/strong-language/guidance-full), but they are just that: guidelines.
Use common sense.
Jeremy
-
Ah, the joys of being a moderator!
From the BBC guidelines I learned that if I order a peach tart in a pastry shop, I may cause mild offense. ;)
Eric
P.S. You're doing a fine job of keeping your cool, Jeremy!
-
Jeremy's an attorney. He's gotta keep his cool to survive.
-
Paolo, read my my first post as moderator (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123678.0). I will very seldom take action against people who use particular words but I will not enter into discussions over which words are permitted and which are not. There are worse guidelines than these (http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/strong-language/guidance-full), but they are just that: guidelines.
Use common sense.
Jeremy
I did, second one says:
"•Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable."
My take from all this is that using "ass" is wrong, but using "shit" is fine, according to your (different) actions to the two posters who used the terms. The first was "banned - worthy", the second was not. To me, "shit" is more offensive than "ass", but what do I know...
-
I did, second one says:
"•Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable."
My take from all this is that using "ass" is wrong, but using "shit" is fine, according to your (different) actions to the two posters who used the terms. The first was "banned - worthy", the second was not. To me, "shit" is more offensive than "ass", but what do I know...
The problem with all of this stuff about swearing, quasi-swearing etc. is that its value or offence quotient is variable depending on country.
A further problem is that in general, it makes no real sense in the context of most conversations; I suppose it simply serves as a valve to relieve pressure building up in the brain.
I remember that the garage door once swung around in the breeze and gave me a bang on the elbow's funny bone. Far from funny, it produced a stream of oaths I was surprised to know was perfectly within my power to recite. The pain was so severe that I remember having to go indoors and lie down in order not to do so in the driveway.
I suppose that illustrates the point that swearing helps the mind but not the body.
There's also a difference between swearing at somebody, calling them a whatever, and swearing in a more general manner, where some insentient thing is the object of one's verbal affection. A car that won't start is an example that comes to mind.
I'm not sure about maiden aunts, though; I never had one.
However, insofar as writing oaths goes, ¡t can mean a bit of unnecessary typing.
-
The problem with all of this stuff about swearing, quasi-swearing etc. is that its value or offence quotient is variable depending on country.
A further problem is that in general, it makes no real sense in the context of most conversations; I suppose it simply serves as a valve to relieve pressure building up in the brain.
I remember that the garage door once swung around in the breeze and gave me a bang on the elbow's funny bone. Far from funny, it produced a stream of oaths I was surprised to know was perfectly within my power to recite. The pain was so severe that I remember having to go indoors and lie down in order not to do so in the driveway.
I suppose that illustrates the point that swearing helps the mind but not the body.
There's also a difference between swearing at somebody, calling them a whatever, and swearing in a more general manner, where some insentient thing is the object of one's verbal affection. A car that won't start is an example that comes to mind.
I'm not sure about maiden aunts, though; I never had one.
However, insofar as writing oaths goes, ¡t can mean a bit of unnecessary typing.
I believe that it has been confirmed by lab studies that swearing does alleviate pain in some circumstances. I'll try to find the podcast/article where I heard/read this.
-
So does Ben-Gay.
-
And so the word parsing and lawyering begins.
Here’s a suggestion. Use only language that we’d use with our six-year-old daughters and grand daughters. If that includes scatological and crude anitomical references, well then (as the Church Lady would say), “Isn’t that special!” ;D
Rand
-
https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21735577-new-book-explores-subtle-and-strategic-art-swearing-power-profane-lang
Foul play
The power of profane language
A new book explores the subtle and strategic art of swearing
IN THESE potty-mouthed times, when certain world leaders sling profanity about with abandon, many observers naturally lament the debasement of speech. But instead of clutching pearls, why not find a silver lining? Learning more about when, how and why people swear offers insight into everything from the human brain to a society’s taboos. Trash talking even affords some real physical and social benefits, as Emma Byrne argues in “Swearing Is Good for You”.
-
I did, second one says:
"•Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable."
My take from all this is that using "ass" is wrong, but using "shit" is fine, according to your (different) actions to the two posters who used the terms. The first was "banned - worthy", the second was not. To me, "shit" is more offensive than "ass", but what do I know...
Paolo, this is getting silly. Read my post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124015.msg1036199#msg1036199). It's quite clear that my warning had absolutely nothing to do with language.
If you really want a defined guideline, I'll don my moderator's cap and tell you that any word I have used in a post (other than someone else's quoted text, of course) is axiomatically acceptable. Outwith that range of vocabulary, you take your online life in your hands. ;)
Can we get back to discussing politics and "art" now? Or even (perish the thought) photography?
Jeremy
-
And so the word parsing and lawyering begins.
Here’s a suggestion. Use only language that we’d use with our six-year-old daughters and grand daughters. If that includes scatological and crude anitomical references, well then (as the Church Lady would say), “Isn’t that special!” ;D
Rand
I seem to remember Michael saying with regards to language and the acceptability of profanity that LuLa is a site intended for adults, not children. Perhaps that's changed?
-
Sometimes profanity gets a point across faster than politeness.
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12df9a662a4f9f1da6a235bca76c76746e823f54f53f492691998af412ea5c25.jpg?w=800&h=563)
-
And so the word parsing and lawyering begins.
Here’s a suggestion. Use only language that we’d use with our six-year-old daughters and grand daughters. If that includes scatological and crude anitomical references, well then (as the Church Lady would say), “Isn’t that special!” ;D
Rand
Quite a trick, having a six-year-old daughter and granddaughter!
I must have made some serious errors of judgement along the line...
;-)
-
Quite a trick, having a six-year-old daughter and granddaughter!
I must have made some serious errors of judgement along the line...
;-)
Rob,
Love it! LOL Thanks . . .
Rand
-
Rob,
Love it! LOL Thanks . . .
Rand
:-)
-
I seem to remember Michael saying with regards to language and the acceptability of profanity that LuLa is a site intended for adults, not children. Perhaps that's changed?
It hasn't.
Jeremy
-
Paolo, this is getting silly. Read my post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124015.msg1036199#msg1036199). It's quite clear that my warning had absolutely nothing to do with language.
If you really want a defined guideline, I'll don my moderator's cap and tell you that any word I have used in a post (other than someone else's quoted text, of course) is axiomatically acceptable. Outwith that range of vocabulary, you take your online life in your hands. ;)
Can we get back to discussing politics and "art" now? Or even (perish the thought) photography?
Jeremy
Jeremy, I am assuming that in your post you have considered that Tim has made an attack when he wrote:
"From most the reactions posted here I don't think anyone here is qualified to know art from their ass except myself and Jeff. Anyone I left out, sorry."
I still fail to see how this can be considered reason for being banned, but perhaps it's just me. And that is fine.
As for going back to discussing photography, I prefer to do it outside of the CC. If you now encourage to discuss politics and "art" in here, I have no doubts that people will revert to acrid discussions, with many a banned thread...
-
I am assuming...
You are assuming it wrong.
-
You are assuming it wrong.
If you say so, it must be right.
-
No Paulo, you've been going on and on for several pages, using one single argument: comparing two words, as if that was the reason for the moderator's warning. It was not. It was the totality of the post, the tone used against all other forum members, as well as calling us all "numbnuts." ("stupid or ineffectual person, U.S. slang, from numb (adj.) + nuts 'testicles;' with suggestion of impotence."). It was several times explained to you that it is not about the two words, and yet you kept harping about it, page after page. Hence the comment about being disingenuous (again, from a dictionary: "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does").
-
Correct. It is not about the words.
Tim made an obviously satirical post referring in a general way to "forum members" and got shut down.
Russ consistently refers, non-satirically, to "left wing loonies" and does not.
Both, pretty obviously, have specific forum members in mind. Both are, basically, very thinly veiled personal attacks, with slightly
different veils.
Jeremy has made his position crystal clear.
-
... Tim made an obviously satirical post referring in a general way to "forum members" and got shut down.
Russ consistently refers, non-satirically, to "left wing loonies" and does not.
Both, pretty obviously, have specific forum members in mind. Both are, basically, very thinly veiled personal attacks, with slightly
different veils...
Let me correct several things, for the benefit of members who do not follow these things closely.
"Obviously satirical" was hardly obvious, given what we know about Tim and his rants/postings, for which he was banned in the past. He was not "shut down," whatever you meant by that, he got a warning. Russ, however, was banned for a week, so your "Russ...does not" is inaccurate (in the same thread in which neither Tim, nor you, were banned for direct, no veil, thin or otherwise, personal attacks).
"Loonie Left" is a political term, originally used in UK parliamentary campaigns. In these forums here, it is used as a general political term, not as a personal attack.
-
Let me correct several things, for the benefit of members who do not follow these things closely.
"Obviously satirical" was hardly obvious, given what we know about Tim and his rants/postings, for which he was banned in the past. He was not "shut down," whatever you meant by that, he got a warning. Russ, however, was banned for a week, so your "Russ...does not" is inaccurate (in the same thread in which neither Tim, nor you, were banned for direct, no veil, thin or otherwise, personal attacks).
"Loonie Left" is a political term, originally used in UK parliamentary campaigns. In these forums here, it is used as a general political term, not as a personal attack.
Absolutely correct.
Rob
-
Slobodan is right.
Paolo, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse.
Tim was warned, not banned.
Andrew, if you're suggesting that my political views influence my approach to moderation, or even that you know what those views are, you're wrong.
Anyone who is hurt by not being mentioned above: apologies.
Enough, already.
Jeremy