or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Dave barry...some thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dave barry...some thoughts

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
FIFTEEN THINGS THAT IT TOOK ME OVER 50 YEARS TO LEARN - by Dave Barry 1. Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night. 2. If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings." 3. There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." 4. People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. 5. You should not confuse your career with your life. 6. Nobody cares if you can't dance well. Just get up and dance. 7. Never lick a steak knife. 8. The most destructive force in the universe is gossip. 9. You will never find anybody who can give you a clear and compelling reason why we observe daylight savings time. 10. You should never say anything to a woman that even remotely suggests that you think she's pregnant unless you can see an actual baby emerging from her at that moment. 11. There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make a big deal about your birthday. That time is age eleven. 12. The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that,deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above average drivers. 13. A person, who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person. (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.) 14. Your friends love you anyway. 15. Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. FINAL Thought for the day: Men are like a fine wine. They start out as grapes, and it's up to women to stomp the crap out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with.
post #2 of 12
Thanks for the post FIHTies. I love Dave Barry; I read his column every week.
post #3 of 12
I really love his columns on modern "art" that he does about once a year. Having seen what passes for "art" these days, I always crack up when he writes about it.
post #4 of 12
Quote:
I really love his columns on modern "art" that he does about once a year.  Having seen what passes for "art" these days, I always crack up when he writes about it.
kai what do you suggest 'art' should be? do you believe that term is restricted to what used to be called 'high culture'? if so please elaborate if you could. [i do agree that some stuff is not quite to my taste, but the same goes for some more 'classical' pieces]
post #5 of 12
Quote:
Quote:
(Kai @ 04 Aug. 2004, 2:42) I really love his columns on modern "art" that he does about once a year.  Having seen what passes for "art" these days, I always crack up when he writes about it.
kai what do you suggest 'art' should be? do you believe that term is restricted to what used to be called 'high culture'? if so please elaborate if you could. [i do agree that some stuff is not quite to my taste, but the same goes for some more 'classical' pieces]
I actually have a reasonably broad perception of what constitutes "art." I enjoy a wide variety of artistic styles, from Michaelangelo to Monet, with a particular love of Victorian art. I certainly don't think that the definition of art should be restricted to "high culture" works. Much of the Pre-Raphaelite work was reviled at the time it was done, and most "high culture" collectors look down on the illustration art (particularly fantasy illustration) that I love. However, some of the stuff that is seen as "art" these days just seems like a giant hoax. A couple of the art pieces that Dave Barry took a stab at in his column were: Some canned feces (yes, a bunch of crap in a can); an empty room with a flickering ceiling light; and a plastic bag of trash. None of these things is "art" as I define it. The "artists" clearly are brilliant and talented, as they managed to convince wealthy people who should know better to pay top dollar for this "art." To me, these artists' talents lie in the realm of self promotion, however, rather than artistic talent. I think that crap in a can is still crap, no matter how talented and famous the artist was that extruded it. Personally, I prefer art which is more aesthetically interesting than canned crap or an empty room. I collect illustration art (mostly fantasy), traditional Chinese art, and the odd "modern" piece. If you are massively bored, and want to see some of my collection, you can go to http://www.larsonweb.com/art/art.htm I just think that a lot of so-called "art" these days is not deserving of the name "art." There are monkeys that can create pieces which are more interesting than much of the stuff hanging in the Whitney in New York or the New Tate in London.
post #6 of 12
My apologies to Mr. Barry and Mr. Ties for this response, which has nada to do with either of them. Kai, I understand your position that art ought to be somewhat aesthetically concerned, if not primarily focused on aesthetitically pleasing characteristics. Likewise, a Can O'Crap is, undeniably, a Can O'Crap, just as a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. And a lot of illustrative work and design deserves more credit than it gets. Though there is a line between art and craft - just because someone put a lot of time and thought into something, and it looks nice, doesn't make it art just as someone signing a urinal doesn't make that urinal sculpture. I think, however, that there is merit to a lot of modern art that is primarily conceptual. Witness, especially, the dadaists, who probably would've enjoyed canned feces, as long as it was submitted as art and made people think. Or not think. The dadaists were not a focused bunch. I am in complete agreement that some artists take advantage of the century-or-so-old movement away from representational art to hawk their wares. My view is, even if a piece is significantly abstract, if there is no hint of visceral effect on the audience, it is, um, ineffectual. And anything that requires, not inspires, a book on its own interpretation is equally weak. Ah, and Dave Barry is consistently hilarious. I even liked the up and down tv show based on his columns, and it gives me hope that this fall's sitcom based on Mr. Tony Kornheiser's washington post columns might be good, even though one of its stars is Malcolm Jamal Warner. Edited: It'll take me 50 years to learn to avoid typos, and to not split infinitives.
post #7 of 12
Quote:
My view is, even if a piece is significantly abstract, if there is no hint of visceral effect on the audience, it is, um, ineffectual. And anything that requires, not inspires, a book on its own interpretation is equally weak.
I share these views, although you have stated it much more eloquently than I could have.  Not all art is beautiful, but all good art stirs emotions in the beholder (other than bemused contempt for the "artist.") Here are some links to the Barry pieces I'm talking about. http://www.freep.com/voices/columnis...7_20020217.htm http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/ad...ct02/85367.asp http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88v/barry.html
post #8 of 12
Quote:
I think that crap in a can is still crap, no matter how talented and famous the artist was that extruded it.
You clearly just don't understand the pain and suffering that this artist is trying to express through his art -- I understand he was "shit-canned" from his job shortly before he started this particular piece ... of shit.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Quote:
(Kai @ 04 Aug. 2004, 4:24) I think that crap in a can is still crap, no matter how talented and famous the artist was that extruded it.
You clearly just don't understand the pain and suffering that this artist is trying to express through his art -- I understand he was "shit-canned" from his job shortly before he started this particular piece ... of shit.
It is never (or hardly ever) possible to see the true intentions of the artist. Sometimes it is just a person in a room thinking; "how great am I, I just pour out shit, and everyone thinks it is really soulful and great". Other times a lot has gone into it. But it is very difficult for us observers to tell. Obviously, Vero has incorporated some background knowledge of the artist in question, which does indeed give his argument weight. However, in the same way that when you analyze literature, you merely attempt to understand what the author tries to portray; you can never be sure what the true meaning is. Moreover, perhaps the intention of the writer/author is to create different views, thus I do not feel it is correct to dismiss Kai's criticism.
post #10 of 12
Jonathan, Very funny post. Thanks for letting us get some of Mr. Barry's insight.
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Jonathan,    Very funny post.  Thanks for letting us get some of Mr. Barry's insight.
Curry: What in the world are you talking about?... Oh...You meant the Dave Barry stuff... JJF PS: I actually dont mind, I just coudn't resist that. So interesting to watch where posts start and then go... Carry on Gents...
post #12 of 12
hahaha, yeah, I felt a little guilty for trying to respond to the original. Hopefully, the art community will forgive me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Dave barry...some thoughts