• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Has anybody realized that if those French riots had occurred in Israel...

tr1414 said:
not as easy as you think.... try having some arty going off next to you & you have targets in front of you....

Whatever tr1414, I've been around long enough and through enough to know how I react. My only experience in a firefight was unarmed against a guy with a gun shooting at me. I ended up with the gun and he with my boot lace pattern on his forehead. I got the stuff. So let's go back to where this started. I hit what I shoot at. Actually it's pretty damn easy to me. Next?
 
I'm happy that you won your street encounter but combat is a whole different animal. You served, you should know that to compare combat to a duck hunt game is silly. That's all I was trying to say.
 
tr1414 said:
I'm happy that you won your street encounter but combat is a whole different animal. You served, you should know that to compare combat to a duck hunt game is silly. That's all I was trying to say.

Shooting through the haze of alcohol, friends talking smack trying to disrupt your focus, someone always passing you a burning stick, girls bending over and whispering distracting statements in your ear, Ted Nugent blaring away, money on the table, pizza in the oven, pungent smoke in the air, and of course, in my house, one never knows when a firecracker will go off, oh I think there are some comparisons to be made.

As far as combat being different. I disagree. You either have grace under pressure or you don't. It's applicable to all situations. You panic or get that slow motion surreal focus.

The clay shooting mode of Duck Hunt. Level 17. You're just jealous.
 
Hey buddy, you should have let it go.... your starting to look weird.
 
tr1414 said:
Hey buddy, you should have let it go.... your starting to look weird.

I'm starting to look weird? Where the fuc*k have you been? And now your gonna "buddy" me? A little chink in the facade? Amoungst the insanity I often slip in some reality. Glad to see it got by you. You know tr1414, with that one little sentence, some of us just learned a whole lot about you.
 
ddoyle00 said:
Look guy, this whole internet debate thing is new to me. Was I wrong? Probably. Am I sorry? No. Normally, when I get into an argument, Id rather bloody their face and smile at them in court. When I read your comment, I almost blacked for a second because of my anger. I am trying to do this civilly.



Then perhaps you should do your debating in a drunken bar so you can get someone bloody and yourself in court. Making such infantile comments in this forum only causes you to appear that much more childish and incapable of accepting criticism. I'd get a therapist for your anger issues, you definately need it.

Oh -- as for the argument, you were SLAUGHTERED.
 
teacher said:
I'm starting to look weird? Where the fuc*k have you been? And now your gonna "buddy" me? A little chink in the facade? Amoungst the insanity I often slip in some reality. Glad to see it got by you. You know tr1414, with that one little sentence, some of us just learned a whole lot about you.



And it only takes a couple sentences from any given post of yours to see that your whole MO is to stomp on people because their opinion is unpopular. I never have seen you take any kind of risk with a WORD you've ever uttered in here, yet AFTER a debate you often come up like a buzzard feeding on the scraps of someone else.
 
teacher said:
I'm starting to look weird? Where the fuc*k have you been? And now your gonna "buddy" me? A little chink in the facade? Amoungst the insanity I often slip in some reality. Glad to see it got by you. You know tr1414, with that one little sentence, some of us just learned a whole lot about you.


Ummmm ok..... I guess.
 
sissy-boy said:

And it only takes a couple sentences from any given post of yours to see that your whole MO is to stomp on people because their opinion is unpopular. I never have seen you take any kind of risk with a WORD you've ever uttered in here, yet AFTER a debate you often come up like a buzzard feeding on the scraps of someone else.

I got my views out of the way long ago. Pick any topic and I'll give you my take. I'm pro-life, gun, military, capital punishment, gay rights, affirmative action, nuclear power, lower taxes, I advocate personal responsability, anti-NEA, unions, for term limits, bla, bla, bla. Let's go. I'm honerable discharged and have no police record. I've plenty of posts so feel free to catch me contradicting myself.
 
teacher said:
I got my views out of the way long ago. Pick any topic and I'll give you my take. I'm pro-life, gun, military, capital punishment, gay rights, affirmative action, nuclear power, lower taxes, I advocate personal responsability, anti-NEA, unions, for term limits, bla, bla, bla. Let's go. I'm honerable discharged and have no police record. I've plenty of posts so feel free to catch me contradicting myself.



Are you anti-NPR?
 
teacher said:
Art should live or die on it's own merits. But NPR I can live with. They are biased towards the left.

Not as much as they used to be.

I tend to agree with you about the NEA to some extent. Although, I don't believe funding should end altogether.
 
mixedmedia said:
Not as much as they used to be.

I tend to agree with you about the NEA to some extent. Although, I don't believe funding should end altogether.




People often underestimate the power of art. Especially in a culture that is so materialistic. Viewing art and learning about art makes people smarter. Studies have shown again and again that if children study art they become much more happy and intelligent adults. And this is precisely why I think that art should be regarded as highly as a subject such as English or Science. Instead we're schooling a generation of idiots as we have done before, who's only dream in life is to be on MTV -- it's really sick.

But you also have to consider what art really is. It's like my close friend who is an art teacher says: 'If it doesn't force you to think, then it isn't art'. And that is such a great definition in a nice concise sentence.



"The artist is the man in any field, scientific or humanistic, who grasps the implications of his action and of new knowledge in his own time. He is the man of integral awareness." -- Marshall McLuhan


 
sissy-boy said:

People often underestimate the power of art. Especially in a culture that is so materialistic. Viewing art and learning about art makes people smarter. Studies have shown again and again that if children study art they become much more happy and intelligent adults. And this is precisely why I think that art should be regarded as highly as a subject such as English or Science. Instead we're schooling a generation of idiots as we have done before, who's only dream in life is to be on MTV -- it's really sick.

But you also have to consider what art really is. It's like my close friend who is an art teacher says: 'If it doesn't force you to think, then it isn't art'. And that is such a great definition in a nice concise sentence.



"The artist is the man in any field, scientific or humanistic, who grasps the implications of his action and of new knowledge in his own time. He is the man of integral awareness." -- Marshall McLuhan



I don't think I underestimate the power of art. After all, two of my daughters are artists. And I am very much an appreciator of art. I think the funding of art education in our schools should be, if anything, increased.

Funding of artists themselves should, in my opinion, be more closely evaluated and apportioned with more of an eye on art as an American treasure that future generations will be able to appreciate. Not merely as an outlet of expression for an individual. There is too much ego in art these days.

And I'm not talking about limiting controversial art or censorship. It's just that, from what I've read, the NEA spreads its resources too thinly when a more concentrated commitment to American art might be more wise and, in the long run, healthier for art in America.
 
mixedmedia said:
I don't think I underestimate the power of art. After all, two of my daughters are artists. And I am very much an appreciator of art. I think the funding of art education in our schools should be, if anything, increased.

Funding of artists themselves should, in my opinion, be more closely evaluated and apportioned with more of an eye on art as an American treasure that future generations will be able to appreciate. Not merely as an outlet of expression for an individual. There is too much ego in art these days.

And I'm not talking about limiting controversial art or censorship. It's just that, from what I've read, the NEA spreads its resources too thinly when a more concentrated commitment to American art might be more wise and, in the long run, healthier for art in America.



The NEA does not fund artists AT ALL. Since Helms war on the arts the NEA now ONLY funds organizations and it is such a miniscule amount of money it's almost laughable. I actually tried to get a grant from the NEA for a film I directed and produced that was specifically about the NEA -- and was denied because I was an individual artist. That is the big change that a lot of people still don't realize. The idea that artists are funded by the government is a lot of hot air from right wingers. It simply isn't true.

The art that becomes priceless and is remembered in art history texts is the art that is the most personal. I'm not saying that art is not egotistical, because some is, but I think the artist that sheds his soul and passion is the only TRUE artist. I'm really kind of a purest on this issue -- and the same on music. It is the artist as a storyteller that creates the monuments of tomorrow because the art speaks to us about the time in which we lived and what happened in that time in a way that everyone can understand. So if someone makes a painting that is a photorealistic or classical painting of a landscape -- it's not really art. It's just a skillful peice of work -- it has to tell a story about the time and place and make the viewer think. Like if someone painted the WTC after 9/11, and added a political piece of text or wrote 'PEACE' across it or something of that nature then it would become more than one thing.

I think you know what I'm getting at. But maybe I'm not sure waht you mean be 'American ARt'.
 
The NEA does not fund artists AT ALL. Since Helms war on the arts the NEA now ONLY funds organizations and it is such a miniscule amount of money it's almost laughable. I actually tried to get a grant from the NEA for a film I directed and produced that was specifically about the NEA -- and was denied because I was an individual artist. That is the big change that a lot of people still don't realize. The idea that artists are funded by the government is a lot of hot air from right wingers. It simply isn't true.

I wasn't aware of this. No wonder art is dying in America.


sissy-boy said:

The art that becomes priceless and is remembered in art history texts is the art that is the most personal. I'm not saying that art is not egotistical, because some is, but I think the artist that sheds his soul and passion is the only TRUE artist.


I agree with this. And that kind of expression is most usually beyond ego. Not to say that the artist was not egotistical, just that they're expression superceded them as an individual. This purity of expression is rare.

So if someone makes a painting that is a photorealistic or classical painting of a landscape -- it's not really art. It's just a skillful peice of work -- it has to tell a story about the time and place and make the viewer think. Like if someone painted the WTC after 9/11, and added a political piece of text or wrote 'PEACE' across it or something of that nature then it would become more than one thing.

I don't agree with this as a whole, but I know what you're getting at. I think art is more apt to make you think if it makes you feel something on first glance, though. Rembrandt's work is realist and classical, but when you see it, it makes you gasp, and then you think - about beauty and humanity and PERCEPTION. Perception is an important facet of being human that is reflected in art that doesn't get talked about much. A lot can be said for an artist who is very skilled at portraying "reality." I am not big on photorealistic art either, but in an expressive way like Van Gogh or Manet or Renoir it can be very powerful - it goes back to that lack of ego thing again. Pure perception. I don't feel art has to be political, it can also be humanist. At least, you know, my favorite artists concentrate more on reflecting universal human conditions. This could all be my own bias talking, I suppose......

I think you know what I'm getting at. But maybe I'm not sure waht you mean be 'American ARt'.

I simply mean art created in America. Much like jazz, I think art created in America should in a way, belong to us all as an expression of who we are.
 
And, uhhhhhhh, sorry for taking this thread so far off track guys.
 
mixedmedia said:
I wasn't aware of this. No wonder art is dying in America.




I agree with this. And that kind of expression is most usually beyond ego. Not to say that the artist was not egotistical, just that they're expression superceded them as an individual. This purity of expression is rare.



I don't agree with this as a whole, but I know what you're getting at. I think art is more apt to make you think if it makes you feel something on first glance, though. Rembrandt's work is realist and classical, but when you see it, it makes you gasp, and then you think - about beauty and humanity and PERCEPTION. Perception is an important facet of being human that is reflected in art that doesn't get talked about much. A lot can be said for an artist who is very skilled at portraying "reality." I am not big on photorealistic art either, but in an expressive way like Van Gogh or Manet or Renoir it can be very powerful - it goes back to that lack of ego thing again. Pure perception. I don't feel art has to be political, it can also be humanist. At least, you know, my favorite artists concentrate more on reflecting universal human conditions. This could all be my own bias talking, I suppose......



I simply mean art created in America. Much like jazz, I think art created in America should in a way, belong to us all as an expression of who we are.


I gottcha. My favorite artists are not photorealistic and are not political. I've always like surrealism because it takes us into unknown territory. I REALLY like the new pop-surrealism that's happening right now. To me it's the most powerful of all. The skill and meaning in a Robert Williams painting goes FAR beyond just being able to paint. Or the film/performance work of someone like Matthew Barney who redefines art and the process over and over. And then someone like Warhol who made the IDEA the art. Billiant!!
 
sissy-boy said:
I gottcha. My favorite artists are not photorealistic and are not political. I've always like surrealism because it takes us into unknown territory. I REALLY like the new pop-surrealism that's happening right now. To me it's the most powerful of all. The skill and meaning in a Robert Williams painting goes FAR beyond just being able to paint. Or the film/performance work of someone like Matthew Barney who redefines art and the process over and over. And then someone like Warhol who made the IDEA the art. Billiant!!

Someone feel free to tell to me to stop if we're hijacking this thread. I won't get my feelings hurt.

But.....

For more contemporary artists I like Lucien Freud, Francis Bacon and this guy

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/feature-2004-02.html

Odd Nerdrum, who I'm gonna guess you would like, too if you aren't already familiar with him. He reminds me of Rembrandt, very much so, in that his paintings have that strange ability to look incredibly realistic but when you get up close to them they appear to be just random brush strokes. Many of his paintings depict futuristic tribal scenarios that border on surrealism.


And check this out that I found while browsing around out there. The permanent collection at The Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. What a bunch of animals, eh?
http://www.ir-tmca.com/collection/painting2.htm
 
mixedmedia said:
Someone feel free to tell to me to stop if we're hijacking this thread. I won't get my feelings hurt.

But.....

For more contemporary artists I like Lucien Freud, Francis Bacon and this guy

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/feature-2004-02.html

Odd Nerdrum, who I'm gonna guess you would like, too if you aren't already familiar with him. He reminds me of Rembrandt, very much so, in that his paintings have that strange ability to look incredibly realistic but when you get up close to them they appear to be just random brush strokes. Many of his paintings depict futuristic tribal scenarios that border on surrealism.


And check this out that I found while browsing around out there. The permanent collection at The Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. What a bunch of animals, eh?
http://www.ir-tmca.com/collection/painting2.htm




Great stuff. I love Raschenberg and DeKooning. I'm not a huge Pollock fan but I like the energy. I love Max Ernst. I did a paper on Kandinsky. I'll bet you'd like the visionary art of Alex Grey. I was just in NYC a few weeks ago and saw his permanent exhibition, 'The Chapel of Sacred Mirrors':

http://www.alexgrey.com/

The flash thing is really cool too. It's under 'Chapel'
Check out matthew barney too:

http://www.matthewbarney.com/

 
sissy-boy said:

Great stuff. I love Raschenberg and DeKooning. I'm not a huge Pollock fan but I like the energy. I love Max Ernst. I did a paper on Kandinsky. I'll bet you'd like the visionary art of Alex Grey. I was just in NYC a few weeks ago and saw his permanent exhibition, 'The Chapel of Sacred Mirrors':

http://www.alexgrey.com/

The flash thing is really cool too. It's under 'Chapel'
Check out matthew barney too:

http://www.matthewbarney.com/


These are cool, but I guess I'm just more of an old-fashioned art chick. I liked the iconic images on the first one - Alex Grey. Seems to have been inspired some by Buddhist thangka paintings and Hindu religious art.
 
Back
Top Bottom