Around 2:00 Ana makes perfect sense, for the record. And I really want to know who agreed to put it in his head in the first place cuz seriously, wtf?
Even if his body had accepted it his idea was bound to fail. He's a professor and taking pictures on certain areas that he works was against campus privacy so he had to cover his camera while being there.
Now I've given you, I think, four separate examples of things that my definition of what art is specifically excludes from being art. And you STILL keep saying that according to my definition EVERYTHING is art - even though there are at least four separate things that clearly aren't by my definition. So, I'm at a loss - I'm not sure where the mis-communication is.
@BloatedSensations I still keep saying that everything is art according to your definition because there's no way to tell art from non-art. You gave me two scenarios of Pollock creating an identical mess, yet one is art and one is not. Therefore art can literally be anything. If I accidentally bruise my head, it's art if I say it is. If I have a debate on a youtube channel, it's art if I say it is. Congratulations! You're a collaborator on my latest artistic work.
@devourerofbabies Whether or not you can tell them apart is irrelevant. There's probably a lot of things in this universe that you, I, or any other given person can't tell apart - that fact does not change the definition of what they are.
@BloatedSensations But if there's no way of telling them apart, then anything is art as long as you call it art. Pollock's accident is art as long as he calls it art. My bruised forehead is art as long as I say it is. I flick a cigarette butt and it's art. You have no basis for excluding anything. What is art is simply a matter of declaration.
@devourerofbabies And, no, art can not be "literally everything". In fact, it is - literally (in the truest sense of the word) - according to my definition, quite impossible for everything to be art. As, ANYTHING that does not fulfill both criteria is, by definition, not art.
All of your posts in this thread ARE art, as are mine. We intended to create them. We followed through. They were created. Art! Good art? Worthwhile art? That's another debate entirely.
@BloatedSensations Okay, I'll concede that things outside of our solar system are not art. But anything on this planet is. Everything has been either created or altered by intentional action and is therefore art. How can you possibly exclude Mt. Everest from being art?
@devourerofbabies "How can you possibly exclude Mt. Everest from being art?" Huh? How can you possibly include it? Mount Everest was not created through an intentional act. Unless you hold to the idea of intelligent creator, in which case, if true, I would say it then WAS art. I assume you're speaking about alterations to it's structure? Clearing of timber or something?....
@devourerofbabies If so, then that does make the mountain art. It was not created. Perhaps an argument can be made that the specific alterations could be considered art. But, I would disagree - the intent there was likely not an intent to create.
@BloatedSensations Mountain climbers have left oxygen bottles all over the mountain. The bottles were intentionally made, they were intentionally used, and they were intentionally dropped on the mountain. The climbers were clearly aware of the result of their actions. How is that not art according to your definition?
@devourerofbabies Because the mountain climbers had no intention to create anything. They were simply discarding used oxygen bottles with no thought toward any sort of creation being the result. No intention to create = no art. They DID create something, but what they created was a mess, it wasn't art - no intention to create.
@BloatedSensations Sure they did intend to create. They knew beforehand that climbing the mountain would result in a mountain with a lot of oxygen bottles. That's intention to create. They might not value that creation, but what does that matter?
If you want to argue the particular merits of different examples of art, we'll be here for the rest of our lives. That debate has been taking place since we started drawing animals on cave walls - there's no clear answers in that arena. Why? It's entirely subjective.
BTW - look at what crazy camera head man's little procedure has sparked here in the way of at least one debate on what is or isn't art! I guess his little project wasn't so without worth after-all, huh?
@BloatedSensations Well, I think nailing a camera to his head is not art. The discussion it sparked isn't art either. As you said, whether it's valuable is irrelevant to the discussion. If the third party repercussions of your actions decide the merit of your work, then everything is infinitely valuable.
@devourerofbabies The process of attaching the camera wasn't the point, he was intending to make a series of photos which he would then frame with some overarching theme.. Ie probably a play on the ideas off of "eyes behind my head" etc.. It definitely would have led to something more than a stunt to staple a camera to his head..
@BloatedSensations How are they not intending to create? They clearly made the bottles, or at least someone did. They deliberately brought them there. They knew what it would look like when they dropped it on the mountain. They knew what the result would be. How is that not intent? They didn't think they were creating art, but they did intend to create.
@devourerofbabies The bottle makers made art. The bottles are not. They, however, did not bring them there with the intention to create anything. They didn't drop them on the mountain with any intention to create. They intended to litter. They didn't intend to bring forth creation from their act. Therefore, the discarded bottles are not art. The mountain is not art.
@devourerofbabies Not at all. I didn't say litter can't be an artistic medium. It most certainly can. The climber's intention, in your example, however, was not to create. Sure, in some tertiary, thinly-related way, they intended to litter, and litter is sort of an abstract form of creation. So, if you really stretch the definition, and reason, you might fit it in there. But, it's quite different...
@devourerofbabies . The creation was simply an unavoidable byproduct of their intention to get rid of their O2 bottles. Their specific intention was not to bring anything into being - the fact that they did was inconsequential to them.
@BloatedSensations It doesn't matter if it's a byproduct. It's still intentional creation. If byproducts don't count, then you need to revise your definition to exclude byproducts of a larger goal, But if you do that, you're still not off the hook, because climbing the mountain was a piece of performance art and leaving the bottles behind is part of the piece.
@devourerofbabies Yes, it DOES matter if it's solely a byproduct or not. No revision is necessary. You're speaking of a creation that was the result of an act done with other, unrelated intentions in mind. That's just not the same thing as an intentional act of creation. The mountain climbers did not drop their bottles with the intentional purpose of creation in mind. The fact that they may have was of no consequence to them. Their purpose - their intent - their want - was not to create.
@BloatedSensations Okay, I'm understanding your definition as you intended a little better. I still think it needs to be worded a little better though. And I still think it's far too broad because then art is whatever it's declared to be.
@BloatedSensations And you STILL haven't excluded Everest as a work of art, because the act of climbing it WAS their intent, it was a piece of performance art, and altering the mountain is part of the piece.
@devourerofbabies No. That doesn't make the mountain a work of art. It may make it a component within a piece. The specific alterations may be seen as works of art - if the intention to create them was there as an act of creation and not simply as a by-product of some other intended act. But, the mountain itself is not. It was not the product of an intentional act of creation. Just because something may be involved in a work of art doesn't necessarily make it, itself, a work of art also.
@BloatedSensations How do you distinguish between the part and the whole? Sorry, I know I said I was leaving, but I couldn't resist. Interesting question. Anyway, good night, and thanks.
Just to address one other point you made, then I'll say Good night: Art can't be anything that it's declared to be. If I accidentally knock a glass of milk off the table, the broken glass and milk puddle is not art - even if I declare it to be. If I do declare such, I am mistaken, or lying. The fact that you ma not be able to tell if I'm mistaken or lying doesn't change that fact. Truth is not dependent on individual perceptions.
No, that wasn't their intention. They were aware of what the result would be. That's not the same thing. Their intention was not to bring forth creation. Their intention was to discard empty bottles that they no longer had a use for in order to lighten their load. If their was an easier way of doing that, they would have done it. They paid no mind to bringing forth any sort of creation - any creation that may have occurred was not intentional on their part.
@BloatedSensations Sure it's the same thing. If I know what the concrete result of my actions will be and I perform those actions, that's intent to create. What you're saying is also true. They didn't care about their creation, their goal was simply to reach the top of the mountain. But that doesn't mean that they didn't intentionally create something.
@devourerofbabies No, it's not. An awareness that a creation may, or will, be the result of a given act, is not the same thing as a specific intent to create. The latter requires a specific motivation that may, or may not, be present in the former.
@devourerofbabies No. As I've already stated: Whether your intention is to create "art" or not is entirely irrelevant. If that is your intention, then fine. If not, then that's fine also. IF you carry out an act that results in creation - the bringing of something into being - AND that was your purpose - your intent - yes, your motivation - although it need not be your only, nor primary motivation - then you have created art.
Seriously, TYT are great when it comes to domestic things, but they're illiterate as fuck about the outside world.
Anyway, it's a shame this Arab "artist" wasn't trying to make some political statement about Israel. Then it would have been justly funny instead of annoyingly stupid.
@VictimOfBoredom He's made plenty of political statements. Lots. As I have pointed out repeatedly in these comments. Do some research. And it IS "kuh-ter."
@aznsketcher said: "I like art. I'm totally into cool shit. but planting a camera into your skull to make a point is kind of fucking stupid. that's just my opinion."
Well that's my opinion too. Sorry for the jibberish.
@23AClark "Who the hell does the procedure? Wackos,I say." - Yep! Crazy, wacko, quack surgeons! I've even heard rumors that in some third world countries there are actually surgeons who will (for a substantial fee, of course) implant plastic bags full of saline into the breasts of women!?!?!? I've also heard (but I don't really believe it) that there are yet others who will inject botulinum toxin (one of the most lethal toxins known to man) directly into your face! Freakin' wackos!!!!
Y'know what else was a performance? The Spider-Man Broadway show. And guess what? The actors fly 200 feet out into the audience and bust their asses on somebody. Both brilliant plans.
This is exactly what I hate about artistic performance. When the artist feels the need too provoke a reaction by harming himself or herself. Reminds me of kids that would do anything to draw attention.
@frepi Unfortunately that is how modern art works these days.. No one is gonna pay u good money to strap a webcam to ur head.. now implanting spikes to mount it on.. that's edgy.. I'm sure people are gonna replace prosthetic eyes with 24/7 webcam soon..
@frepi "not being able to create art / they will not understand art / they will consider their failure as creators /
only as a failure of the world / ... / and then they will hate you / and their hatred will be perfect / like a shining diamond / like a knife / like a mountain / like a tiger / like hemlock / their finest art" ~Bukowski (The genius of the crowd)
@frepi Yeah, I heard that a lot growing up. Lemme explain: The pencils represent militant consumerism and my nostrils represent the vapid soul of the consumer.
I agree with the guy believe it or not. No, it's not smart, but the point is it's FUCKING REAL. If it was strapped on, it would get the same result, but it wouldn't be as fuckin' real
if the point was to have pictures from a camera implanted in your ass yes.
he could have got the same pictures from a strapped camera, but the point was to have it implanted. if it's not planted it's no point because it's just pics from a strapped camera.
uh, no. if the point was to have a camera superglued to your head, and he did it, then it would be just as artistic. but because the point is to get photos from a camera that is surgically implanted, that's what he's doing.
something is only "artistic" if its sincere. doing something with one media is not "more artistic" than any other, what makes it artistic is the fact that its real. he wanted photos from a camera implanted inside his head. ergo, a camera strapped on is not the same.
Right, except the photos weren't made the same way.
You can take a photo of Mount Everest, or you can digitally create the exact same photo, but one is real and one is not. Why not? They're the exact same picture.
@GJNCA No no no, you just don't get it. The pain and discomfort and inconvenience is PART of the art! You're obviously too ignorant of art and art history to understand that it's a profound statement about... something.
as an art project a camera in the back of your head sounds pretty interesting, implanting it is just pointlessly attention-whoring it up, just glue it to your hair and then shave it off and wear a bald spot for a few weeks and enjoy the conversation piece
What sort of doctor agrees to do this sort of procedure on a human being? Didnt alarm bells ring when the patient asked for camera to be implanted in the back of his head?
I consider myself quite an artsy guy but this - c'mon wtf?
just as Ana said it's totally pretentious and has absolutely nothing to do with art itself...well except for the guy himself who would be considered some kind of freak with an in-head camera then. but who cares about whether those pictures were actually taken from the inside or just the back of one's head??
gosh dude, you gotta work on expression & creativity!
As someone who loves art I can understand his commitment. It is in my opinion not worth it but I have sacrificed my body for art before so this is nothing new. Many people put their art before their lives. It doesn't make them crazy.
lets be honest, he simply didnt think of strapping it around his head or his neck, so he tried to hide this stupidity by saying all that performance crap
The whole 'FAIL' thing is so often what people who CAN'T DO, say. Eg, "you didn't get a gold medal at the Olympics! FAIL!"
Yeah, good to know Mr. and Mrs. Television Grazer.
This guy failed to do what he sought to do, but is he a failure? No. WHEN did failure become a CRIME? By the logic of the 'FAIL' crowd, not a single great acheivement will ever be possible again. "Get it perfect the first time, or you FAIL!" Well it's no wonder that so many of these people ARE just TV grazers.
@UberNoodleX You're taking it too literally. "FAIL" is an expression used to criticize something really stupid that someone did which backfired. It's not about just making fun of people for failing at anything they tried to accomplish.
@UberNoodleX No, it's not "very vague" the difference between a legitimate goal and something as incredibly stupid and crazy as implanting a camera into your skull. The expression "FAIL" is being used here to make fun of the insanely dumb and disastrous thing that this man attempted. They're not saying "FAIL" just because they simply think the idea of failing is funny.
I'm with Frankenstein here. It's the backfiring that defines a 'FAIL'. Simply being disappointed that you didn't succeed isn't a FAIL, and trying to do something worthwhile and being unsuccessful isn't a FAIL.
Obviously, this isn't always adhered to, but what is? A skilled and experienced builder could build their own house, but if someone with none of that decided they'd give it a go and put all the doors in backwards, that'd be a fail cause they were dumb for even trying.
@Scardy The resultant visualizations relating to human/technology implants would be unique. Reason enough. How effective or valuable or interesting would they be, well, that's up to subjective debate, but, no, you're wrong.
@Scardy Somebody so in tune with the art scene wouldn't say what you just did. To act as a gatekeeper on what defines 'proper art' is the most pretentious thing one could do.
@UberNoodleX I'm not acting as gatekeeper, I'm telling the truth. A great deal of selling the idea of high art is one's ability to bs. Maybe I said it wrong, nut there's a huge streak of this sort of thing where genuine substance and honest effort are pushed aside and excused by pinning some incomprehensible justification to it.
It's strange he didn't implant a wireless camera if he's willing to die for his art. The protruding cord running down his neck ruins the Borg Collective symmetry and is slightly unsightly.
I knew a guy who was suffering from cancer and had to stay in for a while, as he was getting treatment. Because of this he did some odd things to pass the time, one of them was to recreate the state of California in a Sim City game. This past time helped him endure his ordeal but he did not consider that state replica to be art. When he recovered he erased it.
Commitment makes people crazy sometimes. Look at marriages lol
TTibble 1 month ago
lol captions
"they'll mail"
demonfox879 3 months ago
When I firt herd this I'm like Japanese again really
coldchamelon 6 months ago
fake
thebestlawyerintown 8 months ago
That is fucking stupid. Although I'v seen this done for the blind; but come on who the fuck does this?
severnmdman 10 months ago
Some people are just too Hardcore for this world...
(@kirbyKilledMyBanana How d'you chop at someone with a fork?)
TheOmniscientSpanner 10 months ago
If he is not willing to die of a brain infection, he's obviously not serious enough about ART.
Call me Shazzazz!
rubberbaby00 10 months ago
Around 2:00 Ana makes perfect sense, for the record. And I really want to know who agreed to put it in his head in the first place cuz seriously, wtf?
DaniSupashine 1 year ago
What was wrong with gaffering it on him
joinusinsong 1 year ago
And those who helped him with the surgery didn't foresee this because....?
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
muy estupido - ok but i might try this with a video cam
StrawberryBigMac 1 year ago
Oh hell no, talk about ignorance.
Chris12163 1 year ago
whats the word im looking for to explain this story....EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!
qu7aker 1 year ago
Endurance? LMAO
aaronsande 1 year ago
He had to implanted in Mianus XD
desnukefan 1 year ago
Ummm is this what Americans think about when they hear "Canada's Free Health Care System"?
This stupid Art Project would not be funded, thats why America exists. I'm so Rich that I can get a Camera inplanted into my Head because I'm COOL!
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
Even if his body had accepted it his idea was bound to fail. He's a professor and taking pictures on certain areas that he works was against campus privacy so he had to cover his camera while being there.
guatepower 1 year ago
This is like a cyborg gender issue
Do I strap it on or just get an implant?
SojournerLi 1 year ago 29
An idea so stupid and ill planned that even his body is rejecting the idea.
jawa64ify 1 year ago
Umm......damn...and yes it's a fail.
Mika20 1 year ago
this guy is freaking weird
FANTOMTRON 1 year ago
lol. Artists are so silly sometimes.
Tradd9 1 year ago
young turds...
alonsomaldonado 1 year ago
performance artists = snotty morons with no real artistic abilities (yoko ono comes to mind)
quaxk 1 year ago
Now I've given you, I think, four separate examples of things that my definition of what art is specifically excludes from being art. And you STILL keep saying that according to my definition EVERYTHING is art - even though there are at least four separate things that clearly aren't by my definition. So, I'm at a loss - I'm not sure where the mis-communication is.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations I still keep saying that everything is art according to your definition because there's no way to tell art from non-art. You gave me two scenarios of Pollock creating an identical mess, yet one is art and one is not. Therefore art can literally be anything. If I accidentally bruise my head, it's art if I say it is. If I have a debate on a youtube channel, it's art if I say it is. Congratulations! You're a collaborator on my latest artistic work.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies Whether or not you can tell them apart is irrelevant. There's probably a lot of things in this universe that you, I, or any other given person can't tell apart - that fact does not change the definition of what they are.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations But if there's no way of telling them apart, then anything is art as long as you call it art. Pollock's accident is art as long as he calls it art. My bruised forehead is art as long as I say it is. I flick a cigarette butt and it's art. You have no basis for excluding anything. What is art is simply a matter of declaration.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies And, no, art can not be "literally everything". In fact, it is - literally (in the truest sense of the word) - according to my definition, quite impossible for everything to be art. As, ANYTHING that does not fulfill both criteria is, by definition, not art.
All of your posts in this thread ARE art, as are mine. We intended to create them. We followed through. They were created. Art! Good art? Worthwhile art? That's another debate entirely.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Okay, I'll concede that things outside of our solar system are not art. But anything on this planet is. Everything has been either created or altered by intentional action and is therefore art. How can you possibly exclude Mt. Everest from being art?
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devourerofbabies "How can you possibly exclude Mt. Everest from being art?" Huh? How can you possibly include it? Mount Everest was not created through an intentional act. Unless you hold to the idea of intelligent creator, in which case, if true, I would say it then WAS art. I assume you're speaking about alterations to it's structure? Clearing of timber or something?....
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies If so, then that does make the mountain art. It was not created. Perhaps an argument can be made that the specific alterations could be considered art. But, I would disagree - the intent there was likely not an intent to create.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Mountain climbers have left oxygen bottles all over the mountain. The bottles were intentionally made, they were intentionally used, and they were intentionally dropped on the mountain. The climbers were clearly aware of the result of their actions. How is that not art according to your definition?
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies Because the mountain climbers had no intention to create anything. They were simply discarding used oxygen bottles with no thought toward any sort of creation being the result. No intention to create = no art. They DID create something, but what they created was a mess, it wasn't art - no intention to create.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Sure they did intend to create. They knew beforehand that climbing the mountain would result in a mountain with a lot of oxygen bottles. That's intention to create. They might not value that creation, but what does that matter?
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
If you want to argue the particular merits of different examples of art, we'll be here for the rest of our lives. That debate has been taking place since we started drawing animals on cave walls - there's no clear answers in that arena. Why? It's entirely subjective.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
BTW - look at what crazy camera head man's little procedure has sparked here in the way of at least one debate on what is or isn't art! I guess his little project wasn't so without worth after-all, huh?
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Well, I think nailing a camera to his head is not art. The discussion it sparked isn't art either. As you said, whether it's valuable is irrelevant to the discussion. If the third party repercussions of your actions decide the merit of your work, then everything is infinitely valuable.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies The process of attaching the camera wasn't the point, he was intending to make a series of photos which he would then frame with some overarching theme.. Ie probably a play on the ideas off of "eyes behind my head" etc.. It definitely would have led to something more than a stunt to staple a camera to his head..
ddnguyen278 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations How are they not intending to create? They clearly made the bottles, or at least someone did. They deliberately brought them there. They knew what it would look like when they dropped it on the mountain. They knew what the result would be. How is that not intent? They didn't think they were creating art, but they did intend to create.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies The bottle makers made art. The bottles are not. They, however, did not bring them there with the intention to create anything. They didn't drop them on the mountain with any intention to create. They intended to litter. They didn't intend to bring forth creation from their act. Therefore, the discarded bottles are not art. The mountain is not art.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations How is intending to litter not an intention to create litter? Who are you to say that litter can't be an artistic medium?
As far as I can tell, you're agreeing with me and then insisting it doesn't count.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies Not at all. I didn't say litter can't be an artistic medium. It most certainly can. The climber's intention, in your example, however, was not to create. Sure, in some tertiary, thinly-related way, they intended to litter, and litter is sort of an abstract form of creation. So, if you really stretch the definition, and reason, you might fit it in there. But, it's quite different...
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies . The creation was simply an unavoidable byproduct of their intention to get rid of their O2 bottles. Their specific intention was not to bring anything into being - the fact that they did was inconsequential to them.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations It doesn't matter if it's a byproduct. It's still intentional creation. If byproducts don't count, then you need to revise your definition to exclude byproducts of a larger goal, But if you do that, you're still not off the hook, because climbing the mountain was a piece of performance art and leaving the bottles behind is part of the piece.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies Yes, it DOES matter if it's solely a byproduct or not. No revision is necessary. You're speaking of a creation that was the result of an act done with other, unrelated intentions in mind. That's just not the same thing as an intentional act of creation. The mountain climbers did not drop their bottles with the intentional purpose of creation in mind. The fact that they may have was of no consequence to them. Their purpose - their intent - their want - was not to create.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Okay, I'm understanding your definition as you intended a little better. I still think it needs to be worded a little better though. And I still think it's far too broad because then art is whatever it's declared to be.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations And you STILL haven't excluded Everest as a work of art, because the act of climbing it WAS their intent, it was a piece of performance art, and altering the mountain is part of the piece.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies No. That doesn't make the mountain a work of art. It may make it a component within a piece. The specific alterations may be seen as works of art - if the intention to create them was there as an act of creation and not simply as a by-product of some other intended act. But, the mountain itself is not. It was not the product of an intentional act of creation. Just because something may be involved in a work of art doesn't necessarily make it, itself, a work of art also.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations How do you distinguish between the part and the whole? Sorry, I know I said I was leaving, but I couldn't resist. Interesting question. Anyway, good night, and thanks.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
Just to address one other point you made, then I'll say Good night: Art can't be anything that it's declared to be. If I accidentally knock a glass of milk off the table, the broken glass and milk puddle is not art - even if I declare it to be. If I do declare such, I am mistaken, or lying. The fact that you ma not be able to tell if I'm mistaken or lying doesn't change that fact. Truth is not dependent on individual perceptions.
Ok, good night.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Anyway, I'm going to leave this conversation for now. It's been interesting. Feel free to message me if you want to continue.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
No, that wasn't their intention. They were aware of what the result would be. That's not the same thing. Their intention was not to bring forth creation. Their intention was to discard empty bottles that they no longer had a use for in order to lighten their load. If their was an easier way of doing that, they would have done it. They paid no mind to bringing forth any sort of creation - any creation that may have occurred was not intentional on their part.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations Sure it's the same thing. If I know what the concrete result of my actions will be and I perform those actions, that's intent to create. What you're saying is also true. They didn't care about their creation, their goal was simply to reach the top of the mountain. But that doesn't mean that they didn't intentionally create something.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies No, it's not. An awareness that a creation may, or will, be the result of a given act, is not the same thing as a specific intent to create. The latter requires a specific motivation that may, or may not, be present in the former.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations So art is a matter of motivation? Art is the result of an intention to create art? Then you're using "art" in its own definition.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies No. As I've already stated: Whether your intention is to create "art" or not is entirely irrelevant. If that is your intention, then fine. If not, then that's fine also. IF you carry out an act that results in creation - the bringing of something into being - AND that was your purpose - your intent - yes, your motivation - although it need not be your only, nor primary motivation - then you have created art.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies In short: If you say "I wish to create" Then take action intended to result in such creation, then you have created art.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
"Cutter"?
It's QATAR. "kuh-TAR". Not ""KUH-dur".
Seriously, TYT are great when it comes to domestic things, but they're illiterate as fuck about the outside world.
Anyway, it's a shame this Arab "artist" wasn't trying to make some political statement about Israel. Then it would have been justly funny instead of annoyingly stupid.
VictimOfBoredom 1 year ago
@VictimOfBoredom He's made plenty of political statements. Lots. As I have pointed out repeatedly in these comments. Do some research. And it IS "kuh-ter."
Hissyspit 1 year ago
I get the jist ot this shit. It's lame. Serves no real purpose. "Form follows function", not the other way around
Chris Burden is probably laughing his ass off at this 'artist'.
What a poser this guy is.
Committed... but still a poser.
DameunPutazo 1 year ago
I completely love you guys and gals. I love the random stories, thoughtful commentary, passionate defence of the truth.
My daughter would call you something like "EPIC WIN".
jonesaljones 1 year ago
Anna, you can totally get art and still think this whole thing is bonkers.
EdgarDirby 1 year ago
Comment removed
aznsketcher 1 year ago
@aznsketcher said: "I like art. I'm totally into cool shit. but planting a camera into your skull to make a point is kind of fucking stupid. that's just my opinion."
Well that's my opinion too. Sorry for the jibberish.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
best buy add so annoying
mrwooster1 1 year ago
I love how the turks say "right" so much.
FireRazor1 1 year ago
HaHa,,,,What a cornhole
voltar711 1 year ago
I knew his stupid "performance" was going to fail. And i'm glad he failed.... i'm sooo evil person :( E.P.I.C. F.A.I.L.!!!!!
Travmapunk 1 year ago
If this is art, then 2 girls 1 cup is a feminist dialectic on the relationship of women to pornography.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
I have another question: Who the hell does the procedure? Wackos,I say.
23AClark 1 year ago
@23AClark "Who the hell does the procedure? Wackos,I say." - Yep! Crazy, wacko, quack surgeons! I've even heard rumors that in some third world countries there are actually surgeons who will (for a substantial fee, of course) implant plastic bags full of saline into the breasts of women!?!?!? I've also heard (but I don't really believe it) that there are yet others who will inject botulinum toxin (one of the most lethal toxins known to man) directly into your face! Freakin' wackos!!!!
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@BloatedSensations I wouldn't put it past them. Many surgeons will do any procedure for money these days.
23AClark 1 year ago
FAIL
darkcoeficient 1 year ago
shoulda implanted on his forehead
AndNoted 1 year ago
That man was a fucking genius, its pretty sad that his attempt at true art failed. :(
Shadowlit001 1 year ago
this is why i think extreme art in this case proformas art is kind of douche
himanhiguy 1 year ago
Y'know what else was a performance? The Spider-Man Broadway show. And guess what? The actors fly 200 feet out into the audience and bust their asses on somebody. Both brilliant plans.
TheRobster94 1 year ago
lucky he isnt dead = epic fool
but then again there is nothing wrong with then trying a new experiment
but dman this is your health to take a picture
aylix89 1 year ago
kent stop trying to be funny
pentagramrises 1 year ago
He should've implanted a camera with the same blood type, his body probably wouldn't have rejected it.
grenadier33 1 year ago
Sew the camera onto a damn baseball cap? Yes; FAIL.
newmac 1 year ago
dumbass
brebre2sweet09 1 year ago
Shave the back of your haed and use surgical glue to glue it to your head and it will stay on for a couple weeks.
Mission accomplished.
Kettle17 1 year ago
Too bad. He could have gotten some good pics of me pantsing him and slipping him a mofakka.
GypsyMofakka 1 year ago
"I'm an artist'...Roughly translates to "I'm a douche, faggot, asshole, and prick".
Moneymyke357 1 year ago 2
"Faggot" Well, at least the artist is probably not a bigot.
Hissyspit 1 year ago
this guy is just an idiot...
and any one in the 'art scene' whos praising this guy for being a dumb idiot is a bigger idiot....
Fucking Andy Warhol wanna be dumb cunts, get over yourselves, ur not special
if art is human, and to express humanism, in whatever form you might think, then authenticity is important... be your art, not be contrived
*face palm*
Poisonfrogg 1 year ago
Anna has turned into a poor man's Cenk
Nightmareske 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
MrRaven92 1 year ago
Who does he think he is...A Borg!?
12235117657598502586 1 year ago
Thumb up if TYT needs to go HD.
fishingwithrod 1 year ago
every single day i'm amazed at the complete and utter moronic nature of humanity
Umberto2 1 year ago
A TYT video with no ads? Amazing!
gggrow 1 year ago
1:21 No one is laughing at your lame joke except the other newscaster, but she is being paid.
TheApolloXI 1 year ago
was there no real news to report today?
gimemde 1 year ago
was there no real news to report today?
gimemde 1 year ago
Second: Yay! Ana doesn't sound like a complete and total moron on this show! Yay! for Ana! she is only 25% stupid this time@
hevyAccel 1 year ago
Art = stupid shit that dumb ass people like to say is anything other than garbage. Good to look at? Great! Pile of worthless shit; Art!
hevyAccel 1 year ago 3
@hevyAccel Nice stereotypes and bigotry there.
Hissyspit 1 year ago
Comment removed
hevyAccel 1 year ago
@GJNCA You didn't get that my post was a parody. I guess I didn't make it obvious enough.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
im an artist and this is just dumb.......
SpazticCookies 1 year ago
This is exactly what I hate about artistic performance. When the artist feels the need too provoke a reaction by harming himself or herself. Reminds me of kids that would do anything to draw attention.
frepi 1 year ago 29
@frepi Pay attention to me or I'll hold my breath until I pass out! I'll do it! LOL!
SwampThizzle 1 year ago
@frepi Unfortunately that is how modern art works these days.. No one is gonna pay u good money to strap a webcam to ur head.. now implanting spikes to mount it on.. that's edgy.. I'm sure people are gonna replace prosthetic eyes with 24/7 webcam soon..
ddnguyen278 1 year ago
@frepi "not being able to create art / they will not understand art / they will consider their failure as creators /
only as a failure of the world / ... / and then they will hate you / and their hatred will be perfect / like a shining diamond / like a knife / like a mountain / like a tiger / like hemlock / their finest art" ~Bukowski (The genius of the crowd)
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
@frepi Yeah, I heard that a lot growing up. Lemme explain: The pencils represent militant consumerism and my nostrils represent the vapid soul of the consumer.
EdgarDirby 1 year ago
"I like art so I am going to drill a ridiculous fucking camera into the back of my head."
TheLostDemocracy 1 year ago
I agree with the guy believe it or not. No, it's not smart, but the point is it's FUCKING REAL. If it was strapped on, it would get the same result, but it wouldn't be as fuckin' real
carygoleman 1 year ago
@carygoleman
what's the difference? ...the pictures are real
would it be more real if he implanted it on his ass?
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
if the point was to have pictures from a camera implanted in your ass yes.
he could have got the same pictures from a strapped camera, but the point was to have it implanted. if it's not planted it's no point because it's just pics from a strapped camera.
carygoleman 1 year ago
@carygoleman
so implanting it on his head makes it more artistic than super glue or duct tape?
wtf? I really don't see the logic in that.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
uh, no. if the point was to have a camera superglued to your head, and he did it, then it would be just as artistic. but because the point is to get photos from a camera that is surgically implanted, that's what he's doing.
something is only "artistic" if its sincere. doing something with one media is not "more artistic" than any other, what makes it artistic is the fact that its real. he wanted photos from a camera implanted inside his head. ergo, a camera strapped on is not the same.
carygoleman 1 year ago
@carygoleman
"he wanted photos from a camera implanted inside his head. ergo, a camera strapped on is not the same"
how does that make it more artistic if the result is the same?
it's completely unnecessary...same location on head...same pictures taken...no stupidity required
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef
Right, except the photos weren't made the same way.
You can take a photo of Mount Everest, or you can digitally create the exact same photo, but one is real and one is not. Why not? They're the exact same picture.
carygoleman 1 year ago
@carygoleman
but how can you tell? ..the same quality of art is present if you can't even tell the difference between two works of art.
Abgef 1 year ago
@GJNCA No no no, you just don't get it. The pain and discomfort and inconvenience is PART of the art! You're obviously too ignorant of art and art history to understand that it's a profound statement about... something.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies
so the more discomfort...the more artistic?
why don't he just mutilate himself? ..what a bunch of weirdo sadist artists must be
Abgef 1 year ago
that looks fuckin painful.
Uzurr69 1 year ago
as an art project a camera in the back of your head sounds pretty interesting, implanting it is just pointlessly attention-whoring it up, just glue it to your hair and then shave it off and wear a bald spot for a few weeks and enjoy the conversation piece
random0815 1 year ago
Anybody who does this must have a hole in their head! Oh, wait...
MrCallipygous 1 year ago
You think he'd be getting this coverage if he just 'put it on a hat'? Implanting it was the only way he could get the publicity.
relic1076 1 year ago
Who helped him do this? Seriously.
ABC132Acd 1 year ago
Ass-Cam 101
Perhaps professor attention-whore may consider mounting the camera up his asshole next time, he may even discover where his mind is located.
LookingGlassStudio 1 year ago
@LookingGlassStudio Ha, ha! An ass camera joke! No one in this comments section has made an ass camera joke yet! That didn't occur to ANYONE else!
Hissyspit 1 year ago
What sort of doctor agrees to do this sort of procedure on a human being? Didnt alarm bells ring when the patient asked for camera to be implanted in the back of his head?
whome2473 1 year ago
@whome2473 bingo
Uzurr69 1 year ago
Epic fail.
!
Domzdream 1 year ago
Epic fail.
What a dunce!
Domzdream 1 year ago
'Fail' isn't enough - I believe the word 'Epic' is also required.
Elite1991 1 year ago
that idiot should try implanting a brain in his head
TigerIPanzer 1 year ago
Hold up, Steroids and electronic?
He's the terminator.
elviolette 1 year ago
It's EPIC FAIL....get it right lol
MLadyAzzera 1 year ago
I consider myself quite an artsy guy but this - c'mon wtf?
just as Ana said it's totally pretentious and has absolutely nothing to do with art itself...well except for the guy himself who would be considered some kind of freak with an in-head camera then. but who cares about whether those pictures were actually taken from the inside or just the back of one's head??
gosh dude, you gotta work on expression & creativity!
Mazblues 1 year ago
As someone who loves art I can understand his commitment. It is in my opinion not worth it but I have sacrificed my body for art before so this is nothing new. Many people put their art before their lives. It doesn't make them crazy.
MistahhB 1 year ago
lets be honest, he simply didnt think of strapping it around his head or his neck, so he tried to hide this stupidity by saying all that performance crap
alexlati1 1 year ago 46
this is really crazy !!
MsNirvana777 1 year ago
"Fail"? Iw ould call this "dumbassery".
4turrold5 1 year ago
he had to put something in his head
vveeded 1 year ago
The whole 'FAIL' thing is so often what people who CAN'T DO, say. Eg, "you didn't get a gold medal at the Olympics! FAIL!"
Yeah, good to know Mr. and Mrs. Television Grazer.
This guy failed to do what he sought to do, but is he a failure? No. WHEN did failure become a CRIME? By the logic of the 'FAIL' crowd, not a single great acheivement will ever be possible again. "Get it perfect the first time, or you FAIL!" Well it's no wonder that so many of these people ARE just TV grazers.
UberNoodleX 1 year ago
Comment removed
DancingFrankenstein 1 year ago
@UberNoodleX You're taking it too literally. "FAIL" is an expression used to criticize something really stupid that someone did which backfired. It's not about just making fun of people for failing at anything they tried to accomplish.
DancingFrankenstein 1 year ago
@DancingFrankenstein The distinction is very vague.
UberNoodleX 1 year ago
@UberNoodleX No, it's not "very vague" the difference between a legitimate goal and something as incredibly stupid and crazy as implanting a camera into your skull. The expression "FAIL" is being used here to make fun of the insanely dumb and disastrous thing that this man attempted. They're not saying "FAIL" just because they simply think the idea of failing is funny.
DancingFrankenstein 1 year ago
@UberNoodleX
I'm with Frankenstein here. It's the backfiring that defines a 'FAIL'. Simply being disappointed that you didn't succeed isn't a FAIL, and trying to do something worthwhile and being unsuccessful isn't a FAIL.
Obviously, this isn't always adhered to, but what is? A skilled and experienced builder could build their own house, but if someone with none of that decided they'd give it a go and put all the doors in backwards, that'd be a fail cause they were dumb for even trying.
ViolentRiC 1 year ago
@ViolentRiC Exactly, the failure is in the type of utterly senseless thing this man chose to do, not just that he couldn't accomplish it.
DancingFrankenstein 1 year ago
wtf
pjstns 1 year ago
The guy has mental problems.
Viktir666 1 year ago
@Viktir666 prolly caused by the damage from the camera implants
dashil 1 year ago
not a single paper thrown or spitball launched since he's had it on, the guy's a genius :)
eujeeves 1 year ago
This is art about as much as someone smearing human shit on a canvas. Not buying it, both literally and figuratively.
Roeshamboe05 1 year ago
@Roeshamboe05
how dare you!
someone smearing shit is more artistic than this!
Abgef 1 year ago
a LITTLE pretentious? Who are the fools who did this surgery? He never heard of crazy glue? duct tape? Someone get this fool a paintbrush.
MissNophi2U 1 year ago
He should put the camera all the way in his head, obviously he has plenty of room inside that skull.
FriskyMeerkat 1 year ago
Well, after watching this, I've changed my mind about wanting implanting a vibrating dildo on my forehead.
AnotherPervyWanker 1 year ago
This pretentious moron camera-head guy is so much epic fail. And I agree: the late butt injection sheboon was also a laugh riot. ROFL.
SwampThizzle 1 year ago
As someone who has actually been in the art scene... It's stupid and he's just BSing, there's no real artistic reason to do this.
Scardy 1 year ago
@Scardy The resultant visualizations relating to human/technology implants would be unique. Reason enough. How effective or valuable or interesting would they be, well, that's up to subjective debate, but, no, you're wrong.
Hissyspit 1 year ago
@Hissyspit Well, if it's purely subjective, then there's no wrong or right answer, is there?
Scardy 1 year ago
@Scardy Somebody so in tune with the art scene wouldn't say what you just did. To act as a gatekeeper on what defines 'proper art' is the most pretentious thing one could do.
UberNoodleX 1 year ago
@UberNoodleX I'm not acting as gatekeeper, I'm telling the truth. A great deal of selling the idea of high art is one's ability to bs. Maybe I said it wrong, nut there's a huge streak of this sort of thing where genuine substance and honest effort are pushed aside and excused by pinning some incomprehensible justification to it.
Scardy 1 year ago
Can he sleep on his back?
frostseasons 1 year ago
Yawn.
bobbytiger 1 year ago
The obvious place for a camera would be in your mouth -- that way, you could use the film on your teeth.
WolverineDeus 1 year ago
I wanna meet the person who said "okay, i'll try an install the camera"
vladster7272 1 year ago
Epic Fail.
johncrab67 1 year ago
That sounds like a retarded idea in general... what the hell is it supposed to prove?
JunkCCCP 1 year ago
It's strange he didn't implant a wireless camera if he's willing to die for his art. The protruding cord running down his neck ruins the Borg Collective symmetry and is slightly unsightly.
frededison 1 year ago
I knew a guy who was suffering from cancer and had to stay in for a while, as he was getting treatment. Because of this he did some odd things to pass the time, one of them was to recreate the state of California in a Sim City game. This past time helped him endure his ordeal but he did not consider that state replica to be art. When he recovered he erased it.
ccricers 1 year ago