@OscarBaldwin If you are serious, I have explained it further on a philosophy forum, here:" Philosophy Forum (PCF) Philosophy Chat & Forums for discussion...", and in the philosophy/art forum, under the title: "What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation." They welcome new members on the forum. If you can't find it, let me know.
@wiwq for the first time, and experienced a simple dopamine biochemical induction, and blindly believed they were experiencing genius. Because, when they regressed back to point time zero they could actually 'know' absolutely 'nothing': just like a child. There is NO SUCH THING as a 2-dimensional Cubist thing in reality. This same concept also explains all of 'modern, art: show a picture of some never before seen 'thing,' experience a dopamine induction, and attempt to define it as 'genius.'
@wiwq experience a regression back to point time zero: the point of birth, and can only function as young children. Children cannot understand reality, and can 'know' nothing. Children - and all people, can experience a dopamine biochemical induction every time they 'see' something they have never seen before. For hundreds of years, the aristocracy experienced this regression back to point time zero. So, along came Picasso with his never before seen Cubist things. The aristocray 'saw' them...
@wiwq I don't mean to be argumentative, but Picasso wasn't special either, he was lucky. Unfortunately, his place in history isn't a reflection of any achievement, but a degradation, which has become scientifically verified. It is mankind's ability to process sensory input information, and/or cognize space. And which is a developed capability that can become degraded. It is a capability for the cognitive function of music, and 4-dimensional reality. When the ability becomes degraded, humans...
@wiwq There simply is no such thing as a 2-dimensional Cubist thing anywhere in 4-dimensional reality. Therefore, by simple deduction, Picasso wasn't a genius, he was an opportunist at best, as he took advantage of the gullibility of some of the weakest minds in the world: the aristocracy, and Gertrude Stein in particular. If it wasn't for Stein's shameless self aggrandizing, and self-promotion, there would have never been a Picasso.
....i agree, we need more paintings of nice sunsets and airbrushed renderings of american diners...i mean, what has a dirty bed got to do with reflecting reality? art shouldn't challenge us, or mystify us, anyone knows that. it's just supposed to sit there and look nice......
I made modern art when I was five years old. Then I grew up.
otrootroyo 1 week ago
Those 2 big towers in the background are "post-modern art" ?
TypoChamp 2 months ago in playlist Matthew Collings This Is Modern Art
@OscarBaldwin If you are serious, I have explained it further on a philosophy forum, here:" Philosophy Forum (PCF) Philosophy Chat & Forums for discussion...", and in the philosophy/art forum, under the title: "What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation." They welcome new members on the forum. If you can't find it, let me know.
MrMikeludo 3 months ago
@MrMikeludo I copied those comments to a workd document and saved them, interesting stuff. Where can I learn more about this stuff?
OscarBaldwin 3 months ago
@wiwq for the first time, and experienced a simple dopamine biochemical induction, and blindly believed they were experiencing genius. Because, when they regressed back to point time zero they could actually 'know' absolutely 'nothing': just like a child. There is NO SUCH THING as a 2-dimensional Cubist thing in reality. This same concept also explains all of 'modern, art: show a picture of some never before seen 'thing,' experience a dopamine induction, and attempt to define it as 'genius.'
MrMikeludo 5 months ago
@wiwq experience a regression back to point time zero: the point of birth, and can only function as young children. Children cannot understand reality, and can 'know' nothing. Children - and all people, can experience a dopamine biochemical induction every time they 'see' something they have never seen before. For hundreds of years, the aristocracy experienced this regression back to point time zero. So, along came Picasso with his never before seen Cubist things. The aristocray 'saw' them...
MrMikeludo 5 months ago
@wiwq I don't mean to be argumentative, but Picasso wasn't special either, he was lucky. Unfortunately, his place in history isn't a reflection of any achievement, but a degradation, which has become scientifically verified. It is mankind's ability to process sensory input information, and/or cognize space. And which is a developed capability that can become degraded. It is a capability for the cognitive function of music, and 4-dimensional reality. When the ability becomes degraded, humans...
MrMikeludo 5 months ago
@MrMikeludo as u say to these weak minded people picasso is still the synonyme of modern art..
u might thinks he was not genius..but u have to admit he was special..because history doesnt remember ordinary simpletons..
personally for me Goya was the true father of modern art..
wiwq 5 months ago
@wiwq There simply is no such thing as a 2-dimensional Cubist thing anywhere in 4-dimensional reality. Therefore, by simple deduction, Picasso wasn't a genius, he was an opportunist at best, as he took advantage of the gullibility of some of the weakest minds in the world: the aristocracy, and Gertrude Stein in particular. If it wasn't for Stein's shameless self aggrandizing, and self-promotion, there would have never been a Picasso.
MrMikeludo 5 months ago
....i agree, we need more paintings of nice sunsets and airbrushed renderings of american diners...i mean, what has a dirty bed got to do with reflecting reality? art shouldn't challenge us, or mystify us, anyone knows that. it's just supposed to sit there and look nice......
5inkrat 6 months ago