Comments on: Art through geek-colored glasses

By: Bloix

Bloix — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:47:13 +0000

My goodness there are some cranky people out there. Don’t you understand that when you lash out at this stuff you’re lashing out at Eszter? She’s the only one here. They’re just jokes, they’re not an insidious attack on the greatness of Western Civilization for Chrissake. Either laugh with those of us who think they’re funny or move along politely and dump your meanness somewhere else.

By: Eszter

Eszter — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:29:20 +0000

mq & mg – I said “one or more of the following”, which includes the possibility that it’s only #3 so I don’t see why you deem it necessary to address #1 or #2.

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:39:03 +0000

you don’t get the original art
you don’t get the geeky aspect added

Well no, I get it, I just think it’s phony, rote application of memes though up by cleverer people. As mg said, the art itself is not obscure, nor are the jokes.

“Ha-ha, let’s translate the message of these artworks into geek language”

Hi-frikking-larious.

By: Eszter

Eszter — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:40:08 +0000

Thanks, Jacob. Paul mentions that the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra had reprinted them on its Web site without credit. I found them there.

By: Jacob Christensen

Jacob Christensen — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:59:57 +0000

Explanation here: “Paul the Wine Guy: I’m not having fun anymore” (http://www.paulthewineguy.com/post/24858699)

No idea why I can’t write a proper link :-(

By: M. Gordon

M. Gordon — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:21:54 +0000

Same. It appears to have been made private.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:06:39 +0000

Strange…I received a message that I did not have permission to view the page. (And yes, I do have a Flickr account…)

By: Norikazu

Norikazu — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:10:55 +0000

It looks like the set is not available anymore. A post on Paul the Wine Guy’s weblog explains that he has taken all the images offline.

http://www.paulthewineguy.com/post/24858699

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:50:39 +0000

Some of them I didn’t get (I’m not geeky enough), some of them I didn’t think were funny, but one or two did indeed make me LOL.

Y’know, if you don’t like them, you’re not obliged to laugh.

By: novakant

novakant — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:13:15 +0000

Photoshop has a lot to answer for.

Yeah, so. does MS Word, lol.

But I agree that this stuff is pretty lame.

By: mq

mq — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:19:39 +0000

sorry, I’m irritable tonight for other reasons.

By: mq

mq — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:18:45 +0000

you don’t get the original art
you don’t get the geeky aspect added

Neither of these seem very possible, since the art is the old warhorses that anyone with the slightest knowledge of art history will “get” (what does it mean to “get” a piece of art anyway), and the jokes are for the most part crushingly obvious as well. How about, you just don’t think it’s very witty.

By: pacing on a hypen

pacing on a hypen — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:06:33 +0000

Okay, I’m with eszter: some did elicit a slight audible chuckle; however, it was directed more towards the people who can even look at one piece of art history and make such asinine associations let alone such a conglomeration.
I can’t help but wonder if the person who made this has any knowledge of art history at all.

By: andrew

andrew — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:27:54 +0000

Very funny, thanks for the link.

By: GreatZamfir

GreatZamfir — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:37:17 +0000

Brilliant. This is going to haunt museum visits for a long to time to come.

As for the people who appeared annoyed: it might be wise to see most of them as comment on the internet culture, not the original art.

On the other hand, the flash-movie dog might well be exactly what the Futurists were aspiring to.