Or maybe I'm just used to dealing with a small minded peanut gallery stuffed on sour grapes. You know the sort, the ones that reduce discussions to ad hominem attacks in order to avoid confronting anything out of their normal purview.
But back to aesthetics. If an important aspect of art is social commentary, why not the helicopter cat? Is it really that different from a meat dress? The comments on the video are interesting, being a mix of complimentary and antagonistic. Were the artists aiming to give people who hate art a reason to do so? Or is it a case of artists working in one micro-culture doing something they thought creative only to find it they've transgressed boundaries of the wider culture? Should they care, if they are happy with their work? I also think Joseph's question "Why does stuff like that appear on Yahoo?" pretty relevant; it leads to questions of how various media probe the limits of acceptability in the continual search for markets. Cheers; Chris On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris writes: > " LOL. I don't know how you derived the insinuation part, and I can > assure you I make no assumptions about comparable dimensions. That's > all part of some context you are creating in yourself and ascribing to > me." > > If you don't see that your following line suggests that being upset over > such things is an unprecedented reaction, you're not strong at perceiving how > your words are going to be processed in your audience > >> Now someone turns a dead cat into a flying >> >> machine, and folks get upset.
