Indeed - The Lord bless and keep you!
I always take pleasure in constructing my artwork. Not only does it act as an uplifting form of spiritual escapism, but it also serves as an enlightening intellectual exercise. I’m grateful that others have the opportunity to admire my compositions, as they so deliciously and exquisitely portray the many perplexing elements of the human condition.
Bob Roast: I firstly would like to acknowledge your beautiful artwork pieces in the past. I am a big fan and have learned many things through my liberal arts training in middle school. And today I think your Pacha - Deuce infusion meme was very well crafted (I myself enjoy these kind of allusions). Your extra detail of the political satire of the Komrades, Brazilians, and Admins really finalized and melded this together.
However, I have a complaint. And it’s that this masterwork is actually a form of evil propaganda and encourages violence. While I agree that your art is a great showcase of the human condition, I would feel that it should be expressed in a way that doesn’t negatively affect involuntary bystanders like you have shown. Also, I feel that the connection from your background controlled demolition to the human condition is merely intellectual pablum. This was otherwise useless.
But If I must speak with candor, if I could buy this at the dollar store I probably would. Very well done.
huh using gifs instead of words is fun
Floodbox: It’s disappointing that you’ve once again undermined and interrupted my conversation with my Bob Ross. I welcome anyone to say what they need to; I am not a fan of censorship. However, it’s not my responsibility to educate or make sure one knows the content they are submerging themselves in. As you are not the audience, it is also not my responsibility to fit the diction with your specific level (I can’t simply give you the lexicon needed to comprehend and partake in critical inquiry (even though it’s hardly debatable)). However, there is also some very important contexts you are missing, and that’s not your fault at all. There are just too many implications in there for you to possibly even concern yourself with the quality of the content.
emasA: He’s just asking what was the actual purpose of your message, because it seems that he didn’t understand it.
yeah… It’s like the internet… Seriously fucking get used to it. Interrupting, undermining, shitposting, etc etc. I seriously thought I wouldn’t have to explain this to you.
now, to cut to the chase without sarcasm needed here, I’ll explain a bit of what I meant:
However, I have a complaint. And it's that this masterwork is actually a form of evil propaganda and encourages violence. While I agree that your art is a great showcase of the human condition, I would feel that it should be expressed in a way that doesn't negatively affect involuntary bystanders like you have shown. Also, I feel that the connection from your background controlled demolition to the human condition is merely intellectual pablum. This was otherwise useless.This is what I put the gif at. This is what makes no sense to me. (Unless you're joking, then that's fine and I'll drop it right here and right now :) )You're complaining that this picture is a bad role model to players. Seriously? Porn, is useless, porn is something that you should be debating about getting rid of, yet, no, you complain that this picture "is actually a form of evil propaganda", instead. Sorry but on the internet, and I really mean NO offense to you when saying this, does not allow shit like a first world complaint like that.
Bloodhoax: How is something so fundamental to us as humans, porn and sex, offensive and in need of censorship? You’ll find that in American society, content with sex already gets labeled for higher maturity than violence. If you have seen the documentary This Film Not Yet Rated (which I doubt given your current disposition) it shows exactly how the MPAA ratings give harsher criticism to sexual content than violent ones. Violence on the other hand, while arguably fundamental to humans as well, is something NOT desired or good for anyone. If you’ve seen the film or experienced Idiocracy you’ll see just how bad casual slapstick humor will end up controlling our society.
As for your casual dismissal of nearly everything as justified by “The Internet” I fear you are terribly in the wrong state of mind. I’m not censoring him at all, or wish for him to take it down. And like I said, this was a conversation, something you might not have been exposed to yet on the web, between me and Bob Gross. You continue to prove your inadequacy in basic sociable communication each time I read your posts, probably a product of mindless submissiveness to those who attack you on the web, as seen many times on Buildandshoot.
Oh, and goodness gracious me. I was of course initially concerned about the sort of chat that would accumulate here - but this extends far beyond anything I could have possibly imagined. What sort of blasphemous bickering is this, people? What kind of shameless snobbery? Ten thousand thundering typhoons.
Is nothing holy?
It appears every person here has no appreciation for the true purpose of my artistry. I had intended for this to be a place of peace - a place to mindfully revere in the humbling presence of such a compellingly dank Pacha edit. Instead, this has become a destructive war over who can claim the superior obnoxiousness, anti-intellectualism and hatred. Yet the scariest thing about observing such childish behavior is that I am now regretfully compelled to engage in it myself. I fear there are multiple points I shall have to address.
For you, my dear but misguided Bloodfox - what do you have to say for yourself, posting such a crude and petty excuse for a “meme” in this thread of fine art?
If you went to the Louvre, would you nail a tasteless canvas of scribbles beside the Mona Lisa? Or shall we put a cement bust - depicting the amount of thought you seem to put into your speech - beside a statue of the Thinker? And last but not least, why don’t we all insult the scientific community by redefining the picometre, by using a length of reference as crude as that of which corresponds to the size of your… let’s say, fingers.
Now, who’s next? Oh, of course - another clown, but of a different sort: Asame (Is that pronounced “Ass-ham”)?
What is the purpose of this convoluted and exhausting rhetoric? Is it an attempt to intimidate? To artificially elevate yourself? To impress? Does it give you some sort of twisted masochistic pleasure? Yet the answer to my question is immaterial. All that matters is that your speech is trivial, transparent and trifling. Only the biggest of buffoons use such a style! But I won’t dwell on details. I appreciate that somebody can enjoy the important subtleties of my most recent work of art. It can be purchased in one of my many locations for exactly 34091 Laos Kips.
But Asame - you think my choice of background is useless? What if I say that I’m here now, arguing that it is useful? My argument is that my argument exists, so in the interests of arguing, my background is certainly useful.
Thus, I am left with one more point to address: violence. I need nothing more but a simple quote to address this point. Who said the quote? You can take the initiative to find that out yourself, but you already know who said it - you just think you don’t. “Put light against light - you have nothing. Put dark against dark - you have nothing. It’s the contrast of light and dark that each give the other one meaning.”
I hope you’ve all learned your lessons, gentlemen. The fiery and passionate rage of an angry artist is great, and not to be tampered with. Please, let my dialectical tour de force be an opportunity for you to improve yourselves, and for you to see your erroneous ways from my enlightened perspective. Now, if you will, I must return to my brush and pallet.
Bob Rots: It offends truth to call me a clown, or at least perverts it given the speaker (yourself). But of course I will yield all credibility to you, my liberal arts idol, Bob Ross. Unfortunately, your work with rhetoric only applies to symbolic art; your verbal communication falls flat of meaning (or, better put, falls flat of sincerity). “Convoluted, exhausting rhetoric”. If anyone had that in this thread, it would be Bloodfox with his extraneous commas attempting to imitate oral speech (of course this is annoying too). Also, I would sure hope my speech is transparent and clear, unlike a certain meme of mirrors you may know of (you). What kind of Laotian person would use such a meme such as 34090.91 Laos Kips? Hardly a single one - none.
As for your argument, I applaud the brevity given ubiquitous amounts of fillers and rhetorical, nonuseful questions in your essay.
However, your argument still begs the question: If inclusion of violence is justified by the juxtaposition or contrast of life (implied by your argument, but I am willing to accept I was wrong in assuming what your contrasting element is), then where is that in your current work? All one can see is violence and violence contrasting each other, referencing dark and dark. Pacha-Deuce, who we will call Deucha, while the paragon of dankness, symbolizes the acceptance of trickery, shenanigans, and violence.
Yet me oh my - doesn’t this set a very concerning precedent for this heated debate. Shall we just have the ability to evaporate one another’s questions in such a willy-nilly fashion, under the subjective excuses of insincerity and non-usefulness? Let me assure you that not a single question I posed was insincere - on the contrary, these questions were substantial, challenging, and important. I fear that you’ve simply discarded them as a petty cop-out. Should I start doing the same? I could.
But not every argument should just be evaporated, of course - others ought to be sucked up by these gears of hatred & cowardice I’ve spoken of, and deflected onto others, such as Bloodfox. For shame.
No, no, no, no. Your interpretation of my quotation is correct, don’t worry about that. Your application of this interpretation, is of course, incorrect. Our good friend, the so called “Deucha”, is exactly the brightness that you fail to see (or at least, interpret as a dark and evil entity). Deucha is a jovial & well meaning man. He doesn’t play to win - he doesn’t play to stomp on the faces of his enemies - he plays a different game. Deucha is a man of tomfoolery & well-intended mischief. Many a viewer of my works would perceive him as the beacon of brightness in the black storm. And here, obviously, is where we hit the bump in the road.
Are these shenanigans, as you would say, bright, or dark? This isn’t a trivial question - but it’s very important. You could see that this problem originates from our own lack of comprehension for what these words really mean. We could continue to debate about how “dark” or “bright”, these actions are, of course. But it would be meaningless - we don’t even know what we’re talking about. I fear that in order to rigorously and meaningfully proceed, these concepts of “good” and “evil” need a formal definition - but good luck with that - it’s probably impossible.
Nice work, Bob Ross. That art made me laugh and I know that feeling.
I’m an artist, as well.
Keep up the good work, bro.
Thank you thoroughly, my charitable chap.
It soothes my soul to see your appreciation for artistry, and with such energetic enthusiasm as you show here!
The clock ticks; we progress, through this dark and dull dream. But keep fighting! There’s still hope, in the ludicrous meme.