[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 414070)
File  []
>> No. 414070 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 7:39 am
414070 Christmas 2017
It's the first of December. It's that time of year again.

Open your advent calendar chocolates, listen to Andrew, put up your tree at the weekend, put off the present shopping for at least a fortnight, surviving the Christmas party at work, watching shit on telly.

You know the drill by now, lads.
257 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 414685 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 2:05 am
414685 spacer

If you get a decent full English, the beans have been kept warm for a bit and the sauce has thickened. If you just nuke your beans for three minutes, you end up with a massive puddle of bean juice. You've got to maintain the structural integrity of your toast.
>> No. 414686 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 2:42 am
414686 spacer
>You've got to maintain the structural integrity of your toast.

I definitely appreciate your reassurance on this point but the bean juice is part of the meal. I am not suggesting that one "nukes" (I hesitate to use the word, microwave) the beans, but that one warms them gently, while stirring. Five minutes would be too much - the beans must also retain their integrity.
>> No. 414693 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 8:58 am
414693 spacer

If you get an 'all day breakfast' sandwich from Boots then the white bread has gone orange as it been flavoured with baked bean sauce.
>> No. 414712 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 1:34 pm
414712 spacer
Never eaten a Boots sandwich. Not sure why.
>> No. 414715 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 1:44 pm
414715 spacer
They're a bit chewy
>> No. 414716 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 2:05 pm
414716 spacer
Food in Boots never looks that attractive, always seems like an afterthought.
>> No. 414717 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 2:11 pm
414717 spacer

>> No. 414722 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 2:57 pm
414722 spacer
Would absolutely nosh that off a suitably sized plate.
>> No. 414725 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 3:06 pm
414725 spacer


I knew I shouldn't have tried to out-google you - I have now inadvertently found this, clearly A Thing.
>> No. 414726 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 3:09 pm
414726 spacer
I'm relieved that's just food. I advise you not to keep looking for boot crush material because it gets progressively worse.
>> No. 414730 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 3:30 pm
414730 spacer
>it gets progressively worse

Nothing surprises me anymore, I knew that the minute the video started.
>> No. 414732 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 3:44 pm
414732 spacer
There's a video on eFukt where a woman in heels stands on an erect cock. It pops and you see the blood pouring out whilst the penis deflates.
>> No. 414745 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 5:27 pm
414745 spacer
I remember one doing the rounds a few years back of an oriental woman crushing an animal's head, either a cat or a rabbit (might have been both). That was grim to watch.
>> No. 414748 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 7:21 pm
414748 spacer

I don't find it arousing honest, but I do love the imagery of boot crush fetishism. Not that food one, I decided to actually watch it and it was fucking rank. Food's not sexy at all.


This uses some boot crush imagery very effectively in my opinion.
>> No. 414750 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 7:29 pm
414750 spacer

That remix is bobbins.

Side note: I would totally let GFOTY ruin my life.

>> No. 414756 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 9:38 pm
414756 spacer
Wahey! Happy New Year lads and ladettes! Well surely it can't get much worse anyway.
>> No. 414759 Anonymous
31st December 2017
Sunday 10:13 pm
414759 spacer

>surely it can't get much worse

Famous last words. Personally, I'm quite looking forward to armageddon.
>> No. 414780 Anonymous
1st January 2018
Monday 8:54 am
414780 spacer
I'm feeling much better after my massive hangover shit.
>> No. 414781 Anonymous
1st January 2018
Monday 9:49 am
414781 spacer
Every day.
>> No. 415093 Anonymous
20th January 2018
Saturday 2:25 pm
415093 spacer
GFOTY is uncanny in her ability to create the audio equivalent of a horrendous car crash. It's terrible, horrible, scarring but impossible to look away from. Like a train wreck in motion. Utter brilliance.

>> No. 415094 Anonymous
20th January 2018
Saturday 3:13 pm
415094 spacer

What are we using as the weekend thread at the minute?
>> No. 415096 Anonymous
20th January 2018
Saturday 5:29 pm
415096 spacer
That is so odd. It seems to be just a series of hooks strung together with no relation to each other. I can't believe my brain isn't offended.

It is like a series of interesting but under developed ideas. that spark intregue but never resolves. It is musical schizophrenic word salad.

Like if you read a book where every sentance introduces in a new concept. It reminds me of "welcome to night vale" and "Blue Jam" in presentation.
>> No. 415097 Anonymous
20th January 2018
Saturday 5:57 pm
415097 spacer

I was thinking similar. It sounds shite, but, deliberately so. She planned it to sound shite. Even more convincingly than most Noise genres.

Who is listening to this in earnest?
>> No. 415145 Anonymous
22nd January 2018
Monday 11:47 pm
415145 spacer

Deliberately shite is still shite lads. I don't detect any specific satire there, so I can only conclude that it's just shite. High brow shite perhaps, but shite nonetheless. Shite.

Like those naff late 90s abstract visual artists where it would just be a canvas with a few stripes on them. We can't go giving things a pass because they intended it to be shite and, remarkably, succeeded in being shite.
>> No. 415147 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 12:59 am
415147 spacer

It's not even a new thing. Here's a piece from Carl Andre's Equivalent series, assembled from fire bricks and potentially worth millions. Or it might just be an ordinary pallet of fire bricks, worth a few hundred. I'm not telling you which.
>> No. 415150 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 2:40 am
415150 spacer

>assembled from fire bricks and potentially worth millions

That's the thing I don't understand about art like this. It kind of seems like a giant piss take. Why would these particular fire bricks on a pallet be worth millions, just because some lazy fuck arranged them that way and calls it art?

I have great appreciation for painters, as well as graphic artists or art photographers and the like. Some very considerable skill and substantial amounts of time can go into creating a piece of art that way.

But an assortment of bricks on a pallet?

We are doomed as a species, I tell you.
>> No. 415151 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 6:15 am
415151 spacer
That's the point. Artists have been doing this since Marcel Duchamp and earlier. It's to question the nature of art and whether anything can be considered art.

How do you define art? Is it something designed to elicit a reaction? Well this got one out of you, didn't it?
>> No. 415152 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 8:21 am
415152 spacer

You also have to remember that just because it's art doesn't mean it can't also be crap. A sculpture has as much right as any art form, whether it's a dance, music or a computer game, to be one big pile of shit.
>> No. 415155 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 8:48 am
415155 spacer

Agreed, but typically if a performance, album, or game is a massive pile of shite, fewer people pay the relatively small amount of money to experience it, let alone buy the work for a couple of million.
>> No. 415156 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 10:29 am
415156 spacer
Not him but if some shyster sells a pile of bricks to a pretentious prick with more money than sense then who is the victim here? It's not like he's misled the buyer into what he is physically getting or forcing him to do micro-transactions to enjoy it.

"Oh it makes me look the very height of culture and will surely prove a profitable investment" Phillip Green chuckles to himself as he places the jar of shit on his mantelpiece completely unaware that it is he who gives the work it's significance.
>> No. 415157 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 11:08 am
415157 spacer

I'm not saying anyone's a victim, not at all. I don't believe anyone's being hoodwinked into buying a pile of bricks, they know very well they're buying <famous artists> pile of bricks.

I just can't believe, for my own sanity, that people study and collect this sort of work for anything other than cynical speculation, or appearances.

Maybe it's just a mixture of envy of that much wealth, or a fear I'm missing out on the true meaning of something like this, or maybe it's the cynic in me who knows you can sell a bit of pork belly and some raspberry jam for ninety quid a plate if you know what you're doing.
>> No. 415158 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 2:06 pm
415158 spacer
>Why would these particular fire bricks on a pallet be worth millions

Blame the super-rich.

It is worth millions only because two people would pay millions for it. One off art is auctioned and therefore valued at a price slightly more that than the amount the person who wants it the 2nd most is willing to pay. If those people died tomorrow and no one else cared it would be valued at the most someone is willing to pay for those materials.
>> No. 415160 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 3:02 pm
415160 spacer

It's the speculation bubble of recent years. Central banks have pumped bazillions into global markets following the Financial Crisis; that money has found its way into the coffers of the already super rich, but now they find that all that money cannot be invested in the economy for a good return on investment, because a country's economy (or the global economy) will only produce a given yield each year, no matter how much money you throw at it. So all that money has gone into physical goods speculation. And you've seen the value of anything from classic cars to real estate and even expensive wines, or indeed faux art, reach ludicrous heights. And now the latest craze, because that, too, no longer delivers a profitable return on investment, are apparently cryptocurrencies.

History does teach us that every bubble eventually bursts, and that the prices of the goods in which the bubble occurred will eventually crash or at least return to normal levels. If you are looking to buy a classic car as an investment, there might soon be a time when it can be had for a song, when the economy has crashed again.

I was actually in a position in 2008 where I could have afforded buying a specimen in good nick of one of my childhood dream cars, a late-80s Ferrari Testarossa. I probably still wouldn't have been able to afford to run it, but I could have just put it in my garage. They were around £35k to £45k back then. Nowadays, you will be lucky if you find a good Testarossa for four times that. Even if I had just let it sit in my garage for ten years under a cover and would not have had the usual recurring repairs carried out, I would probably still have been able to get 100 grand for it in today's market.
>> No. 415170 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 5:45 pm
415170 spacer

>That's the point.

Indeed, it's just that really, when you get down to it, that's the only point of such art.

Duchamp nailed it on the first attempt. The last hundred years of post-modern wank is just regurgitation.
>> No. 415171 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 6:31 pm
415171 spacer

That's basically what I wanted to say but lacked the words.

If all of these piles of bricks and jars of urine are a statement on the nature of art, that statement is incredibly stale.
>> No. 415172 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 6:33 pm
415172 spacer

It's often just pretentiousness on the part of the person who buys this kind of art. And the desire of upwardly mobile new elites to appear cultured.

I remember reading once about a couple who were both performance artists. They cooked up an elaborate hoax to make such a point. They forged sheet music, faded appearance and all, for which they pulled some notes and melodies out of thin air which apparently really would have sounded sort of shit if you had taken the time to actually play them on an instrument. But they then advertised their yellowed pieces of paper to uppity art collectors as an "attic find" of music by one of the forgotten contemporaries and students of Mozart himself, and they even concocted some sort of vaguely 18th-century Austrian aristocracy-sounding name for this forgotten artist.

And loads of collectors who really prided themselves in being connaisseurs of classical music were completely fooled, but not only that, they offered to pay quite handsome amounts for the handful of pages of fake sheet music in question.

I think this was kind of before the Internet enabled you to quickly fact check such spurious claims. But it was still a great way to take the mickey out of art collectors. A shrewed performance act in itself.
>> No. 415173 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 6:53 pm
415173 spacer

That's straight up fraud, not art. It's definitely on the collectors for not figuring it out, if the written music was truly bad, but come on. Praise them as conmen, not artists.
>> No. 415174 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 6:59 pm
415174 spacer

Your post reminded me of 'F for fake'. On the surface it is a documentary about an art forger, But the art forger makes 'orginal' works by the artist. And in many ways his work is better than that of the orginal artist.

Undercurrent of the story is a discussion about why do we care, and do we really care.

>> No. 415175 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 8:17 pm
415175 spacer

It kind of straddles the outer boundaries of what's legal.

According to the 2006 Fraud Act, fraud, and even attempted fraud, requires that you have the intent to defraud the victim for gain either for yourself or others, or inflict loss or a risk of loss upon them. It'd kind of be down to how imaginative a judge will be in court. If that judge will really be ready to believe that advertising potentially valuable but knowingly fake historic documents to a collector willing to pay a lot of money for them was all part of an ironic performance art act, and that you were never actually going to take money from anybody in the first place. I am sure the irony will be lost on many courts, and they will end up allowing a full-on fraud lawsuit to be brought against you.
>> No. 415176 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 8:59 pm
415176 spacer

>I am sure the irony will be lost on many courts

The irony is lost for a good reason because it is one of the oldest cover stories for a failed attempt in the book.

If you are successful then you have no need to explain yourself, if you aren't well, of course, it was all just an experiment/joke and you were just about to come clean about it soon anyway. If you have any world experience you've seen it anywhere anyone is caught out, from people discovered to be making up facts to win arguments, to people attempting to rob/intimidate you when they realise fortune has turned against them.
>> No. 415177 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 10:18 pm
415177 spacer

>The irony is lost for a good reason because it is one of the oldest cover stories for a failed attempt in the book.

Yes, but then again, mens rea must always be proven. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be enough to argue that in some sort of perceived majority of these cases, it would turn out to merely be a cover story that it was all just going to be for giggles.

It will probably be enough to make you a de facto fraud suspect, but then again, supicion and reasonable doubt are fraught concepts in their own right.

It just doesn't seem right that at least in theory, there would be no conceivable room for a "for giggles" defence. What if I really honestly just wanted to take the mickey out of someone, but really never intended to cause them any kind of loss? What if I really just wanted to make somebody look stupid?

Where a criminal offence begins and doesn't begin has probably been the subject of law school term papers since the dawn of civilisation. It's not always as black and white as it appears.

Mens rea also requires that a reasonable person of average intelligence must know that the act they are going to commit will satisfy the criteria for a particular criminal offence. If I am preparing to punch you in the face with full force, as a reasonable person of average intelligence, it can't elude me that that is going to be a criminal offence.
>> No. 415178 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 10:24 pm
415178 spacer
I think it would largely depend on your reputation as an artist and what sort of work you've done in the past. I know that !Mediengruppe Bitnik have done a bunch of fairly illegal things and seemingly have got away with it, presumably because they're artists and are obviously doing it for art's sake. You, on the other hand, would face a prison sentence.
>> No. 415179 Anonymous
23rd January 2018
Tuesday 10:56 pm
415179 spacer

Yet when I told the judge that me being found outside Mrs. Jones house sharpening a kitchen knife was performance art, he threw the book at me.
>> No. 415180 Anonymous
24th January 2018
Wednesday 12:23 am
415180 spacer

> he threw the book at me.

Now that would have been true performance art if he had physcially done that.
>> No. 415182 Anonymous
24th January 2018
Wednesday 1:52 am
415182 spacer

knife grinder.jpg
>being found outside Mrs. Jones house sharpening a kitchen knife was performance art

Whot dark days are these when a 'onest man can no more plug 'is trade and sell 'is wares on a public highway.
>> No. 415187 Anonymous
25th January 2018
Thursday 1:54 am
415187 spacer
>>415160 how much of the apparent profit on that car can be accounted for as inflation? How do we even measure that?
>> No. 415196 Anonymous
25th January 2018
Thursday 11:36 am
415196 spacer

£45k in 2008 equates to about £57k today.

>> No. 415219 Anonymous
26th January 2018
Friday 11:43 am
415219 spacer

Still a tidy profit if you bought a car for 45 grand in 2008 and get to sell it for 100 today. Even inflation adjusted. No bank would have paid you that in interest in the mean time.
>> No. 415225 Anonymous
26th January 2018
Friday 4:13 pm
415225 spacer
No but an index fund would be roughly the same.
>> No. 415229 Anonymous
26th January 2018
Friday 5:20 pm
415229 spacer

Inflation adjusted, if >>415196 lad is to be believed, a £45K investment taken on in 2008 would still equal around £75K today. That's a 66 percent return on investment.

The problem with keeping a classic car, even if you just let it sit under a cover for ten years, is the upkeep. Ten years of just collecting dust is a long time even for a Ferrari. Rubber parts of any kind, for example, typically have a lifespan of some ten years. So a Ferrari that you put in your garage or your barn ten years ago will not only be unattractive to buyers today because you didn't have all the recurring servicing done by an authorised Ferrari dealer (true Ferrari collectors will turn their nose up at any specimen that was serviced by an independent shop), but you are going to have to replace anything from a timing belt to a water pump and probably each and every water hose. And by a Ferrari dealership. That's going to shave an easy £5,000 off your profit, more likely £10,000... because again, you will have to catch up on ten years of neglect.

One of my mates worked for a boss once who drove a Ferrari 348, which is often called the Testarossa's little brother. By and large, he said he had to set aside around £5,000 every year for all the maintenance recommended by Ferrari.

A classic car like that is only a worthwhile investment if you have the means to store it properly and have it maintained. The best kept Testarossas in factory condition now run for upwards of £140,000. So if you bought one ten years ago for £45K, which was about the top end back then, deducting £5,000 every year, you would still only have a profit of £45K before inflation. But again, that needs to be put in perspective to all the maintenance work you would have to do on your "barn find" testarossa to get it back into a state where most buyers would actually be interested.

Long story short, if all you have is a chunk of money and want to make a profit off it, you're indeed better off investing in things like stocks or index funds. Or if you still feel tempted to buy a classic car as an investment, get one that's a little more practical, which you can afford to run and service regularly, and where proper servicing by an authorised dealership doesn't make a difference of £40K in eventual resale value.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Delete Post []