Words fail me - you'll have to read this yourself

[40hz]

Possibly one of the  most offensive bits of op-ed I've ever read, as written by CNET's Danny Gallagher, a douchebag of the first order.

Article here.

... imagine being an art lover of the most supreme order and hearing that one of your fellow art buyers plans to turn an original Picasso into a 150,000-piece jigsaw puzzle. You'd probably lose consciousness.

That's just one possible outcome for Picasso's "Tete de Faune" (translation: Head of a Faun). Cards Against Humanity, the game company based out of Chicago, purchased an original of the 1962 Picasso linocut for an undisclosed amount and will let supporters of its most recent holiday promotion decide whether the artwork goes to a museum or faces the business end of a laser-cutting machine.

I have to admit I'm really torn about this one. As a culture appreciator, I don't want to see a work of art by one of the world's greatest artists sliced up like a deep-dish pizza. However, as someone who paid for eight Hanukkah gifts from Cards Against Humanity, I also want to receive all eight gifts. And don't give me that crud about how knowing that you saved a priceless work of art is its own reward. You can't bring "peace of mind" to Best Buy for a refund, even if you still have the receipt.

Like I said: douchebag.

[IainB]

It might all be a publicity stunt, but, in any event, declaring one's opinion on this - either way - would probably not make a ha'porth of difference. Really, one probably has more fundamentally useful/helpful things on which to expend one's cognitive surplus.

[40hz]

^Sorry. But I have to disagree. I still haven't reached the point where I'm just willing to roll over and play dead about things like this. Stupidity counts on it being tolerated by people "who are better than that" and those who invariably take the moral (albeit silent) high road, in order for it to thrive. Publicity stunt or not, it's still worth challenging things like this - and crass self-serving 'justifications' such as Mr. Gallagher's. Especially in a country like the USA which  is now beginning to manifest all the societal symptoms of every other empire that realized it had passed its zenith and was now in the early stages of decline. 

[Renegade]

150,000 people being able to own a tiny bit of a Picasso is just kind of awesome.  

[Renegade]

Oh god... It's even funnier!

https://picasso.eightsensiblegifts.com/

You just have to click. Be prepared to piss yourself laughing!   

[TaoPhoenix]

150,000 people being able to own a tiny bit of a Picasso is just kind of awesome.  

But 150,000 people meeting at a "reassemble the Picasso party" would be awesomer!

[tomos]

IIUC they get 1.5mm squared....
I suppose you could frame it

The old art world was a dysfunctional place (how long has it been since art was for the people - probably mostly not since prehistoric times) -- but this would be a good expression of the new art world (anyone got a polite term for f.o.s.?).

A good publicity stunt all the same.

[Shades]

The code mentioned in both vote boxes is the same. That does not inspire trust...

Anyway, I would have voted to donate it. Mainly because I don't think that anyone should destroy/mistreat art that can inspire future generations. Picasso is definitely not my style, but that shouldn't be a reason to maim his work. After all, the world is full of people that have a different view on the arts.

Honestly, you couldn't accuse me for being artsy fartsy on a good day. If someone made art that cannot stand the test of time on it's own, too bad for that piece of art and/or artist. But for pieces of art that do, keep those in shape for future generations.

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants and art/artists make that anyone enjoys the view.

[TaoPhoenix]

Anyway, I would have voted to donate it. Mainly because I don't think that anyone should destroy/mistreat art that can inspire future generations. Picasso is definitely not my style, but that shouldn't be a reason to maim his work. After all, the world is full of people that have a different view on the arts.

Honestly, you couldn't accuse me for being artsy fartsy on a good day. If someone made art that cannot stand the test of time on it's own, too bad for that piece of art and/or artist. But for pieces of art that do, keep those in shape for future generations.

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants and art/artists make that anyone enjoys the view.

I think somewhere in here is the "difficult" copyability of art.

If it was just "any random but competent art" as a performance piece, we wouldn't care. And stories are just text, my copy is as good as your copy from Gutenberg's Mark Twain set. And for music, there's whole cultures (besides the lawsuits of grumpy musicians) of mashup. Same with pics.

So I think Form Factor and notoriety are all over this.

[Stoic Joker]

Here's a question: Let's say there was a priceless artifact that was to be run through a cutting edge cleaning/preservation/analysis process. That for some human/technical/unforeseen error reason was then sliced to bits. In that situation ...(before word of the disaster got out)... What would be the easiest way recoup one's losses and save face at the same time??

[wraith808]

If it was just "any random but competent art" as a performance piece, we wouldn't care. And stories are just text, my copy is as good as your copy from Gutenberg's Mark Twain set. And for music, there's whole cultures (besides the lawsuits of grumpy musicians) of mashup. Same with pics.

Those that the art affected would care.  And that's the point of this... art affects in ways that are only quantifiable by contact and taste.  So to denigrate someone else's feeling on the matter in the way that the writer did... I think that's the offensive thing.  And then to put it to such low brow use just because I have the funds for a stunt?  That's a different form of the same.  I'm all for people being able to do whatever they will with the money that they have.  But they are also not immune to the effects of the use of their money.  I'd thought that cards against humanity were a pretty cool game idea, and the mechanics were pretty cool.  And having played it online, I was on the edge about getting a copy.  I'm no longer on the edge.  And I'm just one person, with one opinion.  But I'll use that opinion and consumer power to go against the idea that this is cool.

[40hz]

I think somewhere in here is the "difficult" copyability of art.

If it was just "any random but competent art" as a performance piece, we wouldn't care. And stories are just text, my copy is as good as your copy from Gutenberg's Mark Twain set. And for music, there's whole cultures (besides the lawsuits of grumpy musicians) of mashup. Same with pics.

So I think Form Factor and notoriety are all over this.

If you take the argument that "stories are just text" to the next level... then text is nothing but words...and words are nothing but letters...and letters nothing but geometric shapes and lines...and as such, have no meaning, or value.

On a certain level, everything becomes meaningless - if you allow yourself to fall for that deconstructionist nonsense. It might make you sound clever in certain faux-intellectual academic circles. But it leaves you with nothing if you embrace it without realizing the intellectual and spiritual cop-out it is.

I guess if someone doesn't believe in intellect, or spirit, or meaning, that's no great loss. Especially since there's nothing such people have to lose. Because there's nothing in them for them to lose. Sad really. Those are the true "walking dead" even if they're not the usual flesh-eating zombies we usually think of.

We create ourselves. And we create value. That's what makes us (hopefully) conscious and sentient creatures. We interact with our reality - we're not defined by it.

I forget who once said one's level of enlightenment can be determined by how well you can answer two very simple questions:

  1. Of all the possible things you could be doing right this moment, why are you doing this?

  2. And why now - as opposed to any other moment?

If you can consistently and completely accurately answer both questions, you have no need for instruction, prayer, or meditation. Because you already are enlightened.

So... out of all the things you could possibly do with a Picasso print, why would you want hack it into pieces Mr. Temkin ? And why do it around January 1?

Oh...and Mr. Danny-boy Gallagher, freelance blogger for C|Net and the usual techo-weenie websites? Don't bother trying to answer those questions. You've already clearly established you're a complete rectal orifice...

[wraith808]

That was so awesome, I couldn't settle on just one to convey my sentiments.

I haven't seen a 40 slam dunk like that in a while.  Thank you.  And never change.

[Renegade]

If you take the argument that "stories are just text" to the next level... then text is nothing but words...and words are nothing but letters...and letters nothing but geometric shapes and lines...and as such, have no meaning, or value.

On a certain level, everything becomes meaningless - if you allow yourself to fall for that deconstructionist nonsense. It might make you sound clever in certain faux-intellectual academic circles. But it leaves you with nothing if you embrace it without realizing the intellectual and spiritual cop-out it is.

Funny you mention deconstructionism. I was setting trigger levels on my oscilloscope and that exact parallel came to mind; it's basically the same sort of argument - at some point a signal becomes meaningful.

But really... deconstruction is fun in no small part because it creates cognitive dissonance in people where they simply no longer know what to think or say.

10. A man with hair on his head - 1 hair = a main with hair on his head.
20. Goto 10
30. Catch error(return("MWAHAHAHA!"))

Same deal there from the Megarian school in ancient Greece.

The logic when abstracted out is extremely common. You can see it used just about every day in serious discussions. Pointing it out doesn't help either.

[40hz]

But really... deconstruction is fun in no small part because it creates cognitive dissonance in people where they simply no longer know what to think or say.

Yeah. I think the term for that is "speechless with rage." 

And that's the problem. It's like intellectual equivalent of cotton candy. It looks like something and tastes good. But it's totally lacking any real nutritional value. 

[Renegade]

Yeah. I think the term for that is "speechless with rage." 

Hehehe! Yeah, that too.