Glice clearly has a phobia over differences of opinion. The loopy cunt.

I think that second statement is partially untrue. I read New Scientist and feel somehow qualified to talk about string theory. Doesn't mean I seriously understand it. It's that old adage (which I'll have to paraphrase) about 'if everyone only spoke on subjects they knew about, all across the world would be a profound silence'.

The point I was trying to make was that science doesn't come up against the same popular friction that a lot of art does. Obviously, this is because the procedures of science are obscure to most, and also essential to the subject at hand, while the procedures of art are obscure but largely less essential.

I don't know. It's complicated. All I'm saying is that every fucker in the world has an opinion on artworks they largely haven't experienced, while scientists the world over are doing experiments on precisely fuck all.

Oh dear. Someone who thinks oppositely to him must be a troll. But if we go down his road in his fevered way of thinking, wouldn't that make him a troll for thinking oppositely to the rest of us?

'Opposite' suggest you have a diametrically opposed point to mine; you don't, you're just being an antagonistic cunt. To repeat:

I like the hose.

That's what I hear on the street.

This is one of those rare instances when I totally agree with you. To call some hose on the floor modern art, let alone art per se, is like saying that any artist in 2010 can seriously claim to sincerely see art where there isn't any 24/7. That attitude seems to me more dated than modern. Also, it confuses, deliberatly or not, the very concept of what makes a work aesthetically modern, rather than an pedantic joke.

There will be an exhibition of my posts, framed, which have riled Glice to the point of insanity, in the Tate Modern this coming spring.

Shove 'em up your arse.

These pictures tickle me.

Seriously though, do you have any intention of engaging in an actual discussion? Because if you really, really want a discussion on art, and aren't going to fall back on hackneyed clichés, then PM me. If you're just going to insist on this shit antagonism, then I'll insist on posting a not-very-funny picture after every one of your posts I see.

Edit: not you Marras, obviously.

My exhibition will be titled "The Riling of Glice on SYG." Admission is free to those who have also riled Glice on SYG.

That's a no then, is it?

the museum paid for that? That museum is an idiot.

if the museum paid for that, oh man.

I would like it better if it was a joke played by one of the staffers, putting a label on a hose to play a prank on the patrons of the museum.

i remember me and my boy making fake labels like that and putting them up to things that could be called an installation if put in a museum. for instance, when there was a dummy with all types of bandages in a pharmacist's window, we'd put a label next to it that read 'the sickness of this world by *insert made-up name here*

some of those are still around, i think.

sounds like you are referring to some artists in the fluxus movement who thought 'i am an artist so what i do is art' and documented everything they did in pictures, notes and film. (like Vautier) these days there is ai wei wei who takes about 700 pictures a day. it's a way of looking at life.

i've always thought that art was something someone made up or put together, and it moves people in a way. you could say a beautiful nature photograph isn't art because the landscape was already there, but the photographer put a frame around a part of it and made a choice, which is what makes it art. a lot of modern art is rubbish, but some pieces just manage to touch people in a certain way, and provoke very different reactions (think about neuman's 'who's afraid of red, yellow and blue': it's a large red canvas with some blue and yellow stripes on it but apparently it makes people so mad they want to destroy it)

there was a french sociologist, pierre bourdieu, he did a whole project about people's taste and then divided the general public in three classes: worker's class, middle class and higher class. worker's class tend to like things they recognise from their world and culture, they see art as decorative and functional (it has to match the other things in the house) and appreciate materials and craftmanship. the highest class are the 'trendsetters', they appreciate 'art' at its finest and would rather build a house around one painting than find a painting that matches the couch. those two classes are the only ones with their own taste, since all the middle class does is copy the high class so they won't be associated with the worker's class. the middle class has no taste of her own and is constantly worried about having the right things to fit in.

i'm not too sure if i fully agree on this since it's a survey from the late sixties and communication has expanded a lot since then... art and culture have become a lot more democratic.

it does make a lot of sense though.

I hate me rich fucks who "borrow" art from galleries to hang in their homes to "see if they love it" when their whole intention is to have it for a few months, throw several dinner and cocktail parties to talk about the art, thereby letting them judge whether their friends are jealous enough of them to warrant actual purchase of this art.

they ussually return it a few months later, paying nothing but handling fees. cocksmear rich fucks.