Eneathedevil

Damn, no, no, no. The pussy has always been beautiful, but in ancient times it was adorned with ointments and often styled and shaved. Then it disappeared, sucked away by the censoring morals, only to reappear in the 20th century, thick and bushy with curly hairs: the '70s, when no one even shaved their groin anymore, the Hippy era triumphed. Then we got tired of that, and out popped the sterile American porn full of condoms and sterilized rooms, where hair meant a lack of hygiene, and off went the hair everywhere. To avoid confusion, then came back little strips of hair or triangles... in short, the pussy is always the same, but it is handed down to us time and again through different images.

Well, bogus, I have created the language of knocking down Lego piles. I want to show that man creates and destroys, I am an artist, period. You are all invited to witness my artworks scattered around the Conca d'Oro.

Alright, fine, then it's all on you. Great, I'm now founding Eneism. It’s an impromptu art consisting of stacking Lego bricks into towering piles of dozens of meters, followed by knocking them down using a force applied from 5 meters above the ground. And don't tell me it’s terrible; I want to be judged according to the new modern artistic language, I am an artist. Caravaggio, I'm coming!

I mean, Bogus, do you or do you not condemn contemporary art? Come on, don’t tell me you don’t have an opinion on it.

Oh, Ajejuccio, you truly possess the virtue of the righteous. So, first of all, go and give a default rating of 5 to the review, then as far as I’m concerned, you have opened an even more interesting discussion, and I’ll share my opinion, which I believe was partly expressed in those comments to the review. Let's start with John Cage. Just yesterday I listened to his Double Music, but he could have bought some instruments instead of using the pots from his kitchen... anyway, let's cut to the chase and his 4 minutes and I don't remember how many seconds of silence at the piano: John Cage is someone who knows music. He knows it because he didn’t only engage in suicidal experiments where he sat at the piano and played around; he did other things, he showed that he studied and he knows how to play, he is someone WHO CAN AFFORD TO EXPERIMENT. Take Manzoni and his Merda d'Artista. Take Fontana. Have they ever proven to have execution technique? Did they study? Why should we believe in the spatiality concept of someone who can only make cuts in fabric? Why should we believe in a particular artistic conception by looking at the jar full of feces from someone who just took a dump? They should go get a job. Picasso, what horrors in his old age. But he knew the technique, the execution synthesis, he knew HOW TO DRAW. The concept isn’t hard. And so Picasso, like Cage, CAN AFFORD TO EXPERIMENT. And to me, the beautiful becomes intelligible. In the IDIOTIC SENSATIONALISM of Fontana, the beautiful to me is ugly, because it isn't intelligible: I do not grasp it, because I know that behind it there’s an idiot who can’t sculpt or draw and who makes a living with a well-sharpened pencil sharpener.

Beautiful courage and a beautiful way of thinking, Logic. We only disagree on the notion that violence consists in showing the veline: as we have told you, for us religion, television, and secular information are NOT forms of violence. Long live the veline, they are not witches and we will not fight them. Let’s close here and catch up at the next cultural debate, even with the approval of Mc Sampyr, if he wants to discuss religious issues with us. Goodbye everyone.

You said that for 100 years art has no longer concerned itself with beauty, so... :) I didn't understand if you condemn this, I do; okay on the litmus test.

Holy Inquisition, interesting discourse, like that of LP, I agree on the media power of religious and secular information sources... but here we risk getting bogged down! :-/ Rather, I dedicate a few verses to Ajeje, also known as the Sciantosa of Sulcis: "Sbuggiami: vruddo vresgho tuo sarò.... Mangiami: vino a ghe mi sazieròòòòò...!"

Damn, between art, politics, and religion, I can't understand a thing anymoreaaaaaaaa

Very well, Logic Probe, I agree with your view on symbolism: we were referring specifically to architectural symbolism (gothic arches and arabesques); then there's the Muslim case, with which we certainly don't exhaust the rich stage of religions: we could talk about Shintoism, Buddhism, and Shivaism, but the discussion would become too vast, so, as you said, it's better not to delve into details. We risk going off-topic, in fact we already are, so let’s quickly respond to your right and learned observations: no more physical violence is exercised, that's agreed, but we also believe that there is no psychological violence either. Religion has long been an indirect means of manipulating minds, hence it is undeniable that clerical authorities, without exempting themselves from general considerations, certainly end up exerting influences on common thought. But this is true for every media platform, for television, secular information, politics (as you mentioned): therefore we don't feel capable of saying that ours is violence, or else the influences from other media would also be considered violence, and that would be an absurd claim.