Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^Maybe, it's just that...it's not that great of a joke, especially since he's made really similar ones before. That combined with the reaction panel kinda bothers me.
What's wrong with Good Cop Dadaist Cop? I like that one.
Also, it's a webcomic about nothing in particular, unnecessary defines the whole of the webcomic. Excessive can be argued though.
What about it was sexist? Legitimate question; it's been ages since I've seen it. The other two I can see where you're coming from.
I mean sexist in the "Booh hoo why won't girls go out with my superior intellect" MRA vibe I got while watching it. I might just be imagining it. Still, the whole eugenics thing is far worse.
Eh, I don't really see it. I mean, at the beginning when it was demonstrating its premise, the "intelligent" people shown were a married couple who just never got around to having any kids.
Not going to deny the unfortunate implications in other areas though.
^ Maybe it's just that I don't really like the idea of dadaism, at least that which is shown in the comic--i.e. completely irrelevant nonsense that's not even particularly funny, and injected into an otherwise serious situation that actually matters.
As for xkcd as a whole, yes, I think it's hit-or-miss. You occasionally get entertaining jokes and/or interesting perspectives on nerdy subjects, such as the close approximations comic, but sometimes it just seems to be random commentary about relationships and such.
That's not Dadaism, that's LOL MONKEYCHEESE NARWHAL BACON random humor.
So, a movement about nonsense/anarchism/pacifism/ridicule is misrepresnted by ridicule nonsense?
You're not ridiculing green enough.
^^
there is a difference between dada and "lolXD so randumb
."
Dada was all about challenging the idea of meaning. It was all about messing with existing art conventions. Dada, in short, was the original expression of Trolling in modern society, aimed directly at the artistic academics of the early 20th century with the explicit purpose of fucking with them. Having someone sperg out with a piece of paper and calling it dada, forgive the irony, is missing the point entirely.
to put it in perspective, its the difference between shitting on a copy of the Constitution and calling it art just to see how people react, and shitting on the constitution and calling it art and then walking up to everyone present and giving the "wink wink nudge nudge I AM SO FUCKING CLEVER" routine.
this is one more extension of Randall's persistent habit of ridiculing the liberal arts when it is abundantly clear that all he actually knows about them are stereotypes and wiki article summaries.
No, Socrates was the guy who first popularized trolling. At least trolling with a reason behind it in addition to being an ass.
My issue with this comparison is that there's no substantial difference between these two outside of the artist acting like a total douche at the end of his performance, which doesn't affect whatever value it had in the first place.
Also, I know this is a nitpick, but just recently, a comic implied that Randall does not and has never cared about xkcd.
Well, see, Dadaism more specifically passed off nonsense as art to criticise art convention. That comic, meanwhile, is just having people take actions that have absolutely nothing to do with anything because...well, just because.
It would be Dadaism if xkcd were intended to mock the concept of a webcomic, which as far as I know, is not the case.
Dadaism started as a major artistic (or rather, anti-artistic) movement in the early 20th century, in response to World War I and similar atrocities around that time. The basic idea is to create something truly shocking and hate-inspiring and then claim that it's art, because of the core philisophy that boils down to "this world doesn't deserve to have nice things." But then some unwanted stuff happened such as the dadaists actually gaining admirers, and eventually the genre just (d)evolved into surrealism and, well, "random humour" (as we've already established).
But what if the herpderp-me-so-clever routine was part of the performance, since it's known to tick people off in such a fashion?
There is something called functional difference, these two actions while made with diferent purposes, are not functionally different. Besides, the US constitution is an outdated piece of shit.
I always saw Dadaism through the prism of that urinal in the Louvre. That the art is arbitrary, and the only difference between Great Art and bullshit is that former is bullshit that was acknowledged as Great Art by someone influential. But I guess it's too modern an interpretation.
As for XKCD, I quite like it, though somewhat warily as the subtle shade of nerd pride is always in the background.
Subtle?
Background???
Dadaism is intrinsically tied to Europe and the Lost Generation. It was an act of spiting towards the "art" community. The elders were the rich old farts dictating what was and what was not "art," and yet the artists were the ones who had friends and family and loved ones die in the trenches at the behest of the elders, just because of political squabbles and imperialism. They felt it appallingly hypocritical that they could cause so much death and destruction for so little gain and then turn right back around to tell Monsieur Bob Loblaw why his painting wasn't really art. So they reacted by doing such things as scribbling signatures on urinals and calling it art; they saw the inherent absurdity of the art establishment and attacked it, giving birth to post-modernism.
Trying to elicit a purposeful reaction to loathe the art and artist might be a part of this, but I have the feeling that here it's unintentional.
Well duh, Bob Loblaw should have dropped art and set up the Bob Loblaw Law Blog.
Don't you mean Bob Loblaw Law Lob Blog?
Nah, it's just the Bob Loblaw Law Blog. He lobs the law, certainly, but that's not the title.
But if he just lobs the law but that's not the point, wouldn't that be the Bob Lob Law Blog?
No, his name is Bob Loblaw. He does, indeed, lob the law, but that's besides the point; he only named his website the Bob Loblaw Law Blog.
Wait, there's a different Bob Loblaw that you're talking about who isn't the Bob Loblaw--
Oh, he's an Arrested Development character. And Bob Loblaw's Law Blog isn't something one of you came up with just now. Oh.
Socrates was Classical trolling, which is why I said Modern trolling in respect to dada.
"Art" and "functionality" don't really have much relation to one another. Fine art in particular, which is what Dada was targeting, has a big emphasis on intent over the final form of the piece.
Depends on if you consider architecture art or not really.
Architecture is a blend of art and engineering. The design is the art, while the construction and maintenance is the engineering.
While there is a truth to the fact that art that is intended to react to art trends such as...well, pretty much any form of art ever involves the author's convention, the fact is that when it comes to actually interpreting the art piece, it should be unimportant, as it's the duty of an artist as a communicator to be able to send his message without causing the audience to needlessly backlash against it (Which is why normally unsubtlety and cheap moral tricks are lookd down upon, as they come off as condescending)
This is not to say that intent doesn't matter at all, but simply that when it comes down to it, if the piece is not conveying the meaning the artist wants to convey, then it's failing as a communication device.
FWIW, failing as a communication device isn't the same as failing as art.
However, one thing could certainly do both.