Jump to content
CUNTS CORNER TWITTER ACCOUNT ID @CuntsCorner ×
Donations towards site upkeep will be thankfully received and faithfully applied....

"Art Prodigy'


camberwell gypsy

Recommended Posts

Guest Bill Stickers
5 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

Read the link and then tell me if he's an art prodigy or a kid throwing paint about.

If I want a news aggregator I’ll use google thanks, not a complete fucking retard such as yourself.

Any chance we can hear your thoughtful opinion on the subject in more than 6 words? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

Read the link and then tell me if he's an art prodigy or a kid throwing paint about.

Time will tell if Master Kolarkar is an art prodigy but the reason why his pictures sell "for thousands" (if true) is that he produces abstract art in its purest form. He can do this because at 4 years old he still hasn't been constrained by convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Time will tell if Master Kolarkar is an art prodigy but the reason why his pictures sell "for thousands" (if true) is that he produces abstract art in its purest form. He can do this because at 4 years old he still hasn't been constrained by convention.

Thank you Sister Wendy 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Piston
23 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Time will tell if Master Kolarkar is an art prodigy but the reason why his pictures sell "for thousands" (if true) is that he produces abstract art in its purest form. He can do this because at 4 years old he still hasn't been constrained by convention.

Hmm, I suppose that the same is true for all 4-year olds and 3 etc for that matter.

I await a rash of international-art-theft gangs raiding nursery schools.

I'm going to dig out some of my kids' old works and sally forth on eBay.

PS A touch of the provocatrix m'am?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Piston said:

Hmm, I suppose that the same is true for all 4-year olds and 3 etc for that matter.

I await a rash of international-art-theft gangs raiding nursery schools.

I'm going to dig out some of my kids' old works and sally forth on eBay.

'Works'? Oh how bourgeois!

My grandson has just done a poonami in his nappy. There's no way that's going to the land-fill site, not all the while overseen cunts will pay a kings ransom for what a bunch of stupid haircuts deem is 'art'.

I'm going for the 'Loads of money but a right dickhead', Gilbert and George market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Piston
5 hours ago, Jiggerycock said:

'Works'? Oh how bourgeois!

My grandson has just done a poonami in his nappy. There's no way that's going to the land-fill site, not all the while overseen cunts will pay a kings ransom for what a bunch of stupid haircuts deem is 'art'.

I'm going for the 'Loads of money but a right dickhead', Gilbert and George market.

Fuck! What a blind fool I am.

Thank you master.

Edit:Re 'Works': Suggest you tap your Irony Meter, the needle seems to be stuck.

Edited by Piston
Forgot retaliatory snark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Time will tell if Master Kolarkar is an art prodigy but the reason why his pictures sell "for thousands" (if true) is that he produces abstract art in its purest form. He can do this because at 4 years old he still hasn't been constrained by convention.

You know full well that the term "abstract art" is a sales tool employed by clever middle class cunts, to sell crap to thick middle class cunts.

think Harry Enfield's 'I saw you coming' character.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest White van man
18 minutes ago, Eric Cuntman said:

You know full well that the term "abstract art" is a sales tool employed by clever middle class cunts, to sell crap to thick middle class cunts.

think Harry Enfield's 'I saw you coming' character.

I word hasn't been invented to descibe how mind numbingly stupid someone must be to spend £1000s on a piece of paper that some kids made a mess on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bill Stickers
33 minutes ago, White van man said:

I word hasn't been invented to descibe how mind numbingly stupid someone must be to spend £1000s on a piece of paper that some kids made a mess on.

Here’s I word for you.

Idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Time will tell if Master Kolarkar is an art prodigy but the reason why his pictures sell "for thousands" (if true) is that he produces abstract art in its purest form. He can do this because at 4 years old he still hasn't been constrained by convention.

He  has also not yet been constrained by at 4 years old not having the motor neuron skills to actually control his paint brush, control his hands, or indeed his toilet functions.   Shit in a nappy went for $3 million .

You are such a fucking pseudo intellectual Roops.  Give it a rest.    The kids a fucking dick with a brush swirling paint around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Drew P Pissflaps
15 hours ago, William T.D. Stickers said:

If I want a news aggregator I’ll use google thanks, not a complete fucking retard such as yourself.

Any chance we can hear your thoughtful opinion on the subject in more than 6 words? 

My thoughtful opinion is, I know the clique doesn't like to have an individual an original thought - for fear of upsetting the other bum bandit member (Decimus) but, you really come across as an irritating annoyance. Up your game or Kill Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Monumental cunt said:

He  has also not yet been constrained by at 4 years old not having the motor neuron skills to actually control his paint brush, control his hands, or indeed his toilet functions.   Shit in a nappy went for $3 million .

You are such a fucking pseudo intellectual Roops.  Give it a rest.    The kids a fucking dick with a brush swirling paint around.

Er...precisely. You've simply reiterated my point albeit in more visceral tones. Abstract art does not conform to accepted conventions of light, shape and form. There is no control or at least a perception of design. The "art" form was a late 19th century response to the increasing uniformity dictated by the needs of industrialisation though interestingly artists redefined the rules and fused form and abstract.

Incidentally, the vast majority of 4 year olds will, apart from night-time issues, be out of nappies, though it would be remiss of me not to discount your own personal recollections...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wizardsleeve

Art is subjective at best.  I doubt anybody will debate that.  The problem with subjective, is the person doing that narrative or offering the critique is almost always a pretentious, sanctimonious cunt.  They enjoy their own voice more than they actually get anything from the "piece" they are viewing or viewed.  I've seen teachers droning on about a child's use of color in finger painting, and claim what talent lay beneath...does that make the running nosed little shit an artist?  Just because their mind hasn't been corrupted, and I do agree children that aren't, I don't find two or three stick people holding hands while holding the lead to a stick dog, art.  It's expression, yes, but not art.  If said drawing had more three dimensional figures and features, I'd say the kid was a prodigy for understanding spatial depth and being keen enough to illustrate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Monumental cunt said:

He  has also not yet been constrained by at 4 years old not having the motor neuron skills to actually control his paint brush, control his hands, or indeed his toilet functions.   Shit in a nappy went for $3 million .

You are such a fucking pseudo intellectual Roops.  Give it a rest.    The kids a fucking dick with a brush swirling paint around.

Motor neuron skills?!

Fucking spastic. You really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wizardsleeve said:

Art is subjective at best.  I doubt anybody will debate that.  The problem with subjective, is the person doing that narrative or offering the critique is almost always a pretentious, sanctimonious cunt.  They enjoy their own voice more than they actually get anything from the "piece" they are viewing or viewed.  I've seen teachers droning on about a child's use of color in finger painting, and claim what talent lay beneath...does that make the running nosed little shit an artist?  Just because their mind hasn't been corrupted, and I do agree children that aren't, I don't find two or three stick people holding hands while holding the lead to a stick dog, art.  It's expression, yes, but not art.  If said drawing had more three dimensional figures and features, I'd say the kid was a prodigy for understanding spatial depth and being keen enough to illustrate it.

I find Art not subjective at all I find it either good or you're being a pretentious cunt, I have no problem with the said four year old good for him take the fucking stupid cunts for anything you can,it's this idea that you can do anything slop a bit of shit on a wall great sell that cunt for millions,paint a great hand drawn picture of Maggie Thatchers snatch no not what we want.

Young snowy spent his entire college life before Uni being angry at the shit they presented as art,Rothco was a particular hate ,great you're  a painter now paint my living room you  untalented wanker.

Your gonna be surreal fine look at Dali,your gonna be a fucking nutworm  then please fucking die.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Snowy the grate. said:

Rothco was a particular hate ,great you're  a painter now paint my living room you  untalented wanker.

I was completely unaware of this tosser until being dragged around the Tate Modern with Mrs. D, who amongst her other numerous faults, is a pretentious fucking cunt.

After passing a wall piece of three dead seagulls impaled on arrows, soon enough we stumbled across a Rothko, which was essentially a canvas painted entirely in red. It was at this junction that I decided to politely ask her "What is this fucking shit?" Cue a boring lecture on the complexities of the shades and textures, followed by that most bollocks of fob-offs "Art is subjective".

Call me a Philistine, but if chucking a tin of Dulux over fabric is considered a masterpiece, then that fat spastic cunt Fender could sell his XXL overalls for ten million quid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Decimus said:

I was completely unaware of this tosser until being dragged around the Tate Modern with Mrs. D, who amongst her other numerous faults, is a pretentious fucking cunt.

After passing a wall piece of three dead seagulls impaled on arrows, soon enough we stumbled across a Rothko, which was essentially a canvas painted entirely in red. It was at this junction that I decided to politely ask her "What is this fucking shit?" Cue a boring lecture on the complexities of the shades and textures, followed by that most bollocks of fob-offs "Art is subjective".

Call me a Philistine, but if chucking a tin of Dulux over fabric is considered a masterpiece, then that fat spastic cunt Fender could sell his XXL overalls for ten million quid.

I expect fenders use of the odd cum stain to the overalls could bag him an art award,a noble peace prize and a suck off for her majesty,added hobnobs stuffed into the pockets and an empty rizzla packet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...