Sociopath Community

Tell me, why would I waste my time, debating with someone who's already made up their mind that I'm retarded, before hearing me out?

But just take a better look at the little hypocrite, people. He is condemning me for doing THE EXACT SAME THING HE'S DOING. He looked at my definition of love, and my arguments supporting them, and made up his mind that I AM RETARDED. In his head it's MY opinion that's retarded, and it's me therefore who IS retarded. 

Except the little hypocrite can't say it loud and clear, so he'll simply reply with a "I don't entirely agree, but let's agree to disagree, or whatever" like the good little weakling he is. I, on the other hand, am too smart for letting stuff like that slide, especially when my tolerance is close to zero.

What this all boils down to, in the end, is that he's condemning me FOR BEING HONEST and saying loud and clear that I think he's stupid, while he'd rather I'd be a politically correct hypocrite. But in literature politeness is an alien! (See: Schopenhauer.) I don't give a FUCK if you are offended â€” I'm dealing with the TRUTH here â€” and the truth is a billion times more important to me than some random stranger's feelings â€” a stranger, by the way, that I will never personally meet!

And then I'm supposed to be the one at fault here, lol.

by Turncoat

The artist still creates their own vision, but rarely are the onlookers seeing exactly what the artist was thinking. It's what lead to the laughable concept known as the Artist's Statement, an explanation for others to share that artist's vision from not being able to accept that other people have different thoughts than his or her own.

More often than not, an artist is paid from how well they sell themselves, which isn't just talent, but also how well they can create hype for their pieces or target a specific audience. The field of art when a price tag is thrown at it tends to involve a lot of pandering.

I fail to see how looking at art and trying to understand it from your own experiences is "work".

As for your not seeing "the lines" as good art while they did is showcasing the difference. Your interpretation of why it was junk had you not see it as good art, yet it kept the others there for a long time. Some eat up the whole "But why did he pick those colors?" "Why lines?" "Why are they spaced like this?" "What was going through his mind when he painted this piece?" "What about the texture choice?"

To them, it's still art. I feel as you do about the line scenario related to the works of Yves Klein, and yet he is still in history textbooks. I mean he's well known for pieces like this.

 Sorry, but how is the artist different from a non artist if not even his message comes across? Why call him an artist? Am I an artist if I just throw some tomatoes on a sheet of paper? Seems a bit unfair to da Vinci imo...

And yes, it's work to stare at a shitty thing (not art!) and try to imagine smth that makes it less shitty (art). As long as your interpretation is what makes it art, you are more artist than the creator himself.

Not sure if the asians were kept there by the painting itself. They were listening to their audioguides. Which means, a recording was telling them about the painting smth that lasted for more than half an hour. Call me too dumb to get it, but hell...It looked more like brainwashing/tricking people than artsy talent.

by PIMAC

"Bear in mind that my brain works like a calculating machine. Each person who makes a presesntation to me introduces into this calculating machine a small wheel of information. There forms a certain picture, or a number on each wheel. I press a button and there flashes into my mind the sum of all this information."

--Adolf Hitler

 Says among the worst military calculators of all time. He expected to run forever on fear and military might, a shortrun tactic that never brings one far. It's best kept for a last resort tactic, when one is already losing or is trying to rebuild while fighting, not the start of one's dominance.

by PIMAC

Here is what is real.

When you want Power, Influence, Manipulation, and Control (PIMAC) over someone, look directly into their LEFT eye (connected to their right brain), and silently and to yourself, say, "I Love You."  When you do this the pupils of your eyes will widen and help to PIMAC the target. I have made this work thousands of times with great results. Try it.

 Too many grandiose delusions can spell diseaster for you.

XD  Oh Etzel.  You're just too much. >.<  I would think you're a troll, but honestly, who would put in this much effort? hahaha

"Sorry, but how is the artist different from a non artist if not even his message comes across?"

The artist creates while the "non artist" merely observes.


"Am I an artist if I just throw some tomatoes on a sheet of paper? Seems a bit unfair to da Vinci imo..."

The only difference between the two of them is the hype. Talent is a great way to push toward hype, but it is not the only way. I again bring up Yves Klein, he is very well known but his work is absolute crap. If you want to talk about what isn't fair, compare those two to each other.

Again, the difference is that while everything is art, not everything is good art, and what judges good vs bad? Interpretation. The tomato thrown at a sheet of paper could be seen as carrying some sort of message, subtext, inner meaning. Maybe it's seen as an angst piece, especially if art historian types focus more on the "artist" than the work itself.


"And yes, it's work to stare at a shitty thing (not art!) and try to imagine smth that makes it less shitty (art)."

You see it as shitty, but not everyone shares your vision. There's probably entire artistic styles you'd find laughable, and yet those people are still respected in the field. Just because it isn't art to you (or me) doesn't make it any more or less art as a whole.


"As long as your interpretation is what makes it art, you are more artist than the creator himself."

It typically takes more effort to create than interpret. Even good art needs proper promotion or no one will care about it, and sometimes it's the shitty work that steals the show.


"Not sure if the asians were kept there by the painting itself. They werelistening to their audioguides. Which means, a recording was telling them about the painting smth that lasted for more than half an hour."

Art sadly doesn't require talent, talent is just another way to have it generate hype. They were still willing to stay there that entire half an hour, but yes, that is the joke that constitutes the "Artist's Statement" if not it's "Art History".

Just how you don't think the lines are art, some people don't think that nudity is art, instead calling it pornography (a fine line that is debated by people), some people don't think that architecture is art, others don't see advertising as art, some think minimalism isn't art, some think that a person who hires another to create his vision is not an artist since it is another craftsman making it, the field is largely subject to debate.

The Occam's Razor answer is that what constitutes art is individual interpretation. Even college courses on the subject always ask the question "What is art?" to show how difficult it otherwise really is to define.