Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is prog art?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs prog art?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The Whistler View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 03:51

I consider the dividing line between "art" and "craft" to be that craft is done for a purpose within the confines of a society, whereas art is created for the creator.

So if prog is honestly created without any thought for commercial value, (Fripp, I'm a'lookin' at you...), then yes. It's an art. As it were.
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 09:48
Perhaps if Music=Art... then Priest=Aura !
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 09:52
Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster Atomic_Rooster wrote:

As a poet, heres my take on art.  Art is completely subjective.  Art can and will be anything you want it to be.  If your idea of art is Progressive rock, then Progressive rock is art.  If you think Henry Cow or Jackson Pollock created art then their work is art.  If your idea of art is monkeys copulating over a collection of crude percussive instruments, then it is art (sounds very much like something the artist Allan Kaprow would attempt to create).  There is no point in arguing over it or trying to persuade other people by putting down other varieties of art, because it does not change the perspective of what art is.


I missed this the first time around, but anyway, I totally agree! A clappy for you! Clap
Back to Top
moebius View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 16 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 160 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 11:07
Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster

As a poet, heres my take on art.  Art is completely subjective.  Art can and will be anything you want it to be.  If your idea of art is Progressive rock, then Progressive rock is art.  If you think Henry Cow or Jackson Pollock created art then their work is art.  If your idea of art is monkeys copulating over a collection of crude percussive instruments, then it is art (sounds very much like something the artist Allan Kaprow would attempt to create).  There is no point in arguing over it or trying to persuade other people by putting down other varieties of art, because it does not change the perspective of what art is.

Art is not a completely subjective thing. Art has an history, has codes and an simbolic organization that needed thousands of years to achieve the contemporary scene. Art has a way to be... and that way is not anything you want it to be. It must have a context, a spectator, and must separate itself from another ways of creation. If you want something to be art (like prog rock in this case).... that isn´t enough to transform it into a piece of art.

 
Back to Top
Revan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 02 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 540 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 13:21
Art is any tipe of creative expression which others can percive through the scences. In that view, even a 5 year old hitting cans with a stick is art. In no way prog is more artistic just because it's complexity. Art is not the same as sophistication.

Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 14:22
Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

If you want something to be art (like prog rock in this case).... that isn´t enough to transform it into a piece of art.


Why not?


Edited by Philéas - April 30 2007 at 14:22
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 14:51
Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster

As a poet, heres my take on art.  Art is completely subjective.  Art can and will be anything you want it to be.  If your idea of art is Progressive rock, then Progressive rock is art.  If you think Henry Cow or Jackson Pollock created art then their work is art.  If your idea of art is monkeys copulating over a collection of crude percussive instruments, then it is art (sounds very much like something the artist Allan Kaprow would attempt to create).  There is no point in arguing over it or trying to persuade other people by putting down other varieties of art, because it does not change the perspective of what art is.

Art is not a completely subjective thing. Art has an history, has codes and an simbolic organization that needed thousands of years to achieve the contemporary scene. Art has a way to be... and that way is not anything you want it to be. It must have a context, a spectator, and must separate itself from another ways of creation. If you want something to be art (like prog rock in this case).... that isn´t enough to transform it into a piece of art.

 



Thats an awfully strange and contrived way to interpret art.  Perhaps you should provide examples or clarify your meaning.  What exactly is the way art has to be?  I believe the answer to that question is subjective, based on who is asked.  Art needs no context (deconstructionism anyone?  How about the New York Happenings?).  Why must art be observed (if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it still vibrates the air in a way that it could conceivably be heard, and thus would make a sound - a painting could similarily exist in the center of the earth and be the greatest painting ever created and never be observed by anyone, and it would still be art).  Wanting something to be art is exactly how things became art in the first place, your just venerating Western Tradition because some millenias old dead men decided that what we now consider art is art.  Which was disproven by the Dadaists (search the web for Marcel Duchamp - clearly art, yet it is art because he says so.  There is no doubt in my mind that Titian or whomever you like would have called the majority of his work complete crap.

So, you have committed the atrocious error of creating a question-begging definition.  You have created a definition of art that reflects only your reflection of art, and not the entirety of art in general, as it is recognized by many, such as myself.

But I applaud your efforts anyways.  2 pigsPigPig for you!
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
Sasquamo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 16:14
If you really think about it, everything is subjective, so everything is art.  However, if you don't overthink it, you realize that most people don't consider a child banging on pots and pans art, so you might as well call it not art.  Why should the two people in the world that think differently totally override everyone else to call it art?
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 16:16
maybe we should ask god?... but which one...

I know, The Fripp.

Oh great and magnanimous Fripp, please grant hearing to your disciples and answer our prayers!  What is art?


Edited by Atomic_Rooster - April 30 2007 at 16:19
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 16:24
This thread is way out of hand. People typing just to say something when the answer is so obvious.
 
-the products of human creativity
-the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
-a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"
-art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.
-human endeavor thought to be aesthetic and have meaning beyond simple description. Includes music, dance, sculpture, painting, drawing, stitchery, weaving, poetry, writing, woodworking, etc. A medium of expression where the individual and culture come together.
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 17:00
I actually constructed three criteria an object must fit if it's to be called art. The article is in Swedish however, and I'm not in the mood for translating it and posting it.


Edited by Philéas - April 30 2007 at 17:02
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 20:38
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

This thread is way out of hand. People typing just to say something when the answer is so obvious.
 
-the products of human creativity
-the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
-a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"
-art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.
-human endeavor thought to be aesthetic and have meaning beyond simple description. Includes music, dance, sculpture, painting, drawing, stitchery, weaving, poetry, writing, woodworking, etc. A medium of expression where the individual and culture come together.


In that case, I guess the rag I just blew my nose on must be a piece of art.

I see your point, but the discussion has really come down to what kind of music can be considered art, because there is such variety and controversy over certain kinds.  Some people just don't consider Captain Beefheart art for some reason (which is blasphemous, because he sits at the right hand of the Fripp)
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 21:41
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:

Prog = Music
Music = Art
Prog = Art.
(...)
 
Music = Sound Organised in Time
A Caveman banging 2 rocks together = Man organising sound in time
 
ergo
 
A Caveman banging 2 rocks together = Prog Rock.
 
Shocked
 
...I just couldn't resist that one... LOL


Does that  mean music isn't art?  Paintings are organized, as are poems, or any other kind of art form.  Everything pretty much stems from some kind of organization from some natural world element(s).  You still end up creating whatever it is you want.
Back to Top
Proletariat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 21:43
art=expression
 
 
music=expression through sound=expression=art
prog=music=expression through sound=expression=art
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
Back to Top
Chus View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 21:44
A caveman banging 2 rocks together............ pricelessLOL
 
I couldn't resist either.
Jesus Gabriel
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 23:07
 
Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

A group of monkeys could not compose almost any avant-garde music unless it reaches the point of being so avant-garde it's basically just banging on stuff that has a speaker attached to it, in my experience; but there is still much left for me to explore.


Would that include what a group of 60s musicians  (freaks)  sound like when you turn them loose in a recording studio at one o'clock in the morning on $500  (1967 $$$ values) worth of rented percussion equipment.

or to quote their manager Herbie Cohen - "What the hell you gonna do with all those drums at 1;00 in the morning?"

Oops , please excuse me, I hear my pumpkin barking Wink
Back to Top
moebius View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 16 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 160 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 30 2007 at 23:57
Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster Atomic_Rooster wrote:

Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster

As a poet, heres my take on art.  Art is completely subjective.  Art can and will be anything you want it to be.  If your idea of art is Progressive rock, then Progressive rock is art.  If you think Henry Cow or Jackson Pollock created art then their work is art.  If your idea of art is monkeys copulating over a collection of crude percussive instruments, then it is art (sounds very much like something the artist Allan Kaprow would attempt to create).  There is no point in arguing over it or trying to persuade other people by putting down other varieties of art, because it does not change the perspective of what art is.

Art is not a completely subjective thing. Art has an history, has codes and an simbolic organization that needed thousands of years to achieve the contemporary scene. Art has a way to be... and that way is not anything you want it to be. It must have a context, a spectator, and must separate itself from another ways of creation. If you want something to be art (like prog rock in this case).... that isn´t enough to transform it into a piece of art.

 



Thats an awfully strange and contrived way to interpret art.  Perhaps you should provide examples or clarify your meaning.  What exactly is the way art has to be?  I believe the answer to that question is subjective, based on who is asked.  Art needs no context (deconstructionism anyone?  How about the New York Happenings?).  Why must art be observed (if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it still vibrates the air in a way that it could conceivably be heard, and thus would make a sound - a painting could similarily exist in the center of the earth and be the greatest painting ever created and never be observed by anyone, and it would still be art).  Wanting something to be art is exactly how things became art in the first place, your just venerating Western Tradition because some millenias old dead men decided that what we now consider art is art.  Which was disproven by the Dadaists (search the web for Marcel Duchamp - clearly art, yet it is art because he says so.  There is no doubt in my mind that Titian or whomever you like would have called the majority of his work complete crap.

So, you have committed the atrocious error of creating a question-begging definition.  You have created a definition of art that reflects only your reflection of art, and not the entirety of art in general, as it is recognized by many, such as myself.

But I applaud your efforts anyways.  2 pigsPigPig for you!
 
Yes, the intention is the first step... I agree with that. Was indeed Duchamp who say and did that in first place. What I am trying is not to make a definition of Art... that would be far more ambitious than Tales From Topographic Oceans. What I´m trying to say (always from my perspective... something that I missed in my recent post) is that wanting something to be art is not enough. If Marcel Duchamp had not put the urinary in that context (a sculpture contest)... would be a different story. When I talk about context I don´t mean a gallery or a museum. I mean that has to be a significant enviorment that makes the object of art ask questions. The context is art itself. If you put a sock in a basket with many other socks, in a laundry... and no one see it, I think that is difficult to make that sock be a work of art... even if I wanted to be that way. I think it is difficult... not impossible. If someone want to convert this sock in art, then, as an artist, has the responsability to know in what way (and why) is art. Duchamp and Kaprow knew what were they doing. They were breakin boundaries, but they knew how to confront a tradition and the best way to do it. They did history and now they are part of the tradition that the actual avant-garde has to confront. So... art is not completely subjective and not any object is art because I want it to be. Of course that you don´t have to make works of art that change the paradigms (like the vanguardists did)... but you have to take the contemporary paradigm in count, if you want to be part of it or if you want to brake it.
 
So... I really didn´t want to turn aside the original subject... but this conversation has achieved very interesting points of view... this is mine, and we can discuss it.
Thanks Atomic_Rooster for the pigs... but I think that you are also creating a reflection of reflections that reflect your reflected reflection... or something like that.
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2007 at 00:04
Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster Atomic_Rooster wrote:

Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster

As a poet, heres my take on art.  Art is completely subjective.  Art can and will be anything you want it to be.  If your idea of art is Progressive rock, then Progressive rock is art.  If you think Henry Cow or Jackson Pollock created art then their work is art.  If your idea of art is monkeys copulating over a collection of crude percussive instruments, then it is art (sounds very much like something the artist Allan Kaprow would attempt to create).  There is no point in arguing over it or trying to persuade other people by putting down other varieties of art, because it does not change the perspective of what art is.

Art is not a completely subjective thing. Art has an history, has codes and an simbolic organization that needed thousands of years to achieve the contemporary scene. Art has a way to be... and that way is not anything you want it to be. It must have a context, a spectator, and must separate itself from another ways of creation. If you want something to be art (like prog rock in this case).... that isn´t enough to transform it into a piece of art.

 



Thats an awfully strange and contrived way to interpret art.  Perhaps you should provide examples or clarify your meaning.  What exactly is the way art has to be?  I believe the answer to that question is subjective, based on who is asked.  Art needs no context (deconstructionism anyone?  How about the New York Happenings?).  Why must art be observed (if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it still vibrates the air in a way that it could conceivably be heard, and thus would make a sound - a painting could similarily exist in the center of the earth and be the greatest painting ever created and never be observed by anyone, and it would still be art).  Wanting something to be art is exactly how things became art in the first place, your just venerating Western Tradition because some millenias old dead men decided that what we now consider art is art.  Which was disproven by the Dadaists (search the web for Marcel Duchamp - clearly art, yet it is art because he says so.  There is no doubt in my mind that Titian or whomever you like would have called the majority of his work complete crap.

So, you have committed the atrocious error of creating a question-begging definition.  You have created a definition of art that reflects only your reflection of art, and not the entirety of art in general, as it is recognized by many, such as myself.

But I applaud your efforts anyways.  2 pigsPigPig for you!
 
Yes, the intention is the first step... I agree with that. Was indeed Duchamp who say and did that in first place. What I am trying is not to make a definition of Art... that would be far more ambitious than Tales From Topographic Oceans. What I´m trying to say (always from my perspective... something that I missed in my recent post) is that wanting something to be art is not enough. If Marcel Duchamp had not put the urinary in that context (a sculpture contest)... would be a different story. When I talk about context I don´t mean a gallery or a museum. I mean that has to be a significant enviorment that makes the object of art ask questions. The context is art itself. If you put a sock in a basket with many other socks, in a laundry... and no one see it, I think that is difficult to make that sock be a work of art... even if I wanted to be that way. I think it is difficult... not impossible. If someone want to convert this sock in art, then, as an artist, has the responsability to know in what way (and why) is art. Duchamp and Kaprow knew what were they doing. They were breakin boundaries, but they knew how to confront a tradition and the best way to do it. They did history and now they are part of the tradition that the actual avant-garde has to confront. So... art is not completely subjective and not any object is art because I want it to be. Of course that you don´t have to make works of art that change the paradigms (like the vanguardists did)... but you have to take the contemporary paradigm in count, if you want to be part of it or if you want to brake it.
 
So... I really didn´t want to turn aside the original subject... but this conversation has achieved very interesting points of view... this is mine, and we can discuss it.
Thanks Atomic_Rooster for the pigs... but I think that you are also creating a reflection of reflections that reflect your reflected reflection... or something like that.


I still don't know about art not being completely subjective (who decided art was art in the first place?); I think my good corpse-buddy Wallace Stevens would have a pig if he read your post (he was all about art as perspective, hence the "Anecdote of the Jar" - a Jar's being placed on a hill somehow gives it more significance etc... and "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" - one of the great modern poems, and it challenges perspective about art and subjectivity in general).

But I applaud you for clarifying your point, and it is considered.  2 more pigs for you! PigPig - don't worry, I shined them for you.
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
Atomic_Rooster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2007 at 00:09
Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster Atomic_Rooster wrote:

Originally posted by moebius moebius wrote:

Originally posted by Atomic_Rooster

As a poet, heres my take on art.  Art is completely subjective.  Art can and will be anything you want it to be.  If your idea of art is Progressive rock, then Progressive rock is art.  If you think Henry Cow or Jackson Pollock created art then their work is art.  If your idea of art is monkeys copulating over a collection of crude percussive instruments, then it is art (sounds very much like something the artist Allan Kaprow would attempt to create).  There is no point in arguing over it or trying to persuade other people by putting down other varieties of art, because it does not change the perspective of what art is.

Art is not a completely subjective thing. Art has an history, has codes and an simbolic organization that needed thousands of years to achieve the contemporary scene. Art has a way to be... and that way is not anything you want it to be. It must have a context, a spectator, and must separate itself from another ways of creation. If you want something to be art (like prog rock in this case).... that isn´t enough to transform it into a piece of art.

 



Thats an awfully strange and contrived way to interpret art.  Perhaps you should provide examples or clarify your meaning.  What exactly is the way art has to be?  I believe the answer to that question is subjective, based on who is asked.  Art needs no context (deconstructionism anyone?  How about the New York Happenings?).  Why must art be observed (if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it still vibrates the air in a way that it could conceivably be heard, and thus would make a sound - a painting could similarily exist in the center of the earth and be the greatest painting ever created and never be observed by anyone, and it would still be art).  Wanting something to be art is exactly how things became art in the first place, your just venerating Western Tradition because some millenias old dead men decided that what we now consider art is art.  Which was disproven by the Dadaists (search the web for Marcel Duchamp - clearly art, yet it is art because he says so.  There is no doubt in my mind that Titian or whomever you like would have called the majority of his work complete crap.

So, you have committed the atrocious error of creating a question-begging definition.  You have created a definition of art that reflects only your reflection of art, and not the entirety of art in general, as it is recognized by many, such as myself.

But I applaud your efforts anyways.  2 pigsPigPig for you!
 
Yes, the intention is the first step... I agree with that. Was indeed Duchamp who say and did that in first place. What I am trying is not to make a definition of Art... that would be far more ambitious than Tales From Topographic Oceans. What I´m trying to say (always from my perspective... something that I missed in my recent post) is that wanting something to be art is not enough. If Marcel Duchamp had not put the urinary in that context (a sculpture contest)... would be a different story. When I talk about context I don´t mean a gallery or a museum. I mean that has to be a significant enviorment that makes the object of art ask questions. The context is art itself. If you put a sock in a basket with many other socks, in a laundry... and no one see it, I think that is difficult to make that sock be a work of art... even if I wanted to be that way. I think it is difficult... not impossible. If someone want to convert this sock in art, then, as an artist, has the responsability to know in what way (and why) is art. Duchamp and Kaprow knew what were they doing. They were breakin boundaries, but they knew how to confront a tradition and the best way to do it. They did history and now they are part of the tradition that the actual avant-garde has to confront. So... art is not completely subjective and not any object is art because I want it to be. Of course that you don´t have to make works of art that change the paradigms (like the vanguardists did)... but you have to take the contemporary paradigm in count, if you want to be part of it or if you want to brake it.
 
So... I really didn´t want to turn aside the original subject... but this conversation has achieved very interesting points of view... this is mine, and we can discuss it.
Thanks Atomic_Rooster for the pigs... but I think that you are also creating a reflection of reflections that reflect your reflected reflection... or something like that.


I still don't know about art not being completely subjective (who decided art was art in the first place?); I think my good corpse-buddy Wallace Stevens would have a pig if he read your post (he was all about art as perspective, hence the "Anecdote of the Jar" - a Jar's being placed on a hill somehow gives it more significance etc... and "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" - one of the great modern poems, and it challenges perspective about art and subjectivity in general).

But I applaud you for clarifying your point, and it is considered.  2 more pigs for you! PigPig - don't worry, I shined them for you.
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
Back to Top
prolificprogger View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: April 12 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 81 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2007 at 00:25
I guess then my snot can be considered art. Do you know how ridiculious you all sound by saying "art can be whatever you want it to be"?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.289 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.