Quake3World

Incredible as it sounds...

Deep in the Mars-like landscape of Utah's red-rock desert lies a mystery: a gleaming metal monolith in one of the most remote parts of the state.

and there's a YT video too

[youtube]_orpeenBXVk[/youtube]


Source and another

It just looks like some sheet metal art piece.

While we're on the subject of things that could look alien....

[youtube]TOvxxq9TwNg[/youtube]

Oh shit, not in 2020!

That's cool

Who are the guys inspecting it and why are they wearing jump suits?

Cool.. Please be aliens, please be aliens....

Still cool, wish more people did this kind of stuff. You know, it's in the middle of nowhere, cool, doesn't disturb anyone, appears to be well crafted, etc...

xer0s wrote:Who are the guys inspecting it and why are they wearing jump suits?

they came straight from a Dave Chappelle lookalike contest

also i hope that a) no one takes responsibility for this (ooooh the mystery x-files music) and b) they leave it there

Κracus wrote:Still cool, wish more people did this kind of stuff. You know, it's in the middle of nowhere, cool, doesn't disturb anyone, appears to be well crafted, etc...

They destroyed the natural formation of the bedrock. Defacing public natural areas for the sake of art and mystery is not cool...

I don't know about that. Seems it was seen from the air (helicopter crew wearing jump suits) so I wonder how long it might have stayed there, likely many years (probably why they elected to use stainless steel). Art is so subjective.

I like 'public art' but I can't decide whether they should have sort permission or not

If it's left there, it may encourage copycat 'artists' to go around planting sculptures in other less-remote areas. I would prefer that the desert not be littered with stupid homages to old movies, TYVM.

Whiskey 7 wrote:I like 'public art' but I can't decide whether they should have sort permission or not

Yeah Banksy's work would be so much more iconic if he had a permit and his art followed Municipal Regulation 11-27A of "not creating a nuisance for passers-by with delicate sensibilities who may find offense to any shade of colour past 60% saturation facing the southwest quadrant between the months of May and September if flow of traffic is deemed irregular for the time of day" :dts:

Captain Mazda wrote:

Whiskey 7 wrote:I like 'public art' but I can't decide whether they should have sort permission or not

Yeah Banksy's work would be so much more iconic if he had a permit and his art followed Municipal Regulation 11-27A of "not creating a nuisance for passers-by with delicate sensibilities who may find offense to any shade of colour past 60% saturation facing the southwest quadrant between the months of May and September if flow of traffic is deemed irregular for the time of day" :dts:

You're cherry picking and that's not the point anyway.

Eraser wrote: You're cherry picking and that's not the point anyway.

I'd argue that Banksy is the most most well known artist that regularly bypasses laws in the name of his/her art and therefore is entirely on point.

Art, at times, is meant to be rebellious. Artists use rebellion as a way to empower and inspire individuals to overcome adversity and create a positive impact in communities. Or it's done to inspire wonder, provoke thought and thus, discussion.

So far, this is exactly what has been done with this piece. If you fail to recognise it's intensions then more of this kind of thing is needed, to ensure that next time you do recognise what is going on.

Nice Don Carlos

i think we've established by now that Jez is very much a colour-inside-the-lines kind of guy

OP is a moron...

Don Carlos wrote:I'd argue that Banksy is the most most well known artist that regularly bypasses laws in the name of his/her art and therefore is entirely on point.

Art, at times, is meant to be rebellious. Artists use rebellion as a way to empower and inspire individuals to overcome adversity and create a positive impact in communities. Or it's done to inspire wonder, provoke thought and thus, discussion.

So far, this is exactly what has been done with this piece. If you fail to recognise it's intensions then more of this kind of thing is needed, to ensure that next time you do recognise what is going on.

It's just one most... Moron...

Eraser wrote:You're cherry picking and that's not the point anyway.

You having a rough week bud?

Don Carlos wrote:

Eraser wrote: You're cherry picking and that's not the point anyway.

I'd argue that Banksy is the most most well known artist that regularly bypasses laws in the name of his/her art and therefore is entirely on point.

Art, at times, is meant to be rebellious. Artists use rebellion as a way to empower and inspire individuals to overcome adversity and create a positive impact in communities. Or it's done to inspire wonder, provoke thought and thus, discussion.

Exactly because Banksy is widely recognized and successful, I'd say he's being cherry picked. It's hard to argue that Banksy's art isn't meaningful, thought provoking or doesn't lead to discussion. His art is appreciated and seen by many as a net plus to whatever the artwork was placed on. I certainly wouldn't want to argue about the (non-monetary) value of Banksy's art nor would I argue that he needs permission to place his artwork. But since art is such a subjective thing, the local neighborhood hoodlum who spraypaints his initials on every surface he can find could use the same argumentation. If I were to draw huge penises on the walls of buildings to "provoke thought", people wouldn't be as appreciative of it. Would my argument of being thought provoking and the topic of discussion be enough to warrant the drawing of penises everywhere? I doubt it'd stick. The trouble here is that it's hard to define a hard line between what's acceptable and what isn't. Such is the nature of art I guess.

I interpreted Whiskey's statement about needing permission first to spring from the idea of the latter type of art rather than what Banksy does. For me, a blanket "but art is meant to be rebellious (just look at Banksy)" statement is too wide a definition of what's acceptable. It also puts you on a slippery slope where actually harmful things could be done in the name of art. What if I tortured an animal in the name of art? Would that be OK, because there's some sort of deeper meaning behind it? So yeah, I think Banksy is a very safe example to come up with.

Don Carlos wrote:So far, this is exactly what has been done with this piece. If you fail to recognise it's intensions then more of this kind of thing is needed, to ensure that next time you do recognise what is going on.

Let me first say I don't have a problem with this particular piece but I don't appreciate it as art very much either. It's also not hard to recognize the intention behind it. I think it's too simple, actually. I'm sure something similar could've been done by a few drunk teenagers and people would call it vandalism, not art. There we're right back at the "art" label not being a get-out-of-jail-free card.

As I write this I find myself tempted by writing things like "if a piece of art is damaging, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable" but truth is, it's hard to make general sweeping statements like that. Dangerous is pretty self-explanatory, but what's damaging or otherwise unacceptbale? A butt-ugly spraypainted tag on a building wall is, IMO, unacceptable (despite this particular example being a homage to lost kin), but it might not be for someone else. A colorful artistic work right next to it is something I'm fine with. Would either "artist" need permission for their works? Hard to say. But IMO one of these two gets to call themselves an artist and the other is a vandal.

So tl;dr: I'm not arguing artists like Banksy should ask permission to do something, but the "but it's art" argument can't be applied to everything.

Eraser wrote:I interpreted Whiskey's statement about needing permission first to spring from the idea of the latter type of art rather than what Banksy does. For me, a blanket "but art is meant to be rebellious (just look at Banksy)" statement is too wide a definition of what's acceptable. It also puts you on a slippery slope where actually harmful things could be done in the name of art. What if I tortured an animal in the name of art? Would that be OK, because there's some sort of deeper meaning behind it? So yeah, I think Banksy is a very safe example to come up with.

I don't even know what you're arguing for considering no one here is advocating for animal torture nor was this monolith in the middle of nowhere planted on top of someone's penis or an endangered turtle. The fact that we're all here talking about it and you're having such a strong reaction to it is proof that it has had an effect, which ultimately is the goal of art.

Eraser wrote:As I write this I find myself tempted by writing things like "if a piece of art is damaging, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable" but truth is, it's hard to make general sweeping statements like that. Dangerous is pretty self-explanatory, but what's damaging or otherwise unacceptbale? A butt-ugly spraypainted tag on a building wall is, IMO, unacceptable (despite this particular example being a homage to lost kin), but it might not be for someone else. A colorful artistic work right next to it is something I'm fine with. Would either "artist" need permission for their works? Hard to say. But IMO one of these two gets to call themselves an artist and the other is a vandal.

So tl;dr: I'm not arguing artists like Banksy should ask permission to do something, but the "but it's art" argument can't be applied to everything.

Never heard of anyone claiming random spray paint scribbles are art. That other piece you linked is clearly artistic, whoever did it has remarkable craftsmanship and knowledge of mixing colours. Ever tried to spray paint something without it looking like something a 5-yr old did?

If the movie is to be believed, there might finally be higher brain functions developing in the US. Trump not winning was the first sign.

Captain Mazda wrote:I don't even know what you're arguing for considering no one here is advocating for animal torture nor was this monolith in the middle of nowhere planted on top of someone's penis or an endangered turtle. The fact that we're all here talking about it and you're having such a strong reaction to it is proof that it has had an effect, which ultimately is the goal of art.

I wasn't responding to the monolith artwork. I was responding to the outright dismissal of the idea that art shouldn't always just be allowed because it's art. No, actually, I was responding to you illustrating said point with Banksy as an example.

Captain Mazda wrote:Never heard of anyone claiming random spray paint scribbles are art. That other piece you linked is clearly artistic, whoever did it has remarkable craftsmanship and knowledge of mixing colours. Ever tried to spray paint something without it looking like something a 5-yr old did?

Who says that me scribbling my name on some daring location isn't a form of art? Often, art is only called art because someone has labelled it as such. The notion of a banana taped to a wall being art is just as ridiculous, but yet there are people who seriously appreciate it as art. I'm just saying that someone doodling tags on a wall isn't wrong when claiming it's art.

Funny this, they say I'm the color-inside-the-lines guy, yet the idea of art extending well beyond Van Gogh, Monet and Banksy seems challenging for some.