Sadicksticks

Just wanted to make some cicadas <3

Humans are considered the bread’s natural predator, and also, are the bread’s mommy (make/give birth to the bread). Humans are a large species of ant or plant or ele phant with two grasping appendages which they use to give birth to the bread. They also have one hole which eats the bread, and some other holes, which the bread is not allowed near, generally.

Some bread can go in the fridge. Some bread has fruit in it. Scientists don’t know why, as putting fruit in the bread is considered yucky, and scientists have difficulty imagining an organism that likes yucky things.

this is fred, the dot.

fred wants to grow into a beautiful tree, but sadly has no branches

reblog to give fred a branch

75 reblogs, fred continues to grow

Aside from Duchamp’s readymades, I love “Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors Even”. Pictured below, the work invokes a complex machine, one my professor spent a great deal of time studying. Eventually, he reached his conclusion. My professor had been pranked. He believes “Bride Stripped Bare” is a joke about masturbation, hidden to all except those study it excessively.

As a lover of art, there are many complex and technically impressive works being created today, which both embrace different artistic traditions and break from them. To ignore those is to ignore contemporary art.

Here, OP is raging against conceptual art, which stimulates thought and challenges tradition. He wants his followers to believe that art has “degenerated”, because the West has “degenerated”. OP is intentionally engaging with fascist ideas of “degenerate art”.

If OP wanted to be accurate, he would seek to restore the Salon System, the Beaux Arts Academy, and classical training in the arts. The collapse of this specific system allowed for Modernism to evolve. Of course, that’s not what OP is talking about. He’s evoking beauty as a moral standard, telling his followers to “restore Western tradition”, to fight against aesthetic “degeneracy” in culture.

(By the way, Duchamp is commenting ON MODERNISM with “Fountain”. Duchamp submitted the work to the Society of Independent Artists’ salon in New York, who would accept any work by any artist, for a small fee. In part, Duchamp is saying, “Is this what you Modernists want? A urinal? Look me in the eyes and prove this is not art.”

Duchamp had other readymades, like his snow shovel, where if you actually look at the photos, the handle is square and the bowl is way too flimsy. Why would manufacturers make a snow shovel with a squared-off handle? It’s impossible to hold! Duchamp slapped the “readymades” label on all these items and the hoity-toity art people who were so good at looking at things didn’t see it (probably because they’d never had to do labor like shovel snow imo, amongst other things).

And they’re different! If it was a real “readymade” he could have just bought some more at his local hardware store, but no. He changed them in OBVIOUS WAYS.

See the triangle of holes?

Here’s the one from the Tate Modern:

Oh hello, cross-holes. Fancy seeing you here.

SFMOMA’s edition has the triangle holes, but it also has a line of holes at the top that are completely different from either other version.

Here’s one from Moderna Museet. Line and a circular set of holes!

Duchamp definitely intentionally made these different on purpose. It’s a “readymade” but it’s not, really, each of these is a specific custom creation.

It’s not even clear if he made it! He wrote a letter to his sister claiming that a female friend sent it to him, and he just enrolled it in the art exhibit under his own name. There’s also a possibility that that female friend was himself, since he later had a female pseudonym of Rrose Sélav.

Colleague: so they were using the wrong species to pollinate their crops.

Me: what do you mean?

Colleague: well they were using a fly species from Canada and they’re growing onions in Texas. The fly they were using was dying in a day in their greenhouses because it’s frigging Texas in May/June.

Me: and no one was studying this or telling them otherwise?

Colleague: not till me.

Me: so they were wasting all that money on an inefficient pollinator and losing out on crop yield.

Colleague: yep…

EDIT: No, I actually need to quote this out for myself.

“One of the things that happens a lot in philisophy that is, I think, a point of failure, potentially, in it, is that philosophy contains a lot of formal logic studies, and there’s a degree to want to sort of explicate, logically, everything, and go like, ‘What are the reasons and rationalities behind all of this?” But I think ignoring the primal origins of morality- You don’t need- If you watch someone kick a small animal, you don’t need an explanation for why that’s bad. It’s a first- It’s a primary thing, right? And you get into weird positions when you’re like, ‘I believe that humans should have good- be flourish and be happy, and have safety and joy!’ And someone can literally just go ‘Why? To what end? To what end should they have joy?’ And you’re like ‘Not to what end. I’m saying this is the end for me. The end for me is joy and safety and peace.’ And I get to say that because I’m a weird brain monster living in the universe and I can create meaning with my mind. You’re doing the same thing right now, but I just choose joy. Are you choosing something else? Because if you are, then we’re in conflict!” -Brennan Lee Mulligan, “Fireside Chat for WWW ep40 ‘Aid and Comfort’”