this x 1000PensFanInDC wrote:Homeboy is one word. MIMH is proper. MIHMB is not...
Your irrational pet peeves
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10292
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: I say stupid things. You have been warned
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 25043
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:03 pm
- Location: Good night, sweet prince...
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
overstuffed wraps and burritos.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 27917
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
- Location: Fredneck
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
When someone in a store is mopping at the same time I am shopping. I feel like such a jerk walking on their freshly mopped floor.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 6754
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Here and there
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
White cars with black wheels.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10615
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:57 am
- Location: Sparta, WI
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
*whew*
I have a black car with white wheels.
I have a black car with white wheels.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 19694
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:11 pm
- Location: BOBROVSKY!!!
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
So does just about everyone else (that owns a black car, anyway)...
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10292
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: I say stupid things. You have been warned
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
this thread needs a theme song:
"you down with IPP?"
"yeah you know me"
"you down with IPP?"
"yeah you know me"
"who's down with IPP?"
"Allllllll of LGP"
"you down with IPP?"
"yeah you know me"
"you down with IPP?"
"yeah you know me"
"who's down with IPP?"
"Allllllll of LGP"
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10615
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:57 am
- Location: Sparta, WI
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
No, they're *really* white.MRandall25 wrote:So does just about everyone else (that owns a black car, anyway)...
Spoiler:
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 15030
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:15 pm
- Location: http://freebitco.in/?r=770437 BITCOINS get them
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Bad parody songs, man. If you're not Weird Al then stop.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5050
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
I have a black keep with black and orange wheels.
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 48700
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:06 pm
- Location: governor of Fayettenam
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
ImgurJim wrote:Where else am I to put my pics?LeopardLetang wrote:Big time agreemac5155 wrote:People who use photo bucket, especially when I'm on Mobile theme
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 6511
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:27 pm
- Location: In the Ballrooms of Mars
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Although I currently have my factory wheels on for the winter.Shyster wrote:White cars with black wheels.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5050
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Cashiers who hand you your coins, bills and sales receipt all at the same time. Then you either have to hold up the line to separate the mess or shove it all in your pocket/wallet. Grrr
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 15030
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:15 pm
- Location: http://freebitco.in/?r=770437 BITCOINS get them
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Hand change then bills. It's not hardHockeynut! wrote:Cashiers who hand you your coins, bills and sales receipt all at the same time. Then you either have to hold up the line to separate the mess or shove it all in your pocket/wallet. Grrr
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10292
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: I say stupid things. You have been warned
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
From a Huffington Post article
My IPP is artists. I don't know why but I can't stand them. There's almost a smug attitude about them.
As you can imagine, the photos are really dumb.Photographer Polly Penrose started her project, "A Body of Work," seven years ago. She was inside her step-father's factory, amidst an array of industrial machines and contraptions -- inventions like tables built for vets to operate on race horses. It was there that she first stripped down naked and snapped a self-portrait.
The gesture initiated a years-long fascination with inserting her nude body into forgotten places. Penrose would seek out quiet locations, like abandoned houses and empty hotel rooms, and there she would photograph herself, stretched out from head to toe or pinched into fetal position. From 2007 to today, she's documented the physical and emotional changes her form has undergone, from marriage to pregnancy to grieving loved ones. Each image captures a new relationship between body and space, provocatively challenging the concept of "fitting in."
My IPP is artists. I don't know why but I can't stand them. There's almost a smug attitude about them.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10615
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:57 am
- Location: Sparta, WI
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Agreed. Art for arts sake is frivolous to me.
-
- Junior 'A'
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:17 pm
- Location: PA
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Forms (especially on computers) that have both an entry for "Birthdate" and "Age". The latter is a redundant and unnecessary entry, and a computer should be able to easily calculate your age based off your birthdate.
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 51889
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Why would any sincere and serious human being create art - in whatever medium - other than for the sake of doing so?
I suppose you could mention to make money, but that's why the world has to suffer pop music, horrible television, idiotic super hero movies, etc.
I suppose you could mention to make money, but that's why the world has to suffer pop music, horrible television, idiotic super hero movies, etc.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5050
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
What's art for arts sake? Picasso, Rembrandt, Monet, Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack? I don't "get" a lot of art and there are certainly some wildly douchy artists out there, but as they say, beauty if in the eye of the beholder.dodint wrote:Agreed. Art for arts sake is frivolous to me.
-
- ECHL'er
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:43 pm
- Location: Inside a Filet-o-Fish sandwich
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
...or when they ask you to create a password but dont give you their guidelines until after you've done it, then it's all like hold on there, Sparky, you need a capital letter and a symbol and 3 numbers and a character from Egyptian hieroglyphics.scb147 wrote:Forms (especially on computers) that have both an entry for "Birthdate" and "Age". The latter is a redundant and unnecessary entry, and a computer should be able to easily calculate your age based off your birthdate.
-
- NHL First Liner
- Posts: 60559
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
- Location: Amish Country
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
I feel like art is just like anything else. Food, movies, songs, etc. You can love some and hate others. Although that being said, I do believe that art has taken a huge step backwards in recent decades. Performance art is garbage.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10292
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: I say stupid things. You have been warned
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Putting Pollock in that group is an insult. The others are technically skilled painters. A 3 year old can recreate Pollock's workHockeynut! wrote:What's art for arts sake? Picasso, Rembrandt, Monet, Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack? I don't "get" a lot of art and there are certainly some wildly douchy artists out there, but as they say, beauty if in the eye of the beholder.dodint wrote:Agreed. Art for arts sake is frivolous to me.
I found this video interesting.
[youtube][/youtube]
I don't agree that art is objective but I do agree that art has shifted from an emphasis on technical ability to self-expression.
My own personal theory is that before 1950 or so, artists were only the best of the best because life wasn't comfortable. Artists were artists because they were really good, not because their parents had money or whatever. If you weren't good you couldn't be an artist because you/your family would starve. But we live such a comfortable life now that anyone can live with their parents and be "artsy".
Hell, I had a roommate the last two years who I love like a sister but she is really mediocre at painting and she thinks she's good. Or at least she paints often...I don't know if she thinks she's good.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5050
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
That's why I did include Pollack.MalkinIsMyHomeboy wrote: Putting Pollock in that group is an insult. The others are technically skilled painters. A 3 year old can recreate Pollock's work
I don't agree that art is objective but I do agree that art has shifted from an emphasis on technical ability to self-expression.
My own personal theory is that before 1950 or so, artists were only the best of the best because life wasn't comfortable. Artists were artists because they were really good, not because their parents had money or whatever. If you weren't good you couldn't be an artist because you/your family would starve. But we live such a comfortable life now that anyone can live with their parents and be "artsy".
Hell, I had a roommate the last two years who I love like a sister but she is really mediocre at painting and she thinks she's good. Or at least she paints often...I don't know if she thinks she's good.
Many of the artists now renowned as "great" were poor their whole lives or achieved little success in the arts. Their fame and the value of their work didn't come until after they were dead. The ones who were successful in life were certainly talented, but as with any business, they were also skilled at marketing themselves. Picasso is a good example of that.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10615
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:57 am
- Location: Sparta, WI
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
Do I *really* have to justify myself, in this of all threads? I didn't even bring it up.
I studied art history while earning my bachelors. I have an appreciation for it from a technical standpoint. But I have a really hard time with abstract art. To put it in a nutshell, I feel like the hard work Velazquez and his contemporaries put into making art stand on it's own as important pursuit was flushed down the toilet by the Dadaists and all the artists-before-art that came after, including the stuff like MIMH is talking about above. I just can't **** stand it. That's what I meant by 'art for art's sake', it exists to promote the art and the artist without contributing anything. Also note that I said "frivolous" because art isn't about utility, and I stand by that sentiment. If it's practical it's probably not pure art.
To me real art evokes some kind of response from people. It cultivates a shared experience. People have been looking at Sargent's The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit for 130 years. When I get lost in it I feel like I'm with every person that ever admired it. I feel the same way about books and certain movies, I consider them art and I love them dearly.
Most of the art I've selected for our home is photography, because it's 'real.' (I know photography is just a subjective as painting but it's my choice, nya) I'm a very literal person and respond well to art forms that show me 'reality' from a perspective I haven't considered before, which is why I adore photography. The sole exception in my home is a print of The Dog by Goya, because it moves me in some primal way. It's worth noting the series The Dog came from was never really meant to be exhibited, it was found later.
Art is a really broad spectrum, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me or even care. But bad art is like obscenity, you know it when you see it.
I studied art history while earning my bachelors. I have an appreciation for it from a technical standpoint. But I have a really hard time with abstract art. To put it in a nutshell, I feel like the hard work Velazquez and his contemporaries put into making art stand on it's own as important pursuit was flushed down the toilet by the Dadaists and all the artists-before-art that came after, including the stuff like MIMH is talking about above. I just can't **** stand it. That's what I meant by 'art for art's sake', it exists to promote the art and the artist without contributing anything. Also note that I said "frivolous" because art isn't about utility, and I stand by that sentiment. If it's practical it's probably not pure art.
To me real art evokes some kind of response from people. It cultivates a shared experience. People have been looking at Sargent's The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit for 130 years. When I get lost in it I feel like I'm with every person that ever admired it. I feel the same way about books and certain movies, I consider them art and I love them dearly.
Most of the art I've selected for our home is photography, because it's 'real.' (I know photography is just a subjective as painting but it's my choice, nya) I'm a very literal person and respond well to art forms that show me 'reality' from a perspective I haven't considered before, which is why I adore photography. The sole exception in my home is a print of The Dog by Goya, because it moves me in some primal way. It's worth noting the series The Dog came from was never really meant to be exhibited, it was found later.
Art is a really broad spectrum, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me or even care. But bad art is like obscenity, you know it when you see it.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5050
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am
Re: Your irrational pet peeves
I was just teasing you. Sorry to make you put so much effort into it, but I enjoyed your explanation.
Edit: A lot of critics will say photography isn't a true art. Obviously, I disagree.
Edit: A lot of critics will say photography isn't a true art. Obviously, I disagree.