Mad wrote:Frank Hipper wrote:What in the fuck? I was responding to this:
1) Images are not of the WTC (so it's not doing something related to 9/11)
I know. You mentioned the possibility of editing it in a little later, so I was addressing that point as well: "If he plans anything other than the sky to be in the background, that can be digitally added later as well."
How do you justify making a point about an absense of the World Trade Center when the building no longer exists?
Prove that they will do more editing than was already stated. This is a huge assumption.
Not only did I present a perfectly reasonable scenario for
not editing any cityscape images in (sky as background), but anyone who's argument is that this is a representation of the 1929 Stock Market Crash jumpers neeeds to look "assumption" and "huge" up in the dictionary.
So, in other words, you can't prove that the pictures will be edited any further than was stated.
Would you mind explaining how "guy falling with nothing but sky behind him" is 9/11-related?
Digital editing is not required to make a link, not when he's made the link with his own statements.
Shots of a single person falling would require anything beyond small-scale shots and be New york specific because?
Isn't needed at all if the picture isn't 9/11-specific.
This requires an assumption in contradiction to his comments.
Nothing. He never linked this picture to anything.
Read the article in the OP and get back to me on
that one.
He linked "falling" in all of his art to 9/11, but nothing else.The imagery just happens to fit better with the stock market crash than it does with 9/11.
And I await a single solitary scrap of evidence that shows this.
Nice way to break up my paragraph and nitpick semantics piece-by-piece instead of noticing the message. So let me word it more precisely and see how you'll nitpick the semantics: This scene wasn't linked to anything that his other pieces weren't. The concept of falling is the only link, and nothing else.
Semantics? You ignore where he himself, clearly and unequivocally states the link in an event specific interview and call it semantics?
Worthless, worse then worthless!
Coming from someone who just accused me of making a huge assumption, I can only laugh at this statement.
Why? Because my interpretation differs from yours? Art is about interpretation.
But you're not trying to interpret the art, you're trying to tell us as fact what the artist was intending to do. And that's something completely different.
When you have his own words as evidence, it takes little interpretation to see this.
Because there is nothing in the image that links it specifically to 9/11. Where's the fire and smoke? There's just as much evidence to link this picture to 9/11 as there is to the stock market crash.
Show me that he had the resources to provide fire and smoke,
If an artist wants something in the picture, he'll find a way to have it in there. It's not a question of resources. He could digitally add it in later if he wanted it in there. So the logical conclusion is that he doesn't want fire and smoke in it.
Classic, coming from someone who flings accusations of circular logic around, (you state a need for smoke in the photo to satisfy your position, so an absense of smoke means the artist didn't want it there, and so it supports your position; a perfect circle, you ignore the possibility of other reasons for a lack of smoke) not to mention questioning the need for digitally enhanced additions.
show me that anything more specific beyond his statement tying this event to September 11th and his wearing a suit is required, and why?
WHY?
Simple:
- His statement only linked the falling concept to 9/11
That means all of his pictures are inspired by 9/11. This picture is no more a recreation of 9/11 than his other falling pictures are, as I said already. Is the guy falling off a ladder a recreation of 9/11? We already know it's inspired by 9/11. Is the guy falling out of a tree a recreation of 9/11? We already know it's inspired by 9/11. Is the guy in a suit falling on a porch a recreation of 9/11? We already know it's inspired by 9/11.
What you either refuse or are unable to see is that this IS MORE SPECIFICLY tied to September 11th.
[*]The suit
Also, as I said, a falling man in a business suit is as much a part of 1929 as it is of 9/11. He already has another picture of a man falling in a suit that is definitely not a recreation of 9/11. A person wearing a suit while falling is not 9/11-specific imagery.
Coupled with the statement, the location (as I've already shown), the clothing, and the lack of implied or otherwise indicated intent that this was not supposed to be World Trade Center jumper related, what are you left with to conclude that this Stock Market jumper related?
Let me simplify; when there is more evidence for X than there is for Y, why is Y the preferred position?
It is no more specific to 9/11 than than a picture of a male with a trenchcoat and guns is Columbine-specific imagery (think of the movie The Matrix).
If the Matrix took place in school, and portrayed people in their teens, it would be a hard to ignore relationship.
Or than a picture of an explosion in midair is specific to the Challenger explosion.[/list]
And if someone says that Challenger is their inspiration, would you still ignore that if he made photos of exploding rockets?
This isn't a photo of a flowerpot falling we're talking about, it's man in a business suit in conjunction with his statement on impetus.
Therefore, there is nothing specific to this picture that links it to 9/11 that his other pictures don't already have. And even those aren't 9/11-specific things.
Excepting that the content of the photos is not the only thing to be considered. Why do you absolutely ignore his statement that he required an "artistic
response"? Do you respond always with generalities when you state specifics as inspiration?
All of his falling pictures are inspired by 9/11. The images of a guy falling off a ladder and out of a tree are both inspired by 9/11. However, it is painfully obvious by looking at them that they are not imitating 9/11, but are doing something completely different. This particular picture is no more likely to be representing 9/11 than the others are.
Except for his comment tying this specific event to it, his clothing...
Why the fuck does it require anything more?
To satisfy your opinion? Why should your
opinion count for shit when you've demonstrated repeatedly that you're grasping at straws?
Re-read what I said, you didn't address it at all. How can this one be any more specific to 9/11 than his picture of a man in a suitfalling by a porch?
Didn't address it
at all? Am I talking to a brick wall here?
How is citing his statement about inspiration, coupled with his choice of clothing, coupled with a downtown setting not addessing you?
It is NOT circular logic because he admits the link in the event specific interview, you drooling poltroon!
If you're going to put words in my mouth you fucking dickhead, you'd better be FAR more sly about it!
The link is referring to
all of his falling pictures equally, not just this one. In order for argument to be consistent, you'd have to maintain that all of his pictures are recreations of 9/11. If they are not all recreations of 9/11, then his statement has no bearing on whether or not the picture in question is of 9/11.
What kind of tortured, incoherent bullshit is that?
He is interviewed
for this event and states in the interview
for this event that September 11th is his inspiration, that he requires an artistic expression for September 11th;
THAT makes other performances irrelevant.
Do you believe that the porch picture is a recreation of 9/11? It has a guy falling in a suit. So, is it?
If it had some remark about tying the two together, it would be hard to say it doesn't.
But I'm not examining some picture of him in a suit
only and making claims with nothing else to support me.
What do we have here? Ah, yes, it's a red herring. You repeatedly mention the suit as being special, and specific to this picture, and saying it unquestioningly links it to 9/11 (and, for some reason, you don't bother doing a simple Google image search to make sure your statements won't be turned against you).
The suit is NOT the
only point I'm making, and you wouldn't know a red herring if it bit you on the ass!
You
WILL show where I attempted misdirection.
Then I show you another picture by the same guy that has a guy in a suit falling that is obviously not related to 9/11. Furthermore, the porch picture is inspired by 9/11, because it's in his falling line of works, all of which were inspired by 9/11.
How can something be inspired by an event, and not be related? That's one of the most self-contradictory statements I've ever seen.
And, what's your response to the evidence I brought forth? Oh, yeah, sarcasm and pointing out I that missed the phrase "that I've seen" in your sentence. Yeah, I missed that and caught after I had hit Submit. Where do you address the picture and attempt to show that somehow, while this picture of a man in a suit falling isn't of 9/11 but is inspired by it, that the one you haven't seen is definitely of 9/11 in addition to being inspired by it? That's right, you don't, you throw a red herring out instead.
Since a multiple page discussion isn't enough for the point to register with you, I'll make it brief and simple by saying the suit is not the only thing that ties this to September 11th.
How much more evidence for point A does it take for point B to be invalid?
I still await
anything that shows this is more likely related to 1929 then September 11th, by the way.
