i caught Hertz hangin' around in DC

JTHphoto · Mar 2, 2006

LOL, the resemblance is striking... :lol:

anicole · Mar 3, 2006

:snicker, snicker:

:lol:

I wondered if he'd ever cross the pond ...

photo gal · Mar 3, 2006

He sure gets around! : )

M @ k o · Mar 3, 2006

anicole · Mar 3, 2006

I meant to add that I really like the sunbeams, too ... you're always so clever at catching things ...

can you enlighten us on the LHOOQ?

JonMikal · Mar 3, 2006

anicole said:
I meant to add that I really like the sunbeams, too ... you're always so clever at catching things ...

can you enlighten us on the LHOOQ?

The most well known act of degrading a famous work of art is probably Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q., a cheap postcard-sized reproduction of the Mona Lisa upon which in 1919 the artist drew a mustache and a thin goatee beard. On one hand L.H.O.O.Q. must be understood as one of Duchamp's "readymade" works of artworks that he didn't make, but which . . . [force] the observer to see ordinary objects from new perspectives. In this way their innate aesthetic contents would make themselves manifestas happens in one of his more infamous works: the urinal turned on its side and rebaptized "Fountain." However, to most observers, instead of elevating the ordinary, Marcel's Mona Lisa works in the opposite direction; it defaces (literally) that which has been cherished, and brings a famous work down to the level of vulgar vandalism and cheap reproduction. The title makes the point, too, but obscurely, since when pronounced in French "L.H.O.O.Q." reports as a pun on the phrase "Elle a chaud au cul," which translates colloquially as "She is hot in the ass."

do you agree with Baron's claim that Duchamp "brings a famous work down to the level of vulgar vandalism"? why or why not?

aprilraven · Mar 3, 2006

oh my god..it is hertz.... i love the whole portait thing on hertz...its killer....

hey graham....? gonna shed that mustache...?

anicole · Mar 3, 2006

JonMikal said:
The most well known act of degrading a famous work of art is probably Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q., a cheap postcard-sized reproduction of the Mona Lisa upon which in 1919 the artist drew a mustache and a thin goatee beard. On one hand L.H.O.O.Q. must be understood as one of Duchamp's "readymade" works of artworks that he didn't make, but which . . . [force] the observer to see ordinary objects from new perspectives. In this way their innate aesthetic contents would make themselves manifestas happens in one of his more infamous works: the urinal turned on its side and rebaptized "Fountain." However, to most observers, instead of elevating the ordinary, Marcel's Mona Lisa works in the opposite direction; it defaces (literally) that which has been cherished, and brings a famous work down to the level of vulgar vandalism and cheap reproduction. The title makes the point, too, but obscurely, since when pronounced in French "L.H.O.O.Q." reports as a pun on the phrase "Elle a chaud au cul," which translates colloquially as "She is hot in the ass."
do you agree with Baron's claim that Duchamp "brings a famous work down to the level of vulgar vandalism"? why or why not?

Can you tell I never took any type of art history?

Oh Lord ... I feel like I'm in school again ... essay time ...

*swills Pink Pepto straight from the bottle*