Pastel Mr. Shin
El Goodo
Dumplings, a collective of passages.%\0\%
Posts: 198
|
Post by Pastel Mr. Shin on Nov 10, 2011 14:02:37 GMT -5
|
|
Toki
El Goodo
Bonerific
%\0\%[k4r]
Posts: 84
|
Post by Toki on Nov 10, 2011 15:48:22 GMT -5
What album are those reviews for?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soup567 on Nov 10, 2011 17:27:34 GMT -5
ITT: proof hardcore Metallica fans will force themselves to like Lulu because they can't face that it's complete shit The lyrics are deep ? A table is dark and depressing ? Explain, I really wanna know what is depressing about being a table. Just stop. Stop right now. It's certainly fine if you don't like it, but don't act like your opinion is a fact and it's also clear and easy to see that the meaning flew right over your head. Also I never said that I particularly cared for the album in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Zilla2112 on Nov 10, 2011 18:36:25 GMT -5
Lulu is definitely art. In fact, almost everything can be considered to be art. However, there's a difference between art that has a lot of meaning and art that doesn't, and there really isn't that much beneath the surface of Lulu. It's dark and violent yes, but there's little meaning or value to it. I'm certain Lou and Metallica didn't intend for this to be a serious, intellectual work, but rather a series of violent songs based on a play because they thought it was cool. It's like the difference between a 7 year old's painting in art class and something like the Mona Lisa. They're both art, yes, but it's the Mona Lisa that took more work and has more depth to it.
But I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Post by SMAP on Nov 10, 2011 18:40:23 GMT -5
Lulu is definitely art. In fact, almost everything can be considered to be art. However, there's a difference between art that has a lot of meaning and art that doesn't, and there really isn't that much beneath the surface of Lulu. It's dark and violent yes, but there's little meaning or value to it. I'm certain Lou and Metallica didn't intend for this to be a serious, intellectual work, but rather a series of violent songs based on a play because they thought it was cool. It's like the difference between a 7 year old's painting in art class and something like the Mona Lisa. They're both art, yes, but it's the Mona Lisa that took more work and has more depth to it. But I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Okay yeah this |
|
|
|
Post by Crash on Nov 10, 2011 18:42:09 GMT -5
Lulu is definitely art. In fact, almost everything can be considered to be art. However, there's a difference between art that has a lot of meaning and art that doesn't, and there really isn't that much beneath the surface of Lulu. It's dark and violent yes, but there's little meaning or value to it. I'm certain Lou and Metallica didn't intend for this to be a serious, intellectual work, but rather a series of violent songs based on a play because they thought it was cool. It's like the difference between a 7 year old's painting in art class and something like the Mona Lisa. They're both art, yes, but it's the Mona Lisa that took more work and has more depth to it. But I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Put a picture of beautiful scenery filled with trees, sun, and clouds, right next to a picture of people in Hell committing acts of sin and blasphemy. Which has more meaning? Neither. They both have just as much meaning as the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Zilla2112 on Nov 10, 2011 18:43:34 GMT -5
What album are those reviews for? Abbey Road. The Calgary Sun one isn't on Wikipedia anymore though, probably because they don't know a perfect album when they see one. |
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on Nov 10, 2011 18:45:37 GMT -5
Lulu is definitely art. In fact, almost everything can be considered to be art. However, there's a difference between art that has a lot of meaning and art that doesn't, and there really isn't that much beneath the surface of Lulu. It's dark and violent yes, but there's little meaning or value to it. I'm certain Lou and Metallica didn't intend for this to be a serious, intellectual work, but rather a series of violent songs based on a play because they thought it was cool. It's like the difference between a 7 year old's painting in art class and something like the Mona Lisa. They're both art, yes, but it's the Mona Lisa that took more work and has more depth to it. But I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't really agree, despite how dark and violent it was it has some meaning whether you see it or not someone else will find meaning in it. |
|
|
|
Post by SMAP on Nov 10, 2011 18:46:48 GMT -5
I lol'd at the Calgary Sun one
|
|
|
|
Post by Crash on Nov 10, 2011 18:49:24 GMT -5
I lol'd at the perfect ones |
|
|
|
Post by SMAP on Nov 10, 2011 19:02:50 GMT -5
Hell, I don't know if I'd even give it a perfect rating, I was loling at how out of place it looked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zilla2112 on Nov 10, 2011 19:04:11 GMT -5
Put a picture of beautiful scenery filled with trees, sun, and clouds, right next to a picture of people in Hell committing acts of sin and blasphemy. Which has more meaning? Neither. They both have just as much meaning as the other. You're right there, but you're not getting my point. It's not that violent art doesn't have meaning to it, it's that Lulu particularly isn't meaningful in its depictions of violence. There's a difference between someone who uses violence to prove a point or make a statement, and violence that's just there because it's "cool". Here's an example. Let's take two violent PS1 games: the unreleased Thrill Kill and Metal Gear Solid. Thrill Kill is pretty much senseless violence made for the sake of being entertaining and offensive. Metal Gear Solid, however, is incredibly deep, with complicated characters, commentary on politics, society, morality, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I understand that there's always differing opinions out there, and something can be given meaning by who interprets it, but I believe there's a line of objectivity that needs to be drawn for some things. |
|
|
|
Post by Crash on Nov 10, 2011 19:06:20 GMT -5
You're right there, but you're not getting my point. It's not that violent art doesn't have meaning to it, it's that Lulu particularly isn't meaningful in its depictions of violence. There's a difference between someone who uses violence to prove a point or make a statement, and violence that's just there because it's "cool". Lulu is based off old German plays. Those plays were violent, yet still art. |
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on Nov 10, 2011 19:13:09 GMT -5
Violence is a pretty common thing in society (my fucking god I can't believe i'm using that word) and it is a part of human of human nature. Violence itself is beautiful in a way depending on how it is presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zilla2112 on Nov 10, 2011 19:20:22 GMT -5
The plays were, yes, because they had characters, a clear plot, and made a statement about society at that period of time. However, the album basically takes some of the violent elements of the plays and doesn't expand on them at all. It's art, yes, but it's nothing truly meaningful. A Nickelback album probably has just as much meaning as this does.
|
|
