Man turns dead cat into a Helicopter

bnt

Right - that's the taxi-dermy sorted, now what about the takeoff-dermy? :pac:

1ZRed

LordSmeg wrote: »

Then why do we have exhibits ? Why do people put things on display ?

Poets ? Plenty of them do, do you read much modern poetry ? Most poets both want to capture something and then show everyone else what they have done. But there is such a hugely staggering difference between a good writer and what they create and this guy sticking a cat to a helicopter. Same as the gap between a talented painter and what they create and someone throwing paint at the canvas.

Your last bit sums up art to be honest. If someone doesnt like it they dont understand it. Cat nailed to a tree ? You dont understand what its like to be creative. Shít smeared on the wall ? You dont understand the meaning behind it. Reminds me of religion, no matter what you say about it those too blind to see it for what it is will never listen.

I had something more in depth written but my iPad went dead. So I'm going to try to be concise about this.

Jackson Pollock was "someone throwing paint at the canvas" and he was an amazing artist. His artwork expresses his emotions through paint and movement and it is very interesting for just "paint thrown at a canvas".
His art was simple but hugely expressive and he achieved this through a seemingly simple technique that just shows his barebones ideas and thoughts without any conventional beauty masking them. But that is what makes it beautiful, because of it's unconventional beauty.

Sure there is an element of exhibitionism but that is brought about by pride in your work and needing a means to support and feed your talent and creativity.
It is not the thing that motivates artists to create work because you can only create when motivated and feel like expressing yourself.
I'm sure you think it would be easy to draw any old thing if you're established but the artists care about their work and it's actually VERY difficult to paint for the sake of painting (not that you'd know) and the end result shows this.
It's like a craftsman rushing his work with no care or interest in the end product.

So you think art like this is pointless and stupid? Who the fck are you to make such a statement? It's like when guys bitch about a players performance when they themselves couldn't kick a ball to save their lives or when someone criticises a singer when they can't sing.
That point you make about religion is so stupid. Religion is either right or wrong, art is created by people and can be seem and appreciated in different ways. Whereas religion can only be right or wrong because it's an absolute. God is either real or not so its not even comparable to art.

You're a very ignorant guy and this isn't the first time we've come to blows either. My best advise to you is to not make such sweeping statements about things that you're not wired to understand. You're more than entitled to your own opinion but don't throw down and devalue art just because it's not your thing or because you can't see the point of it.
Other people enjoy and appreciate it. Why do you have to come around and basically say "wtf is this sh1t?!"

CarrickMcJoe

Man turns dead cat into a Helicopter


His parents must be worried he will do to them when they pop their clogs..

Scioch

1ZRed wrote: »

[/I][/B]

I had something more in depth written but my iPad went dead. So I'm going to try to be concise about this.

Jackson Pollock was "someone throwing paint at the canvas" and he was an amazing artist. His artwork expresses his emotions through paint and movement and it is very interesting for just "paint thrown at a canvas".
His art was simple but hugely expressive and he achieved this through a seemingly simple technique that just shows his barebones ideas and thoughts without any conventional beauty masking them. But that is what makes it beautiful, because of it's unconventional beauty.

So everyone who throws paint at a canvas is a new Jackson Pollock are they ? I can throw paint at a canvas am I Jackson Pollock ? Or would you class me as someone just throwing paint at a canvas for the sake of throwing paint at a canvas. Anyone can call themselves an artist because anything can be deemed art. turning a cat into a helicopter is not equitable to a Jackson Pollock painting. Its someone who needs to rely on shock value or unconventionality to sell their work not use their work to push the boundaries simply because of what they are.

There are talented painters out there who work in abstraction. But that doesnt mean that everyone who does it or that is famous for it are talented and visionaries. I'm not arguing against art itself here I'm arguing against artists who place more meaning and worth into something than is actually in it. You might have picked up on this if you didnt feel the need to go off on a protect the artists crusade.

Sure there is an element of exhibitionism but that is brought about by pride in your work and needing a means to support and feed your talent and creativity.
It is not the thing that motivates artists to create work because you can only create when motivated and feel like expressing yourself.
I'm sure you think it would be easy to draw any old thing if you're established but the artists care about their work and it's actually VERY difficult to paint for the sake of painting (not that you'd know) and the end result shows this.
It's like a craftsman rushing his work with no care or interest in the end product.

A craftsman knows his job and creates what will sell, he doesnt make products that wont sell. Art is no different and you are extremely naive if you think artists work solely on passion and a need to express themselves with no care as to how it will be received.

So you think art like this is pointless and stupid? Who the fck are you to make such a statement? It's like when guys bitch about a players performance when they themselves couldn't kick a ball to save their lives or when someone criticises a singer when they can't sing.
That point you make about religion is so stupid. Religion is either right or wrong, art is created by people and can be seem and appreciated in different ways. Whereas religion can only be right or wrong because it's an absolute. God is either real or not so its not even comparable to art.

Yes I think art like this is pointless. As pointless as me nailing a shoe to the wall. If someone gets a laugh out of it then grand because thats all it is. An odd, funny momentary thing. Its not anything revolutionary or something to be admired for the bravery of the artist and the vision and creativity to bring it into being. Its a cat helicopter that anyone other than an artist would chuckle at, show their friends and stick it in the garage. When you get someone stuck up their own hole though it becomes much more than that. Meaning is attributed to it, it much be analyse and put on display for everyone to see the genius.

The Religion comparison isnt stupid. You are no different than a priest telling me I dont understand the meaning and worth of the bible because I havent found jesus. Its not an absolute its dependant on someone's view point and the worth they attribute to it. To a religious person religion cannot be wrong, any proof of the fact can be written off as the work of the devil. The exact same as you writing off my opinion because you think I'm not creative, I dont understand what its like. Its the same fcukin argument as your peddling here.

You're a very ignorant guy and this isn't the first time we've come to blows either. My best advise to you is to not make such sweeping statements about things that you're not wired to understand. You're more than entitled to your own opinion but don't throw down and devalue art just because it's not your thing or because you can't see the point of it.
Other people enjoy and appreciate it. Why do you have to come around and basically say "wtf is this sh1t?!"

I'm very ignorant, who the fcuk am I ? You're a very hostile, arrogant and insulting person. You feel the need to insult people who disagree with you, write off their arguments as ignorant and proclaim it cannot be understood by someone who isnt an artist. Because you havent the capability to understand other people can have valid opinions.

I am entitled to my own opinion but why do I have to express it ? While your arguing about the wonderfulness of expressing ones self in art and how any old crap is meaningful and amazing ? I dont even know why I am bothering talking to you to be honest.

Mr Benevolent

I'm very ignorant, who the fcuk am I ? You're a very hostile, arrogant and insulting person. You feel the need to insult people who disagree with you, write off their arguments as ignorant and proclaim it cannot be understood by someone who isnt an artist. Because you havent the capability to understand other people can have valid opinions.

I am entitled to my own opinion but why do I have to express it ? While your arguing about the wonderfulness of expressing ones self in art and how any old crap is meaningful and amazing ? I dont even know why I am bothering talking to you to be honest.

Don't bother about him, he's full of his own self importance. One of my hobbies is sketching (pencil, not graphite, I hate that mucky crap), so his opinions about my creativity are utterly and everlastingly wrong. Lastly, he actually thinks creativity is only valid in art. The poor fecker's delusional, leave him to it.

Forest Demon

Recycling is good

Hootanany

The cat has a lovely smile.

Plazaman

The tail rotor is actually a tail, genius. I agree with the DM comment, red LED's behind the eyes would have set it off nicely indeed.

I always found Taxidermy a bit freaky, dead squirrels and dogs stuffed and wheeled around (or maybe thats just and episode of Scrubs), but the fact that it's a done thing e.g deer heads, bears, moose, fish etc mounted on walls, then this really isn't a new idea after all.

Having said that, a cat is the only animal that could have been used here as the centre of gravity of a cat is equilibrious*



* 16 years 4 months and 5 days I've been waiting to write that sentence somewhere, this is indeed a great day.

Midnight Sundance

Oh got that's wrong on so many levels!!! ;(

starbelgrade

There's been reports of pilots seeing the cat flying in international flight zones.

One pilot - who was visibly shaken by the experience - said, "I taut I taw a puddy cat a creepin' up on me. I did! I taw a puddy cat as plain as he could be."

cournioni

That is one of the funniest things I've seen in quite some time!

Irish Guitarist

He's seriously depraved.

I hate all this 'pushing the boundaries of art' nonsense or whatever they call it. If 'artists' like him had any talent they could create a sculpture or a painting, but instead they do weird things with dead animals.

JohnMarston

Hootanany wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154283/Cats-away-Artist-turns-dead-pet-flying-helicopter-killed-car.html
Very strange indeed:eek:

Strange is using a beloved pets stuffed carcass as a hat rack or something, this well... i dont even

thebostoncrab

I hope someone does this to me when I die, simply for the cheeks laughs of flying my corpse past people's windows. With the same look on my face that the cat has

Meesared

Ahh god that seriously has some of the funniest images i have seen in some time, and I like cats, but damn that is hilarious.

Paparazzo

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

He's seriously depraved.

I hate all this 'pushing the boundaries of art' nonsense or whatever they call it. If 'artists' like him had any talent they could create a sculpture or a painting, but instead they do weird things with dead animals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/a-formaldehyde-frenzy-as-buyers-snap-up-hirst-works-931979.html

This helicopter is far funnier though

dr strangelove

what next? Flying Pigs?

Duggy747

That's the funniest damn thing I've seen in ages.

cournioni

dr strangelove wrote: »

what next? Flying Pigs?

Now there's an idea!!

anniehoo

I love cats and i think thats hilarious to be honest. What a way to remember your cat by. Nothing cruel about it, its dead and he clearly loved the animal to go to all that effort. Made me laugh anyway.

shopaholic01

I personally think this is sick, but cats seem to be the most versatile of all dead pets. Not so long ago we had one made into a handbag, now a helicoptor.


I think it's time for another cat V dog thread - never mind them eating you when you're dead, it's all about what you can make from them now.

Dublin Chick

That is just not right!!!!!!! But kinda funny!!!

Stinicker

dr strangelove wrote: »

what next? Flying Pigs?

I'm afraid it has been done

This lad should clearly be locked up, first he's got his cat flying; tomorrow he will be cutting up some asian twink and eating him.

books4sale

Dublin Chick wrote: »

That is just not right!!!

It's a flattened dead cat with rotating blades, I don't get the problem?

Dublin Chick

books4sale wrote: »

It's a flattened dead cat with rotating blades, I don't get the problem?

Ur right I am getting all worked up over nothing.....in fact I think it looks kinda cute......

Flaps Separator

Looks fake to me.

What does a dead cat weight anyway vs's what's the lift out of those 4 rotors ?

don't think so unless the cat is made out of plastic

Fran1985

he should put a little helmet on it

Bruthal

Plazaman wrote: »

The tail rotor is actually a tail, genius. I agree with the DM comment, red LED's behind the eyes would have set it off nicely indeed.

I always found Taxidermy a bit freaky, dead squirrels and dogs stuffed and wheeled around (or maybe thats just and episode of Scrubs), but the fact that it's a done thing e.g deer heads, bears, moose, fish etc mounted on walls, then this really isn't a new idea after all.

Having said that, a cat is the only animal that could have been used here as the centre of gravity of a cat is equilibrious*



* 16 years 4 months and 5 days I've been waiting to write that sentence somewhere, this is indeed a great day.

If it was true, it would have been even better.

deandean

Great idea!

If it crashes, it'll always land right-way up :P

Funglegunk

I really hope this sentence describes me one day:

'After a period of mourning he received his propellers posthumously.'

Mr Benevolent

Better than a helicopter turned into a dead cat I suppose.

Priori

1ZRed wrote: »

I've studied art and we had to acknowledge that the people who don't get art or even see the point of it are the first to condemn it. Even if they're not capable of creating something of their own.

Hmmm... you had to acknowledge this eh? Sounds about right. I'm of the opinion (and I'm actually an artist myself) that a lot of contemporary art isn't created by artists at all, but by ego-driven opportunists. It could well be that the academic art community is so up its own hole that they don't "get" this point of view, and are the first to condemn it.

1ZRed wrote: »

Everyone has different tastes but as long as it means something to the artist, that's ALL that matters.

... What??