4 ms·

That's the deluxe paint Venus! https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=deluxe+paint+venus https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=deluxe+paint+venus Andy added an extra ey

That's the deluxe paint Venus! https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=deluxe+paint+venus https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=deluxe+paint+venus Andy added an extra eye though... edit: as did everybody with deluxe paint.

madaxe_again 13y ago
Damn, beat me to it. I was scrolling down expecting Tut with a palette shift to appear.
jezfromfuture 13y ago
Yeah i was thinking the same , hardly momeumental.
chillingeffect 13y ago
I loathe the way that gets counted as "art," yet the people who used the Amiga for art in movies, graphic productions, etc. are marginalized. Hey art historians: That computer was DESIGNED for art, and designed and USED for much better works that touched many more people's lives than Andy Warhol cloning an eye on a corporate sales demo image. People actually spent hours and days and years making refined aesthetic choices, putting their bodies and hearts into works and gaining commercial popularity and telling stories using that computer. Most importantly, they used it in ways that were previously unknown, unlike using one of the most popular launch titles to edit a "launch image." Believing that these images have special powers b/c of the person who made them is textbook fetishization. Why valorize $famous_guy's random scribbles over the rest of the corpus of works in the medium? Just because it's easier to say, "Well it's from Him, so it's famous," rather than to examine and /critique/ other works made on the machine? Ever wonder why art historians make such low salaries and have difficulty paying their loans? How about creating some value for other people by understanding, critiquing and explaining the vast body of Amiga works rather than echoing to each other and telling us, "yup, that one's important cuz it's by that famous guy." Tell us something we don't know. Give us some bread and not candy and you will amply rewarded. It's not George Bush's fault.
- collyw 13y ago
  In my opinion lot of "art" is pretentious celebrity culture for snobs. I went to a Warhol exhibition recently. It was basically a load of photos of a group of people like you would expect to see on some hipsters facebook page. But because of the name behind it certain people assume some greatness to it.
  - mikestew 13y ago
    I went to the Warhol exhibit at the Dali museum a few months ago. I never was a big Warhol fan before going, but perhaps viewing an entire exhibit devoted to his work might give me a better appreciation. I now theorize that Warhol's artistic life was one big piece of performance art. "Can I become famous and revered by hanging out at the right NYC parties, and immortalizing famous people in what is otherwise the visual equivalent to sampling?" Ignore "Marilyn" where he just silk screens over a photo, and pay attention to the fact that he's famous for it. Polaroid photographs? If they were photographs of your friends, no one would care. But when the pics are of Mick Jagger at Studio 54 or Jackie O, and Andy Warhol took them, now you've got art. Why? Because famous people. It seems he his overall theme was fame. His most famous quote even deals with that. So it seems fitting that he is famous not for being a great artist but because he hung out with famous people and made art that involved them. That's the theory I'm sticking with, anyway. It's either that or take the cynical view that the art world is more shallow than I previously thought. Afterward we revisited the Dali side of the museum. Holy crap, now there's an artist.
    - collyw 13y ago
      "Can I become famous and revered by hanging out at the right NYC parties, and immortalizing famous people in what is otherwise the visual equivalent to sampling?" That sounds pretty like celebrity culture to me. Is that not more or less why people like Kim Kardashian are famous?
      - tripzilch 13y ago
        See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_for_being_famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_for_being_famous

madaxe_again 13y ago

Damn, beat me to it. I was scrolling down expecting Tut with a palette shift to appear.

jezfromfuture 13y ago

Yeah i was thinking the same , hardly momeumental.

chillingeffect 13y ago

I loathe the way that gets counted as "art," yet the people who used the Amiga for art in movies, graphic productions, etc. are marginalized. Hey art historians: That computer was DESIGNED for art, and designed and USED for much better works that touched many more people's lives than Andy Warhol cloning an eye on a corporate sales demo image. People actually spent hours and days and years making refined aesthetic choices, putting their bodies and hearts into works and gaining commercial popularity and telling stories using that computer. Most importantly, they used it in ways that were previously unknown, unlike using one of the most popular launch titles to edit a "launch image." Believing that these images have special powers b/c of the person who made them is textbook fetishization. Why valorize $famous_guy's random scribbles over the rest of the corpus of works in the medium? Just because it's easier to say, "Well it's from Him, so it's famous," rather than to examine and /critique/ other works made on the machine? Ever wonder why art historians make such low salaries and have difficulty paying their loans? How about creating some value for other people by understanding, critiquing and explaining the vast body of Amiga works rather than echoing to each other and telling us, "yup, that one's important cuz it's by that famous guy." Tell us something we don't know. Give us some bread and not candy and you will amply rewarded. It's not George Bush's fault.

collyw 13y ago
In my opinion lot of "art" is pretentious celebrity culture for snobs. I went to a Warhol exhibition recently. It was basically a load of photos of a group of people like you would expect to see on some hipsters facebook page. But because of the name behind it certain people assume some greatness to it.
- mikestew 13y ago
  I went to the Warhol exhibit at the Dali museum a few months ago. I never was a big Warhol fan before going, but perhaps viewing an entire exhibit devoted to his work might give me a better appreciation. I now theorize that Warhol's artistic life was one big piece of performance art. "Can I become famous and revered by hanging out at the right NYC parties, and immortalizing famous people in what is otherwise the visual equivalent to sampling?" Ignore "Marilyn" where he just silk screens over a photo, and pay attention to the fact that he's famous for it. Polaroid photographs? If they were photographs of your friends, no one would care. But when the pics are of Mick Jagger at Studio 54 or Jackie O, and Andy Warhol took them, now you've got art. Why? Because famous people. It seems he his overall theme was fame. His most famous quote even deals with that. So it seems fitting that he is famous not for being a great artist but because he hung out with famous people and made art that involved them. That's the theory I'm sticking with, anyway. It's either that or take the cynical view that the art world is more shallow than I previously thought. Afterward we revisited the Dali side of the museum. Holy crap, now there's an artist.
  - collyw 13y ago
    "Can I become famous and revered by hanging out at the right NYC parties, and immortalizing famous people in what is otherwise the visual equivalent to sampling?" That sounds pretty like celebrity culture to me. Is that not more or less why people like Kim Kardashian are famous?
    - tripzilch 13y ago
      See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_for_being_famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_for_being_famous