At first I was thinking, yes, of course it is. But after about 30 seconds all I could see was imagery very derivative of other artists. Its basically a collage of Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, Corpse Bride, Nine Inch Nails videos and the opening credits of True Blood/American Horror Story.

Its a shame because its very well made, looks really cool and obviously cost a lot of time and money. But if someone is presenting something as original artwork, and borrows that heavily from other artist's work without building on it, commenting upon it or even acknowledging the sources... that's one of the very few things that, for me, instantly voids any claims to something being "art". Its a video. Its piece of work. But it can't be be a work of art in my book.

If you think I'm exaggerating about the extent of the similarities, just google "Twin Peaks Red Room", "Eraserhead Stop Motion Sequence", "David Lynch Short Films", "Corpse Bride", "NIN Closer" and I think someone else mentioned a Tool video, which wouldn't surprise me. There's so much art out there to know about, its easy to fool most people. Its easy to fool yourself! I'm sure this artist wasn't trying to pull a fast one or anything. He just isn't being critical enough to catch his influences seeping out of himself practically unmodified.

I hate to be a sourpuss about this, but real artists work hard to be original. Anyone can learn how to make something with enough time. Being original is the hardest part, and it gets harder every time someone else makes something original! I spend A LOT of time (that I'd rather spend just making something) refining, editing, discarding and scrutinizing my ideas to ensure that when I put my work out there, I can honestly call it mine and confidently call it art.

Representational: Hockney, Manet, Degas, Kitaj, Freidrich, Richard Hamilton and Brueghel.

Abstract: James Turrell, Robert Mangold, Brice Marden, Robert Ryman, Agnes Martin, Ian Davenport, Toma Abbts and Franz Ackerman.

Conceptual: Robert Morris, Elenor Antin, Adrian Piper, Mel Bochner and Hans Haacke.


I am a painter. I love traditional art making. But I want to encourage anyone who has been put off by conceptual art, or hasn't come across it before, to put the time into learning about it. Some of the ideas good conceptual artists can put in your head are as beautiful and fascinating as an Impressionist masterpiece. It can be hard work connecting to the pieces as art. Some are no more than typed propositions, or a seemingly mundane series of objects or actions. But don't think they required no talent, because in a conceptual piece there should be much more to it than merely what you see.
Just like a master painter puts forth his or her vision by efficiently and brilliantly constructing and composing with line, shape, color, stroke, etc., good conceptual artists do the same with ideas. There can be immense elegance in the way they construct the process by which their idea is communicated and gradually "unpacked", so to speak, in the viewer's mind (not to mention the potential power of the main idea itself). And with conceptual art, is okay to have to do a little research to understand the piece; you're not necessarily supposed to "get it" just by seeing the physical evidence of it in a gallery or a book. Sometimes you need to establish the chronological, cultural or political context it was made in or made for. But once the first piece you understand blows your mind, you realize all the "hard work" of understanding it is half the fun. The learning is part of the experience that is the work itself. I firmly believe that for every person who loves learning, there is a conceptual artist out there who's work will thrill you.
Most people work hard at realizing amazing ideas so that they can make money or neutralize a threat. Nothing wrong with either of those. But I think its so cool that these artists do it because they just really love ideas.

Why, thank you:) Just seeing these replies goes a long way to making this seem more human. I'll err on the side of caution and start reporting them. No one has yet mentioned a Mingle2-sanctioned stock message, so I'm guessing there isn't one.

For real. As a test I replied to one of them through the Mingle email and told her my favorite hobby was "making skimpy outfits for my Star Trek figurines". Her reply was a different version of the first one which said I sounded "sexy" and that we should "get to know each other better".

HAHAHA!

(No offense to anyone who does enjoy that hobby)

Since I joined Mingle2, the only emails I've received are these very vague, generically flirty stock messages which ask me contact the user at a Yahoo email account. After the second one I just assumed it was a spam/scam thing. Never tried sending anything to the Yahoo addresses. But after going back and looking at the various senders' profiles, some seem like real people. Their pics aren't suspiciously super-model-like. The girls who live in my state actually sound like they're from here on their profiles (likes, dislikes, vernacular, etc.).

Are these messages actually templates that are part of an official Mingle2 function? Like, if you "Match" someone or "Quick Message" someone for instance, is there a stock message that goes to their inbox?
It just struck me that maybe I didn't get the memo and I've been ignoring all the actual potential.

If this rings a bell to anyone, I'd appreciate your impression.

Thanks:)