The only person who's answered my question never got a response from me, just an upvote. Some other Karen then tried flaming me for doing something which clearly worked - i asked a question and got the exact kind of answer i wanted (1 sentence to save me multiple Google searches and clickbait articles to read). Then, since that Karen started smelling up the place, you picked up the scent of a fellow Karen and showed up to keep flinging turds.

Shut up, Karen. Nobody cares that you're upset by the fact that i asked a question and got the perfect answer. I'm (insincerely) sorry that it upsets you that asking a question results in receiving an answer, and that you wished i would have Googled and read uninteresting shit instead. Stop pinking me, Karen. When you reply, it pings me. Then i gotta read the boring shit you type. Stop it.

Youre just a boomer

>The second thing you pulled literally has nothing at all to do with the title, it just addresses the fact that if you know enough to know how to word your Google search, you know enough to address the question i was asking. Third entry you quoted has to do with the same thing as the second - if you know that Candice is Murphy, you know enough to answer the question.

So you couldn't use the title to figure out which words were relevant to a google search.

But not because it was too cryptic, you just didn't know what it said.

Well, you obviously didn't do the homework I asked you to do.

​

>What the fuck are you talking about? Show me where someone answers the question and i ask them how i could have known that?

Jesus Fucking Christ man. You typed it, then I quoted it, and you need me to find it for you again? No.

I know it’s obvious to most people, but it’s only in the last ten years that I made the connection that mammals started on land and that at some point, some of them returned to water and became marine mammals. When I was young, there were fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, and yeah, btw, whales are mammals not fish but to me this was just a « fact » I had to know, some kind of "exception". In my head, it did not arise from evolution, there was no connection that fish and mammals were completely different things. I read that the current closest relative to whales is the hippopotamus. I do find it fascinating now that I have the big picture. Anyway. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

No, like firsthand as in once I was rowing and my hands were slipping on the oar, but as soon as they pruned up they didn't slip anymore

Not much difference these days.

>You're replying on a thread about a piece of art with so little meaning that no one realized it was upside down for decades...

I don't think you can say something lacks meaning because it is not understood. I wouldn't say a German book lacks meaning just because I can't read German.

... and then we elected a game show host as president.

Never did i call the title cryptic. The second thing you pulled literally has nothing at all to do with the title, it just addresses the fact that if you know enough to know how to word your Google search, you know enough to address the question i was asking. Third entry you quoted has to do with the same thing as the second - if you know that Candice is Murphy, you know enough to answer the question.

I asked if someone could expand on it.

Someone did.

We could all move on with our lives at this point, if it weren't for Karens like yourself.

> Even after someone pointed out to google “ Candice Bergen” and “Murphy Brown”, you were all like “how could I possibly know that”!

What the fuck are you talking about? Show me where someone answers the question and i ask them how i could have known that?

> I'm uninterested in your lame excuses.

Karen, step away from the keyboard. Nobody cares what you're interested in.

I didn’t read the article so I’m hearing about this secondhand

You're replying on a thread about a piece of art with so little meaning that no one realized it was upside down for decades...

I once bent down in a (modern) art museum to look at an dehumidifier, the security guard felt compelled to tell me that "wasn't art", "a lot of people think it is, but it's not."

Here's an "invisible statue" https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/artist-sells-invisible-sculpture-for-over-18k/

I can't count the number of paintings that are two or three solid rectangles of color. Arranged verically or horizontally, I'd love to hear how those tell a story. If you think that has meaning, I'd suggest you aren't giving enough importance to the term. It may convey a 'vibe' or 'feeling' but it doesn't have meaning. Hence it is meaningless. No strawman, I'll defend that point as long as I'm alive.

Anyways, sorry for the extent I mischaricterized your views, I've heard similar things from others before and grouped your statement in with their opinions. But as a final statement, I'll say that art that only conveys a 'vibe' or 'feeling,' as opposed to having real meaning feels "kind of empty to me."

It happened all the time back then too, the morality police just wanted it to remain one of those things that no one talked about

That actually makes sense, because I recently saw a picture where someone with a severed nerve in their finger showed that the affected finger didn't prune up.

The story mentions it's both.

​

>"You need both to have normal levels of wrinkles," he says. "If you don't have that neurological response, which happens in some individuals, wrinkles are inhibited."

Ribbed for your pleasure

>Can someone expand on the title a little bit, for those of us who don't recognize any of the names in the title, or the face pictured?

So, you can't read the title.

​

>Yeah, when you know this, it's super easy to google around and find what you know.

So, you can't read the title.

​

>Murphy is a stereotypically male name, which adds further confusion, unless you have this knowledge ahead of time.

So, you were confused by the title.

​

Three times, you stated the title wasn't clear to you. Now, your homework is to look up what the word repeatedly means, and what the word cryptic means. If you do that satisfactorily, I'll still decline your offer. I'm uninterested in your lame excuses.

People forget that if you're in a room full of artists who've all been to art school, being able to paint landscapes and fruit baskets is not impressive in the slightest.

An artist is going to care far more about what their peers consider impressive than the opinion of some pundit who wants to go back to the "classics" (aka shit that has already been done before).

Show me two things:

1. Where i said the title is cryptic?

2. Where i repeatedly insisted that the title is cryptic?

Address both of those, satisfactorily, and then i'll engage with the rest of your trolly comment.

Uhhh, sure. For the convenience of not having to deal with SEO'd clickbait Google results. Again, not sure if you're mad cause it worked (as intended, perfectly), or if you're trying to suggest it didn't.

What happened here is basically equivalent to saying out loud, in the office, "what's today's date?" And then after someone tells me what it is, Karens like you come crawling out of the woodwork, screeching at me about how i could have found out if i hovered the mouse over the clock in the bottom-right corner of my screen.

I know. I don't care. Crawl back under your rock.

>No educated person dislikes abstract art for that reason, or at the very least not just that reason

I didn't specify educated

> I dislike modern art largely because I want a return to subtlety embedded in quality craftsmanship with intricate details

insert Jim looking at the camera face

>What most people object to is meaningless art, and it's adherents who are too obsessed with viewing themselves as smart to admit they don't see a non-existent meaning.

In all seriousness this is much more of a strawman than anything I said. I think you would be hard-pressed to find truly meaningless art, and intentionally creating meaningless art would be expression of its own sort.

edit: I also reject the idea that art must be understood without the title, expression can be the whole package.

You're refuting a strawman. No educated person dislikes abstract art for that reason, or at the very least not just that reason. Abstract is also too broad of a term. What most people object to is meaningless art, and it's adherents who are too obsessed with viewing themselves as smart to admit they don't see a non-existent meaning. Quality traditional art is subtle, but the meaning and significance of the is still able to come through without knowing the title (indeed most historical paintings weren't titled). Much of modern art is either completely devoid of meaning (not that there's anything wrong with a quality, beautiful craft, but it doesn't need to be lionized in a museum) or the piece practically hits you over the head with it's (often highly political) meaning. I dislike modern art largely because I want a return to subtlety embedded in quality craftsmanship with intricate details such that the painting gets better the more, and closer, you look at it. 17th century Dutch and 19th century American landscapes are a fantastic example of this!

Your repeated insistence that the title was too cryptic to figure out what to google is what you’re doubling down on.

Even after someone pointed out to google “ Candice Bergen” and “Murphy Brown”, you were all like “how could I possibly know that”!

If you spent half the effort you use justifying your laziness on just not being lazy in the first place, you could have learned a lot more about Candice Bergen by now than just what was already in the title.

But hey, you do you. Don’t let random internet people trick you into self improvement.

But...the human body experiences "typical" observable reactions to extreme cold (and a complete lack of oxygen), but that doesn't mean we were once spacefarers. The body reacts to being violently struck, but that doesn't mean we were once boxers or hockey players...?

A small price to pay for being lazy? Sure. Cool.

That's the problem.