Spoetry - Submit your own Spoems

torrado82 (November 22nd, 2009 @ 6:22 pm)

The artist want make a reflexion about tv manipulation. Tv like capitalism instrument.

monoalcuadrado (November 21st, 2009 @ 6:07 pm)

it's interesting there can be such more rationalization about a film that shows a white square during 8 minutes. All this kind of discussions are neither pointless nor relevant, basically because there is nothing to discuss about. There is only a white screen, an "empty" screen. Let's not discuss the term empty, because the term itself includes form and emptyness, movement and stillness, sound and silence...there is nothing.

danielvlee (September 2nd, 2009 @ 7:51 pm)

You're welcome. I found it an enjoyable repartee, also.

IsaacBickerstaffEsq (September 2nd, 2009 @ 6:40 pm)

Thanks for the laugh, it was a good one.

danielvlee (August 31st, 2009 @ 4:01 pm)

As much as I enjoy your pompous contrardictions posed as actual argument, I think I even more enjoy your appeal to expertise ("I am a physicist"), argumentum ad hominem ("clueless/ trolling"), and false choice conclusion ("Either way makes rational discussion pointless"). Please invoke Godwin's Law to complete to cycle. I yearn to be compared to Hitler by one such as yourself. Now that's a fair cop!

danielvlee (August 31st, 2009 @ 3:54 pm)

Alas, none of us have ever seen a film, nor read a book, because, once tripped from the author's pen, or director's action cut -- POOF -- it is forever gone. A boy has never wept nor dashed a thousand kim. There is no point in time where a work is both choate and perceivable. Art is an imperceptible ephemeron. I shall call this theory: Bickerstaff's Uncertainty Principle. You are now immortalised.

IsaacBickerstaffEsq (August 31st, 2009 @ 9:13 am)

"The absolute relativism of your argument . . ." . . . does not exist. I am a physicist. The argument is empirical. "This so-called "film" is porn for nihilists." The so called "film" is not so called, it IS film. You, of course, did not "show" the film, because you do not even have access to it. You are also funny. I don't know whether you are funny because you are clueless or because you are trolling. Either way makes rational discussion pointless however. It's a fair cop.

danielvlee (August 31st, 2009 @ 1:34 am)

I've just "tested it myself" again by pushing play. Thus began my "showing" of the film. Your assertion that the "film" can never be shown again is incorrect. It is the same film, regardless of whether it had been shown 10 seconds later than it had, or 45 years. The absolute relativism of your argument is intellectual self-stimulation. This so-called "film" is porn for nihilists.

IsaacBickerstaffEsq (August 30th, 2009 @ 11:10 pm)

As you continue to make the contra-factual bald assertion that the film is static very little of the above comment is valid. I cannot accept the "static premise of the film" because the film does not have, nor is it in actuality, static. You may test this yourself by remaking and showing the film. Note: you will not be able to REPRODUCE the film. In fact, the original cannot even be reshown, because . . . it is not static.

IsaacBickerstaffEsq (August 30th, 2009 @ 10:32 pm)

You are making the Post Modern argument of Rosenberg. Please note in the video title the date of showing. It would have been seen by the audience as a contrast to Leave it to Beaver. The original is not a Post Modern work.

danielvlee (August 30th, 2009 @ 10:17 pm)

The only valid comment above is the last, that I have become part of the film. The sole way in which the film moves is in the discussion that it engenders. In that discussion, we can acccept the static premise of the film -- that anything can be art, even Nothing -- or we can reject such relativism. Only by hating this film can we understand it.

IsaacBickerstaffEsq (August 30th, 2009 @ 9:59 pm)

". . .why 8 minutes!!!!!!?" Because if you square 8 by watching it 8 times it is 64 minutes; and will you still need it when it is 64?