Well, it may look more complex than it is.
We made these in my first year 3D Sculpture class in Art school.
We used Foam-core, cardboard and paper, but the concept was the same. Creating a multi-layered image that expands out in 3D but when viewed straight-on can be viewed as 2D.

What he has here is no so much as a puzzle as it is, assembled.

@oritteropo:

The video definitely answers some questions:

1. She goes to an arts school and was able to do "anything" for her final project. No dig to her, but there's some privileged shit right there.


2. She's not super attractive, but she's cute and obviously very extroverted, friendly, and undoubtedly popular. If I was a shy nerd and was confronted by her (and probably having seen her be this way before in the halls), I'd definitely be skeptical and assume she was being an asshole to me.


3. Regardless, she does seem pretty genuine.


4. God damn, college art kids are annoying with all their "wow, I'm so laid back I fucking curse all the fucking time for no fucking reason or some shit. Fuck."

I have been saying this for years.
I remember at my grad exhibition in Art School, I did this one painting, which took my about 150 hours to create, (http://www3.telus.net/Nickel/links/400/paintings/lynettandjoanne_400.jpg).
or: http://www3.telus.net/Nickel/links/400/paintings/lynetteandjoanne_detail_400.jpg

And this other classmate, made wax molds of toast, laid a few in the center of the floor in a room, and called it an "Installation.

Now, I was supposed to "OOOO" and "AHHH" over her work, but her and her friends, were rallying against my painting, calling it trash and no point. If had wanted to make something realistic, then I should have been a photographer..., I was wasting my time.

Moral of the story: My piece sold, hers didn't.

I haven't read everything above. I'm going to assume it's more of the same old argument that is always delivered when it comes to comic characters.

BUT here's something to think about:
When I was in art school. We drew and painted nude models. male female, old and young. none were particularly "attractive", just normal.

But the the Feminists banned together in our school and started chastising men, saying they had no right to ever paint/draw a nude female. regardless of how mundane the pose was - saying, "No man can EVER draw a nude female because men are incapable of not sexualizing them.
So many of the men buckled because these women were very threatening. I didn't paint nudes but but had over 50 messages left in my studio because I included clothed images of my female friends in my paintings.
As a result, one of the guys in a studio next to mine, started painting nude images of "Himself" because he was going out of his way to avoid them. Guess What. He came under fire for painting nude images of himself in semi-erotic poses (not pornographic) because he wasn't Gay. How dare he paint a male figure that way. ONLY the gay men should be able to paint men that way. How dare a Hetro male paint a nude figure of a male because hetro males only want to sexualize everything.

There was no escape, If you were a Hetro male, you were only allowed to paint landscapes or Men in Parkas it seemed. The point is, it doesn't matter what you paint/draw or even photograph, someone is going to find a reason to stand up against you because of their sexual hangups and preferences. They will read into your vision with all the hate they have built up for issues that have been used against them in their lives.

It sucks and that's the society we're living in. Artists have a choice. Either cave and conform or be suborn, stand up for themselves and carry on.. I, myself choose to be stuborn.

Edit: And I will not appoligize for being stuborn when it comes to my art. (no matter how badly I want people to like me.)

Seven years of Art School and I still don't get this stuff.
I just don't know why... why this should be considered...
...there are barriers that are unnecessary, and I'm not sure why crazy notions should be considered art -- and not just crazy.

"I send you to art school and this is what you produce?"

It's an interesting conversation, one I wish we could all have in person as typing is so cumbersome at times.

It's not only about the testosterone which guides the male libido (The penis has nothing to do with it - unless the entire process actually leads to sex - which it can - but most often it doesn't)

It IS, as Enoch points out, about attention. As long as the process of flashing the colourful feathers, gets the attention that is needed, then the individual is validated.

Just a glance or a stare can be enough to bolster a girls confidence (from a male, a female, a family member, a boss or whoever.) And if wearing the right shoes does the trick the validation is achieved. If wearing designer labels works, then validation is achieved. If being seen in a Lamborghini does the trick, then validation is achieved. Everyone has triggers. Sometimes they are emotional triggers brought on by personal trauma - sometimes they are learned triggers brought on by advertizing and society.

Male or female, Validation is all anyone ever wants. Those that have had constant validation in their lives, may not be a slave to the process. But in a society where advertisers constantly try to make us feel like we are not good enough so that they can create a market based on everyone's self image this is the way things work.

If it didn't work so well, they wouldn't do it. I work in advertising. I have been trained to find a way to sell things to people that they don't need. The problem is, I'm a cynic and I can't do it. So every time I have to do it, I find a way around it. That's why I now work at a college (a microcosm of political correctness where I don't have to sell stuff using sex - in fact we go out of our way not to)

So there are two sides to this equation:
1). There is the side where everyone seeks validation either emotionally, physically or by accomplishment.
2). And there is the side where advertising exploits our biological AND emotional needs to sell stuff.

Although they are two very different things, they form a symbiotic relationship and feed off each other.

I know that @bareboards2, you are trying to say, that this "advertising" needs to stop. And ideally, you are right. If you find a way to stop it all let us know. But I also know that this type of marketing is so targeted to our needs at the most basic levels, that this type of thing will never go away. Our personal needs, and desires need it too badly.

To try to explain all this is difficult - I trained for 6-years in art school to manipulate what people see and how to make them see what I want them to see. How to lead them and bring them to my way of thinking through visual media. Advertising is an attack and a science into your needs, sensibilities, emotions and psychological image of your self.

I expect the only way to battle media is through media - The person with the most media and money wins. (it's a propaganda war)

If you want to delve deeper into the psychology of it all - It's an in-depth study - here is a place to start. Start with John Berger's, "Ways of Seeing".
http://videosift.com/video/John-Berger-Art-Critic-interview
http://videosift.com/video/Ways-of-seeing-John-Berger (first episode of four)
http://videosift.com/video/WAYS-OF-SEEING-final-episode-vertising (final episode - Advertising).
The book starts with classical art and leads right up into modern advertising. Check Amazon for reviews.

Yolandi went to the top arts school in South Africa.

Awesome. First time seeing this. Yolandi is totally hot. Rich too. Unlike her 'Zef' image (last album), she actually went to the top arts school in S.A. I wonder if that kid is her child 'Sixteen Jones'.

So right about Un Chien Andalou (the Dali flick).
He forgot about Meshes of the Afternoon, a similarly worthless film that you have to sit through about 3 times if you go to art school.

(a) You guys are simultaneously arguing contradictory points, that higher education is (1) a scam and waste of money and (2) required to get a good job. Which one is it? Is higher education worthless or is it the key to high-paying jobs?

I'm sure you will argue that it is both a scam AND a requirement for good jobs because of some widespread corporate conspiracy. But the simple fact is that employers see a lot of value in good degrees. I want my civil engineer and teacher to have good educations with formal certification.

(b) You guys are putting words in my mouth.

"You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia"

My entire adult life has been spent in academia -- numerous universities both public and private, in multiple different roles. I love academia! i think most students should get higher education. I think there is widespread availability of good, reasonably priced schools.

"The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding."

Very few schools are for-profit -- only the scum like ITT and U of Phoenix. Those places are evil. But every traditional university in this country is a not-for-profit or state-run organization. Have expenses gotten out of hand? Maybe, but as long as the market will support these prices it won't stop. Is the market only supporting these prices because of student loans? To some degree. But there's a simple solution -- don't take out huge loans and instead go to a great state university or community college. If you were a good student this is even easier as scholarships offers will pour in.

"Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs."

Yes, I was pointing to this fact as ridiculous. The students getting 200k debt at these schools to major in English literature are definitely the big losers in higher education, but they have everything available to them to make an informed decision before entering such a program. I don't think it's necessarily the school's fault unless they actively misrepresent the outcome of students.

"If it really is a stupid idea to educate yourself in America these days (as Rychan seems to suggest is the case for many people)"

Not sure where I suggested that. I wouldn't go so far as to call higher education a universal right, but if you are a good student in the US then it effectively is.

>> ^chilaxe:

@ghark
Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs.
Doubling the size of university bureaucracies probably played a role. Other factors like skyrocketing healthcare costs & transitioning into complex technological organizations probably did as well.

@ghark said:
You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?
In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.


Which schools are you referring to, and what costs have skyrocketed? I'm not disagreeing, but by simply saying costs have sky rocketed, you're being a little vague. My point was also not that costs shouldn't be increasing more than the CPI, but simply that because they have, Rychan's point that people are getting themselves into their own mess is very misplaced, things have changed since that viewpoint was valid - even with a job these days many people struggle to pay off student debts (as the Fox interviewer mentions).

And it also comes back to the issue, should education be considered a human right? If it really is a stupid idea to educate yourself in America these days (as Rychan seems to suggest is the case for many people), perhaps something should be done? Just because it may be a bad economic decision to educate onseself doesn't mean the only other option is to remain uneducated, you can pursue policy change that leads to a better education system, take a stand!

I agree with you on the bureaucracies issue, I actually worked for my local University for a while, the pay was good, the job was easy, and the management layers were incredibly deep, we had around 10-11 layers from the lowest workers to upper management. The focus was on marketing; we wanted to present the best image we possibly could to potential Australian tertiary students, it's a numbers game, the more students we had the more profit we made. I was there for presentations from our upper management (such as the pro vice chancellor) and the issues always revolved around the economics of university business and getting published in as many journals as possible rather than the quality of teaching.

@ghark

Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs.

Doubling the size of university bureaucracies probably played a role. Other factors like skyrocketing healthcare costs & transitioning into complex technological organizations probably did as well.



@ghark said:

You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?
In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.

I remember first year of art school where we had to unlearn all we thought we knew about colour and relearn about the nuances in colours that we were never exposed to as a non-artist.

There are the hues
Primary: red, blue, yellow (white and black)
Secondary: orange, purple, green
Tertiary: red-orange, red-blue, yellow-blue, yellow-green ect.
Or even further - Quad-clours: red-red-blue or yellow-yellow-green

The complements: colours the appear on complete opposite sides of the colour wheel.
red compliments green, yellow complements purple, orange complements blue

And then the variations:

Intensity: Intensity can only be controled by the purity of the pigment being used. You can never increase the intensity of a colour, you can only decrease it by the means of combining it with any other pigment. The reason why artists pay premium prices for pure colours such as cadmium.
Value: colour changes made when mixing with various degrees of complement colours - mixing red with green, yellow with purple, mixing orange with blue.
Shade: colour changes made when mixing with various degrees of white (tints) or black (shades) to a hue. Black creating low values, white creating high values.
Coverage: Opaque vs. transparent/translucent applications

Using this structure, all the colour terms an average person uses now means nothing to me. words such as teal, brown, periwinkle etc.

These colours can now be described using a more precise system which includes a higher degree of variation..
Brown: low-intensity, low-value, red-brown.
Auqa: high-intensity, high-value, blue-green

OK class dismissed... There will be no test on today's lesson

Oh man. I'm all for blazing but seriously. As crazy as it sounds the first time I smoked pot was in 4th grade... but I didn't actually get stoned until 6th grade (in a car outside of the junior high across from my elementary school). Because that junior high was so fucked my parents sent me to a private school where there were like 20 kids in each class as opposed to one thousand. That's when I became a big stoner and ultimately started having panic attacks from shitty weed (laced or sprayed with something) alongside the stress a school that's whole goal was to get kids into really good colleges. The school was too small all of the faculty had their eyes on every single kid & knew what was up - it tripped me out.

Ultimately, three years later it led me to go back to public school in a different district so if I got so crazily stoned no one would realize; I'd be just another number in the police state.

It's all gravy now, I could smoke a bowl, drop E, some acid and a fifth of jack daniels and be smooth (not that I'd actually want to do that) but seriously, weed has the potential to fuck up a youngins mind or at least lead them astray. Not that I think it led me astray but I think the possibility is there. Now that my stoner years (wake & bake - go to art school) are behind me I smoke maybe a hit every once in a while, if I smoke much more I get panicy. I'm down to one hit as opposed to five bowlfuls... if it weren't for being a stoner at one point I probably wouldn't drink at least 3-5 to 15 beverages a day haha! It began a brutal cycle. Either mixing, or smoking a lot of weed, or drinking a lot of alcohol. They say everything with moderation, yeah sure, but addictions are more difficult to moderate!

Who even knows what effect pot could have on a baby's mind!! Sheesh!