Absurdism corner

[FBnil]

The unofficial 2018 Youtube Rewind!

10,907,337 views in just one day? Jup... it's that good:

 

[Null]

 

[ClockworkCoder]

Ah, so that's how the virgin conception occurred (hint: "Christian rock" looks taller than the holy bible).

 

[Null]

 

[kuru]

^ To be fair, they tried hard to avoid parking on that lawn

 

[Null]

 

[Xcl4m4t10n]

nice fake video mate.

 

[Null]

 

[kuru]

Look I made a cat
https://affinelayer.com/pixsrv/index.html

 

[ible]

That suggests people who think about squishing puppies appear to be driven by two powerful forces in the brain.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...cute-is-too-much-the-brain-can-get-aggressive

 

[ClockworkCoder]

Our cat left us a message this morning. Not sure if it was an omen, but it did accurately reflect my 'first day back to work' feeling...

Spoiler

 

[Null]

https://m.wikihow.com/Identify-a-Pedophile

 

[Klumpen]

 

[Null]

 

[Klumpen]

Someone didn't count when writing the script:

 

[rygD]

Someone didn't count when writing the script:

Meh. Should I mention the coffee?

 

[Klumpen]

 

[Binky]

"Art"

At the risk of derailing this thread from its purpose, I did have a thought that goes some way towards explaining what people see in that sort of thing:

1. All art is a combination of the predictable and the random. Neither pure randomness nor pure predictability are enjoyable, but everyone has a different preferred mixture of the two.
2. Individuals become better at predicting features of artwork through study and experience, and so their tastes drift towards the increasingly bizarre and chaotic as they struggle to hold onto the joy of the unexpected. By contrast, a baby's attention can be engaged with only the simplest colours, shapes and scenes.
3. The random/predictable quality of a work of art can be inherent (chessboards are predictable, Pollock's paint dribbles aren't), but it can also be contextual. A generic photo of the Eiffel Tower is predictable, not because it is simple, but because you've seen so many like it.
4. Different individuals have greater of lesser tendency to view things in an isolated fashion (programmers are really good at compartmentalised thinking) or in a wide context (common in humanities)

From those ideas, I conjecture that while you or I might see 4-33 as inherently predictable (He does nothing, and then more nothing - how can that be interesting?) Some people see it as interesting, because in the context of music in general, a composition in which no notes are played is innovative and a novelty.

The risk (to my mind) of that sort of thinking, where work is celebrated for being unusual in its field, is that it invites unskilled and exploitative 'artists' who generate random nonsense without any thought for what it might mean, or who might enjoy it. They just want the cash.

I don't say all unconventional artists are like that - but I suspect it's more common than the same trait in the classical arts.

Now, to get back on topic:

"A dyslexic girl walks into a bar"​

 

[Null]

https://m.imgur.com/t/funny/2rW9lwM

 

[Klumpen]