Video that doesn't suck.

  • Thread starter Thread starter reklus
  • Start date Start date
BLuesBoyDeluxe said:
Tell me again how this isn't porn.
Click to expand...

Not porn because there is no intended sexual arousal or tittilation.

Definition.

Pornography:
From a definition standpoint, pornography is anything that is created to cause sexual excitement or arousal.

Look. This is what I do. Why the condemnation and such closed minds?

Do you hate the song or what it represents?

I've got a clean version of the song.




Guaranteed not to offend the closeted or closed minded.
 
steve.h said:
If you're not saying anything, why would anybody want to listen?
Click to expand...

You're not very attentive, are you? I'm saying I'm not saying shit with the video, the video and the music speak for themselves. It's not a high concept piece, dude.
 
Just going to ignore him.

What happened to my rep?
 
Last edited:
reklus said:
Dude. Shut up. You're a power troller with no music to offer but lots of criticism.
Click to expand...

Fuck you, dumbass. You post stupid shit and then get pissed when people don't like it. This is pretty diverse crowd around here. When multiple people from vastly different backgrounds tell you something is stupid, it probably is. That's your problem, not anyone elses. Post something that's not retarded and maybe you'll get some decent feedback.
 
Man but sorry, by definition, the movie you are using is in fact meant to sexually excite the viewer, if you made your own video, well thats a different thing, but man dont tell me now that Ron Jeremy is not a pornstar but just a "performance artist"
 
dualflip said:
Man but sorry, by definition, the movie you are using is in fact meant to sexually excite the viewer, if you made your own video, well thats a different thing, but man dont tell me now that Ron Jeremy is not a pornstar but just a "performance artist"
Click to expand...

I agree with you in that the original material as used was intended for pornography. However, I've repurposed it and claimed it as my own by editing and changing the context. That is how it works.
 
Video removed - as I expected....
 

Attachments

  • youtube removed.webp
    youtube removed.webp
    34.9 KB · Views: 98
I didn't get to see it. But I just realized that I can now put up clips of people shitting on each other. After all, I don't find it exciting, so it's not meant as porn. And I'll edit it so that it goes with music, in my mind.
 
The saddest thing about all this is the attention it garnered.
 
RAMI said:
I didn't get to see it. But I just realized that I can now put up clips of people shitting on each other. After all, I don't find it exciting, so it's not meant as porn. And I'll edit it so that it goes with music, in my mind.
Click to expand...


So the thing is...do you get why that statement is actually true? It's about repurposing your world to suite your art.

No really. As long as your intent is not erotic and there is a reason for your work, it is legitimately yours and a valid piece.

The new link.

This is a permanent link.
(copied from above)

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/120201/new.mpg

I fully insist this is a legitimate video. This is now my work for all intents and purposes.
I am not intending any offense other than a reflection of what I feel is inherent in that style of music.
 
Last edited:
reklus said:
So the thing is...do you get why that statement is actually true? It's about repurposing your world to suite your art.
Click to expand...

But, as "liberal" as I am (and I hate that label, but just for the sake of simplifying, I'll use that term), you can't take something that is what it is, in this case pornography, and say that it isn't what it is just because you used or see it in a different way. You can impose YOUR vision of something all you want, the fact remains that it is what it is to everyone but you.
 
RAMI said:
But, as "liberal" as I am (and I hate that label, but just for the sake of simplifying, I'll use that term), you can't take something that is what it is, in this case pornography, and say that it isn't what it is just because you used or see it in a different way. You can impose YOUR vision of something all you want, the fact remains that it is what it is to everyone but you.
Click to expand...

As is ALL art. The intention is the piece.

If I simply took someone else's work and called it mine, I'd say you had a better argument, but even there you'd run into things like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

where a fully formed physical object is simply renamed and put on display.

I'm not intending any sort of Duchamp tribute or ripoff, but this is my work and I'm standing behind that statement. I've reshaped and repurposed the video. No one is saying this isn't my song because I used such a long sample.

There is a clean version (no video and different samples) of this song.



For people who are offended by the body.
 
reklus said:
So the thing is...do you get why that statement is actually true? It's about repurposing your world to suite your art.

No really. As long as your intent is not erotic and there is a reason for your work, it is legitimately yours and a valid piece.

The new link.

This is a permanent link.
(copied from above)

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/120201/new.mpg

I fully insist this is a legitimate video. This is now my work for all intents and purposes.
I am not intending any offense other than a reflection of what I feel is inherent in that style of music.
Click to expand...
Except that you probably violated a few copyright laws. I can guarantee you that Ron Jeremy did not sell you a license to use his image in your 'art'. And you are not paying that hermaphrodite royalties. So unless you filmed it, you can't use it like that.

And the fact that you have to defend it so fiercely should tell you something. We don't like it. Try something else.
 
Copyright laws only apply to intent to sell or distribute. This also falls under fair use.

The fact that nobody gets it makes no difference. I'm not defending the piece as beautiful or need validation of its quality...This is about expressing myself artistically and hoping to get at least disagreement about my results instead of my philosophy. Mostly I just got personal attacks from a dude who's most recent song fully summed up his ability to insult. "No Class" more like "Dumb Ass" - Speaking of licensing- Greg - All of the bad punk songs from the 80's called and want "Something to do" back.
 
reklus said:
Copyright laws only apply to intent to sell or distribute. This also falls under fair use.

The fact that nobody gets it makes no difference. I'm not defending the piece as beautiful or need validation of its quality...This is about expressing myself artistically and hoping to get at least disagreement about my results instead of my philosophy. Mostly I just got personal attacks from a dude who's most recent song fully summed up his ability to insult. "No Class" more like "Dumb Ass" - Speaking of licensing- Greg - All of the bad punk songs from the 80's called and want "Something to do" back.
Click to expand...

"...Something to Do" was from the 70's. ;)

Insult my songs all you want. I don't care. I'm not trying to change the world or make some statement that no one cares about. I'm just playing some simple rock and roll. :)
 
BTW, the chick with the dick in that video is Sunset Thomas. She's hot as hell when she's not wearing a fake dick. :D
 
Greg_L said:
BTW, the chick with the dick in that video is Sunset Thomas. She's hot as hell when she's not wearing a fake dick. :D
Click to expand...

Thought that thing was fake on a second view. It was too damn small.

Damn. This invalidates the entire premise of the video.

OK. Now the video is useless and just a really shitty use of porn material.

Fuck.

I concede.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble.

She was also a legal prostitute in Vegas at one of their "bunny ranch" whorehouses. 5000 bucks and she's all yours for one night.

Don't ask me how I know this. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top