Juggernaut starts March 1st.

Guidelines
- Challenge: The Juggernaut
- Deadline: 1st April 2007
- Art Styles Allowed: Everything. Poetry & Prose, Paintings, Photoshopping, "MS Painting", Photography, Music... you name it.
- Submissions per. participant: unlimited
- Everybody is welcome
- There will be no winner or loser, this is mainly for fun.
- Personal Opinions on each others artwork are of course allowed, but for the love of all that is good, try to be mature in your comments. no flaming!


This fourth challenge is to incorporate The Juggernaut into any form of art.

*** IMPORTANT! - If you have borrowed some art online from someone to use in yours, please do credit the real author in the same post you submit your art. It's truly disgraceful to steal art! ***

The Jug


Big of Bulk and no undertoe,
does the hover mechanism work.
upon its face 3 eyes placed tri-angu-lar-ly.
A grim smile of death, and fire apfhorth,
the whirl and whim of certaincy,
T'fear or not?


Eh, something quick.


EDIT: Okay, I drew something quick too.

Cool pic and poem! I will try to get one done within the next few days.

AC IV: The Juggernaut by ~SladeInFull on deviantART

Nice one, it's good to see different approach to the challenge. This was what I was looking for when I started these challenges.
kudos to you

Cool pic, samus.

Lol Ryoko, I think the power ranger one they did was better.

imagine yourself not looking at the juggernaut from the outside, but from the inside. how does it tick?
perhaps it is a quiet, peaceful machine that doesn't understand its tasks, and simply follows orders.
or perhaps it is more sinister, smiling to itself and waiting for its next chance to fight.

my submission is an mp3 audio file: [attachment=502:circuit_idling80.mp3]
sorry for the low bitrate, it was nescessary to fit within the upload size.
piece was performed by me on turntables, the end work is an edit of two separate takes.

har! thats preity cool! I can imagine a machine that monsterouse has an interior abiance like that

My brother, Soulblighter (not part of the pfhorums), made this piece in garage band with a midi keyboard
[attachment=503:Juggernaut.m4a.zip]
heavily compressed. its less than 1/10th of the original sound file (not including zip).

This is the kinda juggernaut I want in shadow. Its a lot like the m1 juggernaut, but has its own original features.

Done with 1 pencil.

Reading KT's post gave me an interesting idea for a short "essay/story"...since these days almost anything can be art...
The Face of a Juggernaught:
Excerpt from the recovered diaries of a once-infamous P'fhor pathology scientist.
January 21st:
Today I decided to take my team deeper into P'fhor territory to work our way deeper into the P'fhor mentality. My team was resistant at first, but I showed them the error of their ways when I made an example out of Frank. Our cloaking devices have worked fairly well, but we lost George because he was an idiot and tried to run away.
March 15th:
We finally made it into the inner area of P'fhor controlled space. I have just now had enough time to be able to write about our exploits. Our cloaking device failed us shortly after we entered their territory and we've been making "running" observations as we flee their space forces.
March 20th:
Over half my team is gone, either having fled or been killed defending our research vessel. During these past few days I've repeatedly run into what we call Juggernaughts. Or as some of our security team so crudely calls them, "Thing That Kicks Our Asses." I have decided to take the time to stay here and research these strange beings rather than return to UESC controlled space.
April 1st:
As a wonderful April Fool's joke, my team decided to desert and they left me on a P'fhor inhabited planet and tried to escape. I got the last laugh though, when I saw two Juggernaughts blow them out of the sky.
April 8th:
The Juggernaughts excite me. I have seen their destructive power, their grace, their utter lack of emotion. I saw one Juggernaught utterly destroy Mary, my secretary with a volley of missles. It was a horrible and beautiful sight to behold.
April 10th:
While running away from a group of P'fhor, I ran directly into a Juggernaught. I am probably the only human who was able to look this closely at one of these...things...and survive. All I saw was my own death. This is rather silly for a scientist to say, but this, I believe is what I saw. However, this one just looked at me for a while and then it floated away, completely ignoring me...I think they're playing with me, they could have captured or killed me quite some time ago.
April 11th:
As I think back to my experience with the Juggernaught. I begin to wonder about what it was thinking. What do they eat? Are they built? I wonder what it thought of me...Then I realized I haven't shaved in over two months, I must have looked horrible. I plan on going back out and finding this same Juggernaught again. Perhaps I can convince some of the local P'fhor to take me to it.
Diary entires end here. The "mysteries" of the Juggernaught have never been fully revealed, nor have any further explorations been attempted. Two other groups of scientists have tried disecting Juggernaughts. The first group was blow apart because they couldn't figure out the Juggernaught's self-destruction system and then other went missing after they announced that they were going to try to diplomatically talk to a Juggernaught.

Cool stuff guys!
Here's my entry.

Nice work, everyone!

And hey, Gray...

What's that supposed to mean? =p

Thanks!

Almost anything can be art these days...I've seen a large white, paint-board...painted white...with a red dot somewhere in the corner, going for thousands of dollars.

A couple of my favorite Robert Rauschenberg pieces:

http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue8/imag...eddekooning.jpg
http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/iss...mages/09_sm.jpg

There's actually a better, three panel painting in the same series as the second image at the MOMA in San Francisco. I love it a lot.

Also see John Cage's 4'33".

All it looks like is Blank Canvas!!!

you laugh! too the untrained professional... it apears to be a "A Blank Canvas!!! Gee Wilikers!"

if you look really closely, its a mathematical binary layout of the andromeda galaxy

They are both blank canvasses, but the paintings are completely different; the first was a detailed illustration by Rauschenberg's friend William De Kooning, which he then erased in its entirety (the piece was created for this purpose). The second is from his series of "white paintings" which are generally painted with a roller, and generally come to galleries with instructions to repaint them (again with a roller) if they begin to lose their freshness.

Anyway, sorry to get us off topic... back to the jugger art!

What bothers me the most is not that it's considered art, but that people pay ungodly amounts of money for a five-minute Home Depot project. "Professional" art is a scam, and it really bothers me that nobody is actually going to come out and tell this guy that, despite all the "thought" he may have put into it, it's still a white goddamn canvas. It doesn't challenge my perception on art outside of the fact that I can't believe I'm paying $5 to enter the art gallery and look at it.

I consider that art, but i still say it's a shame how much art like that costs. Actually all art is way too expensive. My mother is an artist and she sells her pieces for a very low amount. small ones for 30-50 bucks, bigger ones for around 80-150 and the large ones for around 200 bucks, which is REALLY cheap compared to art today, and she is still one of the main artists in her art genre here in Iceland.

well, think of it in the artists point of view,
you paint because its your job... now wouldn't it be great to bump up the zeros to get more $$$?
if rich people can afford and dish out the bling, than why not make 'art work' more expensive (wink wink)

Really? I thought people painted because they enjoyed painting. Anyway, whether or not a white canvas is art is not what I'm debating -- whether or not it's worth the thousands of dollars it runs for, however, is another issue.

QFT

Painting is a job like everything else. I do mainly not do art for money but for my own enjoyment. (yes, i'm full of this "money destroys art" shit) but I do want to work with art in the future (if you work at something that you love you'll never have to work a single day again in your life) so i usually choose one art genre out of another to make enough money for me to live (although so far it has only been some minor money i've been getting from that) For example, my music, drawings and so on have always been pure (no money involved) but my web designing has involved money and so will my photography as soon as I get up a decent portfolio and what not. What i'm trying to say is that you need one art genre to support the other with money. it's hard to practice your art if you're stuck as a clerk in a store 75% of the day. Plus it tends to kill your artistic visions sometimes.

PS: I'm sorry if my grammar or just general writing has a bit bad flow right now but i just woke up and i'm not very bright at english when it comes to early mornings.

PSS: Seems like this thread has been totally hijacked but the topic is still semi-on-topic plus it's an interesting debate so i won't complain. But don't forget to submit art people! :)

To me, there is a distinct difference between being an artist and making some money from it, which is what you (and most other artists) do, and trying to cheat the system to make as much money as possible. To me, the latter scenario undermines the former and really cheapens the value of art.

Yes, but in a capitalist society, the choice is to either compromise your art by selling some of it, allowing you to keep eating and continue spending all of your time and effort on art, or compromise yourself by having a day job and splitting your focus. I'll take the former any day; the result is easily better art, and for the most part, there is no need to compromise your art in order to sell it. The idea is that people buy it for its artistic merit (not always true, granted).

If it is compromising to my art to sell it, then it follows that my band should play all shows for free and give away all copies of our albums. Just because artists like, say, Justin Timberlake exist to make music specifically so it can be sold, doesn't mean that the rest of us don't deserve to receive money for our work, allowing us to make more, or that we have some moral obligation to give our music away for free.

I would argue that Rauchenberg's pieces were a comment on this exact subject, and regardless of whether he got money for them or not, it's a powerful and worthwhile statement; the only real argument to be made is about Rauschenberg's intent.

You missed the first part of this statement:



Obviously there are artists who live on their art. But there's a line between "making art for art's sake" and "making art for money's sake." Think about Metallica (and I know you don't want to): many fans will agree that there is a line where Metallica went from making music that they thought was cool to making music that they knew made money. Even before this line, Metallica was making enough money to not only survive, but live pretty nicely.

To me, it's the same thing as painting a canvas white and then selling it while feeding people this bullshit line about all the "deep meaning it conveys." If Rauschenberg was making the same point I am, good for him... except it's hypocrisy when he turns around and sells it because of that reason.

Hey, if I could "paint" a white canvas, and make thousands of dollars off of it, I don't think I'd really care if it's "art".

Man, you are really missing the point here.

i completely agree...

art is like a normal job when you come to think of it, when you are working at something you really enjoy and you work at it because and for the work, and for yourself your work effiency is a lot greater than normally. But that doesn't mean you are not allowed to get money? how would you like if customers would come to you (this is not a direct reply to turtle but a reply to you all hoping to underline turtle's post) and say that you should not be allowed to get paid for your job, because money could spoil you and affect your work.

If artists aren't allowed to make money of their hard job then I am eager to know where i'm going to get a bed to sleep on, clothes to keep me warm & food to keep me from starving

sidenote:
And you guys should also remember that almost everything we use now a days is somehow art. the G4 iMac that is sitting on my desk, the desk i'm sitting at, the glass i'm drinking my milk from, and the House i'm sitting in. It was all designed by people & many of them were not drooling over the money they will get for this design. After all they were just on their normal pay, designing this & designing that. Although this is a different art category than empty canvasses, paintings, music and what not but it's still art.

PS: hundreds of years ago even math, science, astrology, and all those things were considered art. And in a way, they are. What i'm trying to say is there are many types of art around. Not just one art that is only good when you don't accept money for it.

OK, pay attention, I'm only going to say this one more time. There is a difference between:
1. Making art because you enjoy making art, and selling your art because you need money and because other people want your art.
2. Making some piece of crap and marketing it as "art" to try and cheat the system to make as much money as you can.

TK, there are infinite gray areas between those spaces.

Johannes, thank you for your eloquent post.

No, not at all. I see that you could call it art, but in my opinion, it barely is. It is no more art than me spitting on some snow. It's no more art then me taking a shit in a toiliet. Just because the people say that there's a "deep" meaning behind it, people think it's wonderful. Now, the artist may actually have somekind of meaning behind his painting, but if you do, write a book, don't waste your time making a "blank" painting. Anybody can do that, shouldn't you take some pride in what you do? What if a musician recorded "nothing" and put it on a cd? Or if a writer "printed" a bunch of blank pages? Wow, that's a book worth reading. Painting, and the arts of that genre are the only areas where pointless stuff like that can survive. Other arts actually require some skill. Actually, most painters probably are very good at painting, so why do they waste all their time and money they've spent on their art to make something anybody could do? It seems brainless.

Could you explain what they are, then? I don't see how there's a difference. As Mordekai said, pictures like those sell because they have a "deep meaning." Any Joe Schmo can make anything with a "deep meaning" and sell it, and be heralded as "challenging our perceptions of art"? And, by your own admission, that's Rauschenberg's point. Does that not strike you as slightly ridiculous? He's not challenging my perception of art, because I'm not going to perceive someone throwing art collectors for a loop over some deep philosophical message.

He made plenty of money from using a roller to paint over a canvas. Wow, way to go, champ. I wonder if I can submit my pyramid of Mountain Dew cans as art if I think up some equally bullshit message.

You spitting on some snow and taking a shit in a toilet could be art, at least to some people because we are all different and we are fascinated by different things. Of course there are scams around where people do some weird shit just to fuck the system and get a lot of money for it but not all of "physically effortless" art is like that. My main band plays drone music for example, where a "song" is sometimes just 3 notes but around 20 minutes of length. Ultra minimalistic music which I could play easily on my guitar couple of years ago but it wouldn't had turned out the same because my philosophy and how i generally think didn't simply match up with it & this band has been getting a lot more praise than any of my previous bands which i put a LOT more effort in when it comes to guitar solo's, rig, planning gigs and what not. If you think "effortless" art is shit then please go burn all your punk cd's if you got any. Some art is not just about making beautiful stuff or deep & meaningful stuff. it's a life style & the effort to get that lifestyle onto a canvas.

"It's not what you can do that matters. It's what you do"

PS: i put effortless into "'s because we can debate all night if it's effortless or not, personally i think it is not effortless although it depends on many things.

Wow, check out how long this topic is. Obviously the art is provoking thought and discussion, which regardless of what it sold for was at least part of the artist's inent. We are discussing what is and is not art here - which i think is an especially poingant subject and one that is central to my spirituality. Personally i have little interest in minimalistic and avant garde painting, but i can see the beauty in those pieces completely aside from the questions it was made to raise.

Ultimately we all define art for ourselves, there will be art that doesn't speak to us and thats fine. In my view the artist is responsible for ALL interpretations of their work. Sloppy artists imply things they didn't mean to, practiced artists put the kind of thought into their work that encompasses the person standing in front of the piece and their interaction with it. The value is in that interaction regardless of whether you like the piece. There is plenty of art that offends my concept of art, but i'd never tell someone to stop doing it or not to buy it. And if it made you angry, then there is definately something to it worth considering, whether you like it or would consider buying it doesn't matter. Those things are totally secondary to the experience of art.

Yes, but first and foremost, I'm a consumer. I go to the local Art Institute and donate money because I want that money to go to buying quality artwork, and I don't like to see that my money is being squandered on something that's thought-provoking but not artistic.

what ever happened to the contest?

i liked the submissions and want more. this stuff about defining art is nonsense. if it is just for enjoyment thats good and if it is for enjoyment and makes money thats even better.

Making art is OK if you do it for the feeling of the JUICE flowing through you. If you aren't drenched in JUICE after your done making art, then you fail.

We are as different as we are many, so what you think is thought-provoking, others think are artistic and what you think is artistic they think is thought-provoking. That's why it is kind of hard saying that there is bad art & good art.

Hey, JUICEMAN, which brand of JUICE is the best? I see many a brand at the supermarket but im unsure of which one I need to buy...

could juiceman be some sort of psycho vampire and the "juice" is blood?

No. Stop talking.

Im pretty sure JUICEMAN is a dev, because treellama is always on his side and

- the official mml documentation.

JUICEMAN is not a dev.

see
more juice = more health
more blood = more health
more juice = more blood

see juice = blood

he's a vampire!

You're confusing "JUICE" with the more common "juice". Not to be mixed up! Well, juice is to be mixed up, but you know what I mean.


No, treellama is always on his side becuase he's awesome. When you assume, you make an ass out of yourself.


Didn't someone already tell you to stop talking? wtf are you doing?