Leave a comment

Comments 106

talkwithgravity September 26 2011, 19:48:18 UTC
This piece of photography is clearly a descendant of Duchamp's philosophy of "Art for art's sake". It has a Dada-esque quality in it's performance values, though it clearly leans more towards Surrealism in structure.

In summery: This is art.

So, hey, Connor. That's what you wanted me to say, right? I mean, I put my own twist on it, but I meant every word.

... Can you take your clothes off for me now... Please?

Reply

4_thee_my_lord September 26 2011, 20:35:51 UTC
... That's one big pile of bullshite.

Is that yeh, Connor???

Reply

talkwithgravity September 26 2011, 20:48:01 UTC
Yeah, maybe. I stand by the Duchamp part though.

I don't know who else but me you're talking to...

Reply

4_thee_my_lord September 26 2011, 20:53:10 UTC
Is he related ta Seamus O'Malley?

Me fucked in the brain brother. Did he set yeh up fer this? ... Is that mole real?

Reply


dukefuckinwayne September 26 2011, 22:19:59 UTC
What the fuck am I looking at here?

That is just fuckin' weird. What the fuck is wrong with your brother, man?

Reply

4_thee_my_lord September 26 2011, 22:28:34 UTC
This is the kinda shite Connor calls art.

Yeh now see what I mean? The poor bastard is fucken' delusional.

Reply

dukefuckinwayne September 26 2011, 22:58:07 UTC
Was he fucking drunk or something?

Reply

4_thee_my_lord September 26 2011, 23:02:05 UTC
He was at 'work'. But then, yeh've seen the rest of his 'work'.

Reply


morbidbubbles September 27 2011, 02:11:23 UTC
At least his pants are nice?

Reply

need_some_rope September 28 2011, 05:55:53 UTC
Thank you.

Reply

morbidbubbles September 28 2011, 05:57:48 UTC
You're welcome. Not every guy can pull off leather. :)

Reply

need_some_rope September 28 2011, 06:06:41 UTC
Its been a while since I last tried.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up