Introducing the poster boy for FUMUNDA

[indigobusiness]

Celebrity Lounge Singing Sensation

Richard Cheese

[StopTheMorans]

1. isn't it "Frumunda"?

like "Frumunda my b*lls" :shrug:

[indigobusiness]

3. No, it's fumunda

unleass they moved the goalposts again.

fumunda

A not-so pleasent aromatic combination of ball sweat and naturally occuring body odor - originating on, around or from under (fumunda) one's testicles

a.k.a. - dick cheese

edit to delete disgusting addendum which I failed to read before posting.

If you want more edification:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fumunda&r=f

[Texasgal]

8. Yummmmm!

Does anyone have some crackers?

[indigobusiness]

28. Would you like religion with that?

[indigobusiness]

32. Never trust a dictionary that misspells.

ie pleasent (sic)

Might want a second opinion, here.

[fleabert]

48. i have always understood it to be fRumunda as well,

not that I have intimate knowledge or anything...

[AlCzervik]

2. Thats Joey Bagadonuts and his amazing frumunda cheese, one night only!

[underpants]

4. You have to respect his devotion to the art

:wow:

[Beetwasher]

5. Ummm, Actually That's "Art"

I would think...

Love the jacket :freak:

[indigobusiness]

6. "Art"?

Really?

[Beetwasher]

7. It's All Subjective

Is it not? :shrug:

One man's art is another's nightmare.

[indigobusiness]

9. I would argue the mere declaration of art

is not enough.

[Beetwasher]

10. Perhaps

It is arguable though, I guess.

Still not sure if you agree or disagree that what Mr. Fumunda does is art or "art" or not art at all. :shrug:

Personally I would categorize it as "art". But that's just me.

Just to clarify I would define the terms as follows:

art is, well, art.

"art" is that which is claimed as art, but merely by declaration as you so eloquently put it.

And not art is clearly not art.

;-)

[indigobusiness]

11. Mr. Fumunda aside...

Art is subjectively appreciated, but objectively evaluated.

[Beetwasher]

12. Objectively Evaluated?

By whom? Critics? I don't think they'd all agree on anything, even what is to be considered art.

Just as an example, I don't know if you'll remember, but there was a big brewha here in NYC with a painting of the Virgin Mary made partially w/ elephant dung. Rudy wanted it removed from a museum and claimed it wasn't art (I personally disagree) as did some other critics, and some critics disagreed and said it was art.

I'm sure there's many other examples of one person saying something's art and other's saying it's not.

[indigobusiness]

13. I'm talking legitimate evaluation of art.

It must stand up to unbiased scrutiny.

[Beetwasher]

14. Ok, But By Whom?

There have always been questionable works of art that one critic claims is art and another claims is not art. Who's right?

Some say Maplethorpe's work is NOT art for example (again I disagree with that assessment but they are entitled to their opinion).

Unfortunately art is not like science where it can be subjected to peer review before it's accepted as legitimate work. This is precisely because the very definition of art is so open to subjectivity.

[indigobusiness]

15. Critical analysis of art is dispassionate or worthless.

The merits can be debated and opinions expressed, but critical analysis stands aside from opinion.

That is the nature of the beast.

[Beetwasher]

16. I'm Not Sure I Understand What You're Saying

How does critical analysis stand aside from opinion? Critical analysis, unless your discussing science, IS opinion (especially when one deals w/ art).

There are no objective qualities or criteria for defining something as art, or if there are, I have yet to see them. Aesthetics is a completely subjective topic, in fact, there may be nothing MORE subjective.

As an aside, I can't believe this lighthearted thread about a cheezy loung singer has evolved into a philosophical discourse on the nature of art! That's pretty funny actually! Alas, I guess there are worse ways to kill time! ;-)

[indigobusiness]

17. Hardly. Aesthetics is a discipline of formal constructs...

One of the fundamental teachings of art is objective evaluation.

[Beetwasher]

18. How?

How can you objectively approach aesthetic questions?

What are the objective criteria used to determine whether or not something is art?

[indigobusiness]

19. That's like saying "how do you be a surgeon?"...it takes serious study.

To try to fill out the point:

If what I'm saying weren't true, it would be impossible to recognize art other than that which one found appealing.

A legitimate art critic recognizes art, even if it doesn't rock his world.

[Beetwasher]

20. That's Totally Not True

Sorry.

Legitimate art critics do not all recognize the same things as art. There have been instances in which one legitimate critic has said something is art and others have disagreed. So I ask again, who would be right in that instance? Is it majority rule? :shrug: That in itself shows there is no objective criteria to evaluate art, which is my point.

Granted, MOST things can be agreed upon as art or not-art, but there have been instances where there is no agreement and that's because art and aesthetics is essentially subjective.

[indigobusiness]

21. I've expressed the necessary approach to cricicism.

There is much available literature, if you care to pursue it.

I'm addressing the nature of legitimate criticism in art, not arguing critical opinions.

The merits of an opinion can be debated, like I said earlier.

[Beetwasher]

22. But Critics Disagree

Legitimate art crtics who have studied, disagree amongst themselves about what is considered art and what is not.

This is not about the merits of a critical opinion on a particular piece of art. It's about the nature of what IS art and legitimate critics disagree amongst themselves from time to time. This suggest there is no absolute, objective criteria for determining the nature of art. If there were, there would NOT be disagreement. Some things considered art today would have been dismissed as not art a hundred years ago. No one disagree's about what a "square" is because there is absolute objective criteria to determine that, and that has not changed over time. This is not so with art and is indicative of it's subjective nature.

[indigobusiness]

23. They disagree on the merits of opinion, not the ethos of criticism..

This is art, not science.

[Beetwasher]

24. That's My Point

The very nature of art is subjective, it's NOT science, NOT mathematics and does NOT have the objective criteria to determine it.

The definition of a square is static. The definition of art is not and therefore, it's NOT objective. As I said, 100 years ago, critics would not have considered many thing as art that we do today.

If they don't disagree w/ the ethos of criticism then why do they disagree occassionally on whether or not something is considered art?

[indigobusiness]

25. No, you muddle the issue.

There are formal dynamics, perceptual science, practical definitions, etc. that enter into it. Art is dynamic, it evolves, but so does science.

The ideal of criticism is objectivity, always.

[Beetwasher]

26. The Ideal Of Criticism Is Not The Issue

The definition and nature of art is the issue.

If you can objectively define it, please do. If you can't, it's subjective.

Again, a square is always a square. Geometry is always geomotry. These things have objective criteria that are static. The same cannot be said of art, therefore, the very nature of art is subjective.

[indigobusiness]

27. It wasn't the issue originally.

You can't materially objectify love, nor art - meaningwise. That's why there is poetry.

If you were arguing the meaning of art, you should've said so.

The nature of art is one thing, the nature of meaningful critical analysis is another, entirely.

[Beetwasher]

29. I Thought It Was the Issue Originally, Oh Well!

"It's All Subjective
Is it not?
One man's art is another's nightmare."

Whoosh! Either over my head or yours! No worries! ;-)

Nothing like waxing philosophical for a couple of hours.

Actually, for the record, Mr. Fumunda was the original issue, so, in your opinion, art or not?

[indigobusiness]

30. The point was: to qualify as legitimate art, it must stand up

to (objective) critical scrutiny.

[Beetwasher]

33. Ok, I See What You Are Saying Now

But I think it still begs the question; Can art truly be critically scrutinized objectively? I'm sure critics TRY to be objective, but is it possible?

Obviously you think it can be done. I'm not so sure how it can be done, then again, I'm not a critic (that's probably a good thing). :shrug:

[indigobusiness]

34. No, of course not, but that is the ultimate standard of excellence.

Surgeons lose patients, but would prefer not to.

Bias is manageable, that is apparent in better critics, and was taught to even me. Hardly useful to have biased judges in any court. That is perilously close to bigotry.

The deal is to enjoy what you like, but fully acknowledge successful work you don't.

Cheers.

[Beetwasher]

35. I Would Agree

And that's why judging (or critiquing) anything is ALWAYS subjective, even though one tries to be as objective as possible. Since justice (and art) is inherently subjective, then it can never truly be objectively judged, critqued, whatever, and there will always be disagreements about what is just (and what is art). I guess that was the point I was originally trying to make. :shrug:

[indigobusiness]

31. Re: Mr. Fumunda

Art...low art.

[Beetwasher]

36. "low art"

I wonder if Mr. Fumunda would agree? ;-)

[indigobusiness]

38. Quite certain

he has no pretense to high art.

[Elidor]

37. The mere declaration of art is always enough! Witness:

By god, it looks like art to me!

btw, I'm in agreement with Beetwasher on all this.

[indigobusiness]

39. Then you, sir,

know nothing about art.

[Elidor]

40. And you, sir

Know too much about art.

[indigobusiness]

41. You're a girl

and I know something about that, too.

[Elidor]

42. LOL

I can assure you, I am quite the man.

And my dick is bigger than yours, too.

[indigobusiness]

43. And

a big dick, as well.

[Elidor]

44. O, fear & loathing, sir!

Fear & Loathing!

[indigobusiness]

45. Actually, sir,

I thought you were a good sport, there for a minute. And quite funny...for a girl.

[Elidor]

46. That must be a compliment coming from you, sir

I will pray for your atrophied gonads to be restored to their former glory.

[indigobusiness]

47. I would shame you,

sir.

[Elidor]

49. I have very little capacity for shame

As my posts must demonstrate. But be my guest. I have a great capacity for cheap entertainment.

[indigobusiness]

50. Where do you think I got my name?

But, you'll have to trust me on that. Shameless or not.

[underpants]

51. Good grief I only made one little comment

You people seriously are nuts.

I have been watching this thread expand and expand for the last two days-I was just joking.

[Crankie Avalon]

52. This is all YOUR fault...

...how dare you, Sir...HOW DARE YOU?!! :grr: :D

Hope ya got that "still hot" meal you were looking for on Thanksgiving, by the way. :hi: