Angst
Created on: November 11th, 2009
Angst
None ( ._.)

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(2.6) 5 0 23

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 1 0 0 546

Inbound links:

views url
1 http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=BACK+TO+YTMND

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
c*ckpuncher
November 11th, 2009
(0)
nooo
November 11th, 2009
(0)
I rarely 1 original things, dude, but this was just too sh*tty even for my eyes.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
alas! you are missing the point
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Maybe... probably not though. Enlighten me, if you will.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/03/ed_research_angst_an_aera_challenger_/munch01.jpg this about sums it up
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Right... I saw that in your picture... along with Danny from Grease. I still think I get it and its still a 1. If you care to elaboration I'll continue to attempt to understand...
November 11th, 2009
(0)
According to wiki, angst is used in the english language to describe an "intense feeling of strife." If we look at the definition of strife, we find is to mean: "Heated, often violent dissension; bitter conflict." The conflict going on is a battle between you and the tumultuous sight, whereas you are fighting it to stfu because it is way too loud and bright and it is causing you much anxiety.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Exactly. But you've missed the mark of the original art - and many like it - which instill strife without such absurd abrasion.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
should be site*
November 11th, 2009
(0)
actually sight still makes sense lol
November 11th, 2009
(0)
the entire point of the site I created is not to manifest the painting; but to rather show the emotional strain of angst in a quick and satirized motion. i only intended to use the painting because of its famous connotation to anxiety and thus you should not be judging it for that purpose.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Point achieved, but you've got to understand that if you want people to have time to process your work then it can not be ear+eye rape... lol eye rape. There are like 35 ear rapes sites a day this doesn't pass as groundbreaking. I spent 3 hours on my last image and it got auto-1 by numerous people due to slight noise redux noises coming from it.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
purpose of using the painting***
November 11th, 2009
(0)
lol yeah i understand it's very annoying but that's the entire intention :P And if you want to judge something based solely on how much work was put into it, that's fine. I just think if a site meets the intended point in a witty or creative fashion it should get a descent vote.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
As you go through 1'ing some classic sites taken completely out of context - lol.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
I just didn't think they were that creative :(
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Thats because you're taking them out of context. A number of sites you were down voting are from 05 and 06... Thats before a lot of these internet staples were old news.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
I'm sorry if it offends you but what do you mean taken out of context. also, this is the first time i logged on in months so i downvoted those a while ago.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Most art up until the later 1800s was made for the purpose of imitating reality as closely as possible. Without context, 90% of that classical art is "crappy" versions of photographs. In this way, the time at which it was made (the audience) is the biggest contextual element to the piece. This is similar for almost all art. I could take a picture, and use 2 filters in Adobe and get the same result.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Your reaction to a lot of these old YTMND is similar to looking at the Mona Lisa and saying that it's just a blurry photo. Not even in the fact that these YTMNDs are art - but just in the fact that they were designed for a different audience with a different set of expectations. Just for the record, I'm not doing like background checks on you - the way I saw your votes was watching SPY waiting for your replies.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
Not annoying enough. S'got nothin' on AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoooooooOOOOOOOOOOooooooAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa(alien screech)(C= 64 noize). And philosophers are just too lazy to produce anything of value.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
ah, i see your point, and it's a mighty good one too, but you must realize that even for the time they were made, I still did not find the sites to be quite creative. I did not just downvote them a half hour ago; it was at least a few months or so. If i changed my vote for some reason i'm sorry I cannot remember why, but i can assure you that I did not hold their value up to the standards of how "well varnished" and "creative" sites were back then vs now.