Derby #157: Reinterpreting Famous Art Titles

The Discus Thrower

Off topic, this is the sculpture reinterpreted, not title

Rejected because: Off topic, this is the sculpture reinterpreted, not title

add a comment

Comments

Spiritgreen


quality posts: 217 Private Messages Spiritgreen
Re: The Discus Thrower


Boom! Quality. :^)

walmazan


quality posts: 64 Private Messages walmazan
Re: The Discus Thrower


o M G! I need more lucky print! just like this because are amazing!

Excellent work here my friend!

+1

capedcrusader514


quality posts: 1 Private Messages capedcrusader514

Yeah. I see this doing verrrry. well.

radiomode


quality posts: 3 Private Messages radiomode
Re: The Discus Thrower


You are full of great idea

lucky1988


quality posts: 20 Private Messages lucky1988
Re: The Discus Thrower


Thanks everyone!

mjc613


quality posts: 48 Private Messages mjc613
Re: The Discus Thrower


What kind of donut is that?

imsochady


quality posts: 28 Private Messages imsochady
Re: The Discus Thrower


Hahahaha, this is brilliant!

lucky1988


quality posts: 20 Private Messages lucky1988
Re: The Discus Thrower


@mjc613- I believe its a "petrified" strawberry glazed with sprinkles.

@imsochady-Thanks!

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
Re: The Discus Thrower


Does anyone understand the whole "TITLE REINTERPRETED" theme as opposed to "parody the piece of art itself"? This, like tens of others, is not on topic.

lucky1988


quality posts: 20 Private Messages lucky1988
AdderXYU wrote:Does anyone understand the whole "TITLE REINTERPRETED" theme as opposed to "parody the piece of art itself"? This, like tens of others, is not on topic.


Dear AdderXYU-

I just wanted to express my unbridled gratitude for helping to get my submission rejected. Although the title "The Discus Thrower" and artwork/sculpture are one in the same and I can't fathom how anyone couldn't see that the word "Discus" is REINTERPRETED as a donut and that the words "Discus Thrower", usually associated with a person of muscular and athletic build not a lumpy, lazy oaf, I forgot for a moment that the "Lord of Artistic Merit and Engagement" (L.A.M.E. for short) had bestowed his almighty decree upon my humble creation. My sincerest apologies and I bow before thy magnificent greatness?

lucky1988

Darquis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages Darquis
lucky1988 wrote:Dear AdderXYU-

I just wanted to express my unbridled gratitude for helping to get my submission rejected. Although the title "The Discus Thrower" and artwork/sculpture are one in the same and I can't fathom how anyone couldn't see that the word "Discuss" is REINTERPRETED as a donut and that the words "Discuss Thrower", usually associated with a person of muscular and athletic build not a lumpy, lazy oaf, I forgot for a moment that the "Lord of Artistic Merit and Engagement" (L.A.M.E. for short) had bestowed his almighty decree upon my humble creation. My sincerest apologies and I bow before thy magnificent greatness?

lucky1988


Adder isn't the person who rejected your shirt, so blaming him as if he was the judge is kind of misplacing the blame. Also, I'm curious as to how Discuss could be reinterpreted as any foodstuff, let alone a donut. Or how one throws a Discuss (or perhaps a Discussion)

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
lucky1988 wrote:Dear AdderXYU-

I just wanted to express my unbridled gratitude for helping to get my submission rejected. Although the title "The Discus Thrower" and artwork/sculpture are one in the same and I can't fathom how anyone couldn't see that the word "Discuss" is REINTERPRETED as a donut and that the words "Discuss Thrower", usually associated with a person of muscular and athletic build not a lumpy, lazy oaf, I forgot for a moment that the "Lord of Artistic Merit and Engagement" (L.A.M.E. for short) had bestowed his almighty decree upon my humble creation. My sincerest apologies and I bow before thy magnificent greatness?

lucky1988


haha +1, i agree, i think some of the ones they rejected were changed enough, some of them were not changed enough, and some of those that were not rejected at all. there seems to be no rhyme or reason to their choices. sorry to see this one rejected but i look forward to the next entry you submit! ^_^

lucky1988


quality posts: 20 Private Messages lucky1988
Darquis wrote:Adder isn't the person who rejected your shirt, so blaming him as if he was the judge is kind of misplacing the blame. Also, I'm curious as to how Discuss could be reinterpreted as any foodstuff, let alone a donut. Or how one throws a Discuss (or perhaps a Discussion)


@darquis- the only reason I got "haterade" from AXYU is because there is "pop culture" integrated into the piece. Like I've said before, I'll continue to design what I want and not be influenced by anyone otherwise.

In addition if he's attacking my work as REINTERPRETING the actual artwork and not the title, I still see a lot of entries, even some in the fog that are in violation of "his" views. By his definition all of the entries should have no traces or similarities whatsoever to the actual artwork/painting/sculpture and be completely different and original works of art. Distribute the fertilizer evenly and fairly. Is that too much to ask for? BTW I was thanking not blaming.

Spiritgreen


quality posts: 217 Private Messages Spiritgreen
Re: The Discus Thrower


Well this is a little messed up. Not just because I love the design, and lucky's work is so rightly respected here that he deserves a sensible answer - but because the application of the rejection stick seems so random this week.

I can only offer my own opinion, but to me this design reinterprets the title -and- the original form of the artwork. What is a discus thrower? Someone about to throw a disc shaped object. This is a reinterpretation of the typical idea into something funny. It's not just a parody of the statue, although it is -also- a parody of it.

I hope that Woot understands how unfair it can feel when a rule is enforced that wasn't very clearly expressed (that secret rule was: don't resemble the original artwork in any way, I guess?) and especially when that gets applied to a random assortment of entries. There would be a lot more casualties if the same standard was applied across the board this week. Not that I'm suggesting that would be a good thing.

Oh well, keep your spirits up Lucky. These things happen.

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
lucky1988 wrote:@darquis- the only reason I got "haterade" from AXYU is because there is "pop culture" integrated into the piece. Like I've said before, I'll continue to design what I want and not be influenced by anyone otherwise.

In addition if he's attacking my work as REINTERPRETING the actual artwork and not the title, I still see a lot of entries, even some in the fog that are in violation of "his" views. By his definition all of the entries should have no traces or similarities whatsoever to the actual artwork/painting/sculpture and be completely different and original works of art. Distribute the fertilizer evenly and fairly. Is that too much to ask for? BTW I was thanking not blaming.


By my definition, the title itself should be reinterpreted.

Taking your piece: you clearly parodied the piece of artwork as opposed to reinterpreting the title. Let's put it this way: if you drew Homer with a Donut in the same position but in a different style, it would have little to do with discus or throwing. He would be in a similar pose, but arguably the concept would be homer throwing a donut like a discus, not discus throwing in general. Is it a lazy pander of a concept anyway? I'd argue yes. But that's quite beside the point in terms of this design.

To take one of the most obvious pieces in the fog, however, if Robbie's "great wave" was drawn in any other style, the whole of the concept would still be there, and the whole of the title would still be represented. He -also- parodies the work itself, as opposed to -just- doing so. It fits the theme because the title is being illustrated. Instead of a sea wave, there's a hand wave. Made of the sea? Sure is. But it's not the same.

More arguably, the shark in the tank. Honestly, I tattled on that one too, but I haven't seen any reason to make a big deal over it because the title is so ambiguous. It's literally just a shark in a tank, just as the other piece is just a shark in a tank. The title doesn't have anything to do with the image in either case. But in the same ways one can explain away what Hirst likely meant, it's a whole lot harder to conclusively say that's off topic.

But again, your piece is indeed different in that its entire crux is the pop reference. It would work as a concept if there was a reason for homer simpson to be using a donut as a discus... maybe if he was at the olympics, and a bunch of discus guys were hanging around and he had his donut... but as presented here, it's obviously more of a reinterpretation of the art itself than any sort of attempt to re-imagine the title. The theme asks us to ask ourselves "what could this title look like in another context". It should be more of an association exercise.

If you are so convinced of a personal vendetta against you due to your use of pop culture, however, you should perhaps consider: how often do you sandwich pop culture into a design? I wager there is more guilty conscience behind such a belief than truth. Though I do thank you for believing I have any real clout with the woot powers that be. Believe me, we'd have far different reckoning results every week if things I tattled on were rightfully rejected.

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
AdderXYU wrote:By my definition, the title itself should be reinterpreted.

Taking your piece: you clearly parodied the piece of artwork as opposed to reinterpreting the title. Let's put it this way: if you drew Homer with a Donut in the same position but in a different style, it would have little to do with discus or throwing. He would be in a similar pose, but arguably the concept would be homer throwing a donut like a discus, not discus throwing in general. Is it a lazy pander of a concept anyway? I'd argue yes. But that's quite beside the point in terms of this design.

To take one of the most obvious pieces in the fog, however, if Robbie's "great wave" was drawn in any other style, the whole of the concept would still be there, and the whole of the title would still be represented. He -also- parodies the work itself, as opposed to -just- doing so. It fits the theme because the title is being illustrated. Instead of a sea wave, there's a hand wave. Made of the sea? Sure is. But it's not the same.

More arguably, the shark in the tank. Honestly, I tattled on that one too, but I haven't seen any reason to make a big deal over it because the title is so ambiguous. It's literally just a shark in a tank, just as the other piece is just a shark in a tank. The title doesn't have anything to do with the image in either case. But in the same ways one can explain away what Hirst likely meant, it's a whole lot harder to conclusively say that's off topic.

But again, your piece is indeed different in that its entire crux is the pop reference. It would work as a concept if there was a reason for homer simpson to be using a donut as a discus... maybe if he was at the olympics, and a bunch of discus guys were hanging around and he had his donut... but as presented here, it's obviously more of a reinterpretation of the art itself than any sort of attempt to re-imagine the title. The theme asks us to ask ourselves "what could this title look like in another context". It should be more of an association exercise.

If you are so convinced of a personal vendetta against you due to your use of pop culture, however, you should perhaps consider: how often do you sandwich pop culture into a design? I wager there is more guilty conscience behind such a belief than truth. Though I do thank you for believing I have any real clout with the woot powers that be. Believe me, we'd have far different reckoning results every week if things I tattled on were rightfully rejected.


you keep mentioning the big wave design...so why dont you explain why the other big wave design got rejected and the one in the fog didnt, they both basically have redrawn the wave but with added elements, and if that one was rejected why not the other...you always mouth your opinions quickly to the design that you dont like, but if its a design you like you dont seem to care at all...and as for your hatred of all things pop culture, they have just as much right to be made as indie art or fine art or any othe art, and you have no basis to say which one is better or not. so how about when you dont like a design you can just not look at it, and when you like something you vote for it. and if for some reason you dont believe that the entry follows the rules, you should tattle on it...but you dont have to constantly harass the person in his comments.

lucky1988


quality posts: 20 Private Messages lucky1988
Re: The Discus Thrower


Thanks for the support everyone, I appreciate it. Please, I wish to close this discussion peacefully and promptly, I fully accept the rejection and harbor no hard feelings towards anyone. Let's move onward and forward to future derbies.

Darquis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages Darquis
lucky1988 wrote:
In addition if he's attacking my work as REINTERPRETING the actual artwork and not the title, I still see a lot of entries, even some in the fog that are in violation of "his" views. By his definition all of the entries should have no traces or similarities whatsoever to the actual artwork/painting/sculpture and be completely different and original works of art. Distribute the fertilizer evenly and fairly. Is that too much to ask for? BTW I was thanking not blaming.


Well, as I said, Adder isn't the judge and jury here - so entries that violate the theme of the derby in similar ways that are still up can be put down to inconsistent rulings by woot staff - which has been known to happen on more than one occasion during a derby.

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
megsck wrote:you keep mentioning the big wave design...so why dont you explain why the other big wave design got rejected and the one in the fog didnt, they both basically have redrawn the wave but with added elements, and if that one was rejected why not the other...you always mouth your opinions quickly to the design that you dont like, but if its a design you like you dont seem to care at all...and as for your hatred of all things pop culture, they have just as much right to be made as indie art or fine art or any othe art, and you have no basis to say which one is better or not. so how about when you dont like a design you can just not look at it, and when you like something you vote for it. and if for some reason you dont believe that the entry follows the rules, you should tattle on it...but you dont have to constantly harass the person in his comments.


The other great wave design didn't have any WAVE ELEMENT, except for the element which was part of the original. Robbie's Great Wave involves a different wave. It's a wave waving. This is not some difficult to understand concept. His parodies the work but ALSO involves a reinterpetation of the title. A handwave is not a water wave. A water wave with a massive turtle on it is still a water wave, and when done in the same style as the original, it is far more correct to say it's a reinterpretation of the art itself. there needs to be reinterpretation of the title. That is why the theme is reinterpreting famous art titles. Why is robbie's wave great and reinterpreted? It's a different wave, huge and coming up from the sea. Why isn't the rejected one? Because the wave and the greatness are not touched. the concept doesn't rely on any sort of wave greatness. It's "the great water battle of some monsters".

I know you're not an artist, which is fine because I'm not either, but from what I hear it is far more helpful to any artist to give all opinions, negative and positive, than to just stay quiet to be nice. And obviously if people can't tell the difference between an entry that actually reinterprets a title and one that doesn't, that sort of input is needed. But I'm always happy to inform.

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
AdderXYU wrote:
I know you're not an artist, which is fine because I'm not either, but from what I hear it is far more helpful to any artist to give all opinions, negative and positive, than to just stay quiet to be nice. And obviously if people can't tell the difference between an entry that actually reinterprets a title and one that doesn't, that sort of input is needed. But I'm always happy to inform.


sorry Lucky that im responding again in your comments, i wasn't going to post anything else because you asked us not to but i feel i had to clear one last thing up.

Adder, i don't know why you assumed that I wasn't an artist, since i've submitted many designs to this site, but be assured that I am an artist and in my experience as an artist your critisism isnt constructive, its negative, there are ways of going about telling an artist what is wrong with his or her work without being a jerk about it and you are not doing that. in fact in my experience with other artist, there is always that ONE guy in the crowd who has to say something unnecessarially negative. and for this site that guy is you, we all roll our eyes when you post on something because we know what your gonna say, cause you just can't help yourself. I don't know what artists told you that they love to hear any critisim, maybe that is what they like to hear, but i think when an artist personally tells you to leave them alone and stop posting in their thread, that means they dont want your criticism.

More Derby Entries

By date:

By rank:

Thumbnail