Cake has a song called "Daria."

WE'VE COME FULL-CIRCLE.

I love that song:)

I discovered that when I tried to google cake pictures for your birthday. :lol: "daria cake" just yielded that album cover over and over again. :lol:
I had been hoping to find a cake with Daria on it or something. Being a cartoon character (easy to draw) and a cult classic, you'd think someone would have made a cake with her face or something...

I agree! I found the old webpage the other day, you can access the drawings of the "alter ego" pictures in it. Here's the link
Daria

http://www.mtv.com/onair/daria/flipb...ages/flip6.gif

Well that's interesting.

http://www.mtv.com/onair/daria/flipb...ages/flip5.gif kinda like this one..

But this is one of my favorites http://www.mtv.com/onair/daria/flipb...es/flip122.gif

Y'know, I think that Andy Warhol is spoofed so much now that for a kid that grows up in post-Warhol society, Warhol becomes cliched and boring by the time they're old enough to actually know who Warhol is and have the potential to appreciate his work.

I don't know if I agree... I agree that he's spoofed a lot, but I think that would make the spoofs cliched. Were a kid growing up in post-Warhol society to see Warhol's art (especially the less popular pieces), I believe they'd still be able to appreciate it. After all, art is art. :]

Well, yes, the less popular pieces. I was mostly referring to the more commonly-spoofed ones. They kind of lose anything they might have had.

I disagree Cherry, I think spoofing something, and appreciating it for it's actual worth are two different things. After all, the Mona Lisa is spoofed a LOT, but it's still an interesting piece considering the artist and the time of the work.

It's two different things, yes, but if your first (and second, and third, and fourth...) exposure to a piece is through silly spoofs, seeing the real thing for the first time (and subsequent times) makes it sort of lose its oomph.

I agree with Cherry. :ninja:

It's reasons like this that things such as the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, etc. get so under-appreciated. Overexposure, specifically when it's just a generalized, media-specific exposure (as in, no actual appreciation whatsoever is even touched on), tends to dumb things down and diminish their artistic/symbolic worth.

Such is life, this day and age. :gonk:

If you say so. I admit, I've studied too much art in my days, and made sure to visit a ton of it when I traveled in Europe a few years ago...The real thing is just no comparison to some spoof and was awe inspiring to me with a LOT of work.

No, I didn't say these things wouldn't be marvelous in person. I've not been to the Louvre, I can't speak for that. :lol: I mean just in general.

Mona Lisa is much shorter in real life.

I also think knowing WHY something is a big deal is just as important as knowing THAT it is a big deal (and therefor gets spoofed a ton). The Mona Lisa is not very large in person, Belly is right...but it's important because Mona was either a complete nobody or was the actual painter himself. That painting was done in a time where only royalty or the church could afford art to be commissioned, and Mona was believed to be somewhat common folk. They also are not sure who the actual person was who sat for the portrait so the fact that no one knows who she was exactly is HUGE. There's also the mysterious smile. Most portraits at that time period were of people who were straight faced, not smiling...Which leaves art lovers and historians wondering why is she smiling? There is also the brush work. You can't see the painters strokes in the piece, he did such an amazing job. This was not normal brushwork for that time.

Some work just needs to be seen in person to have an impact. I have seen the Mona Lisa in person. It's hard to see behind the huge glass case its in and behind the line of people waiting to look at it. That was pretty disappointing in all honesty. Other work, like Jackson Pollack's stuff, looks absolutely LAME in pictures, but is pretty darn cool in person. Yeah, the guy dribbled paint onto a canvas...but when you see the sheer AMOUNT of paint that is on each canvas, and the stuff that is in there (you can see his cigarette butts in some of his work, it's amusing). I also saw a Pollack piece once that was on the back of a dart board!

This is one of my favorite Andy Worhol pieces http://artat.homestead.com/files/charlie2.jpg It looks like nothing right? What you can't see in this picture is that the picture is covered in diamond dust. So it sparkles a TON! I just loved how something so trite as a portrait of Charlie Chaplin, could be made so pretty with the addition of sparkles.

So I guess what I am trying to say, is while you may have seen a piece spoofed a gazillion times...The real thing deserves being viewed with an open mind, to be seen based on it's own merit and not that of a garbage pail kid spoof. It also is important to know WHY something is worth viewing and became an icon, rather than the jaded "Yeah I've seen it 1000+ times, I'm over it" response. Yes, many people can paint a picture of Charlie Chaplin, but only Andy Worhol would make fun of pop icons, and still manage to elevate them to gallery worthy work...Playing with how trite and common place they are...That's what makes the work fun, and the artist amazing in his own loopy right!

Art geek!! *runs away giggling*

LOL, YEP!

That was a great writeup, by the way. :heart:

Would my art history teachers be proud? Honestly...I liked contemporary art the most! OOOHHH, Aoi and I are doing two joint art pieces for a show next months!!!

Oh, that seems like it would be a blast! Hopefully everything works out for you two.

I wanna see pictures!

Hey Belly, you wanna share some of that drank with me?

We're more than half way done, so far it's super cool!