Crappy toys from a past that never existed

Remarkable art.

http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:28:44 PM UTC-4, rroger wrote:
On May 13, 6:180pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
> Remarkable art.
>
> http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php
>
Uh, yea sure; "art".
0
--
rr-open a box and take a picture; big whoop-oger

I call Poe's Law.

On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:45:26 -0700 (PDT), rroger <email@anonym;
wrote:

On May 14, 3:31 pm, bobg <byo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:28:44 PM UTC-4, rroger wrote:
> On May 13, 6:18 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Remarkable art.

> >http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

> Uh, yea sure; "art".

> --
> rr-open a box and take a picture; big whoop-oger

I call Poe's Law.

I hope you're not calling that about my response to the OP because I
wasn't kidding or joking about what I wrote. Since I'd never heard of
Poe's Law until now with your response, I had to look it up.
Seriously.

Bueller... Bueller... Anybody...? O.K. I'll take it

The site is displaying _actual_ _Art_ which heretofore had never been
seen, because it never existed. These are the product of the artist's
imagination, skill and handiwork. One-offs, one-of-a-kind, if you
will. He made them up, then made (manufactured) them, and their
containers. They are a satire, a parody of the _types_ of things which
used to be made. But not exactly. The word "shit" seldom found its way
to the label of a toy box.

The fine print establishes the material used, and to some extent the
process used in the creation.

The reference to Poe's Law is to show that it is sometimes difficult
to distinguish between parody & satire, and an actual thing, if
carried to extremes. HTH

On Tue, 15 May 2012 00:35:25 +0000 (UTC), Mark Steese
<email@anonym; wrote:
bobg <email@anonym; wrote
On Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:28:44 PM UTC-4, rroger wrote:
On May 13, 6:18 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:

> Remarkable art.
> http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

Uh, yea sure; "art".
rr-open a box and take a picture; big whoop-oger

I call Poe's Law.

Really? You think there's a sensible person out there who would believe
that the "Godforsaken Astronaut" was a real toy? Or that there was a toy
company called "Gypco" that produced a doll called "John Manshaft"? And
this person wouldn't even catch on when he saw the Male Model toy produced
by "Crapstar" and the plastic dog produced by "Shytee-Dae"? Even "The
Christ of the American Road" wouldn't raise a hint of doubt in said
person's mind?
Me, I think it's slightly more likely that a certain someone clicked on the
link, looked at the first picture (which is a bit more believable as an
actual toy than most of the others), and jumped to the wrong conclusion.



Jumping to the wrong conclusion is called Shmegegge's Law.

Les

On 5/14/2012 2:45 PM, rroger wrote:
On May 14, 3:31 pm, bobg<byo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:28:44 PM UTC-4, rroger wrote:
On May 13, 6:18 pm, Lee Ayrton<layr...@panix.com> wrote:
Remarkable art.

http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

Uh, yea sure; "art".

--
rr-open a box and take a picture; big whoop-oger

I call Poe's Law.

I hope you're not calling that about my response to the OP because I
wasn't kidding or joking about what I wrote. Since I'd never heard of
Poe's Law until now with your response, I had to look it up.
Seriously.

--
rr-I'm also not kidding or joking about kidding or joking-oger



OK, no Poe's Law, then - you were whooshed.

Mary

On Sun, 13 May 2012 15:28:44 -0700 (PDT), rroger <email@anonym;
wrote:

On May 13, 6:18 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
Remarkable art.

http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

Uh, yea sure; "art".


Have you considered that you might not really know what constitutes
art? It is more than oil paintings and bronze sculptures.


--
Heather

On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:02:00 -0700, rroger wrote:

On May 16, 5:18 am, Heather <redboro...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2012 15:28:44 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raust...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On May 13, 6:18 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Remarkable art.

>>http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

>Uh, yea sure; "art".

Have you considered that you might not really know what constitutes
art?  It is more than oil paintings and bronze sculptures.

Let me make a guess about something. You actually think that Andy
Warhol simply stacking up some Brillo pad boxes and taking a picture of
them is art.?

Favorite lapel button: "Art is anything you can get away with".

On May 16, 10:040am, N Jill Marsh <njma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:02:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raust...@aol.com>
wrote:









>On May 16, 5:180am, Heather <redboro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 15:28:44 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raust...@aol.com>
>> wrote:

>> >On May 13, 6:180pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> Remarkable art.

>> >>http://www.randyregier.com/toys.php

>> >Uh, yea sure; "art".

>> Have you considered that you might not really know what constitutes
>> art? 0It is more than oil paintings and bronze sculptures.

>Let me make a guess about something. 0You actually think that Andy
>Warhol simply stacking up some Brillo pad boxes and taking a picture
>of them is art.?

Tell me why, in the context of how and when he did it, it wasn't.

I don't know about *your "in the context of how and when he did it"
criteria, and there may be things or types of art that I'm not
thinking of/remembering right now, but here's how I think of it. If
it's something that's, (very?), simple/simple to do and I could do it
without instruction and have it be a good as the famous artist's one,
then, to me, it's not art. Also, for paintings, if, as some people
might say when looking at one, "it looks like something a 2 year old
did/could do", then, again IMO, it's not art. Here's another thing,
I'm *NOT* saying that he didn't have talent nor am I trying to
discount that talent, but to me, Jackson Pollack's paintings just look
like very well used drop cloths.

--
rr-*I was born in 1961. also, I'm not sure that I "get" what you mean/
meant by it-oger