Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Postmodern art

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Postmodern art

It's crap. Go on, rip it to shreds. This writer doesn't even deserve the time of day. Pup t 04:56, 8/08/2009

I'll take it, expect a review when you least expect it --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 9 Very dry, cynical humour, neat observations, no reliance on repetition (except to support the main angle you're coming at it with, but it's never monotonous) and an obvious familiarity with the subject matter make this a very good satire. Good use of cultural references (Foucault, multicultural lifestyles etc...) as well, all-in-all, you reproduce the pretentious spiel of the guide well, explain the culture and get laughs from it. The only slight problem I have is with (and it's slightly odd and pedantic) the wording of the last picture's title. For some reason "...dick!" doesn't seem to have quite the right ring to it, I would suggest the ever so lovely "cunt" (maybe a little harsh?) or "fuckjacket" (maybe a little stupid?) or something similar.
Concept: 8 OK, I'm starting with Concept because I find it easier to approach it this way. In terms of concept, I like very much what you're doing, however I don't feel that this should be the overall Postmodern Art article purely because it's really just zoning in on one aspect of contemporary art - the pretentiousness of the artist (and audience) and the sycophancy of the latter. While I highly approve of this as a concept, I would rather see it transferred to an UnBook or UnNews format (or just an subtle name change to something like "Guide to a Postmodernist Art Exhibition), where it would definitely have more effect and wouldn't leave me wanting more. The Postmodern Art article (if there ever is one) should encompass everything to do with the art - the philosophy, the aesthetics, the audience, most of all the substance (or lack of). I can see what you're doing, it is very clever, especially bringing in the "kerching" aspect, but I don't think its wide enough in scope to be the Postmodern art article. The length of the article is perfect for what you need it to do btw, you have the balance very much right.
Prose and formatting: 8 Everything is very neat in terms of formatting, which suits the concept well. The only thing I would suggest is either adding a little more text so there isn't quite as big a gap between them, putting a border around each section (or line between each section), choosing a font which in itself is a little more "post-modernist" and/or centering each section vertically so that it sits centrally parallel to the picture, rather than at the top. Also, there are a couple of spelling mistakes (maybe more, I wasn't really looking specifically tbh), but generally you have a very good handle on your writing style and formatting.
Images: 10 I have nothing to say here, you have all the pics you need, it is clear from the pics how similar they are (are they the same work from different angles? I can't tell), therefore the pictures do what is needed and you don't need to add anything more.

The positioning is fine, the captions are excellent, the sizes are perfect. No criticism whatsoever (unless you feel a picture of the artist is needed, but I don't, so I don't know why I added this, I just felt I need to criticise something, damn it)

Miscellaneous: 8.5 A very very rough approximate mark. I have no miscellaneous comments btw.
Final Score: 43.5 Overall I was very impressed, it's a very nice little work that criticises the modern art industry very effectively and is based upon neat observations and applied with a very good sense of humour in a fluid style. The few suggestions I made should make it that little bit more authentic, especially since for me this is a criticism more of the industry and culture, than postmodern art theory itself which is (a little) less transparent and shallow than this generally.
Reviewer: --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK as you might be able to tell, I tried reversing the Concept/Humour in the table (since I prefer it that way) but it hasn't worked, so ignore the fact that I start off Concept with "I'm starting with..." --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools