Thoughts on splitting a bulk/cut within the week?

Thoughts on splitting a bulk/cut within the week?

If you've tried it how'd it go?

Attached: Artists.png (2250x2054, 3.96M)

Other urls found in this thread:

tsumino.com/Books#~(Text~'homunculus)#
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Left since the right is just a cave drawing.

Retarded and a dumb idea
Also the truth is almost none of you are professional bodybuilders or need to do a bulk or cut anyway

>bulk and cut within the same week
That doesn't make any sense

and yet right has more upper end value as some of the artist's (Mark Rothko) paintings have sold for a million plus dollars. So why is the image on the right, which is clearly more technically intensive, stuck in internet limbo with no one knowing or even caring who created it. I'd say its because it gives in to the artist's most primal desires (sex) as opposed to challenging the viewer with any real challenge or potential perspective shifting ideas. Of course this is highly subjective but for me, its gonna have to be the right.

>a million plus dollars

one of his paintings has been sold for like $150 million

this!

the left shows no more artistic merit. It does however show a greater level of craftsmanship(technical skills used to produce something with an aim in mind)
You can find plenty of artistic nudes in many mediums. However the picture you show is also closer to pornography than most artistic nudes.
Thats not to say there isnt some overlap but the drawing is designed with the posture of the women to push the attention onto the breasts and the outfit is also a ridiculous amount of clothing that is meant to be more erotic than a actual naked torso would be.
Secondly much of art is about its "meta" subject which increases over time. Hence why duchamps fountain is art. It was a critique of the art world, the modern world and arts place in the modern world.(a exhibit went against their word and wouldnt show it when it was entered under a psuedonym)

i dont particularly like Rothko. Most of it is nice, it has a simple aesthetic to it. the price is just reflective of most of arts position in society. It a gate keeping measure and a way for people to try and show how they are better than other people+ store money in art which often stays very valuable when economies decline.

Fine art is basically a conspiracy, a bunch of rich dudes all standing around agreeing that the art has a great deal of value so that when they donate it they can get massive tax concessions.

Hugh Jackman did it while training for his role as wolverine. I've tried it for a couple months now and I say it's definitely the way to go, bulk on lifting days, cut on resting days. For me that's 5 days of bulking and 2 days of cutting, and I feel that I've actually leaned out just a tiny but while putting on muscle (down maybe 1-1.5% bf in the time I've been doing it)

To be fair, Rothko isn't really meant to be seen at such a small size. The canvasses he used were typically large and that really adds to the painting. You don't look at a Rothko so much as you dive into it. I know how pretentious that sounds, but if you ever find yourself in front of one of his pieces I recommend keeping that analogy in mind.

Isn't the day after resting day when your body needs a lot of protein tho ?!

But you also gain muscle during recovery time, which is what rest days are for, user. That said, I am currently going to the gym 3 times a week, and have been eating big for only two days after that visit. Any day after that is either cutting or maintenance.

I've kept protein constant (220g on work and rest days) and just lowered total calories consumed from ~3800 to ~2700

Is this what lean bulking is?

The right doesn't challenge anything, stop repeating this lazy phrase that talentless hacks use to act like they aren't just part of some BS money laundering scheme

art is subjective, but I know that it is difficult for autists to remove themselves from binary thinking so I guess this post makes sense here

>art is subjective

That would mean beauty and truth are subjective which aren't true

beauty is subjective, just look at what other cultures consider to be beautiful and how they compare to each other. Truth is as you've stated objective. however, art is neither beauty nor truth so your premise reads as such A cannot be D because B and C are not D.

Neither because they're both shit

>beauty is subjective

You've not studied this much have you ? Your argument can be as easily debunked as the same line of logic that thinks morality is "relative" cause you're too brainlet to see common strains of truth and telos.

Attached: Ethical morals are subjective because widely differing CS Lewis.png (988x479, 133K)

If anyone here actually thinks left they are a philistine who thinks only with their dicks who has not place on /li...wait...
...oh...
...carry on, then.

>be jew
>need new way to launder money
>come up with (((modern art)))
>w-what do you mean goy? You just don't have taste if you can't see the value in this shit on a canvas
>the dumb goyim actually come and defend it

Attached: 1503482961784.jpg (1200x1125, 159K)

There are truths in art, such as colors or composition, but the is no natural law that determines the evaluation of it. It is 100% based on interpretation, which in turn relies on a subjective preference. To say that the anime girl drawing is a better piece of art is meaningless. What even is art then? A competition? A car is a piece of art, but is it a better piece of art than a painting? Or love?

Art is relative. We appreciate Mona Lisa because it is historic in many ways; not because it resembles reality in an accurate way. We have negotiated that painting to be valuable. In the same way, abstract art is negotiating itself to be valuable on the premise that it challenges the "truth" that art adheres to an ideal of reality representation or "truth" itself. Nature is one thing, truth is a human thing. There is no truth in nature itself, because human beings are needed to observe. Thus all happenings are construed trough cognition and perception, rendered trough personal conviction and articulated to be communicated to others.

An abstract painting achieves to move the thought from the physical truth of reality into the realm of anti-realism. Thats why abstract art has no truth in it, because it is diametrically opposed to reality.

Therefore, abstract art dodges the evaluation of artistic merit, because people assume that its hard to make something abstract real without making it reality.

Once again you really need to actually study this instead of spouting foolishness like you do. There is truth in all things including art and to say otherwise makes you nothing more than a idiot nihilist. I recommend some Roger Scruton sometime and also not running into me in a dark alley with your attitude.

Attached: art like morality drawing the line.jpg (600x356, 49K)

I do this. started from skellymode & didn't want to lose abs from low bf, so this is my solution. Probably not optimal but it works

>itt brainlets trying to discuss modern art
It's like watching fat soccer moms discuss fitness

i've been in front of one

what am i supposed to feel? same with Pollock

>spend millions on painting
>now all of your money is in an illiquid painting with no other purpose
really makes me think

>resell it
>now you have clean money

The market value has nothing to do with the merit of the art. The merit of the art is based around the technique and the thought process employed to create the piece. That some fag somehow convinces some rich fags that some art is more valuable than other to exploit a convenient monetary loophole and maybe do some money laundering while at it, is a completely separate issue.

right is a primitive drawing of a Tenga cup

digital art, while pretty (especially when 2d fanart) isn't really impressive beyond the artist's ability to draw. you can't really fuck up like physical mediums

I don't think paintings are there to hold value, more like disguise other transactions.

>stuck in internet limbo with no one knowing or even caring who created it.

tsumino.com/Books#~(Text~'homunculus)#

The answer in the pic is a good response to the question, but I'm not sure how it disproves moral relativism.