So, my theory is that "The Money Store" title is personally describing MC Ride or the character he is portraying himself. Since drug addiction is a constant theme on the album, it could be that MC Ride has essentially become A "Money Store" because he gives out loads of money in exchange for drugs/alcohol/weapons/etc... Like he is notorious for abusing substances, and being the guy that will always pay up, so he goes down this rabbit hole of financial turmoil. What does everyone think?
>>64674855
If you can't get a legit answer from the source itself why project upon it?
>>64674931
I'm basing it off of the album, MC Ride constantly mentions drug abuse. "The Money Store" is never said, not a song title, or said why it's called that. So it's a theory based off of implications. Why do you think they have an album/mixtape called "Exmilitary"? They never say "exmilitary" in their lyrics or at least as a song. So half of the fun is thinking why they name their albums.
>>64674855
I heard it was named after this building in Sacramento, it's nickname is The Money Store
>>64675407
shit forgot pic
>>64674855
MC Ride isn't a character
>>64674931
That's the exact opposite of how art is supposed to work.
>>64675430
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtmvwSKdNPQ
I thought the whole point of becoming famous was so people GAVE you drugs. Lol
you're tellin me I put out a dope album and I still gotta cough it up for a gram on the corner?nah that shit beat son, find me some real homies with the goods just cause i feelin it then
>>64677218
>art works in certain way
No, your statement is the opposite of how art works. If you can just re imagine any concept in the way you want, what purpose does the creator have giving it one in the first place?
>>64677191
>the average deaht grips numale
>>64675430
rip OPs theory desu
>>64677296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
Please come back after you become a bit cultured
>>64677296
There are so many fucking arguments against this and they are well cemented in the discourse of art criticism.
Quit before you embarrass yourself.
>>64677333
>>64677352
No no. put it like this, (I'm not him) but look at >>64677296
the photo of the monkey and the apples. imagine if I painted that picture. I would need to realize that it would be "seen" as a picture of monkey and apples. I would need to take this into account, my choice in rendering a subject, would no doubt be "realized" by the viewer. its not completely open. No one sees the monkey and apples, and believes its a ship at sea for example...
>>64677333
>implying i agree with Barthes
can you even into your own opinion or do you just parrot old critics?
All this does is let you impose whatever meaning you want over a piece of art and totally trashes the blood and sweat that go into the concept of it. Why have any concept at all if it's all relative? Fucking first year college trash
>>64677416
>No one sees the monkey and apples, and believes its a ship at sea for example...
Pleb. The monkey is clearly the ship and the apples are the passengers. It's a metaphor you uncultured FUCK.
>>64677297
average /mu/ meet-up
>>64677191
me on the right
is this a ruse?
>>64677403
>>64677403
>>64677416
>>64677432
It's not about getting to impose any old interpretation, it's just about not giving shit the artist's interpretation any special weight.
i would think this would be all the more obvious when the artist is sort of into trolling their audience.
wasn't this dude >>64674931 arguing that there's no point in trying to interpret it if MC Ride won't come out and clarify the meaning? or am I missing something.
are all of Kubrick's films pointless to discuss and interpret because he was purposefully vague about them?
would I give a fuck if Dylan, in his old age, came out and said "Visions of Johanna was actually about post-sex-change-op Trump running for reelection"?
You will hear artists assert that they feel varying degrees of control over their product. Some set out with a specific concept in mind, and achieve something else entirely. Sometimes they don't realize that this is the case.
Also, if you've ever sat in on a group critique in a studio art class, you'll realize that artists tend to be more full of shit than anybody else when talking about their own work.
etc etc. so i don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about with thinking the ape is a boat or that I can't form my own opinion.
>>64677502
If art is completely subjective in how you view it, why is any sort of concept or subject important in the first place? You still base your metaphors upon the concept of the initial art, so its not totally free of the initial concept
I could posit the LEGO movie being about a goth subculture based on projections of what i want to see but does that make it true?
>>64677605
ruse
>>64677714
it depends on if you can substantiate your view based on what happens in the lego movie.
it wouldn't matter one bit what the creators of the movie said in interviews and shit like that.
the whole point is to stress the text itself, not to ignore it and imagine stupid shit.
>>64677740
I can literally connect any dots in linking any interpretation with a piece of art. Literally any. At what point to stop and ask yourself why the art was created in the first place?
and how "substantial" is a non-participants opinion on any piece? Why is it even expressed in the first place?
>>64677859
If you can substantiate this interpretation of the lego movie, by all means do so. What would be invalid about it? What if the artist tells you that you're right, but he secretly believes that you're wrong?
>>64677859
Explain to me how you could possibly interpret this >>64677296 as a ship at sea. Everybody looks at it and sees a monkey with apples. Those are valid perspectives. It doesn't matter if the artist says it's a ship at sea.
>>64677917
>What would be invalid about it?
What would be valid about it?
>What if the artist tells you that you're right, but he secretly believes that you're wrong?
Then he is lying to me?
