Ok here are the rules, you have to post a picture of a work of art that you really like. And then you have to give your interpretation of the artwork. It can be simple or complex, just make sure you give an explanation : )
This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
Post your art now. ONLY ONE WORK OF ART PER POST PLEASE.
I don't have much of an opinion of piece in terms of meaning or interpretation. I like the notions of strain, decay, and death. I'm also blown away at the detail beksinski puts into most of his pieces. This is probably one of my favourites
Similar to the last image i posted, I like the allusions of the piece moreso than the meaning behind it. I like the (fairly obvious) theme of isolation, as well as the minimal aspect of the piece.
I don't have much of an opinion of piece in terms of meaning or interpretation. I like the notions of strain, decay, and death. I'm also blown away at the detail beksinski puts into most of his pieces. This is probably one of my favourites
To me this photo talks, the messy of death but it's organization is wonderful. how love can be as pretty as an amazing sunset, but it can also kill you. It has a lot of interpretations but to me, is how things can be something but relate in so many ways.
The artist's talent really brings this piece to life. I see it and I and i feel i can relate to the person, and what he's going through.
[serious time]
I've always like this from the first time i've seen it. I really like the contrast between the tower and the city down below and how they are all connected by the swirling clouds. Just very soothing to look at.
On May 26 2007 20:28 MyLostTemple wrote: This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
Post your art now. ONLY ONE WORK OF ART PER POST PLEASE.
Racism, money, music, war, beauty, etc. are not American things at all; that pretty much describes every country there is and ever was.
And the USA definitely does not love to go to war. We've had the largest peace ralleys of any country and the only reason we went into Iraq is because the government lied to us (I never supported the war anyway). The 25%~ approval rating of the Bush administration right now reflects the fact that even staunch Republicans don't like war. I hate the Iraq war as much as the next person but I still think the American people (which is what America really is) has been one of the most or the most peace-loving nation ever.
It's pre-stewie, actually. The artist (Chris Ware) couldn't afford to sue Family Guy and the Fox megacorporation of evil. The character's comic is called "Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth." Go buy it, it's good stuff.
I've posted this here before, but I love it so much. I don't really feel I'm versed enough in art history to perform any sort of critique; I just love how Caravaggio uses chiaroscuro.
I saw this when I was younger at the National Gallery in Dublin, and it's stayed with me ever since. Of all the paintings I've seen, it remains my favorite.
On May 26 2007 21:05 decafchicken wrote: The artist's talent really brings this piece to life. I see it and I and i feel i can relate to the person, and what he's going through.
[serious time]
I've always like this from the first time i've seen it. I really like the contrast between the tower and the city down below and how they are all connected by the swirling clouds. Just very soothing to look at.
Soothing as it is, this piece was supposed to illustrate the suffering of people afflicted with migraines...
archictecure record magazine calls it 'floating on water'. this is a really cool building that incorporates the environment well... looks all picturesque etc with the green grass and clear water surrounding the glass walls. can't find a decent picture though.
his most famous work, 'church of the light'
Critics call ando's buildings to have this "zen" quality. i don't really like that adjective, but his works really do have this sense of serenity and clarity that i can appreciate.
I saw a painting by this artist, Jules de Balincourt in some art book recently, I can't find the painting on the internet but this one's not bad either.
By the way I have my flaming helmet on if anybody wants to argue
Wow, that church is surreal. The concrete walls and threadbare pews are so austere, I wonder whether a parishioner feels serene or lonely. I suppose it really illustrates a disparity in the notions of church between the eastern and western worlds.
Well known piece of art. All i have to say is that represent exacly how i feel when i lose my mind when something terrible happen to me. Sometimes i'm this man.
On May 26 2007 22:48 evanthebouncy~ wrote: Wow some rly nice stuff!
Elegant shape, simple yet intrigue, an artwork that is both athetically and mathmatically beautiful.
gangbang - 9 ants on a net;
I like Gustave Dore's engravings: the divine comedy, paradise lost, don quixote, the raven... etc; i like black and white art in general because it's more real, it expresses more from here http://dore.artpassions.net/ + Show Spoiler +
Well known piece of art. All i have to say is that represent exacly how i feel when i lose my mind when something terrible happen to me. Sometimes i'm this man.
I love this painting, it's among the most powerful pieces of art ever created. Did you know that Munch painted this about 50 times? There's another work of his that I adore but I can't find it right now and I'm not anyway near my Munch book.
I won't start a discussion about what is art and what isn't since it's off topic, but some things posted in this thread are not art. And some are not even close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch
Moving on, I will focus on paintings only (with one exception) – mainly because two-dimensional pictures can't transmit the expression of sculptures or architecture.
My favourite Manet, the gentle way to cause an outrage.
When you're talking about impressionism you can't get around mentioning this work from Renoir, the way he features the light in this painting is so wonderful.
This has been posted before, but I think posting this once is not sufficent.
Kind of obvious that I like impressionism. This is a work of Cézanne.
Light, light, light, impressionism, light. Love.
I promise I will stop posting impressionism. But I had to feature Liebermann.
Back to expressionism, this work of ELK is way ahead of it's time. While the futurists in italy were working on a new way to describe form Kirchner was working on his way to redefine color.
Again, Kirchner's use of color is exceptional which made me a fan.
This is so good. Even if you don't like it, you can't deny the point.
We can all tell where this is coming from.
Anyone else here who likes situationistic paintings?
On May 26 2007 20:28 MyLostTemple wrote: Ok here are the rules, you have to post a picture of a work of art that you really like. And then you have to give your interpretation of the artwork. It can be simple or complex, just make sure you give an explanation : )
This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
Post your art now. ONLY ONE WORK OF ART PER POST PLEASE.
the text isnt german, im pretty sure it's norwegian
although this looks like the orignial one and it's actually dutch + Show Spoiler +
I can tell the headline is german, though. Or at least from a very similar language. And the text on the sign says, in a cynical tone "The U.S. wants to save european culture"
After thinking about it, I will start an argument about 'what is art?'. This is no discussion about taste, and I really do not want to start arguing about it. But I couldn't leave this uncommented, I even think it is dangerous and wrong not to object to the original post.
This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting. As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate. The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
On May 26 2007 20:28 MyLostTemple wrote: Ok here are the rules, you have to post a picture of a work of art that you really like. And then you have to give your interpretation of the artwork. It can be simple or complex, just make sure you give an explanation : )
This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
Post your art now. ONLY ONE WORK OF ART PER POST PLEASE.
That piece there is not German i think, the writing on it is in Norwegian. The small sign in the foreground says: "America wants to save european culture"
I've got alot of good responses from that first post i made. Obviously there are very negative immages in it and i hope i wasn't offending anyone. Much of art is about interpretation. The beauty of that is we can come to very diffrent conclusions about what the art work was saying. However some people seem offended by it. If you are offended i apologize. This was not my intention. I don't know if we are really here to argue about the meaning of one piece. But i also do not want to debate of the meaning of just one piece of art. I see your angels and you've made some excellent points. I just hope you could see mine.
On May 26 2007 20:28 MyLostTemple wrote: This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
Post your art now. ONLY ONE WORK OF ART PER POST PLEASE.
Racism, money, music, war, beauty, etc. are not American things at all; that pretty much describes every country there is and ever was.
And the USA definitely does not love to go to war. We've had the largest peace ralleys of any country and the only reason we went into Iraq is because the government lied to us (I never supported the war anyway). The 25%~ approval rating of the Bush administration right now reflects the fact that even staunch Republicans don't like war. I hate the Iraq war as much as the next person but I still think the American people (which is what America really is) has been one of the most or the most peace-loving nation ever.
I was just using this as a metaphor for what's going on in the united states right now. And the united states goes to ware quite a bit... The work i posted was simply represented all the ugly sides of the united states. prehaps i should have said the amereican GOVERNMENT instead of the 'USA' ; )
but even then... i doubt most other countries would agree with your statement that our countries history has been peace loving nations ever. Maybe that's just my opinion ;P
When I said racism, money, music, war, beauty, etc. weren't American things I didn't mean to deny that those don't describe the United States because they do. I was simply saying that I wouldn't call them American qualities but rather human qualities or qualities of human societies because pretty much all large human societies deal with racism, go to war, and have a large emphasis on money, beauty, and music.
The US definitely has the cleanest record of any great world power but we are the youngest. From the end of the American Revolution until the beginning of WWI we definitely were extremely peace loving and had a very small military. In WWI and II we were attacked first both times, by Germany and Japan respectively, before we entered them. The large military build up in the United States caused by WWI and WWII and the Cold War battle between communism and capitalism both contributed greatly to our militaristic approach since the end of WWII. Although we did help pioneer the League of Nations and the United Nations at the same time.
I don't mean to stray this thread off topic though the "art" you chose as your OP was definitely asking for it. But I just wanted to reply to you, let's not change the point of this thread.
~edit~ You didn't offend me I just felt compelled to make a comment about it. But yes I don't want to have the thread go off topic either.
On May 27 2007 11:34 MyLostTemple wrote: I've got alot of good responses from that first post i made. Obviously there are very negative immages in it and i hope i wasn't offending anyone. Much of art is about interpretation. The beauty of that is we can come to very diffrent conclusions about what the art work was saying. However some people seem offended by it. If you are offended i apologize. This was not my intention. I don't know if we are really here to argue about the meaning of one piece. But i also do not want to debate of the meaning of just one piece of art. I see your angels and you've made some excellent points. I just hope you could see mine.
Your point being? I won't repeat myself, have you actually read my reply? I'm not offended in any way and I don't want to offend you – but I can't stand that you actually think this propaganda is art. Because it isn't. And it is dangerous to claim so because it allows simple-minded people to grow or extend prejudices.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: After thinking about it, I will start an argument about 'what is art?'. This is no discussion about taste, and I really do not want to start arguing about it. But I couldn't leave this uncommented, I even think it is dangerous and wrong not to object to the original post.
This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting. As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate. The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
..blablabla
i wasnt going to post here but your narrowmindedness enraged my allready heated mind (i just watched napoleon dynamite): you can't tell one what's art and what's not - everything and nothing is art. It's not a protected title.
"Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting." <- you try to force us from perceiving the image in any form but stale propaganda.
People who know what they're talking about agree that propaganda of the sort in the OP is not art. It might be worth looking at in a different context and relevant to historians, maybe, but without digging through centuries of arguments in art criticism, just accept that it's not considered art.
On May 27 2007 15:13 Myrmidon wrote: People who know what they're talking about agree that propaganda of the sort in the OP is not art. It might be worth looking at in a different context and relevant to historians, maybe, but without digging through centuries of arguments in art criticism, just accept that it's not considered art.
Ironically, you are the one that doesn't know wtf ur talking about and in desperate need to study aesthetics.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: After thinking about it, I will start an argument about 'what is art?'. This is no discussion about taste, and I really do not want to start arguing about it. But I couldn't leave this uncommented, I even think it is dangerous and wrong not to object to the original post.
This is an old german anti-american war propaganda poster from the world war 2 era. Obviously nazi's are bad. The holocaust was NOT ART. But what is interesting is the relevance this work of art has to modern america in and the wars going on in the middle east.
To me this monster represents the negative history of the united states fueling the american war machine. You can see the racist history the United States has been lead by the Indian on his shoulder and the klu klux klan mask he's wearing on his face. The monster has a woman's leg because beauty is valued very much in the united states. He's holding money and a music record too; also shadowing our American values. His other leg is a pipe that is dropping bombs on germany or in my interpretation: the middle east. His lower torso area is a war drum. We know the USA loves to go to war.
oh and for the record i am not anti america. I like the usa a lot. Just not some of the things going on internationally.
What do you guys think?
I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting. As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate. The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
..blablabla
i wasnt going to post here but your narrowmindedness enraged my allready heated mind (i just watched napoleon dynamite): you can't tell one what's art and what's not - everything and nothing is art. It's not a protected title.
"Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting." <- you try to force us from perceiving the image in any form but stale propaganda.
First: Everything and nothing is not art. Art is not arbitrary. The term you were looking for is 'craft'. To call something art, you have to prove it's quality. Just where is the quality in this image?
Second: Why am I narrow minded just because I think there is a difference between art, kitsch and trash? Especially in this case. And please tell me why I force anyone's perception by stating that art actually is about individual interpretation. Oh wait! Your reply actually proves my point. Thanks.
Third: This image is propaganda, the OP even claims so. There is no way you can perceive it as art. Maybe you can prove it's quality to me.
i took an art history class in high school and we learned about the evolution of the human figure and the different styles. we were taught to compare things across time periods. etc. etc. but i really don't know how to discuss art. i mean i can look at a piece and identify the style/artist/why it's significant in art history. but looking for "meaning" in art is just something that never went well with me. i mean why do we even care what the artist's intentions were or what it means to us and the message he is trying to send? i am very curious...
what does art mean to you?
btw to the people who are arguing about "what is/isn't art":
well, marcul duchamp's fountain (which someone already posted) makes us challenge what we consider art. it's a urinal, it's mass produced, and it was ripped directly out of a bathroom. is this art? is this work any less valid than those of monet or bernini or da vinci? there isn't one answer to this and everyone's responses will vary.
propoganda is probably one of the main reasons for the production or art in the first place isn't it? pretty much every religious piece can be seen as a form of propoganda. and also roman arches/columns to commemorate victories and great emperors, palaces etc there are lots of examples.
On May 27 2007 17:04 geometryb wrote: i took an art history class in high school and we learned about the evolution of the human figure and the different styles. we were taught to compare things across time periods. etc. etc. but i really don't know how to discuss art. i mean i can look at a piece and identify the style/artist/why it's significant in art history. but looking for "meaning" in art is just something that never went well with me. i mean why do we even care what the artist's intentions were or what it means to us and the message he is trying to send? i am very curious...
what does art mean to you?
btw to the people who are arguing about "what is/isn't art":
well, marcul duchamp's fountain (which someone already posted) makes us challenge what we consider art. it's a urinal, it's mass produced, and it was ripped directly out of a bathroom. is this art? is this work any less valid than those of monet or bernini or da vinci? there isn't one answer to this and everyone's responses will vary.
propoganda is probably one of the main reasons for the production or art in the first place isn't it? pretty much every religious piece can be seen as a form of propoganda. and also roman arches/columns to commemorate victories and great emperors, palaces etc there are lots of examples.
That's exactly the reason I posted "the fountain" because it's plays such an important role in the way we perceive art today. It is by craft of course less valid than any work of remarkable artists as the ones you mentioned – never the less it's intention and metaphor is so strong that it deserves it's place among the great visual artists of the last centuries.
Concerning your last point, you can't compare religious intentions to war propaganda. For example, the artists working for the catholic church were displaying a much more subtle approach while on the other side having their own interpretations of the bible. The arches and victory marks have a completely different point compared to propaganda because they mark an achievement rather than create a motivation to do so.
Code, please do not destroy this thread by posting silly motivational pictures. I'm far from being a worthy poster on TL but this is a reason to request admins to nullify you 'contribution'.
This is the closest iconographic reply to Goya (image already posted in this thread). In my view one of the best political paintings.
I really would like to see Khalo's painting in a higher resolution. The one you posted looks promising, you don't have a scan or anything that shows it in detail by any chance?
On May 27 2007 18:54 zulu_nation8 wrote: after the fountain, everything is art.
I'm sorry, but you missed the point.
Your point is, if something doesn't allow interpretation, its not art. Who the fuck are you to decide what allows and doesn't allow interpretation? To start, if that propaganda piece was made today instead of during the war then it would certainly allow many many interpretations. If you didn't know the context behind the work do you group it into art or not art? How much interpretation do the works of Peter Paul Rubins allow? Is he admired for his craft or his artistic content? Next time when you respond don't type some fuckin douchebaggery one liner and pretend like you actually had something to say.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.
ROFL nice definition, if you believe that then take off the Renoir you posted because its content allows for as much interpretation as the title of this thread.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.
LOLOL you're offended by its content so therefore it shouldn't called art? That picture made me think a lot in fact, mainly anti-semitic and racist thoughts, much more than the impressionist pieces you posted. I'm sorry i didn't recognize your right as the supreme judge of artistic content within moral boundaries.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
Van Gogh's last work, he painted this one on the last day of his life. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide. Either way this was his last testamony to the world, when leaving this world roughly a decade before his artworks really became popular and wanted. That being said, go to Amsterdam and visit Van Gogh Museum and see this painting live. To me it is breathtaking.
. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide.
whats the controversy? the guy had a shitty life...and he shot himself in the head. he even fucked up at that and lived for a few more days in pain before he died.
On May 27 2007 18:54 zulu_nation8 wrote: after the fountain, everything is art.
I'm sorry, but you missed the point.
Your point is, if something doesn't allow interpretation, its not art. Who the fuck are you to decide what allows and doesn't allow interpretation? To start, if that propaganda piece was made today instead of during the war then it would certainly allow many many interpretations. If you didn't know the context behind the work do you group it into art or not art? How much interpretation do the works of Peter Paul Rubins allow? Is he admired for his craft or his artistic content? Next time when you respond don't type some fuckin douchebaggery one liner and pretend like you actually had something to say.
No, that's not my point. I stated that art allows room for interpretation, of course everything allows interpretation but (good) art is manifested by the individual perception. How much space for individual perception is in the poster? In my opinion bar none, in fact it wants to convince it's audience to only one action. Further on, I was making my point about this image while not trying to start this argument because it's leading nowhere. I also said that the way this propaganda (and propaganda in general) was made hasn't changed in 60 years, which lies in the character of the message it's transporting. So the context in this case doesn't matter for me. But in general the context is very important, as you said if someone today would paint in the way Rubens did it isn't likely to fit into the modern definition of art. Because it was already done, and art tries to reinvent itself in ever faster reoccurring cycles. Every stream of artists tries to redefine this definition, just have a look at the extreme examples: the futurists, dada, the avantgarde (and post-avantgarde, especially the situationists). This renders the discussion about what actually is art so difficult.
'The fountain' itself is such a provoking work that you can't discuss it without provoking others. One could say that it's real intention is that others start to fight about it. Your point that it makes art arbitrary provoked me, and I replied in the same manner. Please do not take this discussion to a personal level because it won't help any of us.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.
ROFL nice definition, if you believe that then take off the Renoir you posted because its content allows for as much interpretation as the title of this thread.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.
LOLOL you're offended by its content so therefore it shouldn't called art? That picture made me think a lot in fact, mainly anti-semitic and racist thoughts, much more than the impressionist pieces you posted. I'm sorry i didn't recognize your right as the supreme judge of artistic content within moral boundaries.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
"narrow-minded" rofls, ok maxdigsoda
I was trying to reply to this, but the whole point of your post seems to be an attempt to insult me. Again, please do not move this discussion to a personal level.
. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide.
whats the controversy? the guy had a shitty life...and he shot himself in the head. he even fucked up at that and lived for a few more days in pain before he died.
"'The fountain' itself is such a provoking work that you can't discuss it without provoking others. One could say that it's real intention is that others start to fight about it. Your point that it makes art arbitrary provoked me, and I replied in the same manner. Please do not take this discussion to a personal level because it won't help any of us." -zuqbu
so what is the difference of the OP and the fountain?
" Why am I narrow minded just because I think there is a difference between art, kitsch and trash? Especially in this case. And please tell me why I force anyone's perception by stating that art actually is about individual interpretation. Oh wait! Your reply actually proves my point. Thanks." -zuqbu
you state that art is about individuel interpretation, and continue stating that there is no way i can intepreterate () the OP in any other way than propaganda. If both statements are true, then your right. But let me look at the OP again:
It strikes me a little babel-esque, but all the different backgrounds form a unity wich actually accomplish something unlike the babel-dudes. The style reminds me also of dahli, wich painted a lot of absurd combinations of parts, forming a unity. As if trying to say: dont argue, but work together. Also the styles of the background, the giant guy and the city are quite the same, as if we, the victim and them, the victors are all the same. It couldve been the other way around as well.
Quality of art is also determined by the amount of people 'moved' by it. I won't say it was this piece of art wich moved all the people. But we both know that the genre an sich, moved quite a lot of people to do things wich are talked about even today. It brought people together.
You said it was anti-american; i see it as pro american: it shows how they overcame their inner differences and now act as a unity. So here we have two interpretations already.
When i saw the toilet, i just scrolled further, i thought it was a joke. The explanation made it art, not the piece itself.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.
ROFL nice definition, if you believe that then take off the Renoir you posted because its content allows for as much interpretation as the title of this thread.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.
LOLOL you're offended by its content so therefore it shouldn't called art? That picture made me think a lot in fact, mainly anti-semitic and racist thoughts, much more than the impressionist pieces you posted. I'm sorry i didn't recognize your right as the supreme judge of artistic content within moral boundaries.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
"narrow-minded" rofls, ok maxdigsoda
I was trying to reply to this, but the whole point of your post seems to be an attempt to insult me. Again, please do not move this discussion to a personal level.
so you can't reply to this because you are insulted by it?
On May 27 2007 18:54 zulu_nation8 wrote: after the fountain, everything is art.
I'm sorry, but you missed the point.
Your point is, if something doesn't allow interpretation, its not art. Who the fuck are you to decide what allows and doesn't allow interpretation? To start, if that propaganda piece was made today instead of during the war then it would certainly allow many many interpretations. If you didn't know the context behind the work do you group it into art or not art? How much interpretation do the works of Peter Paul Rubins allow? Is he admired for his craft or his artistic content? Next time when you respond don't type some fuckin douchebaggery one liner and pretend like you actually had something to say.
No, that's not my point. I stated that art allows room for interpretation, of course everything allows interpretation but (good) art is manifested by the individual perception. How much space for individual perception is in the poster? In my opinion bar none, in fact it wants to convince it's audience to only one action. Further on, I was making my point about this image while not trying to start this argument because it's leading nowhere. I also said that the way this propaganda (and propaganda in general) was made hasn't changed in 60 years, which lies in the character of the message it's transporting. So the context in this case doesn't matter for me. But in general the context is very important, as you said if someone today would paint in the way Rubens did it isn't likely to fit into the modern definition of art. Because it was already done, and art tries to reinvent itself in ever faster reoccurring cycles. Every stream of artists tries to redefine this definition, just have a look at the extreme examples: the futurists, dada, the avantgarde (and post-avantgarde, especially the situationists). This renders the discussion about what actually is art so difficult.
'The fountain' itself is such a provoking work that you can't discuss it without provoking others. One could say that it's real intention is that others start to fight about it. Your point that it makes art arbitrary provoked me, and I replied in the same manner. Please do not take this discussion to a personal level because it won't help any of us.
So are you trying to say that the propaganda piece is not "modern" art? Because it doesn't fit in with the tradition of the fountain and modernism? If so that doesn't make it not art....
. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide.
whats the controversy? the guy had a shitty life...and he shot himself in the head. he even fucked up at that and lived for a few more days in pain before he died.
Actually the bullet went through his stomach and it is not known if he did it intentionally. Yea he was fucked up, but it was basically all because of his art not being recoginzed. The irony is he died, suicide or not, only a few years before his work became popular. Maybe because of his death, maybe not.
On May 28 2007 05:43 Navane wrote: "'The fountain' itself is such a provoking work that you can't discuss it without provoking others. One could say that it's real intention is that others start to fight about it. Your point that it makes art arbitrary provoked me, and I replied in the same manner. Please do not take this discussion to a personal level because it won't help any of us." -zuqbu
so what is the difference of the OP and the fountain?
The way I see it, the fountain was created to provoke while the propaganda was made to convince people to fight a war. The provocation lies in the context that OP posted it as art, not in the image itself. Of course it may be provoking to us now, but not in the context or to the audience it was originally made for. Second thought: Maybe provoking is not the correct word, I struggle with language at this point. The targeted audience was of course provoked as this poster makes the point that an american invasion will force it's culture upon the losing nation(s), thus making it necessary to win the war to preserve the own style of life. But the way it does make the point is a completely different one than the fountain does, far more obvious, with prejudices mixed in to exaggerate the emotion. The quality of the provocation is at a completely different level. Can you understand my point? (Not questioning your intelligence but my english 'skills' to make an argument)
" Why am I narrow minded just because I think there is a difference between art, kitsch and trash? Especially in this case. And please tell me why I force anyone's perception by stating that art actually is about individual interpretation. Oh wait! Your reply actually proves my point. Thanks." -zuqbu
you state that art is about individuel interpretation, and continue stating that there is no way i can intepreterate () the OP in any other way than propaganda. If both statements are true, then your right. But let me look at the OP again:
It strikes me a little babel-esque, but all the different backgrounds form a unity wich actually accomplish something unlike the babel-dudes. The style reminds me also of dahli, wich painted a lot of absurd combinations of parts, forming a unity. As if trying to say: dont argue, but work together. Also the styles of the background, the giant guy and the city are quite the same, as if we, the victim and them, the victors are all the same. It couldve been the other way around as well.
In my opinion the elements do not form a unity but show a distorted selection of threats. I mean just look at it, with the KKK mask and the oppression of black people. This is Nazi war propaganda, and the they state that the opposing force is actually the racist? How does this fit together?
Quality of art is also determined by the amount of people 'moved' by it. I won't say it was this piece of art wich moved all the people. But we both know that the genre an sich, moved quite a lot of people to do things wich are talked about even today. It brought people together.
This is of course so very true. I asked you to prove the quality of the image to me, and this is a valid way to do so. But I think there's a difference between having the absolute intention to 'move' people rather than giving them the option or initiative to do so.
You said it was anti-american; i see it as pro american: it shows how they overcame their inner differences and now act as a unity. So here we have two interpretations already.
Could your interpretation be valid for the the targeted audience at the time it was made (One subline said it was made 1944)? Imagine yourself living at the time, with a war around you that's been going on since 5 years.
When i saw the toilet, i just scrolled further, i thought it was a joke. The explanation made it art, not the piece itself.
To me the intention already made it art, if you look at the time and the context it was made there is no further explanation needed
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.
ROFL nice definition, if you believe that then take off the Renoir you posted because its content allows for as much interpretation as the title of this thread.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.
LOLOL you're offended by its content so therefore it shouldn't called art? That picture made me think a lot in fact, mainly anti-semitic and racist thoughts, much more than the impressionist pieces you posted. I'm sorry i didn't recognize your right as the supreme judge of artistic content within moral boundaries.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
"narrow-minded" rofls, ok maxdigsoda
I was trying to reply to this, but the whole point of your post seems to be an attempt to insult me. Again, please do not move this discussion to a personal level.
so you can't reply to this because you are insulted by it?
No, I won't reply to this because I think that replying to an insult (the way I received your post) might only cause in insulting you. I do not want to do this, you're absolutely right to have an opinion. Why should I attack you, you're a complete stranger to me and beside our differences in this argument we don't know anything about each other. We can have an argument about art, which might be even necessary. If your origin is Chinese as your title says we are facing completely different cultural backgrounds and have a completely different reception of art. This should make the argument interesting, not personal.
zuqbu I agree with alot you said, but you need to JLIG and realize that what zulu said is true also.
You're biased against the poster in the OP and therefore have no right to claim being objective. And besides I don't think the intention of the OP was to raise a discussion about what is art and what is not. I found it interesting but I think it'd be best if we just got back to posting pictures, preferably even without that "pseudointellectual bullshit".
On May 28 2007 05:43 Navane wrote: "'The fountain' itself is such a provoking work that you can't discuss it without provoking others. One could say that it's real intention is that others start to fight about it. Your point that it makes art arbitrary provoked me, and I replied in the same manner. Please do not take this discussion to a personal level because it won't help any of us." -zuqbu
so what is the difference of the OP and the fountain?
The way I see it, the fountain was created to provoke while the propaganda was made to convince people to fight a war. The provocation lies in the context that OP posted it as art, not in the image itself. Of course it may be provoking to us now, but not in the context or to the audience it was originally made for. Second thought: Maybe provoking is not the correct word, I struggle with language at this point. The targeted audience was of course provoked as this poster makes the point that an american invasion will force it's culture upon the losing nation(s), thus making it necessary to win the war to preserve the own style of life. But the way it does make the point is a completely different one than the fountain does, far more obvious, with prejudices mixed in to exaggerate the emotion. The quality of the provocation is at a completely different level. Can you understand my point? (Not questioning your intelligence but my english 'skills' to make an argument)
i ment the provoking now in this thread, not 50 years ago in ww2
" Why am I narrow minded just because I think there is a difference between art, kitsch and trash? Especially in this case. And please tell me why I force anyone's perception by stating that art actually is about individual interpretation. Oh wait! Your reply actually proves my point. Thanks." -zuqbu
you state that art is about individuel interpretation, and continue stating that there is no way i can intepreterate () the OP in any other way than propaganda. If both statements are true, then your right. But let me look at the OP again:
It strikes me a little babel-esque, but all the different backgrounds form a unity wich actually accomplish something unlike the babel-dudes. The style reminds me also of dahli, wich painted a lot of absurd combinations of parts, forming a unity. As if trying to say: dont argue, but work together. Also the styles of the background, the giant guy and the city are quite the same, as if we, the victim and them, the victors are all the same. It couldve been the other way around as well.
In my opinion the elements do not form a unity but show a distorted selection of threats. I mean just look at it, with the KKK mask and the oppression of black people. This is Nazi war propaganda, and the they state that the opposing force is actually the racist? How does this fit together?
Quality of art is also determined by the amount of people 'moved' by it. I won't say it was this piece of art wich moved all the people. But we both know that the genre an sich, moved quite a lot of people to do things wich are talked about even today. It brought people together.
This is of course so very true. I asked you to prove the quality of the image to me, and this is a valid way to do so. But I think there's a difference between having the absolute intention to 'move' people rather than giving them the option or initiative to do so.
You said it was anti-american; i see it as pro american: it shows how they overcame their inner differences and now act as a unity. So here we have two interpretations already.
Could your interpretation be valid for the the targeted audience at the time it was made (One subline said it was made 1944)? Imagine yourself living at the time, with a war around you that's been going on since 5 years.
When i saw the toilet, i just scrolled further, i thought it was a joke. The explanation made it art, not the piece itself.
To me the intention already made it art, if you look at the time and the context it was made there is no further explanation needed
"the fountain" was an ordinary toilet, later ripped out of its context (being the toilet room) and put in a frame in a museum, where it became the source of heated debate or smt like this, right?
Now the OP was an ordinary propaganda poster, later ripped out of its context (ww2) and put in a post in an art thread, where it became the source of the same heated debate.
I think we're closing in to eachother
(btw, i don't think everything is art; i think everything that was made on purpose but has no purpose, is art. And with purpose i mean; the purpose of a hammer is to build stuff)
Hey stop freaking ruining the thread guys! Seriously. On the first 3-4 pages there's a pic in every post (almost) then there's like one per page because you have to argue with eachother. Use PM please. This was a good thread!
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: I think that this has nothing to do with art. Zero. This is by definition the opposite of art. Art allows room for interpretation, it wants – maybe even forces – the viewer to start thinking, it is open and it's message not complete without the individuum it's targeting.
ROFL nice definition, if you believe that then take off the Renoir you posted because its content allows for as much interpretation as the title of this thread.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: As you mentioned correctly, this is propaganda. Propaganda transports a simple message in an obvious way so that the targeted audience understands it. Propaganda wants to convince. This image was not created as art, wasn't published as art, wasn't received as art and will never be. Your 'interpretation' is none, you just describe the most obvious anti-american, anti-semitic statements the poster makes. This image does not want the viewer to think, it uses one-sided skin-deep prejudices of a culture to create hate.
LOLOL you're offended by its content so therefore it shouldn't called art? That picture made me think a lot in fact, mainly anti-semitic and racist thoughts, much more than the impressionist pieces you posted. I'm sorry i didn't recognize your right as the supreme judge of artistic content within moral boundaries.
On May 27 2007 05:55 zuqbu wrote: The only relevance this piece of graphic scum has is the similar stupidity to modern anti-american propaganda: By seeing how little the propaganda depiction has changed in over 60 years just displays how narrow-minded people who publish this sort of trash are.
"narrow-minded" rofls, ok maxdigsoda
I was trying to reply to this, but the whole point of your post seems to be an attempt to insult me. Again, please do not move this discussion to a personal level.
so you can't reply to this because you are insulted by it?
No, I won't reply to this because I think that replying to an insult (the way I received your post) might only cause in insulting you. I do not want to do this, you're absolutely right to have an opinion. Why should I attack you, you're a complete stranger to me and beside our differences in this argument we don't know anything about each other. We can have an argument about art, which might be even necessary. If your origin is Chinese as your title says we are facing completely different cultural backgrounds and have a completely different reception of art. This should make the argument interesting, not personal.
what does being chinese have to do it?????????? we're learning the same art history
On May 28 2007 07:26 Cpt Obvious wrote: zuqbu I agree with alot you said, but you need to JLIG and realize that what zulu said is true also.
You're biased against the poster in the OP and therefore have no right to claim being objective. And besides I don't think the intention of the OP was to raise a discussion about what is art and what is not. I found it interesting but I think it'd be best if we just got back to posting pictures, preferably even without that "pseudointellectual bullshit".
I think you misinterpreted me, I'm far from being objective. I'm not claiming so, if you look at the original reply I made to the OP you will see that my whole opinion evolves around the need to discuss the propaganda image, and not letting it be there unobjected/uncommented. Just look at the last reply I made to Navane, I think that I'm very open to contributions (Am I?), I even ask others to make a point that eventually changes my opinion.
This is a thread about art, and it's unworthy without the discussion. This is what art is about, if you don't argument about it you're denying one of the main reasons it has been created for.
And why is it 'pseudo' to have an opinion and reasoning it? I know you're just quoting the term, but let me explain myself. I didn't originally want to write this because it may seem that I think of my opinion in a more absolute way: I'm student of graphic design and illustration and I'm taking art history and art theory lessons since years. The argument in this thread is not 'pseudo' but very, very important and necessary. Hell, every artists wants an argument about his work. Again, to clarify myself: Having lessons on the topic does not make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. Of course it has influence on my perception but I really respect every statement made in this thread. I hope the people I addressed receive it that way, because the topic is very important to me.
On May 28 2007 07:26 Cpt Obvious wrote: zuqbu I agree with alot you said, but you need to JLIG and realize that what zulu said is true also.
You're biased against the poster in the OP and therefore have no right to claim being objective. And besides I don't think the intention of the OP was to raise a discussion about what is art and what is not. I found it interesting but I think it'd be best if we just got back to posting pictures, preferably even without that "pseudointellectual bullshit".
I think you misinterpreted me, I'm far from being objective. I'm not claiming so, if you look at the original reply I made to the OP you will see that my whole opinion evolves around the need to discuss the propaganda image, and not letting it be there unobjected/uncommented. Just look at the last reply I made to Navane, I think that I'm very open to contributions (Am I?), I even ask others to make a point that eventually changes my opinion.
This is a thread about art, and it's unworthy without the discussion. This is what art is about, if you don't argument about it you're denying one of the main reasons it has been created for.
And why is it 'pseudo' to have an opinion and reasoning it? I know you're just quoting the term, but let me explain myself. I didn't originally want to write this because it may seem that I think of my opinion in a more absolute way: I'm student of graphic design and illustration and I'm taking art history and art theory lessons since years. The argument in this thread is not 'pseudo' but very, very important and necessary. Hell, every artists wants an argument about his work. Again, to clarify myself: Having lessons on the topic does not make my opinion more valid than anyone else's. Of course it has influence on my perception but I really respect every statement made in this thread. I hope the people I addressed receive it that way, because the topic is very important to me.
I say pseudo cause a real intellectual wouldnt waste his/her time with something as retarded as a art discussion, they are always full of shit and a complete waste of time (in my opinion)
Art discussion is a wonderful thing, but leave it out of this forum. The OP clearly asked to just post pictures so others could enjoy them too (which is another very important aspect about art). I actually enjoyed reading you're arguments and you make sense most of the time, but it's totally out of place. You have, willingly or not, destroyed this thread. :[
. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide.
whats the controversy? the guy had a shitty life...and he shot himself in the head. he even fucked up at that and lived for a few more days in pain before he died.
What do you have against Van Gogh?
nothing...but its no secret the guy had a sad life.
. He died after painting it on his way back from the fields. It is controversy if he knew his death was coming, and if it was a suicide.
whats the controversy? the guy had a shitty life...and he shot himself in the head. he even fucked up at that and lived for a few more days in pain before he died.
Actually the bullet went through his stomach and it is not known if he did it intentionally. Yea he was fucked up, but it was basically all because of his art not being recoginzed. The irony is he died, suicide or not, only a few years before his work became popular. Maybe because of his death, maybe not.
He shot himself in the chest. Von gogh viewed himseld as a failure...it was a suicide...get over it. His sister in law promoted and published his work after he died and it became and thats how it became recognized.
hey does anyone have any really good nature paintings? ie natural landscapes painted, i think it was popular from dutch painters in 1800s but i wasn't really paying attention when i went to the art gallery in london because i was 11 and bored :DD, for me this is the best art ;].
If you're looking for dutch landscape paintings you're more likely to find works from the 17th century, in the 19th century this genre was dominated by french artists. The National Gallery has an excellent website where you can browse the complete collection: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/ Since paintings from this era are considered public domain by now you are also likely to find content at WikiCommons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Discussing what art is "good" or what makes an art piece is better than the other is about personal taste. Personally I wouldn't really care if someone is fond of paintings made of poo which likely many people would find utterly disgusting.
On May 28 2007 14:53 fusionsdf wrote: Really really glad this thread has managed to avoid being infested with modern 'art'
Oh I would like to, but most modern art is sculpture or plastic and thus pictures don't do it any justice.
I mean I could tell that is a 7 x 2,4 metre steel plate that is standing freely and by itself, but there is no magic to the photograph, or is there? You have to be close enough to smell the rusty metal to get it.
Also one could say that modern art starts at the time abstraction was applied to the image, in which case we had a lot of modern art, Salvadore Dali or Edward Munch for example.
There's is such a beauty to the reduced form of the woman, Picasso's skill is unbelievable.
On May 28 2007 15:15 suffeli wrote:Personally I wouldn't really care if someone is fond of paintings made of poo which likely many people would find utterly disgusting.
Actually there has been an artist in the last century who sold his own shit in cans. They were even labelled "artist's shit", some people really bought it. But I struggle to remember his name.
EDIT: Google is my friend.
In 1961 Piero Manzoni produced 90 cans of 30 grams each.
[QUOTE]On May 28 2007 15:15 suffeli wrote: [IMG]http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/157/lihrgigerok3.jpg[IMG]
HR Giger, Li I, 1974
Discussing what art is "good" or what makes an art piece is better than the other is about personal taste. Personally I wouldn't really care if someone is fond of paintings made of poo which likely many people would find utterly disgusting.[/QUOTE]
Michelangelo's Tondo Doni, loved this painting ever since I first saw it at the Uffizi.
Here you have the sacred and the profane, with the groups of naked people in the background, and Mary, Joseph and Jesus in the foreground. You also see John the Baptist on that border between the two, looking up at the young Jesus, and dressed in his hermit clothing. Their arms form a circle, you can follow Joseph's shoulder to Mary's arm, to Jesus' arm back to Joseph, Godhead symbolism.
And it looks amazing, amazingly difficult when you consider he painted it by hand. Just look at the fold and creases of their clothing, really looks like it was done by a computer when you see it first-hand.
Dali is one of my favorite artists. I have a very nice book on his works. I also like the Artists that blizzard has, I just recently bought a book called \"art of WOW\" which at first glance was the butt of a joke. Most the work in there by Sons of the Storm is very nice. I love sketches more than paintings, I prefer cartoon, or fantasy art over realism or still drawings.
I found this on YouTube since it was on the front page, it is "500 years of female portraits". Their faces are morphed into each other, it's great IMO.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/kultur_terror.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gnosis.art.pl/iluminatornia/sztuka_o_inspiracji/zdzislaw_beksinski/zdzislaw_beksinski_1975_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs6/i/2005/112/0/b/Minimal_by_kil1k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cgi.chollian.net/~dukkha18/jhspboard/id/upload/files/fallen_of_carrier_by_phungdinhdung.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs6/i/2005/068/1/3/When_Love_And_Death_Embrace_by_l0Rd_n1k0n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/FakeSteveTPR/arsenic.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/starry-night/gogh.starry-night.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/ME/800ware.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant%2C_1872.jpg/780px-Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant%2C_1872.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Takingofchrist.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.bdzement.de/uploads/pics/Architektur.Klein_1jpg_01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cosmoworlds.com/Graphics/taschen/tadao_ando/03344_xl_ando_16.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cosmoworlds.com/Graphics/taschen/tadao_ando/03344_xl_ando_02.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/balincourt_blind_faith_feb_.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.artchive.com/artchive/e/escher/escher_red_ants.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.naughtyjames.com/images/portfolio/port_b_015.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://clicks.robertgenn.com/images/featured_artist/john-singer_sargent/sargent-dancer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/dennis/Visual_Arts/05-romantic_Goya_Third-of-May.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Christ_of_Saint_John_of_the_Cross.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pasleybrothers.com/jefferson/images/Cole_savage.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pasleybrothers.com/jefferson/images/Cole_pastoral.gif)
![[image loading]](http://pasleybrothers.com/jefferson/images/Cole_consummation.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pasleybrothers.com/jefferson/images/Cole_destruction.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://pasleybrothers.com/jefferson/images/Cole_desolation.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mulot.free.fr/art/18%20-%20Munch%20-%20Le%20Cri.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.andale.com/f2/126/126/10518661/1042073426109_klimt3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9664/andromedapf9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7032/bible2os9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7195/bible6ub4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9018/enigmadc2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3641/inferno32wu3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6789/jesusaz7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4094/marinerheavenlykl8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3966/pcnto8pi1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3424/raven26soulnb8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Édouard_Manet_-_Le_Déjeuner_sur_l%27herbe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Renoir21.jpg/800px-Renoir21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Paul_Cézanne_037.jpg/469px-Paul_Cézanne_037.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Monet_Umbrella.JPG/491px-Monet_Umbrella.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Liebermann_Papageienallee_1902.jpeg/497px-Liebermann_Papageienallee_1902.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://www.artnet.de/Images/magazine/reviews/hinrichsen/hinrichsen08-16-06-9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.meinberlin.de/fototouren/bilder/470/01_Ernst-Ludwig-Kirchner_Ar.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg/437px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://siteimages.guggenheim.org/gpc_work_large_805.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.villastuck.de/06/spur/02_g.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/f8/Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.starcraft2.com/images/artwork/ss7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/105/4/8/Pillars_of_Loki_by_Nameless_Designer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/escher/drawing_hands.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/i/2003/10/0/a/Over_too_Much_bread.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blogs.ya.com/desconciertos/files/dali_clock.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/berman/images/surrealism%20dali.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.charnine.com/paintings/images/Tower_of_Babylon.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.modernamuseet.se/pics/6877.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/velazquez/velazquez.pareja.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ic3.deviantart.com/images2/i/2003/52/1/e/Her_Silent_Silhouette.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/24/There_can_only_be_one_Longcat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs6/i/2005/087/e/6/Samurai_Spirit_5___Slasher_by_Artgerm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/calibanftw/madonna_p.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://content.vcommerce.com/products/fullsize/254/14853254.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.missioncreep.com/schaechter/images/snakes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/failure.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/fear.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/gettowork.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/goals.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/despair.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/discovery.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/conformity.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/consistency.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/consulting.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/customercare.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/demotivation.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/dysfunction.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/ignorance.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/incompetence.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/individuality.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/ineptitude.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/inspiration.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/limitations.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/loneliness.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/meetings.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/motivation.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/planning.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/potential.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/procrastination.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/regret.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/wishes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Edouard_Manet_022.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.staedtische-galerie-erlangen.de/seiten/6_sammlung/bestand/bilder/600px/twombly_cy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.alfredhartemink.nl/images/Art/Paintings/V_van_Gogh_Wheatfield_with_crows_(1890).jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/calibanftw/selfport.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/calibanftw/innocent.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/calibanftw/Etant_donnes-2-1946-66.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.visionafar.com/pictures/EVENTIDEbig.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6426/masiudmakidylleuo9nh9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/290/themasterandhispupilstm6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.levenok.com/photos/fond_ecran/1600_1200/010816_LeCorbusier_Ronchamp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/717/thefountainvillatorlonivf6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tarhatalom.hu/noia/love.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://zuq.pixelpimps.de/kram/immendorf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/ImmendorfG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ic3.deviantart.com/images/i/2003/5/9/0/get_down.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Goyen_1641_The_Thunderstorm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Paul_Cézanne_017.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/157/lihrgigerok3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://siteimages.guggenheim.org/gpc_work_large_137.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://siteimages.guggenheim.org/gpc_work_large_80.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/shitcan.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4057/daliyf1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.amicidegliuffizi.com/img/michelangelo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ados.ro/eShop/images/Blank.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.geocities.com/whiteinkal3/FBacon_in_memory_of_George_Dyer_1971.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.danbrown.com/images/davinci_code/gallery/the_last_supper/2the_last_supper_post-restoration.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images-srv.leonardo.it/progettiweb/electra/blog/Friedrich-Mare%20di%20nebbia.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sonsofthestorm.com/images/thammer/WarCraft_Thammer003c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sonsofthestorm.com/images/thammer/WarCraft_Thammer012s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ccd.rpi.edu/Eglash/csdt/subcult/grafitti/images/saber_birch_sm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.bombhiphop.com/graphics/bombaust/kab-1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.fontshop.com/fontfeed/images/Bates_Revok.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.woostercollective.com/images/craola2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.woostercollective.com/images/craola3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.woostercollective.com/images/craola1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.anomie1.com/images/can6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://graffmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/can2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.catalyststudios.com/images/blog/062005/cope.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.graffiti.org/cypher/europe/daim4.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.graffiti.org/revok/revsev2bb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.graffiti.org/revok/revsevbb1.jpg)
