Official GMD Photo/Social Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
it seems like we essentially agree though, you need a level of technical ability sufficient to do justice to your concept, i jsut dont believe it follows that it's therefore necessary to i guess demonstrate an arbitrary minimum level of technical skill or it invalidates your concept...a better example would probably be something like duchamp, where there's practically no technical skill but it wasnt necessary to do justice to the concept of his works
 
Fuck DuChamp when you have artists like Nerdrum, Bouguereau, Watts, Holman-Hunt, Sayville, etc etc.

hope.jpg

George Frederick Watts- Hope

watts12.jpg

George Frederick Watts- The Recording Angel

watts11.jpg

George Frederick Watts- "And She Shall Be Called Woman"

There, now you all know Watts, art history lesson is over for today.
There's something really musical about that last painting.
 
Spectacular Views said:
to me the method of creation isnt a necessary element to consider when assessing a work....it can be relevant but it doesnt have to be

I agree. Well...it's relevant depending on what question you're asking. There is certainly a causal relationship between ability and quality of art (and by ability I don't mean mere technical ability). But when it comes to the assessment of the quality of a work, reference to the ability of the artist is entirely besides the point.
 
1) fucking owned

2) SV is right

3) you're all fucking retards by being so annoyed by him

4) O NOES GAY LOOKING SIGNATURE shut the fuck up idiots
 
Status
Not open for further replies.