The Art Thread

That's just my opinion. I take one look at each of those paintings, think to myself, "there's a train floating in the air inside of a fireplace", or "there's a man looking into a mirror and his reflection is backwards", and it ends there. Nothing else about the pieces grabs me. I prefer something a little more engrossing than that.
 
like this?
istockphoto_2843996_wood_easel_with_white_canvas.jpg


:p
 
:lol: Good question.

I think it's actually supposed to be color-coded by continent or something. If I recall correctly, white is North America. I guess the starburst-like things are service providers. Also, I believe that's only a partial map of the Internet. God knows how big the whole thing would be.
 
:lol: Nice. I like the Motorhead one. Lemmy's such a badass.



Yeah, I'd been to that site before. It kinda annoyed me because of the background music and all the flash shit, but upon returning I did find a better version of the one I was looking for.

Here's my screenshot of it, since it wouldn't let me right-click on the image:

Beksinski.jpg

Nice.

I actually love the music that plays in the original gallery section.
 
I also really like this one he did:

800px-William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_The_Nut_Gatherers_(1882).jpg

The Nut Gatherers (1882)

I still remember when hanging out in the woods gathering nuts used to be fun. :)

Hhhahah... Most of his paintings that involve children and peasants are too sentimental and corny to me... Not that religious isn't corny and sentimental, but eh... Doe-eyed children is just a little too much for me. But he was a BRILLIANT BRILLIANT AMAZING painter in terms of technical ability... just amazing. And he's so underappreciated... He came right at the time of the impressionists, who were working AGAINST exactly what Bougueureau was doing, and a decade or so after that everyone wanted to forget completely the old way of painting! Bouguereau was seen as old fashioned, too "academic", and not 'real art'. I say phooey! I like Bouguereau moreso than most Impressionists...

Here are the Bouguereau's I tried to show:

File1.jpg


167176706_e262145283.jpg
 
hey sus, you workin on anything new?

still interested in getting somthing. i havnt forgotten :)
~gR~

Yes, yes I'm trying I'm trying. I'm applying to Yale in January and I need 12 works withing the year of application so I'm scrambling to find time to paint after coming home from work at night but god it's so so hard. I'm so tired after working all day you know? My next series will be on roadkill you should get in on it. :cool:

I should be painting right now but god damn I'm tired, my friend came down to see me this weekend. =]
 
Lorenzo Mariani. Just pencil and acrylics on paper.

www.lorenzomariani.it

I admire his ability to copy, however.... He's just copying. They look like the photographs he copied from. I mean, it's cool and all, but where's the creativity? Where's the thought process?? Is he saying something in particular by doing this?

I don't get it. Art should be creative and ingenuitive, at least to some degree. That's why I HATE photorealism. We have photographs. We don't really need paintings that look just like them.

edit: I'm not saying all copying is bad, copying is how you LEARN. However.. it looks like he has already learned. And sometimes copying can make a statement. But I don't get the statement in those.
 
Yes. For example, the vocalists of some bands you/I really like don't write the lyrics they sing. The text belongs to other members of the band. So does it makes the vocalist any worse? Depends on the things you want to see. And the level you judge from. Yes, maybe all that Mariany does - just copying. But not everyone can do even that. Look at his works, half of them looks like those ppl are alive, though it was made by a pencil on a piece of paper. Isn't it art? Many people can keep the image in their mind, but can't really reproduce it. But he can, and he knows how, as he's talented. Many people can copy from a photo, but their pictures still look awkward. But he makes his works look as perfect, as a picture that's drawn with a pencil can be. Especially if to consider that he's only 23 now, and started working on that stuff years ago. It's just that some artists are good at getting the ideas and their incarnation, and some are just good at technic reproducing of what they see (and even you use posers for your paintings sometimes, or painters who paint nature, standing in the forest. So isn't it copying?). So of course, if to look at Mariany as at one who gets great ideas - he's a piece of shit. But if too look at him as at the one who reproduces stuff the way he does - he's an ace, especially if to consider that he draws real people. And both of those thigs are considered as ART.
 
I guess I just don't find it as impressive because I know I can (and have done in the past) such photorealistic work. Now I feel like I'm onto better things.. Past the stage of simply copying the photographs in front of me...

But yes I know that the ability to copy precisly should be admired... it's just that I know so many artists who can do that already.
 
Yes. For example, the vocalists of some bands you/I really like don't write the lyrics they sing. The text belongs to other members of the band. So does it makes the vocalist any worse? Depends on the things you want to see. And the level you judge from. Yes, maybe all that Mariany does - just copying. But not everyone can do even that. Look at his works, half of them looks like those ppl are alive, though it was made by a pencil on a piece of paper. Isn't it art? Many people can keep the image in their mind, but can't really reproduce it. But he can, and he knows how, as he's talented. Many people can copy from a photo, but their pictures still look awkward. But he makes his works look as perfect, as a picture that's drawn with a pencil can be. Especially if to consider that he's only 23 now, and started working on that stuff years ago. It's just that some artists are good at getting the ideas and their incarnation, and some are just good at technic reproducing of what they see (and even you use posers for your paintings sometimes, or painters who paint nature, standing in the forest. So isn't it copying?). So of course, if to look at Mariany as at one who gets great ideas - he's a piece of shit. But if too look at him as at the one who reproduces stuff the way he does - he's an ace, especially if to consider that he draws real people. And both of those thigs are considered as ART.

Mmkay, I'm pretty sure that creativity >>>>>>>>>>>>> technical skill. But hey, you're free to appreciate raw technical skill if you want.

Concerning your vocalist analogy: music and drawing are vastly different art forms, so there's not much use in that comparison. Much of the artistic value in a vocal performance comes from the feeling in the performer's voice. A vocalist doesn't have to be reciting original work in order to give a damn good performance. In the case of painting or drawing, though, if the artist doesn't embellish at all, and there are absolutely no new ideas in the piece, then there's really no point to the piece besides demonstrating technical skill.

If you really judge art by nothing but its technical skill, then you might as well just be opening up computers and gawking at their innards in awe of the technical skill that it took to put the computer together. You don't even need art to exist at all in order to do that!
 
I also want to point out that I think a singer singing another band members lyrics is simply artistic collaboration----For the purpose of a "greater good". i.e. The singer and the lyrics put together create something greater than when they were seperate. And yes I really don't think it was an appropriate analogy for visual art at all.


edit: And I think creativity and technical skill are equally important in most art. If you have one, but not the other, you will be lacking.
 
I have to admit - when it comes to visual art, technical skill is pretty much a must. As far as music, though, you can sound perfectly fine with very little technical skill.

For example: I love Blue Cheer's early albums, but the vocal and instrumental skill is pretty godawful all round. To me, the technical awkwardness just comes off as endearing, and also adds a nice element of rawness to the sound. The rest is taken care of by the utter ass-kickingness of their guitar riffs and drum rhythms.
 
technical skill is important in certain genres of music.

prog rock, classical, jazz, virtuoso/instrumental rock, prog/power metal, even death metal (to a smaller extent however). All of these genres require very fine and precise performance on the part of the artist/group. The composition, as always, is the most important aspect, but high quality instrumental performance is necessary to properly convey the music to the listener IMO.

On the other hand, something like classic metal or black metal, technical proficiency is not relevant at all.