What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I don't understand Art - Now the ***Official Art Thread*** (1 Viewer)

Del Griffith said:
I was at the Guggenheim in NYC about 3 years ago. The place is full of crap like this. My younger daughter (then 15), who is a decent artist, looked at a piece of "art" like this, and just said, "What the f*** is this???" I couldn't scold her for her language....she was right.
what do you and your potty mouth daughter think of this "art"?

 
Del Griffith said:
I was at the Guggenheim in NYC about 3 years ago. The place is full of crap like this. My younger daughter (then 15), who is a decent artist, looked at a piece of "art" like this, and just said, "What the f*** is this???" I couldn't scold her for her language....she was right.
what do you and your potty mouth daughter think of this "art"?
Del Griffith said:
I was at the Guggenheim in NYC about 3 years ago. The place is full of crap like this. My younger daughter (then 15), who is a decent artist, looked at a piece of "art" like this, and just said, "What the f*** is this???" I couldn't scold her for her language....she was right.
what do you and your potty mouth daughter think of this "art"?
it's a flower. NOW it's art.

 
Rothko and his horizontal color blocks always seemed sort of half-measures and weak attempts at digging into the depths of human aesthetic understanding to me. Now Barnett Newman, on the other hand, there was an artist.

 
I think a lot of art Is just group-think bs. Some elites of the art world crown someone a genius, then the rest not wanting to look like they don't get it, pretend to see the genius as to be part of the hip crowd. The Emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone. It is like a religion for the atheist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of art Is just group-think bs. Some elites of the art world crown someone a genius, then the rest not wanting to look like they don't get it, pretend to see the genius as to be part of the hip crowd. The Emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone. It is like a religion for the atheist.
Somewhat true but a lot of the more successful ones are those that dared to be different and changed the perception of "what is art?" It's been that way since the Renaissance.

 
My fishing camp is the most beautiful thing in the world, somewhat rustic and spartan, no electricity or running water, just how I like it, but when my 7 year old saw if for the first time he said "this is idiodic". Now I understand where he was coming from, because that's the same impression I get from that painting.

 
Wouldn't mind having an art thread around here. Maybe this can serve the purpose. I'd love to know more about this; most of the stuff I like best is probably in the 1870-1960 period.

Some of my favorite painter types (probably a Fine Arts 101 of completely obvious guys):

Matisse

Munch

Picasso

Caravaggio

Diebenkorn

Cezanne

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.

 
Favs:

Caravaggio

Courbet

Goya (esp. Black Paintings)

Cezanne

Van Gogh

On a recent trip to France I got to see Cezanne's studio. Plus a Chagall exhibit. Not sure what kind of drugs he was on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.
But I do think it's probably safe to say he's got something like a consensus in that regard. :shrug:

Some guys I've always liked and the reasons:

Velazquez - Because there are portrait artists that seem the same on the page and in the gallery, and then there are those whose portraits pop to life in person. Velazquez, particularly because of his subjects' eyes, falls into the latter category for me. Hypnotic like no other portrait artist I've seen.

J.M.W. Turner - In particular, his watercolor land- and cityscapes. The way he uses light always captures my imagination.

Richard Estes - Because I'm a sucker for photorealism, nostalgia, cityscapes, light, and reflection.

And of course, Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any evidence of this reclusive and versatile artist's work appearing or being promoted online.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.
But I do think it's probably safe to say he's got something like a consensus in that regard. :shrug:
Oh yeah, he was a rock star and knew how to play up his celebrity.

Turner has always been interesting to me. I love his more abstract works but his more polished landscape paintings don't have the same effect on me.

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.
But I do think it's probably safe to say he's got something like a consensus in that regard. :shrug:
Oh yeah, he was a rock star and knew how to play up his celebrity.

Turner has always been interesting to me. I love his more abstract works but his more polished landscape paintings don't have the same effect on me.
I like all of those.

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.
But I do think it's probably safe to say he's got something like a consensus in that regard. :shrug:
Oh yeah, he was a rock star and knew how to play up his celebrity.

Turner has always been interesting to me. I love his more abstract works but his more polished landscape paintings don't have the same effect on me.
I like all of those.
I;m not saying I don't like them all but I get a reaction from the first that I don't from the second. To me, that's what art is all about.

 
agree- and not normally part of that who's-who group listed earlier, IMO. Also more like Rothko than the others.

my wife hung this god-awful American south rip-off of Dali on the wall because it was something her dad picked up in the 60s and her nincompoop mom was convinced had become incredibly collectible over the years (in 5 digits). spent 3 minutes on the googles and figured out that not only was it ugly, but that it was in the 3 digits, not 5. Can't wait to take this thing off the wall.

 
Personally, I like the post-impressionists best: Rodin, Seurat, Cezanne, etc
Me too. Love where they took Impressionism.

I've done about 10 paintings over the past couple of years. Just some random abstract stuff, nothing special. But my wife likes a bunch of them and she's always brutally honest. A couple of weeks ago I decided to paint "something" I decided on a street scene.

:bag: It's a humbling experience.

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.
But I do think it's probably safe to say he's got something like a consensus in that regard. :shrug:
Oh yeah, he was a rock star and knew how to play up his celebrity.

Turner has always been interesting to me. I love his more abstract works but his more polished landscape paintings don't have the same effect on me.
I like all of those.
I;m not saying I don't like them all but I get a reaction from the first that I don't from the second. To me, that's what art is all about.
Oh I wasn't being argumentative. I'd just never seen them before. More of a thanks for posting.

 
What I never realized before I got interested in this stuff—and I guess this should have been obvious; I just never thought about it—was the incredible processes some of these innovators used, including techniques that are still a mystery today. The pigments, the tools, the brush strokes, the layering and experimenting. I think I first began to realize this when I became fascinated by art forgery and the forensic people who try to determine authenticity. It's really mind-blowing.

 
I think a lot of art Is just group-think bs. Some elites of the art world crown someone a genius, then the rest not wanting to look like they don't get it, pretend to see the genius as to be part of the hip crowd. The Emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone. It is like a religion for the atheist.
No.An individual will like what they like.

Not all art is good. But if you bury your head in the sand and declare modern art as a scam just because you don't understand it or even try to understand it, then it's your loss. I feel bad for you.

But I'm the same way with wine. Though at least I try to understand it, it's just not for me.

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
I've never been a huge fan of Picasso although Guernica was one of the most impressive works I've ever seen. Mostly because of its scale.
But I do think it's probably safe to say he's got something like a consensus in that regard. :shrug:
Oh yeah, he was a rock star and knew how to play up his celebrity.

Turner has always been interesting to me. I love his more abstract works but his more polished landscape paintings don't have the same effect on me.
I like all of those.
I;m not saying I don't like them all but I get a reaction from the first that I don't from the second. To me, that's what art is all about.
Oh I wasn't being argumentative. I'd just never seen them before. More of a thanks for posting.
I didn't think you were. I was just expanding on my thought.

 
I highly recommend The Story of Art for a complete look with great photos. Starts back at cave art with Egyptian art and the Far East, etc. Architecture included as well. Very comprehensive book.

 
I think a lot of art Is just group-think bs. Some elites of the art world crown someone a genius, then the rest not wanting to look like they don't get it, pretend to see the genius as to be part of the hip crowd. The Emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone. It is like a religion for the atheist.
Somewhat true but a lot of the more successful ones are those that dared to be different and changed the perception of "what is art?" It's been that way since the Renaissance.
:goodposting:

"New" art movements are usually nothing more than a reaction to current movements.

Ralph Goings (one of my favorites):

"In 1963 I wanted to start painting again but I decided I wasn't going to do abstract pictures. It occurred to me that I should go as far to the opposite as I could. ... It occurred to me that projecting and tracing the photograph instead of copying it freehand would be even more shocking. To copy a photograph literally was considered a bad thing to do. It went against all of my art school training... some people were upset by what I was doing and said 'it's not art, it can't possibly be art'. That gave me encouragement in a perverse way, because I was delighted to be doing something that was really upsetting people... I was having a hell of a lot of fun..."

This are all paintings

Ford Custom

Dodge

Airstream

Window

Sundae

Ketchup

 
I dunno man I love me some Picasso. For me, he's just head and shoulders above the rest of thosee late-19th/mid-20th century guys, except maybe Matisse.

 
Picasso has to be the concensus Towering Genius of the past 100 years, right? Just boggles the mind, his work, and is pretty much accessible to a huge range of people.
My dad had the chance 40 years ago to buy a sketch of his for a reasonable price, but for some reason decided not to.

:sadbanana:

As long as we're throwing out art that we like - if I were a billionaire starting an art collection, it would pretty much be Durer. Love that era and style.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really want to get a print or two of his and frame them. He really captured something both beautiful and sad about city life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top