[QUOTE=TH89;21756357]You suck[/QUOTE]
Stop it, you're harming my fragile talent.
I'm studying Picasso and his paintings weren't "half-assed bullshit" as said in this thread, it's meant to portray a view on reality that we aren't used to so that we can truly see how reality is when you experience it from another viewpoint
I don't know why people pay so much for stuff that is basically shit, just because *insert someone famous* had/used/made it.
I mean, maybe pay more than the usual stuff, but not millions more.
He fucking invented cubism. He could've painted photo-realistic shit but it was worthless at the time.
[QUOTE=Janizaurd;21758367]I don't know why people pay so much for stuff that is basically shit, just because *insert someone famous* had/used/made it.
I mean, maybe pay more than the usual stuff, but not millions more.[/QUOTE]
Cause it's quite an appealing piece of art to some people?
[QUOTE=Hendo;21751254]what a shitty painting[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Why is this shit worth so much? It is paint on a piece of paper\cloth canvas.
-snip-
[QUOTE=bravehat;21758527]Cause it's quite an appealing piece of art to some people?[/QUOTE]
Eight year olds, maybe.
This type of art has, at most, colour composition and line quality.
There is no observational skill involved, or any proportional accuracy or anything. Maybe I'm missing some purpose of the art but seriously, there is not much to it.
No. 5 by JP requires much more skill than this, since the painter needs a lot of colour theory to paint it well without it actually looking like a pile of vomit. It still doesn't need as much as most types of painting, but it still takes skill.
But, I still hate the style of the Picasso one entirely. There just seems to be nothing to it, and I really hate that this kind of art sells for more than observational art.
It's not supposed to be accurate.
It's just art.
An emotion driven expression of ones self.
[QUOTE=XENOLITH;21759052]Eight year olds, maybe.
This type of art has, at most, colour composition and line quality.
There is no observational skill involved, or any proportional accuracy or anything. Maybe I'm missing some purpose of the art but seriously, there is not much to it.
No. 5 by JP requires much more skill than this, since the painter needs a lot of colour theory to paint it well without it actually looking like a pile of vomit. It still doesn't need as much as most types of painting, but it still takes skill.
But, I still hate the style of the Picasso one entirely. There just seems to be nothing to it, and I really hate that this kind of art sells for more than observational art.[/QUOTE]
the technical skill of a work of art isn't what makes the art good
[editline]02:22PM[/editline]
anyone saying "I could paint that in 5 minutes" is missing the point entirely (also no you couldn't. if you tried to, it would be a different painting)
[QUOTE=XENOLITH;21759052]Eight year olds, maybe.
This type of art has, at most, colour composition and line quality.
There is no observational skill involved, or any proportional accuracy or anything. Maybe I'm missing some purpose of the art but seriously, there is not much to it.
No. 5 by JP requires much more skill than this, since the painter needs a lot of colour theory to paint it well without it actually looking like a pile of vomit. It still doesn't need as much as most types of painting, but it still takes skill.
But, I still hate the style of the Picasso one entirely. There just seems to be nothing to it, and I really hate that this kind of art sells for more than observational art.[/QUOTE]
It's meant to be kind of metaphorical, like in music. You can interpret the art(lyrics) the way you want, you can find new things by just using your imagination.
Have you ever looked at a cloud and thought "that looks like a rabbit"( or frog or whatever )? This kind of art is something like that, open to interpretation.
[QUOTE=Kondor;21758156]I'm studying Picasso and his paintings weren't "half-assed bullshit" as said in this thread, it's meant to portray a view on reality that we aren't used to so that we can truly see how reality is when you experience it from another viewpoint[/QUOTE]
Like when you're high on LSD
The thing that most everyone misses is the fact that just because this painting sold for twenty times more than some Rembrandt might have doesn't mean that Picasso is twenty times better than Rembrandt. Different time periods and different artists produce different works of art. This doesn't mean one painting is necessarily 'better' than another; it is just different.
Fools who attach price to art miss the point of art itself. I hate art dealers and buyers, because they break art down to a commodity, which is absolutely what it is NOT supposed to be about.
[QUOTE=whitespace;21759399]It's meant to be kind of metaphorical, like in music. You can interpret the art(lyrics) the way you want, you can find new things by just using your imagination.
Have you ever looked at a cloud and thought "that looks like a rabbit"( or frog or whatever )? This kind of art is something like that, open to interpretation.[/QUOTE]
the possibility of differing interpretations of a work is important. People who criticize abstract art while extolling the virtues of, say, a photorealistic sketch of a bowl of fruit are missing the point of art. The point of art isn't technical skill, it's the ability to incite thought and discussion. For the work to reflect something other than what is immediately present in the work.
Here is to right a few wrongs. I have studied three years at a college level art history. Pablo Picasso was not poor in his life; he was actually quite well off. Hell even today his kids are still making money off of paintings he never sold in his life. Saying that art like this takes no skill. Think of it this way. Painting like that was not around in his time, he was one of the first to start thinking like that and painting like that. Its like saying I can go back in time and make a computer in the 1300's. No one was thinking that way at the time, His art was revolutionary.
I'm quite sure even I could re-paint this painting. But that's not what people are paying for. Its the idea, the revolutionary nature of the painting of the subject and the painter.
[QUOTE=G12-A5;21763329]Here is to right a few wrongs. I have studied three years at a college level art history. Pablo Picasso was not poor in his life; he was actually quite well off. Hell even today his kids are still making money off of paintings he never sold in his life. Saying that art like this takes no skill. Think of it this way. Painting like that was not around in his time, he was one of the first to start thinking like that and painting like that. Its like saying I can go back in time and make a computer in the 1300's. No one was thinking that way at the time, His art was revolutionary.
I'm quite sure even I could re-paint this painting. But that's not what people are paying for. Its the idea, the revolutionary nature of the painting of the subject and the painter.[/QUOTE]
What about the guys who threw paint onto a canvas or drew 5 straight lines and a red square?
Those men were lazy bastards, picasso was better at least.
Wow, you could have bought 200 people nice houses for that much.
But instead, some person will have another piece of art in their useless collection. Wonderful.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;21763857]What about the guys who threw paint onto a canvas or drew 5 straight lines and a red square?
Those men were lazy bastards, picasso was better at least.[/QUOTE]
The people you are referring to are Jackson Pollock and the art style of "De Stjil"
Jackson Pollock: His art was not conventional art his art is considered "Action Art" Its not about the subject but its more about the action and the throwing of the paint on the canvas. H used specific colors in specific areas and also threw the paint at certain angles to create the painting, not as easy as it looks.
De Stjil: Its a way of painting in a very abstracted or non objective manner. Its about composition, and color composition. Some of the paintings actually have a subject such as this
[img]http://www.thalesandfriends.org/en/images/general/van_doesburg.jpg[/img]
Its called "The Cow" By Von Doesburg. It actually is a cow that he abstracted to almost indistinguishably.
And also both of these are first for their time art movements. De Stjil came around in the 1915's. When everyone was still in post impressionism. Art then was considered portraits or scenery. This was groundbreaking for the time.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1x03jgjIQ&feature=PlayList&p=A13097331FEC47BB&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=6[/media]
This fits here
[QUOTE=BCell;21752646]That painting is the key inspiration of the design of alien, xenomorph[/QUOTE]
Or maybe H.R. Giger being hired as the creature...designed was the inspiration.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;21763941]Wow, you could have bought 200 people nice houses for that much.
But instead, some person will have another piece of art in their useless collection. Wonderful.[/QUOTE]
Why are you so concerned with what this person does with their money?
[QUOTE=PieHard92;21764720]Why are you so concerned with what this person does with their money?[/QUOTE]
Its a bit of paper with crushed beetle entrails on it.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;21765009]Its a bit of paper with crushed beetle entrails on it.[/QUOTE]
So? If I had Auschwitz body stacks sized piles of cash lying around I'd spend it on semi-retarded things too. Like a ball pit full of Fabergé eggs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.