It's not artistic propaganda. I can find redeeming points in films like Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Griffith's Birth of a Nation, two films with horrific content, used for propaganda to support nazism and white supremacy, because of their stunning portrayal of these horrors in aesthetically powerful ways. Both are towering works of cinematic achievement, not just technically because, as I have stated before, that is less important in MY appreciation than other factors. Nothing is aesthetically powerful or provocative of any emotion in Kinkade's paintings for me besides disgust and the feeling of being fed shit by a guy who either genuinely lives in his own little world where he doesn't understand humanity or being ripped off by a cynical fuck whose work is devoid of sincerity and he just wants to make a quick buck off 10 million Waltons family clones. There is no reflection of anything I can understand but that would be ok if there was for other people. After all, my opinion is no more relevant than anyone's. Thing is, nobody buys Kinkade's paintings because they think it's great art. They buy them because he is the painter of all that is american and christian and good. The paintings themselves are irrelevant, the images are irrelevant. That is why they are mass-produced, cheaply made prints. There is no personality to them, they are Hallmark cards with a £200 mark-up. To the target audience, all that matters is that it is by Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light, wholesome and American.
I think it's unfair to speak for everyone who's ever bought a Kinkade painting like that. Especially when your ideas of how it's the name that people care about could just as easily be applied to any artist - let's face it, there are a lot of people who'll buy a Renoir because it's a Renoir and because it's expensive, not because it's a work of art.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
It's not artistic propaganda. I can find redeeming points in films like Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Griffith's Birth of a Nation, two films with horrific content, used for propaganda to support nazism and white supremacy, because of their stunning portrayal of these horrors in aesthetically powerful ways. Both are towering works of cinematic achievement, not just technically because, as I have stated before, that is less important in MY appreciation than other factors. Nothing is aesthetically powerful or provocative of any emotion in Kinkade's paintings for me besides disgust and the feeling of being fed shit by a guy who either genuinely lives in his own little world where he doesn't understand humanity or being ripped off by a cynical fuck whose work is devoid of sincerity and he just wants to make a quick buck off 10 million Waltons family clones. There is no reflection of anything I can understand but that would be ok if there was for other people. After all, my opinion is no more relevant than anyone's. Thing is, nobody buys Kinkade's paintings because they think it's great art. They buy them because he is the painter of all that is american and christian and good. The paintings themselves are irrelevant, the images are irrelevant. That is why they are mass-produced, cheaply made prints. There is no personality to them, they are Hallmark cards with a £200 mark-up. To the target audience, all that matters is that it is by Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light, wholesome and American.
You seem to have these 10 million people wrapped up J. Not generalizing, or being judgemental I hope
I think it's unfair to speak for everyone who's ever bought a Kinkade painting like that. Especially when your ideas of how it's the name that people care about could just as easily be applied to any artist - let's face it, there are a lot of people who'll buy a Renoir because it's a Renoir and because it's expensive, not because it's a work of art.
Hehe.. nice.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Yes.
And some lifestyle these days.
And lots of brides.
Thank you for the compliment on Holden.
He is even cuter than that. And yes, I know his nose was in need of a wipe.
Ok, more modern art musings...Disney Pixar: Art? Good? Bad?
I think some of the animation is spectacular, even if it is computer generated.
I also love the old cartoons, with the hand drawings. Awesome, though tedious.
I would very much rate Disney Pixar as art - they imagine, and create, some amazing images, just through a different medium. (Of course, I may be biased, since all my cartoons are drawn digitally.;))
They have a different kind of charm to the old Snow White-style cartoons, but a charm no less. That said, I'd say we've hit a point where the concept of photorealistic CGI isn't enough to wow people anymore, and audiences will actually start demanding interesting imagery.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Um.....no.
You're the expert Mark, I have no idea who did what, I was just thinking as I said.....I'll stay out of this. Say, there isn't always a deep hidden meaning behind everything
I swear sometimes I have to sit and think for 10 minutes about what people are meaning when they write stuff on here.
I blame technology.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I would very much rate Disney Pixar as art - they imagine, and create, some amazing images, just through a different medium. (Of course, I may be biased, since all my cartoons are drawn digitally.;))
They have a different kind of charm to the old Snow White-style cartoons, but a charm no less. That said, I'd say we've hit a point where the concept of photorealistic CGI isn't enough to wow people anymore, and audiences will actually start demanding interesting imagery.
Did you see Beowolf?? I was shocked that the entire movie was CGI. I found it really annoying at first. Creepy, you know? But the further along you get, the more it made sense. I definitely prefer to read it though.
Even my job is being taken over by some photoshoppers. :( And it looks like crap, but oh well.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
You seem to have these 10 million people wrapped up J. Not generalizing, or being judgemental I hope
Yeah jeez, it would be a sorry day if any of that went on in this thread :rolleyes:
I am not saying that everyone who buys them is a blind fool, I said the TARGET audience is. Whether or not an intelligent being could find real beauty in Kinkade's paintings, they are mass-produced, soulless items sold much in the same was as people used to buy holy water and fragments of the "crown of thorns". Whether or not they can be understood as art by the consumers, they aren't created as art. The Thomas Kinkade company is a business.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Did you see Beowolf?? I was shocked that the entire movie was CGI. I found it really annoying at first. Creepy, you know? But the further along you get, the more it made sense. I definitely prefer to read it though.
Even my job is being taken over by some photoshoppers. :( And it looks like crap, but oh well.
I didn't see Beowulf... but I did, embarrassingly, see the Polar Express, which I think was the first use of that particular CGI technique. I couldn't get past the strangely dead eyes, but they might have fixed that for Beowulf. Either way, I think it's great that CGI is letting film-makers do interesting visual things with their work like that - Sin City, for example, would have been a very different film without the benefit of CGI.
I'm guessing you'd agree that the easy-to-use nature of programs like Photoshop is taking away from the artistry of a well-taken photograph?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Yeah jeez, it would be a sorry day if any of that went on in this thread :rolleyes:
I am not saying that everyone who buys them is a blind fool, I said the TARGET audience is. Whether or not an intelligent being could find real beauty in Kinkade's paintings, they are mass-produced, soulless items sold much in the same was as people used to buy holy water and fragments of the "crown of thorns". Whether or not they can be understood as art by the consumers, they aren't created as art. The Thomas Kinkade company is a business.
As soon as you start selling your work, art becomes a business.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
As soon as you start selling your work, art becomes a business.
Yes but business shouldn't become your art.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I didn't see Beowulf... but I did, embarrassingly, see the Polar Express, which I think was the first use of that particular CGI technique. I couldn't get past the strangely dead eyes, but they might have fixed that for Beowulf. Either way, I think it's great that CGI is letting film-makers do interesting visual things with their work like that - Sin City, for example, would have been a very different film without the benefit of CGI.
I'm guessing you'd agree that the easy-to-use nature of programs like Photoshop is taking away from the artistry of a well-taken photograph?
You didn't like Polar Express??? Those eyes are so creepy and no they really weren't any better in Beowolf.
It is so rare that I work with a photographer that shoots film. Everything is digital and overmanipulated and overprocessed and alot of it is just lazy.
But some of it is amazing, like the link I posted of Jeffrey Scott's work.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
But that's like saying the old Renaissance painters shouldn't have accepted patronage from the popes. That was as much of a subscribed audience as the Kincade company has in middle America. And I'd wager a lot of conceptual artists do what they do knowing there's a gullible audience out there who'll buy into their long-winded explanations of why the wounded kestrel's venture into the winter of his soul is so sensitively depicted in his green splodge in the bottom left corner of a white canvas.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
thing about Beowolf to me was that one amazing looking character would be next to a very bland cg-looking one. very uneven. the women were too perfect looking. made them look plastic.
You didn't like Polar Express??? Those eyes are so creepy and no they really weren't any better in Beowolf.
It is so rare that I work with a photographer that shoots film. Everything is digital and overmanipulated and overprocessed and alot of it is just lazy.
But some of it is amazing, like the link I posted of Jeffrey Scott's work.
Oh, the film itself was fine. I just meant the CGI technique didn't really win me over completely.
I guess when it comes down to it, art is art, whether it's been digitally manipulated or not. There are a lot of bad photographers out there who don't use digital retouching, after all. I guess it's like the music industry - where studios across the world are shutting down because it's so easy now to record an album in your own bedroom. Is it old-fashioned to want to hang onto the old, as you said, tedious methods?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
The idea that your opinion is more valid than other people's is though, and I think you have been guilty of thinking that a few times here And you're too intelligent to pass it off as ignorance.
that's arrogance.. not pretentiousness... and quite possibly true... but i dont think i could ever be described as pretentious
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
*Cathy Wilkes' room-sized sculptural installation is called I Give You All My Money. Her questions are about what random objects mean when gathered together. In this case they include a child's buggy, various dirty bowls with smeary spoons in them, and a stepladder juxtaposed with a pair of naked mannequins hung with baubles and bits of wood.
= shit
*Runa Islam is a film-maker who dissects films and shows us how they work upon us. The films are often slow and repetitive because human beings are forgetful and unobservant. The best of the three on display here is First Day of Spring 2005, a portrait of a gaggle of Bangladeshi rickshaw drivers doing almost nothing until a tremendous call to action.
actually sounds interesting... but thats because its not really art... its a fucking movie.
*Mark Leckey has brought together a host of odd bits and pieces – a longish film, and a short one; a poster; a dusty old maquette of his studio space; a photo of that same space reflected through a silly sculpture by Jeff Koons. The puzzling over what it might mean is all mixed up with the making. It is about process, not about finished product.
blah blah blah.. translated paragraph above is "basically its just pretentious shit"
*Goskha Macuga is presenting two bodies of work. The first is a series of wall-hung, photographic collages that meldtogether images by two British Surrealists, Eileen Agar and Paul Nash. Nash provides the photographic backgrounds and Agar the cut-outs of the human figure. Elements of the human bodies are echoed in the backgrounds they are given.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
I think it's unfair to speak for everyone who's ever bought a Kinkade painting like that. Especially when your ideas of how it's the name that people care about could just as easily be applied to any artist - let's face it, there are a lot of people who'll buy a Renoir because it's a Renoir and because it's expensive, not because it's a work of art.
You seem to have these 10 million people wrapped up J. Not generalizing, or being judgemental I hope
Hehe.. nice.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I would very much rate Disney Pixar as art - they imagine, and create, some amazing images, just through a different medium. (Of course, I may be biased, since all my cartoons are drawn digitally.;))
They have a different kind of charm to the old Snow White-style cartoons, but a charm no less. That said, I'd say we've hit a point where the concept of photorealistic CGI isn't enough to wow people anymore, and audiences will actually start demanding interesting imagery.
I swear sometimes I have to sit and think for 10 minutes about what people are meaning when they write stuff on here.
I blame technology.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Even my job is being taken over by some photoshoppers. :( And it looks like crap, but oh well.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I am not saying that everyone who buys them is a blind fool, I said the TARGET audience is. Whether or not an intelligent being could find real beauty in Kinkade's paintings, they are mass-produced, soulless items sold much in the same was as people used to buy holy water and fragments of the "crown of thorns". Whether or not they can be understood as art by the consumers, they aren't created as art. The Thomas Kinkade company is a business.
I didn't see Beowulf... but I did, embarrassingly, see the Polar Express, which I think was the first use of that particular CGI technique. I couldn't get past the strangely dead eyes, but they might have fixed that for Beowulf. Either way, I think it's great that CGI is letting film-makers do interesting visual things with their work like that - Sin City, for example, would have been a very different film without the benefit of CGI.
I'm guessing you'd agree that the easy-to-use nature of programs like Photoshop is taking away from the artistry of a well-taken photograph?
As soon as you start selling your work, art becomes a business.
It is so rare that I work with a photographer that shoots film. Everything is digital and overmanipulated and overprocessed and alot of it is just lazy.
But some of it is amazing, like the link I posted of Jeffrey Scott's work.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
But that's like saying the old Renaissance painters shouldn't have accepted patronage from the popes. That was as much of a subscribed audience as the Kincade company has in middle America. And I'd wager a lot of conceptual artists do what they do knowing there's a gullible audience out there who'll buy into their long-winded explanations of why the wounded kestrel's venture into the winter of his soul is so sensitively depicted in his green splodge in the bottom left corner of a white canvas.
clowns have always been scary to me i think
Oh, the film itself was fine.
I guess when it comes down to it, art is art, whether it's been digitally manipulated or not. There are a lot of bad photographers out there who don't use digital retouching, after all.
that's arrogance.. not pretentiousness... and quite possibly true... but i dont think i could ever be described as pretentious
= shit
actually sounds interesting... but thats because its not really art... its a fucking movie.
blah blah blah.. translated paragraph above is "basically its just pretentious shit"
eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/09/29/baturner129.xml
I saw this on the news. I was waiting for this revival
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09