it bothers me because its considered by the so called art community to be superior to older styles and 'lower' forms of modern day art like comics or poster art. If one were to aspire to the greatness of a Sargeant, Rockwell or Bouguereau you would be laughed out of many galleries. there is a mountain of great art coming out but the only thing that gets respect from art critics seems to be the New York high art crap. It has its place and i like some of it but it is vastly overrated.
By the way, I love comic art and poster art.
'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.'
anyone that has an appreciation for mr burt reynolds can never be wonky.....;)
wonky?? is that what willie wonka called his wille?
wow a lot of alliteration :eek:
Willie Wonka's Wonky Willy was the name of the sequel.. Would ya believe it?
'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.'
IT isn't a homogenous collection of art. Modern art isn't overrated. SOME modern art is overrated, even a lot is. The "medium" is not, and even calling it a particular type of art is silly. A lot of the 'New York High Art crap' is bullshit but that doesn't mean that the good examples of modern art are inferior to the classics which are, for some reason, not subject to criticism from anyone. The difference is, those of us who do not write off modern art also do not write off the old masters. That would be daft and arrogant. I take no sides. Art is art.
i think we just disagree slightly. i just think its unbalanced towards a certain viewpoint of what art is. yeah, 'modern art' is too vague a term (and too long a period), i just cant think of a better word for the modern mindset of what art is.
Hah, well, I'm indulging in hyperbole just to fit in here in this thread but seriously, the anger with which some of you people talk about modern art comes across as easily more self-satisfied and pretentious than any purveyor of modern art Why let it bother you? No one is forcing you to walk around the tate and say "this is incredible".
Some people (and I am not talking about anyone specifically here ) need to get over themselves and accept that their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's.
Jamie, jamie, jamie...come on man. Us 'non believers' need to get over ourselves? No, sorry my friend, it's the incredible arrogance and general sniffiness purveyed at times by the art elite here that kicked the whole shebang into orbit. It seems to some that beyond question, beyond doubt, the popular stuff (in this case we've used Bob Ross) is so petty and pointless compared to far 'superior' artwork (here we take Rothko) that it is nothing more than childs play.
HLF himself dismissed Bobs, with "Oh give me a brush, I'll show you how easy and rubbish it is to paint trees"...yet he claims to stare in wonderment at the old yellow blobs, not only that but claim it takes more effort /skill /talent..whatever.
All any of us dullards have done is have the nerve to ask...why? Just tell us why, who says it's better? Who says it takes more skill? Who, and this is the most important, who says it makes you think? And more to the point, does it really? And if so, why can't Bobs paintings make you think, who says they can't? Why do blobs and blocks of colour 'provoke' your sensibilities? And like I said, do they really, or have some people just bought into the whole...sham.
HLF started his Bob thread by calling him a charlatan. Having, today, looked for the first time at this Rothko fellas work, I have to say....what a bloody cheek. There is one charlatan sir, and it is not Bob Ross...true story
Jamie, jamie, jamie...come on man. Us 'non believers' need to get over ourselves? No, sorry my friend, it's the incredible arrogance and general sniffiness purveyed at times by the art elite here that kicked the whole shebang into orbit. It seems to some that beyond question, beyond doubt, the popular stuff (in this case we've used Bob Ross) is so petty and pointless compared to far 'superior' artwork (here we take Rothko) that it is nothing more than childs play.
HLF himself dismissed Bobs, with "Oh give me a brush, I'll show you how easy and rubbish it is to paint trees"...yet he claims to stare in wonderment at the old yellow blobs, not only that but claim it takes more effort /skill /talent..whatever.
All any of us dullards have done is have the nerve to ask...why? Just tell us why, who says it's better? Who says it takes more skill? Who, and this is the most important, who says it makes you think? And more to the point, does it really? And if so, why can't Bobs paintings make you think, who says they can't? Why do blobs and blocks of colour 'provoke' your sensibilities? And like I said, do they really, or have some people just bought into the whole...sham.
HLF started his Bob thread by calling him a charlatan. Having, today, looked for the first time at this Rothko fellas work, I have to say....what a bloody cheek. There is one charlatan sir, and it is not Bob Ross...true story
Right, get em in, it's Friday night
You're a fan of Neil Young, right? He's not a very good singer.
'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.'
You're a fan of Neil Young, right? He's not a very good singer.
Technically maybe he isn't, but then singing is about more than perfect pitch. If you're waiting with an 'if Rothko was a singer' analogy, don't bother, if he was he'd be shouting into a traffic cone. Drawing attention to yourself does not = art
Neither by the way is Chris Martin, Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix..or for that matter Ed V. But they all have essential other qualities, soul, originality....etc.
Technically maybe he isn't, but then singing is about more than perfect pitch. If you're waiting with an 'if Rothko was a singer' analogy, don't bother, if he was he'd be shouting into a traffic cone. Drawing attention to yourself does not = art
Neither by the way is Chris Martin, Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix..or for that matter Ed V. But they all have essential other qualities, soul, originality....etc.
You want to talk about soul and originality? Cus we can definitely talk about that when it comes to Rothko and Abstract Expressionism.
But alas, I'm out tonight.. maybe when I get back.
'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.'
some chick took plaster to jimi hendrix's privates and called it art. jimi was undoubtedly aroused by said artist. bob ross paints mountains and rivers along with happy little trees. Hendrix was hard. Bob Ross' trees were hard. They were both hard. And dead for that matter. Therefore, their art is related.
some chick took plaster to jimi hendrix's privates and called it art. jimi was undoubtedly aroused by said artist. bob ross paints mountains and rivers along with happy little trees. Hendrix was hard. Bob Ross' trees were hard. They were both hard. And dead for that matter. Therefore, their art is related.
some chick took plaster to jimi hendrix's privates and called it art. jimi was undoubtedly aroused by said artist. bob ross paints mountains and rivers along with happy little trees. Hendrix was hard. Bob Ross' trees were hard. They were both hard. And dead for that matter. Therefore, their art is related.
this needs to be on the siggie thread.
oh wait..it can be
IF YOU WANT A PLATE OF MY BEEF SWELLINGTON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE COVERCHARGE.
some chick took plaster to jimi hendrix's privates and called it art. jimi was undoubtedly aroused by said artist. bob ross paints mountains and rivers along with happy little trees. Hendrix was hard. Bob Ross' trees were hard. They were both hard. And dead for that matter. Therefore, their art is related.
well if getting an erection is art, just call me da vinci.....:p :eek:
'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.'
IT isn't a homogenous collection of art. Modern art isn't overrated. SOME modern art is overrated, even a lot is. The "medium" is not, and even calling it a particular type of art is silly. A lot of the 'New York High Art crap' is bullshit but that doesn't mean that the good examples of modern art are inferior to the classics which are, for some reason, not subject to criticism from anyone. The difference is, those of us who do not write off modern art also do not write off the old masters. That would be daft and arrogant. I take no sides. Art is art.
Hah, well, I'm indulging in hyperbole just to fit in here in this thread but seriously, the anger with which some of you people talk about modern art comes across as easily more self-satisfied and pretentious than any purveyor of modern art Why let it bother you? No one is forcing you to walk around the tate and say "this is incredible".
Some people (and I am not talking about anyone specifically here ) need to get over themselves and accept that their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's.
art is art.
yep.
and what speaks to you will vary GREATLY from one person to another. doesn't make it any more/less *art* though.
i don't *like* bob ross's work, but i appreciate the skill, and yes...he opened up the idea that *any*one can paint, can create....sure, he tuaght a very specific style, but none the less....he DID open up the accessibility of art to MANY. for that, he was fantastic, and sure...his paintings are good if that is what you enjoy.
for me, for any idea of *realism* in art...i FAR prefer photography. that's me. from my painting, sculpture...i like something *else*...and that's just me, and i don't expect anyone else to subscribe to my way of thinking. do i love and admire the old masters, and others.....absolutely. beauty IS....and i love beauty. however, i also see a great deal of beauty in 'colored blobs' as some like to refer to em.
and PLEASE.....PLEASE folks....STOP JUDGING ART ONLINE!!!
go TO A MUSEUM...A GALLERY....SEE IT in person!!! STILL THINK IT'S SHITE...SO BE IT....BUT SWEET BEJEEBUS! it looks soooooo different in person! and at it's proper size, etc. hell, even a vermeer...a van gogh...etc......sooooooooo different in person! to fully appreciate ANY work of art, you need to see it in the real world!!!
Spoken in a soft tone....."oh yes, I am going to give you a happy little orgasam. You have a breath taking hiney".
LMAO! I vote this for Post of the Year.
drivingrl: "Will I ever get to meet Gwen Stefani?"
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Comments
By the way, I love comic art and poster art.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
could be i just hate annoying people lol
I went to Art College...but I didn't graduate...sooo, does that make me wonky???
I sometimes wear square glasses...I have dyed black hair...and I do like black tights and thin ribbed turtle necks...
I don't smoke french cigs, tho...
Oh...my god.
I am a stereotype.
anyone that has an appreciation for mr burt reynolds can never be wonky.....;)
wonky?? is that what willie wonka called his wille?
wow a lot of alliteration :eek:
Willie Wonka's Wonky Willy was the name of the sequel.. Would ya believe it?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
:eek:
and yes...a snozzberry DOES taste like a snozzberry
i think we just disagree slightly. i just think its unbalanced towards a certain viewpoint of what art is. yeah, 'modern art' is too vague a term (and too long a period), i just cant think of a better word for the modern mindset of what art is.
i think you were doing ok until the turtlenecks. all you're missing is a beret now
I'm going back to contacts now. my square glasses are so yesterday.
Jamie, jamie, jamie...come on man. Us 'non believers' need to get over ourselves? No, sorry my friend, it's the incredible arrogance and general sniffiness purveyed at times by the art elite here that kicked the whole shebang into orbit. It seems to some that beyond question, beyond doubt, the popular stuff (in this case we've used Bob Ross) is so petty and pointless compared to far 'superior' artwork (here we take Rothko) that it is nothing more than childs play.
HLF himself dismissed Bobs, with "Oh give me a brush, I'll show you how easy and rubbish it is to paint trees"...yet he claims to stare in wonderment at the old yellow blobs, not only that but claim it takes more effort /skill /talent..whatever.
All any of us dullards have done is have the nerve to ask...why? Just tell us why, who says it's better? Who says it takes more skill? Who, and this is the most important, who says it makes you think? And more to the point, does it really? And if so, why can't Bobs paintings make you think, who says they can't? Why do blobs and blocks of colour 'provoke' your sensibilities? And like I said, do they really, or have some people just bought into the whole...sham.
HLF started his Bob thread by calling him a charlatan. Having, today, looked for the first time at this Rothko fellas work, I have to say....what a bloody cheek. There is one charlatan sir, and it is not Bob Ross...true story
Right, get em in, it's Friday night
You're a fan of Neil Young, right? He's not a very good singer.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Technically maybe he isn't, but then singing is about more than perfect pitch. If you're waiting with an 'if Rothko was a singer' analogy, don't bother, if he was he'd be shouting into a traffic cone. Drawing attention to yourself does not = art
Neither by the way is Chris Martin, Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix..or for that matter Ed V. But they all have essential other qualities, soul, originality....etc.
Hell of a songwriter and guitar player though.
You want to talk about soul and originality? Cus we can definitely talk about that when it comes to Rothko and Abstract Expressionism.
But alas, I'm out tonight.. maybe when I get back.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
And now I'm hard - but am I an artist?
oh wait..it can be
well if getting an erection is art, just call me da vinci.....:p :eek:
i'm afraid of the paint, Bob.
Himalayan teal!
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i *love* this post.
this one too:
art is art.
yep.
and what speaks to you will vary GREATLY from one person to another. doesn't make it any more/less *art* though.
i don't *like* bob ross's work, but i appreciate the skill, and yes...he opened up the idea that *any*one can paint, can create....sure, he tuaght a very specific style, but none the less....he DID open up the accessibility of art to MANY. for that, he was fantastic, and sure...his paintings are good if that is what you enjoy.
for me, for any idea of *realism* in art...i FAR prefer photography. that's me.
and PLEASE.....PLEASE folks....STOP JUDGING ART ONLINE!!!
go TO A MUSEUM...A GALLERY....SEE IT in person!!! STILL THINK IT'S SHITE...SO BE IT....BUT SWEET BEJEEBUS! it looks soooooo different in person! and at it's proper size, etc. hell, even a vermeer...a van gogh...etc......sooooooooo different in person! to fully appreciate ANY work of art, you need to see it in the real world!!!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
LMAO! I vote this for Post of the Year.
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Next!"