Landsat "Earth As Art" Images

U.S. Geological Survey Landsat Program ^

[cogitator]

Our Earth As Art

An example:

[cogitator]

Just discovered this site. The high-resolution pictures are stunning.

[cogitator]

*PING PING PING PING PING!*

[dd5339]

Kansas Ping,

Checked out the site, great pics but Garden City Kansas?

[facedown]

Bump

[pbear8]

We have one of SF Bay which we use to give the kids we teach a sense of their locale. These pictures really are beautiful!

[otterpond]

There's no artist like Nature.

[Soaring Feather]

otter that is a wonderful site, thanks so much! I will look more later on in the day!

[January24th]

Very nice!

I think a trip to the mountains in Morocco is in order...

:o)

[Aquinasfan]

Gorgeous.

In a superficial way, these beautiful images can be compared to abstract, modern art, except for the fact that modern art is entirely worthless.

Why is that? I can only guess that somehow we sense a deep, mysterious order to what appears, at least superficially, to be disordered. Any other ideas?

[otterpond]

I think a trip to the mountains in Morocco is in order...

Good idea! Care to board my magic carpet?

:0)

[martin_fierro]

Must be Red China. <|:)~

[buffyt]

As a Freeper with an art degree from OSU, I say this is gorgeous! Man can never match God in His artistic talent! He may give us some of his creative talent, but he always can out do us! Great photos!

[okiedust]

"There's no artist like Nature."

Indeed, thanks for the alert.

regards

[otterpond]

Glad you agree.

This is just a BUMP!

[ladyinred]

Wow!
What a beautiful collection of "art" on this website!
Thanks so much for the ping, just stunning!

[COB1]

"What a beautiful collection of "art" on this website!"

Yep, that is beautiful!!
I didn't know Texas could look any prettier than it does from down here!

[macamadamia]

"...modern art is entirely worthless."

Boy, that's an obnoxious statement. What's YOUR definition of modern art? Is Impressionism worthless? How about artists like Whistler, Turner, Henry Moore, Gauguin, Edward Weston, Richard Estes, Dali, etc. etc.? You do know they, among others, are all considered modernists?

[Aquinasfan]

How about artists like Whistler, Turner, Henry Moore, Gauguin, Edward Weston, Richard Estes, Dali, etc. etc.? You do know they, among others, are all considered modernists

You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones who couldn't draw so they came up with a scam, like Picasso, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Calder, Miro, Klee, Haring, Johns, Mondrian, Kandinsky, Modigliani and the biggest joke of them all, Rothko.

[macamadamia]

A list of artists you believe “couldn’t draw” is not a definition of modern art. Your qualifiers undermine your statement that modern art is worthless. I’m more on the same page with you than you think. But, you simply can’t lump all of these artists together. Picasso, Pollock, Kandinsky, Miro, Mondrian, Klee, for example, sure as hell could draw; have you seen their early work? There’s no scam going on—this is a ridiculous assertion. They simply rejected their early styles, arrived at new ones and found admirers. Where’s the deception. I get queasy looking at a Thomas Kincaid, but I wouldn’t for a second accuse him of pulling a scam simply because he found an audience. Also, it is wrong to speak about modern art as if it were monolithic. It simply isn’t—there never was a unified aesthetic and scholars can’t even agree upon a definition of “modernism.” It’s a knee jerk reaction to dismiss anything you don’t like as “modern art” unless you can provide a comprehensive definition of modernism that everyone else seems to be struggling with. The problem IMO is that art history scholars think that they’re scientists and hence believe they can impose a nifty taxonomy upon all this cultural stuff that simply cannot be categorized. Also, I assume that you don’t believe that art museums are sanctified spaces and that curators are high priests. Its all marketing, sometimes offensive sometimes palatable, but where’s the scam?