Posted on 04/11/2007 4:38:47 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Sam,
Done any flats fishing, lately?
That drug hypothesis is series, but I am not sure it will ‘grow feet’ sufficiently to be considered hugh.
And, speaking of art - any Florida FReepers going to the Sun-N-Fun fly in?
Remember what Tom Sheets said,
“You can’t be an artist without an ego...
But just because you have an ego...
doesn’t mean you’re an artist.”
Tom Sheets 1980
— Remember what Tom Sheets said,...
I stand corrected. I’m not an artist. I just stink, period.
Art has meaning? Who knew?
(:-D
Art has meaning(relatively speaking)
No, I haven’t done much of any kind of fishing lately. I hardly ever find the time anymore, though this may be more of a function of the way in which time compresses itself as one grows older ;-)
Impressionism isn’t my favorite school of art (to put it mildly). It is much better in person than as a print, moreso than any other genre of painting, but I’d rather look at original PRB stuff, and all those guys were high and sharing the same hookers.
I think it's lots simpler than that - they do different drugs.
Someone photoshop looter guy into the painting in post #9.
Cheers!
I agree, even the best lithographs of the Impressionists are worthless. Other than the true Renaissance masterpieces, Impressionism is probably my favorite. Any time I’m in a new city with a decent art museum I find time to go. For whatever the reason, Europeans at the time saw little value in Impressionism, so many of the greatest works are in the US.
I noticed that a lot of well-known Impressionist stuff is in the National Gallery, which is where I noticed the discrepancy between live and repro. But as I said, not my favorite genre. Van Gogh was a nut, and I’m also not a big fan, but his work looks spectacular in person; I doubt he’s considered an Impressionist. J.S. Sargent is best known for portraits, but also painted impressionist works which I’ve never seen “live”.
Precursor of Cinemascope. ;’)
I remember seeing them in art museums as a kid, but at that time all I really wanted to see in museums was dinosaurs, suits of armor and stuff like that. As I grew older, I had saw the prints and couldn’t figure out what the big deal was. But seeing them is person is spectacular.
As you said, the National Gallery has a wonderful collection, I think the best is probably at the Met in NYC, followed by the Art Institute of Chicago. The collections at the Bellagio and Wynn in Las Vegas are small, but very good.
some JSS showing influences:
http://www.thecityreview.com/f00camp6.jpg
http://www.cassdesign.com/images/panel19.jpg
http://www.tfaoi.com/mn/mic/mic195.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MCG/pf677_b~Seista-Posters.jpg
http://www.abcgallery.com/S/sargent/sargent6.html
Yes!
Chicago is the place to see Impressionists. New York City turned their nose up to this new French “art” and Chicago bought it (1890s I think).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
