Hunter Biden to art haters: ‘---- ‘em’

I smell a presentation identical pardon in Hunters future........which would prove interesting.

Dad will have to include every one of Hunters crimes to pardon the boy.

his art actually isn’t bad, creative and shows some color and composition savvy- which isn’t easy in art- but no way is his art worth what he’s asking- He’s simply banking on the name- Hitler was actually a very good artist- George Bush? No- a ‘skilled amateur’ is about all he could manage-

Shit ain’t worth 50 bucks....

“I think I’m doing stuff,” hunter says.

Yet any art student can recognize several art genres and techniques that took accomplished artists years to develop.

Picasso didn’t start with Cubism.........he went through several periods Before he developed his Cubism technique.

Many might question how neophyte Hunter developed the control to execute works in so many different genres in such a short time.

I smell a ~~presentation identical~~ presidential pardon in Hunter's future.

Is that what you intended to say?

Regards,

As an artist I’d disagree with your assessment. Hunter is talentless and he’s making a mockery of true art.

This whole modern art craze has ruined the art world just as the left ruin everything else they touch.

I believe that Van Gogh said that also.

as an artist as well i disagree with your assessment- You may not like modern art, but a lot of folks do appreciate it. It’s your opinion that it ruins art, but others don’t agree- There is craft and artistic creativity in modern art too- it’s not just a bunch of paint thrown on a canvas without thought, design and intent- it’s fine that you don’t like it- but to say it ruins art is just an opinion- not a fact-

Americans mask:

are not these thesame words the FIB and DO”J” use
for the PARENTS of the babies raped by Hunter
on the floor, while they were taped down
to make rape-videos for the FIB’s own personal use
(like the Weiner rape and child murder snuff videos)?

I strongly disagree that it takes any modicum of talent to sling paint at a canvas or pee in a cup and call it art. The left pushed so called art for people who cannot produce anything other than blops of paint.

For instance, those who smudge paint blops on canvas cannot do what I do but I can do what they do. Big difference.

Maybe take a watch of this to explain why I hold this and many others do too. The left has ruined everything it touches and art is just one of all of those things.

Prager U: Why is Modern Art so Bad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

Execution????

You dream on!!!

Life in prison?!?!!?!?

Ain't gonna happen.

The son of a Dim Politician is not doing jail time....Not in these times.............

i know there are some who hold your view- and you are welcome to your view, but I have stuidied this issue, because at first i didn’t ‘get modern art’, but in my studies i have learned that art transcends just the painted or sculpted material or whatever the medium- Even verbal art- and makes a statement beyond what the visual implies-

Take a look at what makes modern art- there are some really good articles on it- that explain that - the ‘pee in a cup’ for instance is simplistic- yes- but many times the artist is making a statement beyond just the visual and physical aspects of the piece- and their ‘style’ plays a huge part in what they are trying to impart-

While soem of it looks very simplistic- oftentimes it is anythign but when it’s analyzed critically- and one sees that the work, in it;s simplicity, and angles, and colors, is a perfect statement on many different isues where complicated designs and technically made pieces wouldn’t have the same impact- Below is an example-

For instance, there is a photographer, who did photos of really ‘mundane’ scenes of rooms- (Much in the style od Stephen Shore, or William Eggleston, who’s photos are fairly mundane, but have a very strange and haunting beauty to them) and at first glance they look very boring and uninspired- however, learning of the artist’s background, and emotional traumas put the scenes into context, and when viewed through that lens- you see that the scenes are really rather kind of disturbing for their subtle but jarring severe angles- and sense of loneliness, and abandonment, and the viewer experiences being pulled in by the angles and beyond out into infinity because of how carefully the scene was photographed-

The average person seeing the photos is going to say “Any 10 year old could take those photos” because nothing seems particularly special about them- until you understand that the angles in the scene reveal an emotional disturbance that the ‘artist’ feels-

I am not defending all crap that is out there- some of it really is just crap with no meaning or statement or anything- But some of the ‘paint flung on a canvas’ pieces aren’t just thrown on with no thought to structure, color, design, contrasts, etc- and colors have power- standing for things psychologically, and a skilled artist knows this and knows how to juxtapose color to elicit emotional responses i n a viewer-

An elephant slapping down paint, which his handlers then sell for big money, has no knowledge of such things- Few kids do as well, but there come along prodigies that do have deep understanding of what goes into art- and learn to relay what they feel onto canvas in a way that shows they aren’t simply slapping paint on without knowledge-

The modern artist might say that classical art is stilted, mechanical, bound by rigid rules of composition, color, design etc- that make all classical works look the same, technically- and while ‘mechanically good’, they lack heart and soul that art ‘should have’ because they don’t have a message that modern art is capable of creating-

You can disagree with this- but Art is more than mere technical execution and good drawing skills, and knowledge of color, light, line etc- that go into creating classical art- it can be incorporated into modern art as well to make powerful statements and evoke emotions that the viewer can relate to-

Not everyone appreciates rock music, or grunge, or rap, and they claim classical music is the only true music, or religious music is the only true form etc- but there is no denying that the forms i mentioned evoke feelings in folks, even when they eschew the ‘norms’ of classical music in favor of a free form expression of notes that most folks are used to-

You can’t simply judge all modern art with the narrow view of classical art ideals- nor can you simply judge modern art solely on the idea that the actual content is ‘sparse’ ‘boring’ or ‘simple’ or whatever term one wishes to use- Many times there is a lot more going on ‘beneath the surface’ so to speak than is immediately evident.

Folks had the same complaints about Van Gogh, Monet, Seraut, Renoir, Cezanne etc- but their works have a certain haunting beauty to them that transcend what ‘appears to be simplistic execution, simplistic application of paint’ etc- (For the record- Van Gogh had a deep knowledge of color theory and used it to great effect- his ‘slapdash’ painting style wasn’t as slapdash as it first appears- there is ryme and reason to his style which are purposely done to elicit the emotions he felt when painting- He likened his work to music, hitting all the rights notes where necessary to create a certain feeling that goes beyond the technical aspect of the scene and everything in it- -

Well, this is way too long already- but to say ‘modern art is trash’ and imply that ‘anyone could do it’ doesn’t do justice to true modern art and it’s meanings- neither claim are true-

just a quick add-on

Many times, modern art incorporates things way beyond the visual or audible medium, things like spiritual, symbolism, visualizing dreams, past experiences, future experiences yet to be realized, or whatever- etc- The piece may seem very simplistic, but that many times is very intentional for a very specific reason- to convey something way beyond the simplistic visual experience of the work that couldn’t be said any other way- Art is a form of expression created to move others, emotionally, sometimes even physically, spiritually, or whatever- it’s not just paint on a canvas that shows off drawing skill, or composition skill or whatever- it transcends all that technical stuff and causes the viewer to feel something- Art is subjective, however, even though they say ‘there is no right or wrong in art’ - don’t fully agree with that sentiment- I think if does or should at least adhere to certain basic ‘rules’ (UNLESS the object is to reject rules altogether- that in itself, when done right, can make some pretty interesting art at times)- But- this is just my own personal opinion based on what think goes into making good art- modern, classic, expressionist, Fauvist or whatever style one may like-

ok, enough- too long already- -

[[but there come along prodigies that do have deep understanding of what goes into art- and learn to relay what they feel onto canvas in a way that shows they aren’t simply slapping paint on without knowledge]]

Sorry, onem ore qwuick point, then I’m done- Explaining hte above point-

let’s say that there is a paintign that ‘looks like’ a massive chaotic scene of randomly thrown paint upon first glance- to the average person that will be all they really see and they say “My kid could do that”-

but in reality, the ‘thrown on paint’ has rhythm, has reason, has purpose- uses color skillfully to convey emotions or whatever- it can take the viewer on a spiraling trip from light, airy, bright, happy colors on the perimeter, inwards, due to the spiraling effect of lines of the ‘thrown paint’, into an ever narrowing dark, gloomy, place where it seems all hope is being drained away by ever tightening confines and jarring angles, and loud disturbing juxtapositions of color that get eaten away till there is nothing but a dark purple mysterious foreboding ‘room’ within the painting-

but all of a sudden you notice a small spot of say orange, on the horizon inside that dark long large room- way out o n the distance- and the viewer noticing that may suddenly feel a ‘ray of hope’

This was all intentional by the artist who skillfully drew the viewer into the painting, into the confined cramped space of gloom and felling of doom, then out again through the ‘ray of hope’ represented by a spot of brighter paint made to look like rays on a horizon

Not everyone will care anything about all this- but many do- and that is what makes art- Music can take a person on just such journeys too- even though it is loud, brash, jarring- it;s all how skillfully certain notes are placed, knwoign that doing so will elicit certain feelings in many listeners- Even verbal arts such as story telling incorporate these techniques skillfully- the story can be thoroughly boring or mundane except for key areas skillfully placed to jar the listener to attention- and the boring parts may be all planned and done for specific reasons-

Watch the movie Pollack and then try to tell me that again. ;) Sorry, I just totally and utterly disagree with you. Respectfully. Cheers.

Reminds me of a story about artist Frank Stella after an art critic saw all sorts of nuances in his famed pin stripe painting.

He rebuked the critic .......said that a picture was “a flat surface with paint on it – nothing more”.

Many of his works are created by simply using the path of the brush stroke, very often using common house paint.

i did watch some of it and disagree with what i heard him say- Modern artists are not left with nothing bu8t personal expression- that isn’t even remotely true, and makes the rest of his biased opinion moot really because it isn’t based on truth-

He takes examples of classical paintings that obviously are great- then compares them with some really bad examples of modern art and then tells us all modern art is bad and paints it all with a broad brush? Nope sorry- That isn’t even remotely a fair comparison

And seriously, he tells his students to analyze a ‘Jackson Pollock painting” and ‘Tell him what makes it great’? Only to tell them “Ha, it’s his painter’s apron with paint on it’? Seriously? Any student of art knows what pollock’s paintings look like and wouldn’t have been fooled by an apron- the second i saw it i knew it wasn’t one of his paintings- his paintings are splatter, the apron was clearly not splatters

He then goes on to suggest that all art transitioned from the transcendent to the trashy- What? This guy is making his whole argument by comparing classical art to bad modern art that relies solely on shock value to jar the audience and declaring all modern art trashy?

Sorry- but i can’t take that fella seriously at all- That would be like me picking out some really bad classical art done by unskilled unknowns- and declaring the whole movement to be trash

Basically what he did was show all kinds of examples of ‘obscene modern art’ to bolster his biased rant against all modern art- He also didn’t even bother to try to understand what the message might be, or what the artist has gone through in their life that caused them to create the things they did-

His view is naively shallow and very condescending, and paints all modern art with a huge broad brush- I tend to stay away from narrow minded reviews such as that because they attack with extreme bias- it’s an elitist snobbery that ignore facts when they don’t jive with the bias-

some artists did take that view- Bob Dylan toyed with reporters who tried to ‘find hidden meanings’ in his songs- (as did many artists- ) essentially saying ‘the message is that there isn’t a message’- (Apparently what that means is that the songs, without meaning or message, are directed at the silly masses that think there must be a reason for everything or message i n everything)-

but many artists do actually convey deep meanings in their works- like in the example i gave about the sparsely occupied rooms with severe angles- created i nsuch a way as to instill an eerie sense of mystery, uneasiness, and even a foreboding- knowing the photographer’s background helps the viewer to see with more understanding what the photographer sees and tries to capture-

His photos certainly aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but to those who are sensitive to hardships and expression, the photos, done the way they are, help to express his inner voice in a way that the viewer can either identify with or sympathize with- He does so in a skill-full manner which not many others have achieved- many try- but rely on cheap cliche visual aids to do so, such as tilted frame to instill a sense of unbalance, or grease on the lens to cloud the photo to try to give a sense of a dream-scape scene-

Art moves people- Not everyone all the time- but that is where subjectivity comes in- Much Classical art is based more on objective ‘art rules’ that often come off looking technical and stilted- It relies on formulaic poses that supposedly portray beauty and grace and elegant lines, and on certain religious or mythological themes over and over- and it relies on classical color theories that are supposed to be viewed as very desirable or beautiful, and they rarely venture outside their formulas-

I’m not knocking classical art- i like a lot of different kinds of art and appreciate the talent it takes- even if it is essentially formulaic, or hooked to a certain movement- I like the innovators as well as the classically trained- Much art is just a visual delight- some of it is truly really bad- and offensive- but i just don’t think it fair to label all modern art as worthless trash because it doesn’t follow the formulaic ‘rules’ of classical art- (I know you didnt’ say that- more just a personal statement on my part)

Look, you and I just have totally opposite views of what is good art.

Also I’m not even sure I understand that long post you made except to make my point that Pollack sucked and was only famous because he got leftist elite backers to promote him.

It’s ok to enjoy what you love and you don’t have to explain it to anyone.

Pollock dripped on lengths of sailcloth then cut them into individual paintings.