I'm more of an Escher fan myself.
To each his own.
Posted on 06/16/2002 11:24:54 AM PDT by vannrox
I'm more of an Escher fan myself.
To each his own.
[as I posted on the other thread] It is possible that this is the popular interpretation of modernism. I'm sure that many artists would vehemently disagree with modernism structured around anything so unprincipled--as many as there are others who aspire by doing whatever they want. But modernism is not a distinct school when defined by a ubiquitous empty willfulness. It has features and characteristics. One of these, which Ortega Y Gasset explains, is the private tendency of art. It is aristocratic, clubby, purposefully separate and purposefully abstract and shielded from knowledgeable penetration by the masses. When the popular mind aspires and pretends membership, only so many can see the humor in that.
Interesting post, vannrox
I'm a big fan of a lot of contemporary landscapists who work outdoors-- check out this site:
This is my art:
All of my smaller landscapes plus my still lifes (excluding the bread and fruit) were done outdoors, on site. It's a huge challenge, with the light changing and everything, and sometimes I crash and burn, but when I get it right, it's great. :)
Bookmarked.
I guess he's a "Guy" thing.
It was his covers to the Conan paperbacks with all the cuttin' & killin' I liked. : )
And . . . how do you load images into the text?
Very similar to what you are doing to create a "Hot Link".
For instance, to show one of the wildly good Wyeth paintings you linked to, type this:
<IMG SRC="http://www.tfaoi.com/am/10am/10am255.jpg">
To get this;
Regarding the post the author refers to primitive art. I really like primitive art but not pretend primitive art which is what modern art is. Genuine primitive art by untrained artists, like Grandma Moses, has much more to offer humanity than the garbage that Picasso cranked out. I will never forget seeing an orginal Picasso in Neiman-Marcus. This was maybe 30 years ago. It was nothing more than stick man's face with a cigarette stuck in the mouth. The price was 3,000 dollars. It was a joke and I could only imagine Picasso inwardly detesting the people he was able to hoodwink into buying it.
If this stuff was being hung, I would be spending less time at FR and more time at museums.
(Is that good or bad? LOL!)
And now we see Rockwell hung in the Guggenheim. How about them apples?
You cannot post from your own hard drive.
You must first upload the image to a server.
Many ISPs give you a little "Home Page" of your own when you sign up for their service where they can host your images.
My ISP, Bellsouth.net provides 10 mb and has an easy "Photo Album" feature that allows me to upload my photos etc.
It's where I keep my train signature when I'm doing an "Ayn Rand" type of post.
<img src="http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/26/26091/folders/11507/55723eddiewillers.jpg" width="48" height="48">
Equals 
I agree with you on Grandma Moses vs Picasso, although I'm not a big fan of primitives in general. I prefer art that gives me the feeling of being in the scene, or with the person-- which to me, is mostly the capture of a realistic sense of light and space. A painting that does that can be tightly rendered or quite loose-- although I think that the looser one goes, the harder it is to capture that illusion. Of course, the appearance of tightness can be merely the illusion created by perfect brushstrokes-- I'm told that if you look at Sargent's portraits up close, it's astonishing how few brushstrokes he used.
Hm. I've actually heard that Picasso was extremely mediocre before he perfected his scam. But I've never seen anything where it was obvious to me that he was "trying."
Mine is obviously a minority opinion, but every time I see a picture OF (not BY) Picasso, I get the feeling that he's thinking "These idiots actually think I'm a genius." Picasso was definitely a master of the con job.
I took my daughter to the Seattle Art Museum (or something with a name like that) three years ago. On an upper floor was a room filled with beds, stacks of mattresses, and toilets. It was not a storage room, but "art". Yeah. Furniture Barn or a masterpiece for the Art Establishment? I'm glad other people see through this trash. I thought I was alone.
In fact, the article sets up a false comparison. Where are the impressionists? Where the expressionists? Why reduce art history to a conflict between empty academicism and wild primitivism? It distorts our view to reduce a continuum to two opposed extremes.
I suppose most modern art is "bosh." But that's also true of most academic art. It would be a good idea to revive the tradition of representational art that strives for accuracy. There is something primitive about 20th century art. But I'm not sure what's gained by forcing art into narrow rules. Anyway, here is someone who'd agree with you.
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.
