You Don't Know Art

[DMC]

you have no idea about art considering you claim to be an artist that literally craps and thinks it's something worth a damn when in reality it's nothing more than crap. i've seen your wannabe computer art, your docu's, and your wannabe jokes and they're all crap man. total fuckin' crap! as much as you want to rain on my parade, you've had a shit storm over your head for as long as you've been around and that sir is no joke. i don't like being the bad guy towards you but you've always been a pos to me and frankly i don't give a fuck about you or your feelings. find me someone in SA, or anywhere for that matter, who has 5 months in a shop with no training from anyone that is doing what i'm doing as a tattooer, i bet you can't. actually, i know you can't. i'm very humble about what i do in tattooing and i know i have plenty of room to grow and progress but i also know i've excelled way beyond the norm and it definitely shows by the clients i have that appreciate what i do, not one has complained nor been scared etc, and for you to question that shows your ignorance.

by the way, you sleep comfortably on that second hand mattress at the bottom of that dumpster you call home? sleep tight you pos.

[Avante]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/885993.jpg

Art?

[Avante]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/885998.jpg

Art?

[lakerhaterade]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/885998.jpg

Art?
I could probably draw this by using my own conglomerated asshole pubic hair.


Stop posting you sick deluded talentless freak.

[Avante]

I could probably draw this by using my own conglomerated asshole pubic hair.


Stop posting you sick deluded talentless freak.

Prove it asshole. I don't see you doing anything put running your big ass mouth. I'm saying you can't draw shit.

[lakerhaterade]

Prove it asshole. I don't see you doing anything put running your big ass mouth. I'm saying you can't draw shit.
I once drew your mom naked. That was my best piece. You really want to see that?

[Avante]

I once drew your mom naked. That was my best piece. You really want to see that?

You're a lying sack of shit fucker, you can't draw at all. Here match this simple nothing. Put up or shut the fuck up.

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/886001.jpg

[lakerhaterade]

You're a lying sack of shit fucker, you can't draw at all. Here match this simple nothing. Put up or shut the fuck up.

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/886001.jpg
I don't think the mods would be happy with a pornographic drawing on their site. I'm doing my best to be on my best behavior. I'm volatile. I'm crazy. I'll make your heart stop if you fuck with me.


Stay away.

[lakerhaterade]

Lets keep this civilized. What the flying dinosaur fuck is that last drawing suppose to be?

[Avante]

I don't think the mods would be happy with a pornographic drawing on their site. I'm doing my best to be on my best behavior. I'm volatile. I'm crazy. I'll make your heart stop if you fuck with me.


Stay away.

How about the reality of the situation amigo, ok? You ain't shit, wouldn't make a zit on my ass so cool all this stupid tough guy bullshit, you'd make me laugh which is a long way from making my heart stop, hahahahaha!!!!!!!! Fuck you ya little freak.

[Avante]

Lets keep this civilized. What the flying dinosaur fuck is that last drawing suppose to be?

It doesn't matter, you going to draw or run your fucking mouth?

[mouse]

This POS sold for $75 million dollars.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI915_SOTHEB_DV_20121114021550.jpg

[Avante]

This POS sold for $75 million dollars.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI915_SOTHEB_DV_20121114021550.jpg

Who was the painter? Jesus?

[lakerhaterade]

How about the reality of the situation amigo, ok? You ain't shit, wouldn't make a zit on my ass so cool all this stupid tough guy bullshit, you'd make me laugh which is a long way from making my heart stop, hahahahaha!!!!!!!! Fuck you ya little freak.
I'll hurt you. I will. I'm scary. Have you ever been in a room with a 7 "6" 300 pound skitz individual. That obese physique you possess in addition to watching restlin wont help you. Ill make you a part of my reality, bending you back and forward with my hands.

[mouse]

Who was the painter? Jesus?

That's the problem with art it's not always how talented you are or how complicated the scenery is. You can be an unknown and paint the city of New York so good it looks like a photograph you will be lucky to get 50 dollars for it at the flea market.

But if your Andy Warhol you can wipe your ass with the canvas and sell it for 1000's

Answer to your original question.


Mark Rothko abstract sold for $75 million Fittingly, the Rothko painting is titled, "No. 1 (Royal Red & Blue)."

The sale of the 1954 Rothko—with its floating red, pink and blue rectangles—pushed the auction house's sale total over the $362 million it got from a similar evening sale in May 2008 that marked the peak of the last market cycle. It's unclear whether Tuesday's performance amounts to a similar cresting, but in the short term it could boost collectors' confidence in art values—especially after last week's disappointing sales of Impressionist and modern art.

Rothko is a master of Abstract Expressionism, and his midcentury meditations on color and modernism typically sell well in good times and bad: Sotheby's caused a stir five years ago when it sold one of his 1950 abstracts for $72.8 million, a record price at the time. Four months ago, Christie's in New York topped that price by getting $86.8 million for a 1961 Rothko, "Orange, Red, Yellow."

Dealers said the Rothko sold well in part because of its size—it is 9½ feet tall—and its tropical hues, which are as saturated as a sunset. As a work of Abstract Expressionism, the Rothko also dovetails with current collecting tastes: Lately, buyers from Omaha to Okinawa have been seeking out colorful works from the postwar period when America, and its artists, prospered. Today, many of these 1950s and 1960s abstracts have trickled out of the marketplace and into museums, so collectors pounce whenever major examples come up for sale.

[CuckingFunt]

This POS sold for $75 million dollars.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI915_SOTHEB_DV_20121114021550.jpg


Who was the painter? Jesus?

Mark Rothko. One of the most important American artists of the 20th century.

[lakerhaterade]

Ooohhh shit CF in da building.

[Avante]

I'll hurt you. I will. I'm scary. Have you ever been in a room with a 7 "6" 300 pound skitz individual. That obese physique you possess in addition to watching restlin wont help you. Ill make you a part of my reality, bending you back and forward with my hands.

I think this calls for a poem

there you sit
skinny little neck
pot gut
trying to act bad
while sitting on your fat butt

running your mouth
talking smack
hiding behind a computer
a big yellow streak up your back

oh please don't hurt me
those tiny little arms
those skiiny little legs
hahahahahaha
are you old enought to shave

[mouse]

Mark Rothko. One of the most important American artists of the 20th century.

But be honest if Wild Cobra was the one who painted that would it still sell for 75 Million?

[mouse]

This POS that looks like an old painters drop cloth sold for 40 million.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI914_SOTHEB_DV_20121114021200.jpg

[CuckingFunt]

But be honest if Wild Cobra was the one who painted that would it still sell for 75 Million?

Of course not.

[redzero]

Jackson Pollock paintings > shitty Mark Allen Photoshops

[Avante]

It is all about the who, more so than the actual whatever. Robert Johnson has a couple stinkers among his 29 song out put, those songs would also sell for thousands of dollars despite the fact they suck.

[CuckingFunt]

It is all about the who, more so than the actual whatever.

No, it's not. You don't become a "who" without having a good/interesting/important "whatever" on which to build that reputation.

[mouse]

Jackson Pollock paintings > shitty Mark Allen Photoshops

Feel free to post your Photoshop skills...


http://www.haltpestcontrol.com/images/bugs/field-cricket.gif

[Avante]

No, it's not. You don't become a "who" without having a good/interesting/important "whatever" on which to build that reputation.

Wrong!

They uncover a painting that Hitler did, it's the painting of a jew hanging from a tree. While the painting it's self is pretty bad, the fact that Hitler painted it.............

Mussolini painted this...

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/886007.jpg

.....value?

[mouse]

Wrong!

They uncover a painting that Hitler did, it's the painting of a jew hanging from a tree. While the painting it's self is pretty bad, the fact that Hitler painted it.............

this vato gets it ^


here is a POS that no one here would ever pay more than 10 dollars for unless they knew who painted it.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5tY-XfbgJe0/S5RtF_cJulI/AAAAAAAAEJc/gTsWNsHZjms/s400/john_wayne_gacy_painting-2.jpg

[CuckingFunt]

You guys can have this one.

Last thing I'll ever do is get myself embroiled in an argument with Avante and mouse about something that actually matters to me.

[Avante]

You guys can have this one.

Last thing I'll ever do is get myself embroiled in an argument with Avante and mouse about something that actually matters to me.

Smart girl, now go powder that nose.

[symple19]

:lmao

[TDMVPDPOY]

hey fellas

is there any successful artist outside europe that has sold paintings in the +7 digits?...how come most of the shit u see sold are from artists in europe, its not like shit from outside is inferior work, or all of this art bullshit industry is controlled and each decade they will only select whose works gets to be famous and shit...

[mouse]

unfortunately your spot on. During my short time in the art community I have it to be very political and is really a "Business"

If you want to be a successful artists all you need is $ Money $ Many art galleries charge a "huge" amount for your art to be showcased.

And if you want to be in a major art gallery you need at least 90 to 9,000 dollars depending where and how long.

I won ArtSlant's digital / computer artist of 2010 and 2011 but if i didn't pay the 20 dollar a month fee my works would not be seen by the public.

I must say I paid it for about 6 months since I wanted the other artists to see why they lost. But I got many emails saying if I pay at least 99.00 dollars a month my artwork will be on the Front page and so on....truth is if you have 10,000 dollars you will be the next Hot Artists in your city. hell for 2,000 you can be on Local morning Television.

just think what 1,000.000 can do for your art career.

[AaronY]

This POS sold for $75 million dollars.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI915_SOTHEB_DV_20121114021550.jpg

lawlz gmafb Theres no way that took him more than 20 seconds to do that

[mouse]

You can sell a red spot on a cloth for 50 million dollars as long as you claim its the blood of Jesus. Why else would you buy that red dot?

[koriwhat]

mouse, good luck to you and your "art".

[mouse]

mouse, good luck to you and your "art".

It's not luck and I don't need it.

[mouse]

mouse, good luck to you and your "art".

Unlike you I don't need approval from anyone. But I will say this you do make more money than any Artist I know so Major props!

After all it is a Business?

[koriwhat]

After all it is a Business?

not to me, it's life. money is just the perks of it but i do what i do because i love it.

[koriwhat]

you know what mouse, i'm not gonna bash you anymore man, or anyone else here. i had a long talk yesterday with a friend in tattooing about the same shit because in tattooing everyone bashes each other and it gets old real quick. i'll just hold my tongue for now on. good luck to you in whatever you do man. sorry for being an ass on so many levels.

[cantthinkofanything]

I just watched a pretty good documentary on street art the other day called, "Exit Through the Gift Shop". I don't want to spoil the show or set up but it really hammers home the point that people are willing to pay a lot of money for utter shit.

[koriwhat]

I just watched a pretty good documentary on street art the other day called, "Exit Through the Gift Shop". I don't want to spoil the show or set up but it really hammers home the point that people are willing to pay a lot of money for utter shit.

awesomely awesome docu... mocku...?

[cantthinkofanything]

awesomely awesome docu... mocku...?

yeah...pretty brilliant. makes your tattoo troll look simple by comparison.

[symple19]

mouse, good luck to you and your "art".

^Before blunt


you know what mouse, i'm not gonna bash you anymore man, or anyone else here. i had a long talk yesterday with a friend in tattooing about the same shit because in tattooing everyone bashes each other and it gets old real quick. i'll just hold my tongue for now on. good luck to you in whatever you do man. sorry for being an ass on so many levels.

^After blunt

And then he'll come down and go back to calling people faggots and such. :lol

[koriwhat]

^After blunt

And then he'll come down and go back to calling people faggots and such. :lol

i haven't smoked in a week. wouldn't mind doing so but can live without, it's not the end all. then again, i do love me a good blunt.

[Avante]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/886059.jpg

[DPG21920]

No, it's not. You don't become a "who" without having a good/interesting/important "whatever" on which to build that reputation.

So I never got this about art and why nothing else is like it. For example, the painting that sold for 75 million. Is that a great piece of art or not? You said it's the artist and admitted that the exact same piece of work done by someone else would not sell like that. You also said that you can't become a "who" without having the reputation.

But what does that have to do with that individual piece? If an musician who had some of the world's greatest albums released something that was very mediocre or bad, it wouldn't sell just because they have a rep. Each piece is judged on it's own and has it's own merit.

[Avante]

So I never got this about art and why nothing else is like it. For example, the painting that sold for 75 million. Is that a great piece of art or not? You said it's the artist and admitted that the exact same piece of work done by someone else would not sell like that. You also said that you can't become a "who" without having the reputation.

But what does that have to do with that individual piece? If an musician who had some of the world's greatest albums released something that was very mediocre or bad, it wouldn't sell just because they have a rep. Each piece is judged on it's own and has it's own merit.

Terry Bradshaws rookie card looks terrible, just a big face taking up the entire card. Stupid looking card. One of the really cool looking cards is that Don Perkins rookie, it has a black border with Don in a cool pose with those old Dallas stars on his pads. That Bradshaw rookie is far more expensive than that Perkins rookie. All about the...who.


http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODQ0WDYwMA==/$T2eC16J,!)kE9s4Z-4v3BQNsdWr-qQ~~60_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F








http://www.footballcardgallery.com/pics/1962-Topps/41_Don_Perkins_football_card.jpg

[CuckingFunt]

So I never got this about art and why nothing else is like it. For example, the painting that sold for 75 million. Is that a great piece of art or not? You said it's the artist and admitted that the exact same piece of work done by someone else would not sell like that. You also said that you can't become a "who" without having the reputation.

The greatness of that painting, or of art in general, is not solely dependent on its aesthetics. Aesthetics are a matter of taste, which is entirely subjective on an individual basis and is constantly changing on a societal basis. Innovation and the general cultural landscape at the time a work was created are important considerations, as well.

Rothko's paintings are aesthetically gorgeous, in my opinion, especially when seen in person. There is a complexity in his color fields that is simply impossible to reproduce on a computer monitor and at such a small scale. His canvases are huge, and his intention was for people to get within just a few inches of the surface, meaning the color would fill your entire field of vision. Additionally, his paintings are not just a couple of paint colors thrown on a canvas in 20 seconds, as someone suggested earlier. They're layers and layers and layers of paint built up and perfectly smoothed out. When you get up close, as intended, you can see all of the other colors peeking through and it really is quite beautiful. So there is an aesthetic appeal for me and the many other people who like Rothko's work.

But, again, aesthetics alone aren't the only reason Rothko is important. It's plenty easy for you or I or anyone else to make a painting that looks exactly like that one. But Rothko did it first, and when no one else would have even thought of doing so, and that is also of art historical importance. He was part of a movement that massively changed the direction of modern art and that helped to inspire the pop, post-modern, and contemporary art movements that followed.

That said, it will be a cold day in hell before I (or many other art historians) start to make excuses for the silly excess and trend mentality of the art market. I think $75,000,000 for a Rothko is obscene. And I know for a fact a lot of the people who pay those kinds of prices for art often have very little understanding of the art historical significance of the work they are buying; their motivations are often status, investment, or matching the couch. So while I'll defend Abstract Expressionism as important, and defend Rothko as good (I'm actually not that big a fan many of the other well known AbExers), I'm not going to spend too much time saying that the art market is rational or always makes the right choices. I just think it's batshit stupid when people like mouse start throwing around auction prices as if they're somehow being slighted by not raking in multi-million dollar sales.


But what does that have to do with that individual piece? If an musician who had some of the world's greatest albums released something that was very mediocre or bad, it wouldn't sell just because they have a rep. Each piece is judged on it's own and has it's own merit.

Two things:

For one, you're comparing apples to oranges. Albums are mass produced, adhere to standard pricing schemes, and are widely available. Art is generally not. The inflated values of artwork have a lot to do with its rarity and the fact it's typically only sold in an auction setting.

Second, I'm not so certain that reputation doesn't make a musician sellable even after an agreed upon decline in quality. The Rolling Stones still pack in record crowds, after all.

[DeadlyDynasty]

This POS sold for $75 million dollars.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VI915_SOTHEB_DV_20121114021550.jpg

Holy hell that better be a magic eye picture or something. What a complete pos...even if you're an art buff you have to call a spade a spade on that bullshit.

[TDMVPDPOY]

its like each decade or generation they nominate some clown and make him famous, buy up alot of his works, make up some bullshit theory how his paintings revolutionize some bullshit way of thinking towards art....boom just like that turd piccasso

[symple19]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mHVy_hH8vc

[TDMVPDPOY]

art industry is nothin more than a stupid ponzi scheme they keep on fattening up cause too much money is invested into it, aka stupid pension funds

[DPG21920]

CuckingFunt - those are all fair points, especially the scarcity argument with regards to music. I was speaking more theoretically. Let's say someone (me for example with no background or name) before Rothko did the "75 Million Dollar Painting", did the exact piece of work (so not a duplicate, just the exact same thing before it had ever been done before), would that go for any where close the price?

[DeadlyDynasty]

I'm in the wrong racket if something like that sold for 75 million.

[symple19]

CuckingFunt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=5793) - those are all fair points, especially the scarcity argument with regards to music. I was speaking more theoretically. Let's say someone (me for example with no background or name) before Rothko did the "75 Million Dollar Painting", did the exact piece of work (so not a duplicate, just the exact same thing before it had ever been done before), would that go for any where close the price?

No, it wouldn't. Not only that, but if Funt reviewed it I can almost guarantee that her assessment of the piece would be totally and completely different from that which she gave in her post upstream

Such is the art world

[pass1st]

I don't get art today, probably because I never took an art class after 6th grade.

Stuff like this seems like art to me. Can't believe some of this stuff is made from paint
http://smilepanic.com/wp-content/uploads/hubert-de-lartigue-12.jpg

[Fpoonsie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mHVy_hH8vc

This was great. I loved that guy's cynicism and snarkiness throughout.

[symple19]

Morley Safer is a pimp

[Fpoonsie]

Evidently.

[CuckingFunt]

CuckingFunt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=5793) - those are all fair points, especially the scarcity argument with regards to music. I was speaking more theoretically. Let's say someone (me for example with no background or name) before Rothko did the "75 Million Dollar Painting", did the exact piece of work (so not a duplicate, just the exact same thing before it had ever been done before), would that go for any where close the price?

I think your question wants me to defend/explain a position I didn't take. Just because I think Rothko is an artist worthy of the acclaim he's received doesn't mean I don't think the art market is somewhat of an arbitrary popularity contest when it comes to who is or is not granted financial importance. As an example, one of the Abstract Expressionists I find to be the most interesting (by far) is Norman Lewis. However, while he is a well known and well respected painter, he is far less known than his AbEx colleagues, is only tangentially considered part of the movement, and it would be shocking if one of his paintings got even 1/10 the price of that Rothko. So, similar to the way I won't spend too much time defending the art market in general, neither will I pretend that art historians and art critics always get it right in determining who is or is not worthy of their praise.

But, sticking with your hypothetical, If you were a painter in the mid-20th century who was working in color field paintings before Rothko it would be hard to call your work derivative or lacking in innovation. But your paintings' ability to fetch $75 million in an auction decades later would be dependent upon what else you had done as a painter and how well known/well respected you were for doing it. If you had the right exposure and knew the right people when you were working, it's possible you would have attained the same level of importance as Rothko. If you worked a lot but didn't get the right exposure or know the right people, it's possible you would have been relegated to Norman Lewis status (or, more likely, far lower, since Norman Lewis was well known at the time he was working). If you just happened to paint a canvas that looked like Rothko's and then chucked it in your closet for decades, then, no, you wouldn't get $75 million at auction based solely on its aesthetic properties.

The art market tends to reward things that are simultaneously aesthetically interesting, innovative, art historically important, and done by big names. It's true that the last two items on that list are far more important to the people with money than are the first two items, but it's really pretty rare that someone makes it to the important/big name status without a lot of aesthetically interesting/innovative to get them there. I think the fact that the art world so often contradicts our own personal tastes, especially with the modern/contemporary movements that have moved away from mimesis, leads to the thought that it's a lot easier to become a successful, well known, or well paid artist than it actually is. The art world has made it's fair share of mistakes, and will likely continue to do so, but the idea they're just handing out endowments and paychecks to any hipster who comes along is largely a myth.

[DMC]

you know what mouse, i'm not gonna bash you anymore man, or anyone else here. i had a long talk yesterday with a friend in tattooing about the same shit because in tattooing everyone bashes each other and it gets old real quick. i'll just hold my tongue for now on. good luck to you in whatever you do man. sorry for being an ass on so many levels.

Hold your tongue on my balls.

[DMC]

I don't get art today, probably because I never took an art class after 6th grade.

Stuff like this seems like art to me. Can't believe some of this stuff is made from paint
http://smilepanic.com/wp-content/uploads/hubert-de-lartigue-12.jpg

Wow, a painting with veneers.

[DMC]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/885998.jpg

Art?
You use the same face every time. So you learned to draw one face and you hide your shortcomings in facial hair. What a loser.

[DMC]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/886052.jpg

You're also a poser.

[pass1st]

Wow, a painting with veneers.

Try doing better :lol

[ididnotnothat]

I still don't understand why the Mona Lisa is so famous.

[AaronY]

Holy hell that better be a magic eye picture or something. What a complete pos...even if you're an art buff you have to call a spade a spade on that bullshit.
:lol

[Proxy]

The greatness of that painting, or of art in general, is not solely dependent on its aesthetics. Aesthetics are a matter of taste, which is entirely subjective on an individual basis and is constantly changing on a societal basis. Innovation and the general cultural landscape at the time a work was created are important considerations, as well.

Rothko's paintings are aesthetically gorgeous, in my opinion, especially when seen in person. There is a complexity in his color fields that is simply impossible to reproduce on a computer monitor and at such a small scale. His canvases are huge, and his intention was for people to get within just a few inches of the surface, meaning the color would fill your entire field of vision. Additionally, his paintings are not just a couple of paint colors thrown on a canvas in 20 seconds, as someone suggested earlier. They're layers and layers and layers of paint built up and perfectly smoothed out. When you get up close, as intended, you can see all of the other colors peeking through and it really is quite beautiful. So there is an aesthetic appeal for me and the many other people who like Rothko's work.

But, again, aesthetics alone aren't the only reason Rothko is important. It's plenty easy for you or I or anyone else to make a painting that looks exactly like that one. But Rothko did it first, and when no one else would have even thought of doing so, and that is also of art historical importance. He was part of a movement that massively changed the direction of modern art and that helped to inspire the pop, post-modern, and contemporary art movements that followed.

That said, it will be a cold day in hell before I (or many other art historians) start to make excuses for the silly excess and trend mentality of the art market. I think $75,000,000 for a Rothko is obscene. And I know for a fact a lot of the people who pay those kinds of prices for art often have very little understanding of the art historical significance of the work they are buying; their motivations are often status, investment, or matching the couch. So while I'll defend Abstract Expressionism as important, and defend Rothko as good (I'm actually not that big a fan many of the other well known AbExers), I'm not going to spend too much time saying that the art market is rational or always makes the right choices. I just think it's batshit stupid when people like mouse start throwing around auction prices as if they're somehow being slighted by not raking in multi-million dollar sales.



Two things:

For one, you're comparing apples to oranges. Albums are mass produced, adhere to standard pricing schemes, and are widely available. Art is generally not. The inflated values of artwork have a lot to do with its rarity and the fact it's typically only sold in an auction setting.

Second, I'm not so certain that reputation doesn't make a musician sellable even after an agreed upon decline in quality. The Rolling Stones still pack in record crowds, after all.

Rothko has no academic understanding. His art is vastly overrated by people who aren't artists. The art movements that may have stemmed from his ability to become famous with no real skill is something that hurts art. Pop, post-modern, and contemporary are all gimmicky styles.

[mouse]

you know what mouse, i'm not gonna bash you anymore man, or anyone else here. i had a long talk yesterday with a friend in tattooing about the same shit because in tattooing everyone bashes each other and it gets old real quick. i'll just hold my tongue for now on. good luck to you in whatever you do man. sorry for being an ass on so many levels.

You just eliminated all the fun in posting here now who am I gonna smack with? :depressed

[CuckingFunt]

Rothko has no academic understanding. His art is vastly overrated by people who aren't artists. The art movements that may have stemmed from his ability to become famous with no real skill is something that hurts art. Pop, post-modern, and contemporary are all gimmicky styles.

So were Impressionism, Expressionism, Futurism, Surrealism, Romanticism, the Pre-Raphaellites, and all other early modern and/or non-mimetic artistic movements, if you want to make that argument. The presence of a gimmick does not inherently negate artistic merit.

Nor does an inability to appeal to every individual's personal tastes, for that matter. I personally can't stand Jackson Pollock, especially his drip paintings, and think he is vastly overrated, but I'd be silly to argue that his contribution to the art world was unimportant.

[mouse]

you know what mouse, i'm not gonna bash you anymore man, or anyone else here. i had a long talk yesterday with a friend in tattooing about the same shit because in tattooing everyone bashes each other and it gets old real quick. i'll just hold my tongue for now on. good luck to you in whatever you do man. sorry for being an ass on so many levels.

Unfortunately the damage has been done already. Ever since you bashed me in the tech forum no one wants me to fix their Laptops, Ever since you bashed me for my cheesy Spurs wallpapers no one ask me to do anymore, since you bashed my art I stop entering the art exhibits. Since you bash me in here I stop making topics. (unless I'm drunk)

The bottom-line is their is no turning back now you can't un-ring a bell.

[Proxy]

So were Impressionism, Expressionism, Futurism, Surrealism, Romanticism, the Pre-Raphaellites, and all other early modern and/or non-mimetic artistic movements, if you want to make that argument. The presence of a gimmick does not inherently negate artistic merit.

Nor does an inability to appeal to every individual's personal tastes, for that matter. I personally can't stand Jackson Pollock, especially his drip paintings, and think he is vastly overrated, but I'd be silly to argue that his contribution to the art world was unimportant.

I would call Rothko's and Pollock's art a gimmick because it stands as design and nothing more. Futurism and Expressionism could be grouped with that but I would disagree with saying the Pre-Raphaelites, Impressionism, Expressionism, and Surrealism are gimmicky. Values, tones, composition, control of the medium... all displays of academic understanding are embedded in the great artists of those movements.

I can't argue against the movements Pollock and Rothko thrived in weren't important contributions. The ability to appeal to personal tastes was something they were great at. I just feel those movements are steps in the wrong direction and I'm talking about the integrity of it all while leaving my personal tastes out of it.

[CuckingFunt]

I would call Rothko's and Pollock's art a gimmick because it stands as design and nothing more. Futurism and Expressionism could be grouped with that but I would disagree with saying the Pre-Raphaelites, Impressionism, Expressionism, and Surrealism are gimmicky. Values, tones, composition, control of the medium... all displays of academic understanding are embedded in the great artists of those movements.

I can't argue against the movements Pollock and Rothko thrived in weren't important contributions. The ability to appeal to personal tastes was something they were great at. I just feel those movements are steps in the wrong direction and I'm talking about the integrity of it all while leaving my personal tastes out of it.

That implies that technical ability and skilled draftsmanship are the only measures of art's quality. A point of view with which I strongly disagree. But, that's an argument that artists, critics, and historians have been busy with for decades, so it's unlikely to change here.

I will point out, however, that both Pollock and Rothko (and Mondrian, and Kandinsky, and Duchamp, and virtually every other major artist frequently dismissed as too gimmicky by those who favor more traditional artistic skills) had traditional art backgrounds and worked in more realistic genres but chose to move away from those styles. The drips and the color fields are evidence not of an inability to do the more traditional stuff, but rather a lack of desire to work within those constraints.

[DMC]

Just take a photo.

[Proxy]

That implies that technical ability and skilled draftsmanship are the only measures of art's quality. A point of view with which I strongly disagree. But, that's an argument that artists, critics, and historians have been busy with for decades, so it's unlikely to change here.

I will point out, however, that both Pollock and Rothko (and Mondrian, and Kandinsky, and Duchamp, and virtually every other major artist frequently dismissed as too gimmicky by those who favor more traditional artistic skills) had traditional art backgrounds and worked in more realistic genres but chose to move away from those styles. The drips and the color fields are evidence not of an inability to do the more traditional stuff, but rather a lack of desire to work within those constraints.

No, I don't think that. I think there's grey area in which technical training meets the concept/vision (seems obvious, but I'll state that anyways). I think that a style is something gained from traditional study though. Dali and Picasso had great academic understanding, and chose to branch out with their styles. Looking at James Jean as a more modern, illustrative example. If everything were based on technical skill alone, then it would all be so monotonous and boring. On the other side, it is obvious when an artist draws a certain way because he/she lacks the skill. Someone mentioned the Banksy film, 'Exit through the Gift Shop,' and I think that's a good embodiment of what is wrong and right about art.

The reason I dislike Rothko isn't necessarily because of what he did either, but rather the repercussions of his influence and how people talk of him. Like you said, if it's personal choice to unhem themselves to the constraints of realism and do something more abstract, then more power to him. It's the hoards of people who throw themselves into art thinking they can be the next big thing by painting shapes and splattering randomness without traditional practice and understanding the philosophy and conceptual techniques that seems to hurt the perception of the art world and in turn it's support among the masses.

[DMC]

lol copypasta turns into a debate on art.

I barely know water color from oil.

[mouse]

I think splattering a canvas with paint is actually mocking art. I wouldn't care if Jesus himself got cups of paint and tossed it on a canvas I want no part of it.

What is even worst there are 4 year old girls and elephants selling art for outrageous prices.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/17/article-2234375-161064D0000005DC-948_634x425.jpg

[CuckingFunt]

No, I don't think that. I think there's grey area in which technical training meets the concept/vision (seems obvious, but I'll state that anyways). I think that a style is something gained from traditional study though. Dali and Picasso had great academic understanding, and chose to branch out with their styles. Looking at James Jean as a more modern, illustrative example. If everything were based on technical skill alone, then it would all be so monotonous and boring. On the other side, it is obvious when an artist draws a certain way because he/she lacks the skill. Someone mentioned the Banksy film, 'Exit through the Gift Shop,' and I think that's a good embodiment of what is wrong and right about art.

The reason I dislike Rothko isn't necessarily because of what he did either, but rather the repercussions of his influence and how people talk of him. Like you said, if it's personal choice to unhem themselves to the constraints of realism and do something more abstract, then more power to him. It's the hoards of people who throw themselves into art thinking they can be the next big thing by painting shapes and splattering randomness without traditional practice and understanding the philosophy and conceptual techniques that seems to hurt the perception of the art world and in turn it's support among the masses.

The fact you mention the perception of the art world there is key, I think, as I don't think the "I can do that too!" influence of abstraction has done much (on its own) to actually dilute the level of talent within modern/contemporary art. Or to have dumbed down its trajectory since the start of the modern/post-modern/contemporary eras.

Somewhat removing the art market from the equation, since people with too much money will spend it wherever they're told and since it's the market where people seem to really command more attention than they perhaps deserve, it is much harder to succeed in one of the abstract genres than it is in the figural genres. If you can make things that look like what they're supposed to look like, you'll always have an audience and you'll always have a clear level against which your work can be judged. Without those figural or realistic cues, however, it is MUCH more difficult to convince people your work successfully conveys what you intended. It is also more difficult to dodge the accusations of repetition or copycatting, as anyone who goes out and tries their hand at color field painting is automatically going to be compared against Rothko (or Ellsworth Kelley, or Gerhardt Richter, or whomever). It's difficult to find a new take on that. However, it is possible for several people who paint in a realistic style to be successful on their own, as the subject matter can often enough to differentiate them even if the style is similar to someone else's.

[Th'Pusher]

For all of you dispariging Rothko, I encourage you to visit the Rothko Chapel in Houston. These images do not do the works justice. See them in person.

[CuckingFunt]

For all of you dispariging Rothko, I encourage you to visit the Rothko Chapel in Houston. These images do not do the works justice. See them in person.

The Rothko Chapel is amazing. I was skeptical before seeing it in person because the reproductions are so underwhelming, but that visit alone did a lot to finally knocking me onto the pro-Rothko side of the argument.

[Th'Pusher]

The Rothko Chapel is amazing. I was skeptical before seeing it in person because the reproductions are so underwhelming, but that visit alone did a lot to finally knocking me onto the pro-Rothko side of the argument.
Yep. The whole experience is just really well done.

[DMC]

Meh, I look at most art like those ionic bracelets. It's more a power of suggestion, people telling you it's a great piece, than it actually moving you. For example, Starry Night looks like paint by numbers.

[CuckingFunt]

Van Gogh is one of those artists I appreciate more than actually like, so Starry Night doesn't move me much, either. But lots of art genuinely does.

Not everyone responds to it, though, which is cool.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Van Gogh is one of those artists I appreciate more than actually like, so Starry Night doesn't move me much, either. But lots of art genuinely does.

Not everyone responds to it, though, which is cool.

seen his movie and struggles through life to be recognize as an artist...

only cuttin his ear and death made him famous...

[Avante]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886237.jpg

[Avante]

You use the same face every time. So you learned to draw one face and you hide your shortcomings in facial hair. What a loser.

Wrong as usual...



http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886244.jpg











http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886242.jpg









http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886240.jpg

[DMC]

Like I said, you learned one face and you draw it over and over. Even the girl and the gorilla have the same basic face.

Draw a basketball player.

[Avante]

Like I said, you learned one face and you draw it over and over. Even the girl and the gorilla have the same basic face.

Draw a basketball player.


You're one of those.."I gotten find something wrong"....most punks are. Dude, I've won contests I know my ability.

The gorilla and the girl look nothing alike at all.


http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886265.jpg

[DMC]

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/11/30/885998.jpg

Art?

This guy and the chick have the same eyes. The gorilla and the dude have the same shoulders.

Ooooh a comic book copy cat, you're my hero.

If you were any good you'd post something other than drawapig entries.

[DMC]

You're one of those.."I gotten find something wrong"....most punks are. Dude, I've won contests I know my ability.

The gorilla and the girl look nothing alike at all.


http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886265.jpg
Exactly. Thanks for admitting you can't draw for shit.

[Avante]

Exactly. Thanks for admitting you can't draw for shit.

Of course I can't, you would never ever ever ever say anytjhing remotely close to...pretty good. That's not you, you're a prick in hiding, everything "must" be negative.

I once drew a picture of a dog off those match book covers, entered a local contest, three counties, I won. We had a county contest when I was in junior high, we had to draw Lincoln. I won. We had an exchange art thing with Japan kids back in high school. I represented my HS.


http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886268.jpg

I know, I know it looks liike the girl.

I don't think you realize how hard it to draw using this method.

[DMC]

Of course I can't, you would never ever ever ever say anytjhing remotely close to...pretty good. That's not you, you're a prick in hiding, everything "must" be negative.

I once drew a picture of a dog off those match book covers, entered a local contest, three counties, I won. We had a county contest when I was in junior high, we had to draw Lincoln. I won. We had an exchange art thing with Japan kids back in high school. I represented my HS.


http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886268.jpg

I know, I know it looks liike the girl.

I don't think you realize how hard it to draw using this method.

lol

[ChumpDumper]

Truly disturbing.

[Avante]

Truly disturbing.

Hahahaha!!!!

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886287.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, you thought I was talking about you.

[Avante]

Oh, you thought I was talking about you.

Nope, just needed an excuse to draw a picture.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you didn't.

[mouse]

Hahahaha!!!!

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/2/886287.jpg

if you sign a contract that your image is not just raw meat but Original ?


name your price.

[Avante]

if you sign a contract that your image is not just raw meat but Original ?


name your price.

You think I'm copying?

[CuckingFunt]

Dammit.

First fucking thread around here in years that I've been genuinely interested in and it gets taken over by Avante's tiresome bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

FWIW your points are well taken.

#unexplainedabstractprintsonlivingroomwall

[Avante]

Dammit.

First fucking thread around here in years that I've been genuinely interested in and it gets taken over by Avante's tiresome bullshit.

Ok all you macho men out there this is how you treat a lady.

Since you do feel that way about this thread and see my drawings as a big distraction I'll bail and let you have that thread you've been waiting on. You ladies need to be respected more.

[silverblk mystix]

Dammit.

First fucking thread around here in years that I've been genuinely interested in and it gets taken over by Avante's tiresome bullshit.


So, DMC copypasting Koriwhats meltdown - is the first thread that has interested you in years?

um...ok.

[johnsmith]

So, DMC copypasting Koriwhats meltdown - is the first thread that has interested you in years?

um...ok. shutup faggot

[CuckingFunt]

So, DMC copypasting Koriwhats meltdown - is the first thread that has interested you in years?

um...ok.

No. I enjoyed the fact that DMC's transcript of koriwhat's meltdown and Avante's early attempt at a threadjack was temporarily thwarted by an actual conversation. Free of emoticons, even.

[silverblk mystix]

No. I enjoyed the fact that DMC's transcript of koriwhat's meltdown and Avante's early attempt at a threadjack was temporarily thwarted by an actual conversation. Free of emoticons, even.


Nice one, Chumpie!

[johnsmith]

Nice one, Chumpie!

You're a fucking douche bag

[silverblk mystix]

You're a fucking douche bag
Johsmith,red zero,Jeff van Grundy...what is the difference between these three douche trolls?

absolutely nothing ....they are most probably one and the same douche bag...lol

[koriwhat]

Johsmith,red zero,Jeff van Grundy...what is the difference between these three douche trolls?

absolutely nothing ....they are most probably one and the same douche bag...lol

anything's better than being a pig.

[silverblk mystix]

anything's better than being a pig.
Is it true you have calf tats?

I am pretty sure I remember some drunken asshole at last seasons spurs game with spurs on his calves...pretty fuckin gay!


and you didn't show me any disrespect face to face....must be the Internet shield.

[johnsmith]

Is it true you have calf tats?

I am pretty sure I remember some drunken asshole at last seasons spurs game with spurs on his calves...pretty fuckin gay!


and you didn't show me any disrespect face to face....must be the Internet shield.

You suck dick as a poster and a person.....fuck off

[silverblk mystix]

You suck dick as a poster and a person.....fuck off


johnsmith/redzero/vangundy/


any others?

lol

[Avante]

No. I enjoyed the fact that DMC's transcript of koriwhat's meltdown and Avante's early attempt at a threadjack was temporarily thwarted by an actual conversation. Free of emoticons, even.

I was the one who actually brought some art, threadjack?????????????????? Last time I treat you like a lady.


http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/3/886337.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Nice one, Chumpie!You can't even tell a man from a woman.


I was the one who actually brought some art, threadjack?????????????????? Last time I treat you like a lady.


http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/3/886337.jpgDidn't take you long to jack the thread again, did it?

Complete lack of discipline.

No wonder you're fat.

[Avante]

You can't even tell a man from a woman.

Didn't take you long to jack the thread again, did it?

Complete lack of discipline.

No wonder you're fat.

Don't piss me off faggot

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/8/3/869196.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Or what, tubby?

[Avante]

Or what, tubby?


http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/sytycd-gif1.gif

[ChumpDumper]

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/sytycd-gif1.gifOr you'll faceplant in front of all of us?

You already posted a bunch of drawings, tubby.

Try failing a new way.

[Proxy]

The fact you mention the perception of the art world there is key, I think, as I don't think the "I can do that too!" influence of abstraction has done much (on its own) to actually dilute the level of talent within modern/contemporary art. Or to have dumbed down its trajectory since the start of the modern/post-modern/contemporary eras.

Somewhat removing the art market from the equation, since people with too much money will spend it wherever they're told and since it's the market where people seem to really command more attention than they perhaps deserve, it is much harder to succeed in one of the abstract genres than it is in the figural genres. If you can make things that look like what they're supposed to look like, you'll always have an audience and you'll always have a clear level against which your work can be judged. Without those figural or realistic cues, however, it is MUCH more difficult to convince people your work successfully conveys what you intended. It is also more difficult to dodge the accusations of repetition or copycatting, as anyone who goes out and tries their hand at color field painting is automatically going to be compared against Rothko (or Ellsworth Kelley, or Gerhardt Richter, or whomever). It's difficult to find a new take on that. However, it is possible for several people who paint in a realistic style to be successful on their own, as the subject matter can often enough to differentiate them even if the style is similar to someone else's.

You're making great points here that I agree with. It's all logical to me, what you're stating of both worlds.

My own thoughts here, but hyper-realism never really moved me much. I always viewed it similar to the metal genre in music... it's impressive on a technical level but a lot of the time it is a complete disconnect from anything resembling emotion, for me. I'm always impressed by artists that have the ability to communicate the same amount of information with broader brush strokes through their understanding of tones and form. It's almost like I feel pandered to when I view a lot of realism.

When I read your statement on abstraction having the obstacle of avoiding iconic cues... I feel like your appreciation there is similar to mine in that my liking of broader brushstrokes in that the goal is to communicate more with less.

[Avante]

Or you'll faceplant in front of all of us?

You already posted a bunch of drawings, tubby.

Try failing a new way.

Still as dumb as a stump I see. That sort of stupid has to hurt.

[ChumpDumper]

Still as dumb as a stump I see. That sort of stupid has to hurt.So, you're not going to do anything but fail the way you always have.

Thanks for the verification.

[Avante]

So, you're not going to do anything but fail the way you always have.

Thanks for the verification.

Hopefully you're not so fucking stupid you think following people around on the net is winning, hahaha!!!!!!!! You really are that stupid aren't ya fucker?

[ChumpDumper]

Hopefully you're not so fucking stupid you think following people around on the net is winning, hahaha!!!!!!!! You really are that stupid aren't ya fucker?I never claimed to be winning anything. That's a straw man.

A fat straw man.

The mere fact you think there is something to be won here makes you a loser.

A fat loser.

[Avante]

I never claimed to be winning anything. That's a straw man.

A fat straw man.

The mere fact you think there is something to be won here makes you a loser.

A fat loser.

As usual you let me down again. I'm doing my best here to rev you up, but ya just don't have it. One boring saying nothing load of crap. Dude, why even bother? You simply suck at this like I've mentioned before. Watch how the others do it, ok?

[ChumpDumper]

As usual you let me down again. I'm doing my best here to rev you up, but ya just don't have it. One boring saying nothing load of crap. Dude, why even bother? You simply suck at this like I've mentioned before. Watch how the others do it, ok?Or what?

You'll eat something?

There's nothing you can do. You're impotent.

And fat.

[Avante]

Or what?

You'll eat something?

There's nothing you can do. You're impotent.

And fat.

Cats so fucking dumb it's painful to read. Dude, Im guessing you suffer from some sort of malfuncion. I can't be slapping the handicapped around.

Try it again tomorrow, tonight you're worst that usual.

[ChumpDumper]

Cats so fucking dumb it's painful to read. Dude, Im guessing you suffer from some sort of malfuncion. I can't be slapping the handicapped around.

Try it again tomorrow, tonight you're worst that usual.Well, you certainly proved your impotence here, chubs.

You did nothing.

[Creepn]

I still don't understand why the Mona Lisa is so famous.
Because the painting is so mysterious. What the fuck is she smiling at? Is she even smiling at all? What is going on in that head of hers to make such a face? Why is she staring at me from every angle? Is she smirking at me? Do I have food stuck in my teeth?

[Avante]

http://frankfrazetta.org/viewimage.php?loc=frank_frazetta_egyptianqueen.jpg

[CuckingFunt]

I was the one who actually brought some art

You haven't brought anything that even resembles art.

[CuckingFunt]

You're making great points here that I agree with. It's all logical to me, what you're stating of both worlds.

My own thoughts here, but hyper-realism never really moved me much. I always viewed it similar to the metal genre in music... it's impressive on a technical level but a lot of the time it is a complete disconnect from anything resembling emotion, for me. I'm always impressed by artists that have the ability to communicate the same amount of information with broader brush strokes through their understanding of tones and form. It's almost like I feel pandered to when I view a lot of realism.

When I read your statement on abstraction having the obstacle of avoiding iconic cues... I feel like your appreciation there is similar to mine in that my liking of broader brushstrokes in that the goal is to communicate more with less.

I do generally appreciate an ability to say more with less, but that's a largely aesthetic concern and a matter of personal taste, and is somewhat different than what I was getting at with my post.

In general, I was referring to the assumption people often have that abstract and/or conceptual art forms have made it possible for any schlub with a paintbrush to sneeze on a canvas, call it art, and have a big career. Reality is that it's actually much more difficult for someone who works with abstraction or who is a conceptual artist to make it because there is so much less for the viewers/critics/scholars to relate to. Someone who works with some level of realism or who uses recognizable figures/objects/locations automatically gives the viewer something tangible they can use as an entry point to either engage with or relate to the work. Even when challenging, it's easier to work out and it's easier to determine what the artist was after and whether or not they achieved it. Abstract works don't really have that entry point, though, and as a result I think they're judged much more harshly in order to determine whether the artist has succeeded in achieving the experience s/he was going for, or whether the works are derivative, cliched expressions of pretentious, art school sentiments.

[koriwhat]

Is it true you have calf tats?

I am pretty sure I remember some drunken asshole at last seasons spurs game with spurs on his calves...pretty fuckin gay!


and you didn't show me any disrespect face to face....must be the Internet shield.

i am pretty sure you're making up the fact that you saw some dude with spurs, on his calves, drunk at a spurs game. i go to a ton of games a year, but i don't drink there nor do i go around looking for you to disrespect. i don't even have the slightest idea of what you look like so stop coming up with absurd stories and trying to puff your chest as if any of what you said was even remotely true.

i still stick by my statement, fuck the police!

[DMC]

Ok all you macho men out there this is how you treat a lady.

Since you do feel that way about this thread and see my drawings as a big distraction I'll bail and let you have that thread you've been waiting on. You ladies need to be respected more.

Avante's such a fucking lifeless fat ass loser that he even welches on himself.

[mouse]

You think I'm copying?

No my point was if you make something and sign it, its worth something no matter how cheesy others say it looks.

That is why the Mona Lisa is so famous look who panted it. He didn't have to spill a cup of paint on a canvas and call it art just to be famous he could paint someone and it looked like a photo. Michelangelo, was asked to paint the Sistine Chapel for a reason. Trust me they didn't ask want Andy Warhol for a reason.



But I really think only Leonardo da Vinci is worth 75 Million for this.
Look how he put the right foot of Jesus in the front.

http://www.paintinghere.org/uploadpic/Leonardo_da_vinci/big/The%20Last%20Supper.jpg




this is could be about 25 Million in my opinion.


http://www.artinfo.com/sites/default/files/salvator-mundi-1.jpg

[mouse]

Dammit.

First fucking thread around here in years that I've been genuinely interested in and it gets taken over by Avante's tiresome bullshit.

_ ^ Easily the quote of the month or at least Sig material :lmao

[Avante]

You haven't brought anything that even resembles art.

My art teacher at COS would disagree with you.

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/4/886457.jpg

As would the captain of the USS Horne, I drew the lion on their ships sheild. There is still a picture I drew of Lincoln in the hall of my old HS.

[Avante]

Avante's such a fucking lifeless fat ass loser that he even welches on himself.

Why not pay attention to what's really going on ya punk ass bitch. I bet you don't act this way in person do you asshole?

[DMC]

My art teacher at COS would disagree with you.

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/4/886457.jpg

As would the captain of the USS Horne, I drew the lion on their ships sheild. There is still a picture I drew of Lincoln in the hall of my old HS.

http://www.usshorne.net/horne/images/decommissioning/cover.jpg

That's a mean looking lion.

[Avante]

http://www.usshorne.net/horne/images/decommissioning/cover.jpg

That's a mean looking lion.

Now find the shield for the squadron the Horne was in. That was the shield welded onto both sides of the ship. I had to draw and paint two of them. I'll see if I can find it.

[CuckingFunt]

My art teacher at COS would disagree with you.

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2012/12/4/886457.jpg

As would the captain of the USS Horne, I drew the lion on their ships sheild. There is still a picture I drew of Lincoln in the hall of my old HS.

"Drawing" and "art" aren't interchangeable terms.

[Avante]

"Drawing" and "art" aren't interchangeable terms.

Tell that to Mr. Johnson who taught ART at COS, I have a tablet full of drawings. Got an A in...ART!..and never did anything but draw. Won a scholarship to that ART INSTRUCTION SCHOOL..by drawing a picture of a dog off a match book cover. If you are trying to tell me that drawing isn't art you must noy know art, and yes I have a ton a books on the subject and can talk all those classic painters and artists just like you.

I've heard/read cave drawings called ancient art.

[JoeChalupa]

"Drawing" and "art" aren't interchangeable terms.

It depends. They are to me when it comes to my kids drawings as they are all "art" to me. I see art with my own eyes and don't give a damn what so called "art experts" think with all their analysis and points of views. I don't need an art degree to know what art is to me.

[ChumpDumper]

Avante's strongest medium is straw.

[Avante]

Avante's strongest medium is straw.

Yours is following everyone around with you nose stuck up their ass. Get out and do your thing dude, don't it bother you to act like a dumbass with nothing going on at all?

[ChumpDumper]

Yours is following everyone around with you nose stuck up their ass. Get out and do your thing dude, don't it bother you to act like a dumbass with nothing going on at all?That's not a medium.

Art books would tell you that.

[CuckingFunt]

Tell that to Mr. Johnson who taught ART at COS, I have a tablet full of drawings. Got an A in...ART!..and never did anything but draw. Won a scholarship to that ART INSTRUCTION SCHOOL..by drawing a picture of a dog off a match book cover.

Art involves thought. Art involves imagination. Art involves the creative expression of a unique point of view. Drawing things that a teacher or a match book cover tells you to involves neither of those things.


If you are trying to tell me that drawing isn't art you must noy know art

The people to whom I've sold my own art would likely disagree.

As would the panels who have invited me to present my art historical scholarship at professional conferences.

As would the people who awarded me undergraduate and graduate degrees in Art History.


and yes I have a ton a books on the subject and can talk all those classic painters and artists just like you.

No. You can't.


I've heard/read cave drawings called ancient art.

They didn't get their buffalo from match book covers.

[Avante]

Art involves thought. Art involves imagination. Art involves the creative expression of a unique point of view. Drawing things that a teacher or a match book cover tells you to involves neither of those things.



The people to whom I've sold my own art would likely disagree.

As would the panels who have invited me to present my art historical scholarship at professional conferences.

As would the people who awarded me undergraduate and graduate degrees in Art History.



No. You can't.



They didn't get their buffalo from match book covers.


You honestly believe the things I drew here in this thread, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No imagination??????? You can't be serious.

I also had a few of those history of art classes, I'm pretty sure I can find alll I need to know about any classic artist.

So if I draw a buffalo it's not art, if a cave dweller draws one on a cave wall it is, right?

Oh yeah, I do have an amazing book on art, i seriously doubt you're going to rattle off a bunch of names and I'm going to....who???????????

[Avante]

That's not a medium.

Art books would tell you that.

I know, it's bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

You honestly believe the things I drew here in this thread, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Should we somehow not believe them?

[ChumpDumper]

I know, it's bullshit.You're making less sense with each post.

Have your meds been changed?

[CuckingFunt]

Oh yeah, I do have an amazing book on art, i seriously doubt you're going to rattle off a bunch of names and I'm going to....who???????????

This statement really sums up Avante as a whole.

Discussion requires more than merely rattling off names. Knowledge requires more than merely recognizing them.

[Blake]

I know, it's bullshit.

I think this statement sums up Avante in a nutshell.

[ChumpDumper]

Next Avante will say those are his son's drawings.

[Avante]

Next Avante will say those are his son's drawings.

While he does have the gift, those are my drawings. He's into skulls.