Well, you certainly proved your impotence here, chubs.
You did nothing.
Cats so ing 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.
Because the painting is so mysterious. What the 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?
You haven't brought anything that even resembles art.
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.
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, the police!
Avante's such a ing lifeless fat ass loser that he even welches on himself.
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.
this is could be about 25 Million in my opinion.
![]()
Last edited by mouse; 12-03-2012 at 07:34 PM.
_ ^ Easily the quote of the month or at least Sig material![]()
My art teacher at COS would disagree with you.
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.
Why not pay attention to what's really going on ya punk ass . I bet you don't act this way in person do you asshole?
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.
"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.
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.
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?
That's not a medium.
Art books would tell you that.
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???????????
I know, it's bull .
Should we somehow not believe them?
You're making less sense with each post.
Have your meds been changed?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)