JCC [Image heavy]A thread for art: See note on page 776

ugh the cats wearing jeans and slippers. Horrible. Also, the coloring is awful.

but the picture you posted is quite nice.

 

Sometimes I just don't get art at all.

I live in Jersey and the MET in NYC is a short distance away from me. Ive always enjoyed spending a rainy Sunday there with a date. There is some amazing stuff behind those walls.

But lets be honest a straight black line going down a canvas is not art to me. It just isn't. People say anything can be art, true to a point. If a kid could put a red dot on canvas and call it art than im lost.

A lot of modern art is just crap being sold for thousands of dollars and some uppity Manhattanite thinks its the bee's knees.. When it really isn't. Id be offended if I could actually paint a picture other than splashing random colors onto a board.

 

Can you ever enter a thread without taking an argumentative stance?

 

All I will say Lando is that just "anything" can't be art.

----

 

Jackson Pollock painted this just for Lando:

 

George Grie:

 

I shall at some point throw in my own opinion on what is art and what is not. Unlike a certain person I shall be reasonable about it rather than a jerk about it. BUT, I am busy and tired so be patient.

 

If you ever want to punish yourself you could read Kant's attempts to define what beauty is.

 

Ad Reinhardt

 

Some deviant ART artists:


artbytheo



Malahicha


dejan-delic (Some of his other Game of Thrones art might be considered spoilerish, so follow the link with caution if you wish to avoid spoiler for the tv series))

 

ARRRRRRT, dammit.

I mean, I've stood nose to frigging nose with that thing. It was incredibly moving. A really powerful, overwhelming experience. It's definitely art.

 

Yes, I definitely agree. I went to a Pollock retrospective exhibit at MOMA once and thought the same thing. I had the same experience with Rothko paintings in real life, too.

 

Yeah, I mean, I get what Lando's saying. But there's a difference between modern art that is genuinely art (Rothko is a great example) and modern artists who are just frauds. You can't just (haha) paint them all with the same brush, just because they're all abstract or whatever.

 

Fingolfin's last stand, from the Silmarillion. Because it's hard to top permanently crippling a god on your way out.

 

I find it moving too....makes me move right past to something that doesn't look like a train collided with an ink factory.

Koi pond? Because I totally see a koi pond.

 

I think I can summarize my thoughts on art/not art with this example as provided here in the thread -- Pollock: The squiggly line paintings. I did not think much of them until I relized that when you look deep enough or perhaps from far enough away the Universe looks like that.





So, this means I looked at a painting of squiggly lines and clumps and saw the Universe. I like that.

 

This is stuff from Jan Urschel who works for Lucasfilm and has worked on the still in limbo SW1313.













And so much more! Great stuff.

 

There's a face in there. I love the color.

 

Rummaging through my photobucket which I have not done in ages. 1. the whole layout is changed 2. I can't seem to upload anything to it.



^Martineire "Skinner".

I have a bit of a thing for mind/psyblades:





Favorite Wolverine pic ever:



Cover from Dragons of Faerun:



Cover to DC comics Lucifer #40, this is supposed to be him speaking with God.



Random gun girl:



I'll stop there, for now.