26 Nov 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoyup, i agree with that! Italian masters were also awesomeness personified!
Love all forms of art as long as the intent is appeal through aesthetics rather than in your face garbage like crucifixes floating in urine, madonnas made with elephant dung and other such repulsive so called art. It does not have to be classical to be good, just creative and appelaing. I love Klimpt, Renoir, Monet, Manet, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Rafa ...[text shortened]... ly blues, old country, Cole Porter.
I don't know what art is, but I do know what art isn't!
26 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettMing are you a real socialist or what? Jackson Pollock and the whole abstract expressionist school was of course a CIA led counter attack on the realism of the socialist school, you do know that, dont you 😉 Lol,
Socialist Realism? Come on, give me a break. Do I look like a Stalinist caricature? A true socialist would never bind himself to such a stultifying style. The few years immediately following the revolution was an incredibly dynamic period for Soviet graphic design. A lot of great stuff was done. But this was soon stamped out by the heavy weight of Socialist twork that yields up all its secrets in one glance is scarcely worthy of a second one.
as for this other assertion, well i liken it to an album of music, there are tracks which immediately catch ones attention and to which we feel and immediate affinity and others which we do not necessarily like initially, but after some time and a few more listens, they become appealing, and what is more, usually these have a more lasting value.
its the lack of transparency in art which makes for 'good and bad art', 'i dont need to explain my work', 'im an artist', yeah yeah! mostly its a failure to communicate effectively, which has nothing to do with the recipient whatsoever, for are there not experiences common to all humans? therefore it seems to me that it is the role of the artist, to bring these to the fore, to express them, even as the poet does, in a way which is able to transcend education, transcend culture, transcend background, and set them in such a way that all can benefit. this is the ultimate socialism i think.
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by rwingettNot a huge fan of Renoir, but can't say I hate his stuff either. Just isn't my mostest favoritest thing. There are a few of his paintings I really do love.
For someone who's allegedly painting the effects of light, everything looks overcast, muddy and gray. The brushwork is uninspiring. The people are expressionless. Renoir just puts me into a foul and sullen mood. I infinitely prefer Degas. He is the master.
Speaking of light...how do you feel about Edward Hopper? (I am a fan.)
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by rbmorrisi think hopper himself disapproved of abstract expressionism, although i have not read any of his writings on the subject.
Not a huge fan of Renoir, but can't say I hate his stuff either. Just isn't my mostest favoritest thing. There are a few of his paintings I really do love.
Speaking of light...how do you feel about Edward Hopper? (I am a fan.)
