Art

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,605
11,921
Grumpus_sl said:
The only thing I understand about art is that I like what I like. I can walk past 99 paintings over the course of a year and not notice or care. But then 1 makes me stop and stare, usually I don't really know why I like what I like.

It does usually seem to be textural for some reason. Even if its really nothing, which isn't much far off from Jackson Pollock crap. Stuff like this makes me stop and stare.

Portal,+T+Paden,+close+up,+BR,+med+file.jpg


4530247387.jpg


11-06-textured-painting-clouds-ladnscape.jpg


Romantic-Textured-Paintings.jpg
Click to expand...
The latter two are pretty clearly nice impressionist pieces. I don't think anyone will argue against them.

the first two are aesthetically pleasing. Earlier someone mentioned not being able to tell the "Art" from the wallpaper. the flaw in that is suggesting wallpaper isn't art itself.
Helvetica is the finest piece of art in the modern world. Form and function can meet in art. And sometimes the simple purpose of art is to look good, and be pleasing to the eye.
The first two do that just fine. the high contrast rainbow of the first one. And the dizzying texture of the second one, which is practical an oil paint version of an optical illusion. it forces your eye to move constantly over it. their purpose presumably is to be visually stimulating. The issues is cost and if anyone is trying to assert more to the story then that very simple purpose.
Size of the canvas matters in materials, and work. but would you pay more then 1000$ for those first two?
 
Grumpus

Grumpus

Molten Core Raider
1,927
223
Honestly the second one I probably would. I bought a painting similar to the 4th one from an art school like 10 years ago. It sat above my kitchen table for years before my brother bought it from me. Every morning I would eat breakfast and stare at it. Saw something new every day. I spent maybe close to 100 hours looking at it. That painting cost me like $140 at at fundraiser for the school.

The way the light could change that second one every day, I could easily get $1000 worth of entertainment out of it.

If money wasnt an issue my house would be covered in paintings like that.
 
xrg

xrg

Golden Squire
180
59
Famm_sl said:
Yeah, that's who I meant, definitely. Maybe they were WoW one's but I thought he started out with a Furor one during EQ.
Click to expand...
He did several for EQ, including Furor. That WoW one was on the fohguild homepage so was the easiest to find.
 
earthfell

earthfell

Lord Nagafen Raider
730
145
^ hahaha

When I was in undergrad at Berkeley the building my department was in would often display the work of art majors. One day there was a huge mound of dirt blocking the entrance with a tiny rose sticking out at the top. WHYYY
 
earthfell

earthfell

Lord Nagafen Raider
730
145
Szlia, what did you think of that vimeo videoWhy Beauty Matters > Documentary Addict

I thought he had some compelling points, but I disagreed with certain assumptions he was making.

Also, one of the reasons I remember the mound of dirt is because I thought it was creatively lazy and hoped the student that did it got an F. I also thought it was fucked up to make it so that everyone tracked in a bunch of dirt into the building, at a time when the university had a bunch of janitor lay-offs, and a single janitor getting paid barely more than minimum wage was in charge of cleaning and maintaining two or three enormous buildings all by themselves.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,634
1,376
earthfell_sl said:
Szlia, what did you think of that vimeo videoWhy Beauty Matters > Documentary Addict
Click to expand...
It was posted already earlier in the thread and I just now tried to watch it. I must confess that I lasted less than 5min, because in that time the only sentence that did not hit 'pants on head' on the bullshit-o-meter was " I am Roger Scruton."

I mean it's broad generalization after broad generalization without context of any kind. The guy is like "Architecture too has become soulless and sterile" over footage of some functionalist Bauhaus-like buildings, basically reducing a century of architecture around the world to a single (admittedly influential) movement of the beginning of the XXth century in Germany.

Seriously, how can a PhD say this: "The great artists of the past were aware that human life is full of chaos and suffering, but they had a remedy for this and the name of that remedy was beauty." Great artists? On what metric? The past? Can you be less specific? They were aware that human life is full of chaos and suffering? Do you mean contemporary artists living in the world today are unaware of it? Was there really a single remedy or do you mean they were not great artists according to you if they chose another one? Had he wrote that in one of his papers when he was a student in Cambridge, he would have been laughed out of the room by his professor.

So yeah, that was too much intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty for me to withstand.
 
earthfell

earthfell

Lord Nagafen Raider
730
145
Szlia_sl said:
It was posted already earlier in the thread and I just now tried to watch it. I must confess that I lasted less than 5min, because in that time the only sentence that did not hit 'pants on head' on the bullshit-o-meter was " I am Roger Scruton."

I mean it's broad generalization after broad generalization without context of any kind. The guy is like "Architecture too has become soulless and sterile" over footage of some functionalist Bauhaus-like buildings, basically reducing a century of architecture around the world to a single (admittedly influential) movement of the beginning of the XXth century in Germany.

Seriously, how can a PhD say this: "The great artists of the past were aware that human life is full of chaos and suffering, but they had a remedy for this and the name of that remedy was beauty." Great artists? On what metric? The past? Can you be less specific? They were aware that human life is full of chaos and suffering? Do you mean contemporary artists living in the world today are unaware of it? Was there really a single remedy or do you mean they were not great artists according to you if they chose another one? Had he wrote that in one of his papers when he was a student in Cambridge, he would have been laughed out of the room by his professor.

So yeah, that was too much intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty for me to withstand.
Click to expand...
Yep I agree with that. He was conflating a value system very specific to a certain time period among a certain group of individuals with some kind of universal truth, and labeling any divergence from that as some kind of proof that 'we' as a 'people' have diminished.

I always find it funny when images of white, sterile marble statues are shown and used as supporting evidence for any kind of argument about the quality of art. Every statue from ancient Greece and Rome was covered in shitty bright paint. If Michelangelo didn't paint David so that it looked like something you would buy at the 99 cent shop, he wasn't living up to gaudy Greco-Roman standards. Of course, in a world where all color comes from nature (and mostly either brown, blue, or green), the ability to manufacture color and splash it on your buildings isn't that gaudy at all.

rrr_img_60306.jpg
 
Izo

Izo

Tranny Chaser
19,622
23,956
Hmm, I should scan my 17 mo girl's paintings from day care. She'd make trillions of dollars.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,929
82,596
earthfell_sl said:
Yep I agree with that. He was conflating a value system very specific to a certain time period among a certain group of individuals with some kind of universal truth, and labeling any divergence from that as some kind of proof that 'we' as a 'people' have diminished.

I always find it funny when images of white, sterile marble statues are shown and used as supporting evidence for any kind of argument about the quality of art. Every statue from ancient Greece and Rome was covered in shitty bright paint. If Michelangelo didn't paint David so that it looked like something you would buy at the 99 cent shop, he wasn't living up to gaudy Greco-Roman standards. Of course, in a world where all color comes from nature (and mostly either brown, blue, or green), the ability to manufacture color and splash it on your buildings isn't that gaudy at all.

rrr_img_60306.jpg
Click to expand...
haha I never knew that.

18ltxx61gvpeejpg.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.