gaudi most certainly did produce some awesome works. i recently went to barcelona and i think i could spend all day in parque guell. la sagrada familia was amazing.
i don't know very much about art but i do like vincent van gogh. i have a few books with his art and many of his prints.
I wipe the floor with no one. I took one class in art history and the only chapter I read in the book was on the Northern Renaissance because I liked The Arnolfini Wedding so much.
I also liked Manet (yes I spelled it right) quite a bit.
Absolutely not. What may have killed it are the pompous art dealers and auctioneers. There are plenty of artists making and selling works. The whole idea that painting in it's basic form being dead is idiotic. Go to a magazine stand and look in the Arts section...plenty. Go to an Art gallery too.
You got your head way to far up your techno-butt...
Many painters/illustrators these days have become more adept with technology. All they needed is a Mac, a tablet and Photoshop or Painter.
<strong>Many painters/illustrators these days have become more adept with technology. All they needed is a Mac, a tablet and Photoshop or Painter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm sorry leviathan but you are catagorically a whimp! </strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmmm, thats sounds familiar
[/QB]
what kinda schmuck [/QB][/QUOTE]
that exquisit language is also familiar
[/QB][/QUOTE]stick with Mini Coops and cars DUDE.[/QB][/QUOTE]
ahhhhhhh so thats why, u just reused my original rip...have to hand it to u u have exposed me for confusing surrealism with abstract...although technically the pictures i'm talkin about could be classed as abstract and archtecture is an artform unappreciated as mentioned...and what makes art anyway???!
have to give u that one though - u did get me back
no hard feelings by the way, i just had to comment so u know i read it
[quote]Go to a magazine stand and look in the Arts section...plenty. Go to an Art gallery too.<hr></blockquote>
That's because the art 'institutions' are slow, reactionary leviathans.
Many artists are technophobic, many in the viewing public are technophobes as well. But in coming years/decades, as the new generation grabs the reigns from the 'baby boomers' and ex-hippies, the new way will come into full effect.The generation that grew up on computers, that learned to hack at age 12, that never knew a world without an internet or cellphones.
I mean the medium of painting as a relevant medium for social discourse and cultural criticism is dead.
Painting just doesn't say "2002".I'd argue it says "1914".
But don't take my word for it. Look at the above posts, and count the number of artists of the last 20 years in them.
I'd maybe even go so far as to say that art galleries are dead. Art museums, like MOMA/Guggenheim, sure, but the true 'art' of today (as in: human expression) is not found in galleries. It's spray-bombed on the wall, it's broadcast over pirate airwaves, it's shown in independant theatres and cinemas. It's on the net.
I think y'all gotta stop embracing the past and take a look around you today. There's some f*cking amazing shit out there, mind-blowing stuff, that has a lot more to say than merely being an aesthetically appealing wall-hanging to be bought and sold amongst the wealthy elite. (Artman, bless you, at least mentioned Frazetta. I'd like to add Jack Kirby, Larry Stroman, Moebius, and a zillion others).
BTW, that Char davies piece, it's a VR installation. You don the 'cybergoggles' stereoscopic HMD, and put on a chest strap apparatus that measures your breath intake, and you inhale air to 'float' virtually up through levels of her space, and exhale to sink down.
On a scale of 1 to tight, that's pretty f'in' tight.
Again. You're wrong. Painting itself as an applied media may be "out of style" in your mind, (don't give me graffiti...that's sooooooo 80's...boring and honestly has become a redundant eyesore) but it won't go away. Here in Philly we have over 2000 murals painted here and more are being created every month. That is painting and that is art where it matters. Galleries here have painters exhibited and we also have a gallery exclusive to digital and multimedia arts (SILICON GALLERY).
I personally believe that applied art (painting, sculpting, drawing...hands on art) will always live on because it is real and tangible...not like techno/digital art...you always have to plug it in to see it (unless it's printed).
It's always refreshing to see "real" artworks. Digital art has a long way to go before it gives me that feeling of inspiration. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Nothing wrong with embracing the past, stimuli. Nostalgia is another matter.
Painting, as you define it, has plenty of life left in it. Come to think of it, this whole argument sounds a lot like the one the impressionists made a little over 100 years ago. And like the one the baroque masters made about 100 years before that.
[quote]...real and tangible.<hr></blockquote>Dude! That's crazy weak. What's 'real'? What you can see? touch? taste? smell? If that's the case then I'm not real. Your thoughts and emotions aren't real. When you sleep the 'real' (in the Artman sense) world isn't real.
And neither is your bank account, the internet, '5', music, etc. So don't mind me if I help myself to your mutual funds, because they are not real either.
Paintings can only be seen if you are standing in front of them in a well lit room. Char Davies' Immercense can only be seen if you put on the Head Mounted Display. Both are real, and the fact that her piece is not tactile has to do with the shortcomings of late '90s technology, not whether it's real or not.
Check out that Eduardo Kac link above and check out his 'Genesis' piece mentioned in it, w/ life in a petri dish being mutated by museum goers. That's a lot more 'real' in the context of today and some splodgy water lillies from a hundred years ago.
So you find the digital art your fancy. Whoopdidoo. Fine. Most of it isn't my cup of tea. But your ignorance toward painting and applied arts is bogus. It's here now just as it was for centuries and it will continue because most people will enjoy it. And "paintings" are not only seen in galleries they are illustrated in magazines and on the web. Any of the artists above that use pencil, pastels, ink, paint and a brush to covey a story in comics, books, web or magazines are artists in there own right. I rest my case...oh and one thing digital arts may have as a detriment...they'll sometimes crash... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Comments
i don't know very much about art but i do like vincent van gogh. i have a few books with his art and many of his prints.
I also liked Manet (yes I spelled it right) quite a bit.
Rebecca Stein: Installation/sculpture
Char Davies: VR artist (see <a href="http://www.immersence.com/immersence_home.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.immersence.com/immersence_home.htm</a>; and click some links and see some screenshots, y'all).
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
<strong>Oh, BTW, painting's dead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not. What may have killed it are the pompous art dealers and auctioneers. There are plenty of artists making and selling works. The whole idea that painting in it's basic form being dead is idiotic. Go to a magazine stand and look in the Arts section...plenty. Go to an Art gallery too.
You got your head way to far up your techno-butt...
Many painters/illustrators these days have become more adept with technology. All they needed is a Mac, a tablet and Photoshop or Painter.
<a href="http://www.michelangelo.com/buon/bio-index2.html"; target="_blank">Michelangelo Buonarroti</a>
and
<a href="http://www.tu-harburg.de/b/kuehn/lecorb.html"; target="_blank">Le Corbusier</a>
<a href="http://digilander.libero.it/Mulattabianca/index_immagini.html"; target="_blank">More of these</a>
Or then Sorayama ...
Luis Royo ...
Is music arts in this?? if.. Piazzolla...
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>Many painters/illustrators these days have become more adept with technology. All they needed is a Mac, a tablet and Photoshop or Painter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...or Illustrator
And Salvidor Dali is my fave too.. And why has no one mentioned musical artists?
I like Pearl Jam a lot, I'd say their my fave, and the Beatles.. Oldies rock is my fave.
<strong>How about Luis Royo ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always liked Royo's work in Heavy Metal.
Many great Italian fantasy/comic book artists...
<a href="http://ponticelli.redsectorart.com/"; target="_blank">Alberto Ponticelli</a>
<a href="http://tenuta.redsectorart.com/"; target="_blank">Saverio Tenuta</a>
<a href="http://www.nuvoleparlanti.it/Italia/Nuvole_regionali/francesco_ciampi.htm"; target="_blank">Francesco Ciampi</a>
<a href="http://comolo.redsectorart.com/"; target="_blank">Giorgio Comolo</a>
<a href="http://sf.www.lysator.liu.se/sf_archive/sf-texts/art/artists/Claudio_Berni.html"; target="_blank">Claudio Berni</a>
<a href="http://www.redsectorart.com/caretta/"; target="_blank">Fernando Caretta</a>
and <a href="http://casotto.redsectorart.com/"; target="_blank">Giovanna Casotto</a>.
Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>
i'm sorry leviathan but you are catagorically a whimp! </strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmmm, thats sounds familiar
[/QB]
what kinda schmuck [/QB][/QUOTE]
that exquisit language is also familiar
[/QB][/QUOTE]stick with Mini Coops and cars DUDE.[/QB][/QUOTE]
ahhhhhhh so thats why, u just reused my original rip...have to hand it to u u have exposed me for confusing surrealism with abstract...although technically the pictures i'm talkin about could be classed as abstract and archtecture is an artform unappreciated as mentioned...and what makes art anyway???!
have to give u that one though - u did get me back
no hard feelings by the way, i just had to comment so u know i read it
That's because the art 'institutions' are slow, reactionary leviathans.
Many artists are technophobic, many in the viewing public are technophobes as well. But in coming years/decades, as the new generation grabs the reigns from the 'baby boomers' and ex-hippies, the new way will come into full effect.The generation that grew up on computers, that learned to hack at age 12, that never knew a world without an internet or cellphones.
I mean the medium of painting as a relevant medium for social discourse and cultural criticism is dead.
Painting just doesn't say "2002".I'd argue it says "1914".
But don't take my word for it. Look at the above posts, and count the number of artists of the last 20 years in them.
I'd maybe even go so far as to say that art galleries are dead. Art museums, like MOMA/Guggenheim, sure, but the true 'art' of today (as in: human expression) is not found in galleries. It's spray-bombed on the wall, it's broadcast over pirate airwaves, it's shown in independant theatres and cinemas. It's on the net.
I think y'all gotta stop embracing the past and take a look around you today. There's some f*cking amazing shit out there, mind-blowing stuff, that has a lot more to say than merely being an aesthetically appealing wall-hanging to be bought and sold amongst the wealthy elite. (Artman, bless you, at least mentioned Frazetta. I'd like to add Jack Kirby, Larry Stroman, Moebius, and a zillion others).
I repeat: Painting is dead.
Viva la revolution.
and the dopeness of <a href="http://www.daim.org/daim_1.html"; target="_blank">DAIM</a>
BTW, that Char davies piece, it's a VR installation. You don the 'cybergoggles' stereoscopic HMD, and put on a chest strap apparatus that measures your breath intake, and you inhale air to 'float' virtually up through levels of her space, and exhale to sink down.
On a scale of 1 to tight, that's pretty f'in' tight.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
<strong>I repeat: Painting is dead.
Viva la revolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again. You're wrong. Painting itself as an applied media may be "out of style" in your mind, (don't give me graffiti...that's sooooooo 80's...boring and honestly has become a redundant eyesore) but it won't go away. Here in Philly we have over 2000 murals painted here and more are being created every month. That is painting and that is art where it matters. Galleries here have painters exhibited and we also have a gallery exclusive to digital and multimedia arts (SILICON GALLERY).
I personally believe that applied art (painting, sculpting, drawing...hands on art) will always live on because it is real and tangible...not like techno/digital art...you always have to plug it in to see it (unless it's printed).
It's always refreshing to see "real" artworks. Digital art has a long way to go before it gives me that feeling of inspiration. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Painting, as you define it, has plenty of life left in it. Come to think of it, this whole argument sounds a lot like the one the impressionists made a little over 100 years ago. And like the one the baroque masters made about 100 years before that.
I remember 'recently' there was Massimiliano Frezzato (AMAZING) <a href="http://maser.free.fr/"; target="_blank">http://maser.free.fr/</a>; with that crazy amazing artwork. Wow.
Also a few years back in Heavy Metal there was somewhat similar artwork with a story called "The Gypsy" Amazing stuff. I love that kinda art.
And neither is your bank account, the internet, '5', music, etc. So don't mind me if I help myself to your mutual funds, because they are not real either.
Paintings can only be seen if you are standing in front of them in a well lit room. Char Davies' Immercense can only be seen if you put on the Head Mounted Display. Both are real, and the fact that her piece is not tactile has to do with the shortcomings of late '90s technology, not whether it's real or not.
Check out that Eduardo Kac link above and check out his 'Genesis' piece mentioned in it, w/ life in a petri dish being mutated by museum goers. That's a lot more 'real' in the context of today and some splodgy water lillies from a hundred years ago.