FAO photoshoppers
Comments
-
That's really cool. It is not "fine art" however. My sister studied Fine art at college, and found it a complete waste of time. It's all bollorks.psymon wrote:yeah, twas a photo in the times after the tsunami in thailand, she lost her kid.
emotional pictures are my thing at the mo
She (like you it seems) much prefers properly detailed drawings. She's done some amazing work in oils.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
That's really cool. It is not "fine art" however. My sister studied Fine art at college, and found it a complete waste of time. It's all bollorks.psymon wrote:yeah, twas a photo in the times after the tsunami in thailand, she lost her kid.
emotional pictures are my thing at the mo
She (like you it seems) much prefers properly detailed drawings. She's done some amazing work in oils.
now, i really enjoy art, i love going to galleries and find it good for the soul.
thing is, i like something like a big fucking picture of a fucking big horse stood in a fucking field, i cant bear "modern art" or anything else like it. i like paintings which look like phots of the subject, thats where i see the skill.
i cnt remember the name of the painting but in the national gallery there is a 10 foot tall painting of a horse in a field, its brilliant!!0 -
can anyone do the orange or blue versions of the gt please?0
-
i studied fine art. it just means Painting, Sculptue or Print...modern or otherwise.
and i used to like the old old stuff but now im completely the opposite i like wierd stuff youd probably hate.
The main thing i like is a piece that has taken alot of thought or work to do.
example, a guy on my course cut every "0" out of the phone book. did like 6 pages a day for 1 year.
he was left with a pile of "0's" that looked like dust.
Stunning, loved it....the commitment is amazing, what the final piece looked like was irrelevant, twas about the process
he got a first.
and sheeps i would never have you down as an arty person!0 -
psymon wrote:i studied fine art. it just means Painting, Sculptue or Print...modern or otherwise.
and i used to like the old old stuff but now im completely the opposite i like wierd stuff youd probably hate.
The main thing i like is a piece that has taken alot of thought or work to do.
example, a guy on my course cut every "0" out of the phone book. did like 6 pages a day for 1 year.
he was left with a pile of "0's" that looked like dust.
Stunning, loved it....the commitment is amazing, what the final piece looked like was irrelevant, twas about the process
he got a first.
and sheeps i would never have you down as an arty person!
that fone book thing would annoy the living hell out of me but i would like to see it.
i love to go to galleries and museums of all sorts.
next on the agenda is the tate britain, ive been to the modern and tate liverpool which were both entertaining but mainly for the people who go there as opposed to the "art" although there was some really good stuff in both.
my fave was the national gallery, i loved loads of the work in there although i look at it in a purely aesthetic way.
its a case of the old: "i dont know much about art but i know what i like"
one of the best museum exhibits i ever saw was the shackleton exhibition in the arctic expedition museum in cambridge, he's a bit of a hero of mine. was a tiny exhibit really but really impressed me.
worst was the british museum, apart from the rosetta stone, i found it incredibly dull.0 -
i would love to go there, im always blown away when i see famous art.0
-
I love art, but can't stand the pompous art culture. I don't mind 'modern' art if it has any merit, but I once went to an exhibition of photographs taken on a mobile phone, and blown up to a size where they no longer represented anything but a pixelated blur of nothing. Yet somehow they were supposed to be an expression of the mining industry in North East England. It could have been someone's couch for all I know.
What's the point in art if the meaning has to be explained to you, and cannot possibly be conveyed without accompanying description? Load of bollocks.
Sheeps, I might do you an orange and blue one tomorrow - it's nearly bedtime now..0 -
it is pompous. and there is alot of shiz out there. but its like music in that respect, and you dont have to like it all, like music too.
the best description i heard is that art shouldnt have a purpose.
other than to provoke a reaction.
like emins bed, which i hate...but i hate it so she wins...doh!0 -
butcher of bakersfield wrote:
What's the point in art if the meaning has to be explained to you, and cannot possibly be conveyed without accompanying description? Load of bollocks.
i feel the same. the people who go to galleries are my main entertainment but once in a while i see soemthing i really like.
at the tate in liverpool there were a load of framed photos of engine blocks from car bombs in the middle east, they were all black and white and i found the images very evocative, thats the kind of art i would like to own.
apparently photogaphers in which ever war torn shithole would try and be the first to get a picture of the engine block which invariably was the only identifiable part of the explosion as those pictures were prized by the news agncies.
i can empathize with the point of the photos which i think was to demonstrate the juxtaposition of the misery of the car bombs with the profit from the photos.
i wish the part of the gallery they had been displayed in had been more quiet and i had more time to look at them before getting dragged off to see the pornographer that is gustav klimpt's completely rubbish work.0 -
psymon wrote:it is pompous. and there is alot of shiz out there. but its like music in that respect, and you dont have to like it all, like music too.
the best description i heard is that art shouldnt have a purpose.
other than to provoke a reaction.
like emins bed, which i hate...but i hate it so she wins...doh!
see, ive heard that too, but i think its balls in the case of emins rubbish work.
i like art to be something i couldnt do. unlike picasso which would be a piece of pi550 -
went to the picasso museum in barcelona.
not a massive fan of his paintings, as they look too easy like you say.
but saw his college figure study stuff (which i can relate to) and they are the most beautiful drawings i have ever seen. stood looking at em for about an hour, and i never do that in a gallery. just amazing!0 -
psymon wrote:it is pompous. and there is alot of shiz out there. but its like music in that respect, and you dont have to like it all, like music too.
the best description i heard is that art shouldnt have a purpose.
other than to provoke a reaction.
like emins bed, which i hate...but i hate it so she wins...doh!
You hate it, because it shouldn't be in a gallery. I kinda agree with what you say, and it is there to provoke a reaction - if there's no reaction, there's no emotion. No feeling. But that sentence can be interpreted in many ways. If I were passing you in the street and I called you a nob, that would provoke a reaction, but it doesn't make me an artist.0 -
What annoys me is that anyone can do something, but if you're an artist, it's called "art".psymon wrote:it is pompous. and there is alot of shiz out there. but its like music in that respect, and you dont have to like it all, like music too.
the best description i heard is that art shouldnt have a purpose.
other than to provoke a reaction.
like emins bed, which i hate...but i hate it so she wins...doh!
It's not, it's just dicking around.
Same in music, freeform jazz, just isn't music. It's bollorks.0 -
Unless you were already an "artist", in which case you'd probably be the latest celebrity.butcher of bakersfield wrote:If I were passing you in the street and I called you a nob, that would provoke a reaction, but it doesn't make me an artist.0 -
youwouldnt do that with klimpts stuff, a load of drawings of birds holding their gashes open!!!
they werent anatomical quality drawings, just crude childish scribbles, pervert.
mind you, it must be hard drawing a sketch with your wrong hand whilst pulling yourself off under your cassock.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Unless you were already an "artist", in which case you'd probably be the latest celebrity.butcher of bakersfield wrote:If I were passing you in the street and I called you a nob, that would provoke a reaction, but it doesn't make me an artist.
Exactly.0 -
Hah i went to the war and peace show in kent a week or so back and they had a jive band there, you would hear an eight minute song with 6 minutes consisting of ziggiliy boobidy bop shibidy bibbly zop etc etcyeehaamcgee wrote:
What annoys me is that anyone can do something, but if you're an artist, it's called "art".psymon wrote:it is pompous. and there is alot of shiz out there. but its like music in that respect, and you dont have to like it all, like music too.
the best description i heard is that art shouldnt have a purpose.
other than to provoke a reaction.
like emins bed, which i hate...but i hate it so she wins...doh!
It's not, it's just dicking around.
Same in music, freeform jazz, just isn't music. It's bollorks.
just sat there thinking *what a f*cking liberty, what a load of old sh*t*0 -
im off to bed but before igo, actual art is pictures of stuff that looks like the thing being pictured, the other stuff is hippy crap.
this is the law of art according to big d.0 -
Performance art.psymon wrote:yeah a wigan kiss.
but you cant buy an insult. you cant sit there and appreciate it. if you could capture that emotion in a material way, then yes you may well have a piece of art.
its far too deep for this time on a school night0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Performance art.psymon wrote:yeah a wigan kiss.
but you cant buy an insult. you cant sit there and appreciate it. if you could capture that emotion in a material way, then yes you may well have a piece of art.
its far too deep for this time on a school night
isnt that just women talking about their vaginas?0 -
psymon wrote:but you cant buy an insult. you cant sit there and appreciate it. if you could capture that emotion in a material way, then yes you may well have a piece of art.
Again, I'm in agreement. If you can capture that (a photograph, perhaps), then you have art. But it is not the artist provoking a reaction, it's the 'art' itself.
Too many artists (such as Emin) go out purely to provoke, and nothing else. To build a name for themselves. Maybe it's a personal thing, the eye of the beholder n all that, I just don't think many of these have anything more to offer than your average guy in the street.0 -
At least he puts some thought into it, rather than just sticking your own cum soiled bed in a room and calling it art.
And yes, I'm off to bed too
0 -
A few more colour options for you...
Santa Cruz Chameleon
Orange Alpine 1600 -
Now thats the funniest thing I've seen all week
Sheepstw@t..... *sniggers* 0
