Comments for Totally Not a Blog

Comment on Modern Art is bullshit by roflmaozedong

roflmaozedong — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:14:47 +0000

Found this one not too long ago, and it perfectly echoed my sentiments upon finishing a Picasso temporary exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. Went through the whole thing, and came out feeling quite meh. Then I saw a host of wild west/cowboy paintings by some dude called Frederic Remington, and found it much more enthralling. That in turn led me to some Greco-Roman structures, which in turn led to the Renaissance wing, and I can’t help but think:

Every one of those 2000BC-1800s paintings will easily maintain its value hundreds if not thousands of years from now, all the way until age literally renders the canvas or the marble to dust, whereas Picasso would be lucky if a handful of his abstract sketches survive the test of time. There’s just a sense of classic beauty that that bronze hoplite helm with the engraved ears, or the marble Roman sarcophagus with reliefs of legionares fighting Amazons, or the painting of Michael the Archangle triumphantly fucking up Satan with a sword, or the painted action shot of a Plains Indian scouting party being surprised by the report of a long-range buffalo gun, that these supposedly “African tribal mask inspired geometric patterns” and sketches of distorted monster women simply can’t emulate.

Comment on The internet Boogeyman or what is SRS? by mf713

mf713 — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:52:29 +0000

Because nothing says wacky conspiracy theories like “two internet forums are fighting with each other”. /s

You sound like an insufferable cunt.

Comment on Modern Art is bullshit by ryandemaree

ryandemaree — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:22:19 +0000

Art isnt about drawing/ painting rich people, duck ponds, fruit bowls, and religious scenery in a realistic fashion strictly. Open your mind to new concepts and new aesthetics. Visual art is about the VISUALS when you break it down and “is this picture pleasing to the eye based on composition, color, texture, light etc.” whether or not the picture is representational or not is totally irrelevant/ subjective in accordance to the works merit. Jackson Pollock was a brilliant painter for different reasons than Caravaggio was a brilliant painter, people that dont see that are being closed minded, but as I said it IS subjective and everyone has their own opinion on what they deem as “good art” and what they deem as “bad art” based on the works aesthetics and concept and how they work together. I myself enjoy alot of what Modern art has to offer and very much prefer it to classic art due to the sheer endless possibilities that Modern art offers. Ill take Dali and Picasso over Michelangelo and Da Vinci ANYDAY because realistic pictures of pious rich people and religious people just arent that enlightening, whereas a bizarre and fluid dreamscape by Dali or a rigid and multi-dimensional beingis very visually pleasing AND mentally stimulating. Of course Modern art has its pretentious kitsche art, like Warhol, Koons, Emin and blank canvas displays but that doesnt speak for all of Modern art. If you were to try to replicate a top notch Pollock painting from his prime years you would find yourself in a bind and realize that there is color, texture, light, and compositional theory to it and you would find that there is a vast difference between “throwing paint at a canvas” and “Doing a drip painting”

Take this painting as an instant example – http://cfile24.uf.tistory.com/image/1412D8164A900D7B3CF216

There is very specific line, color, composition and texture elements to it that go beyond “throwing paint at a canvas and not knowing how to draw” The painting shows “intention” and “theory” whether or not it is representational and whether you like it or not are completely irrelevant/ subjective.

Even within classic painters, such as Michelangelo for example, there is abstraction and style present

Take this painting for example – http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/The-Creation-of-Adam-Michelangelo-631.jpg

^^^ This is NOT photo-realism, so why revere it? What seperates this from a Picasso or a Monet? they are all 3 using loose representationalism – stylized and abstracted to a degree- So what makes Michelangelo any better? What is good visual art? photo realistic paintings of dinner tables and evening strolls in the park? Why does everything need to be predictable and familiar? There are no huge differences between someone like Monet and Michelangelo, they both use representationalism loosely and stylize their work, Michelangelo simply uses more accepted themes for his time [religion] and does so in a mre realistic manner.

Are we splitting hairs here? It seems it all comes down to opinion, as I stated above.

http://www.actingoutpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/PicasMassacre.jpeg – If you cannot see the aesthetic and conceptual value of this painting then I feel bad for you, but like I said its all subjective in the end.

I myself am a visual artist / painter. I consider myself an Abstract-Surrealist painter who uses a full range of aesthetics and concepts to convey w/e I would like regardless whether or not it is recognizeable visually or idealistically.

For anyone interested in viewing my work, here are a few links

http://1-ryan-demaree.artistwebsites.com/ – My main website

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/solar-broadcast-transition-ryan-demaree.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/2013-ryan-demaree.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/2012-confronting-inevitability-ryan-demaree.html

^^^3 paintings of mine

“Man is an ape, and the world is a set”

-Ryan Demaree

Comment on Modern Art is bullshit by Curious Gregg

Curious Gregg — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:42:38 +0000

One reason Modern painting took over the world so thoroughly–much more thoroughly than, say, the modern novel or modern serious music–is because painting requires so little investment from the viewer. You can have a merry old time at MOMA wandering around chatting with friends, occasionally glancing at what’s on the walls (or floors), and end up saying you loved the art. On the other hand if you’re asked to slog through an incoherent experimental novel, or sit through a dissonant piece of Modern music you’ll run the other direction, even though the nature of the art being presented isn’t really any different–in fact the skill level of the author or composer will probably be much higher than that of the visual artist. Also–separate point–is it possible that all Modern Art really is is revenge of the untalented. So many children spent their childhoods gazing bitterly at the couple of kids in the classroom who were naturally skillful at drawing. With Modern Art that kind of skill not only isn’t required, but is generally regarded as, at best, a retrograde branch of illustration. As long as Matisse keeps being touted as civilization’s premiere artist, the I-can’t-draw-a-straight-line crowd can keep feeling good about themselves.

Comment on Modern Art is bullshit by Autonomous Painter

Autonomous Painter — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:23:39 +0000

Makes me think of how there’s so much talk about social dislocation in modern society ie lack of community, etc And yet no one seems to put two and two together: if ‘art’ can mean whatever you want it to mean and it has no intrinsic meaning, then is it any wonder that our modern culture ends up mirroring our aesthetic one? ie A world in which everyone has their own isolated and ‘personal’ identity and collective identity is meaningless and expendable. Is it any wonder that the corporate world can so easily screw us over? To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, ‘its not art that imitates life, but rather life imitating art.’ Does are subjectively ‘isolated art’ result in an isolated society/culture?