Artists. People have weird taste in art. (790 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.42 on 16 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <v_charrot91.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2004-05-27 11:52:33 EDT
Right. There's one thing i don't get about artists; Sometimes they're crap, or even just as good as any other, yet people like their work. How the hell does that work out? Take Vincent Van Gogh for instance. He painted some flowers. I could do that. Seriously. He painted himself. Whoa. It's not like a lot of people can do that nowadays either. Yet, his works are now worth millions of pounds. I just don't get it. People have incredible talent when it comes to art in our day and age and not many of them make a decent living or have a reputation. On T.V. a little while ago there was this programme on Michel Angelo (And don't correct me on his name, that's how it's spelled really). It was talking about his sculptures,paintings and basically his whole life. Anyway, he sculptured this one particular statue, it was a little angel, and they were focusing on that. So they wanted to recreate what it would have looked like, becasue apparently it's just a lost legend. And so some guy i've never heard of made one according to some pictures and stuff. It was incredible. Seriously incredible and yet this guy might have a little reputation in his town as a good carpenter but he has no name anywhere else. It's crazy.
Also, Leanardo de Vincci (Is that how you spell it?). Great guy, yes, i admit. Who wouldn't? He's an amazing artist. Anyway, i went to the louvre and there were these amazing paintings and drawings and what not on the cieling and everywhere else. They were simply FANTASTIC. Then we got to The Mona LIsa. Loads of people crowded around it. It was a struggle to get to the centre of this massive room. But in that museum there were so many amazing, spectacular things, with not so many eyes on them. It's a strange, strange thing, art.
User Reviews
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2004-05-31 19:23:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Guess I forgot to rate this fine piece of craftsmanship. I would like to take this opportunity to tell you all that the below rating is crap! It doesn't mean anything except heterosexual poopsex with another man.
Submitted by Ccenzo (user info) at 2004-05-27 17:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The last three ratings ARE CRAP. Did I say i would be an artist? No. And anyway, what the hell? I wasn't saying that Michelangelo's David was crap? I said nothing of the sort you dick. I said that someone manage to reproduce one of his sculptures incredibly well and was retorically (Is that spelled right?) questioning why a lot of these other artistic people have not much of a reputation. Next time read things.
Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-05-27 16:54:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
saying all that leads me to come to the conclusion that you will NEVER be an artist at all.......because you just DON"T get it.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-05-27 14:23:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by youarsoghey (user info) at 2004-05-27 13:42:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeh and about the Michelangelo thing, do you understand how important it was for art when he sculpted David? Go see it sometime and realize how fine and perfect every inch of that sculpture is. The veins on his hands, the curves of his face, etc. It's all very amazing and was never done before because of the bland attitude of the church-inspired paintings and sculptures prior to the Renaissance.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2004-05-27 13:13:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What seb said, only with an actual -2, instead of a spiritual one.
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-05-27 13:13:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-05-27 12:52:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
Many times, the context that follows a painting, with respect to contemporary artistic movements, is just as important, if not more important, than the artistic quality with which the work was created.
Think of the relatively poor quality of Beatles recordings at the time of their American debut. They are not remembered today because they made the most refined recordings, but because what they did broke the mold and established a style that would be copied for years to come.
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:55:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
....this was crap, but you'll be a dick if I negative this, as it's sadly, probably your best work.
1) It's spelled Michelangelo
2) You CANNOT paint as good as Van Gogh. You can paint flowers, sure. But so can a monkey with a toothbrush up its arse.
3) Michelangelo's statue was of a cherub. All the recent guy did was to copy it. Back then it was "cutting edge". People never did it quite like ole Michelangelo. And don't tell me you could do the Cistine Chapel's ceiling.
4) Stop saying words like "seriously" to try and convey that you know your shit...you don't.
5) Shuttup, im not finished.
spiritual -2 and a punch later
seb
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-05-27 12:52:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Many times, the context that follows a painting, with respect to contemporary artistic movements, is just as important, if not more important, than the artistic quality with which the work was created.
Think of the relatively poor quality of Beatles recordings at the time of their American debut. They are not remembered today because they made the most refined recordings, but because what they did broke the mold and established a style that would be copied for years to come.
Submitted by lucid (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:42:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Never underestimate the value of posessing something no one else has.
Submitted by youarsoghey (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:21:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm pretty sure Leonardo Da Vinci was famous, but he was also a scientist, machinist, sculptor, and genius.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:20:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like the guy who did the soup cans. Warhol or whatever. he was pretty badass. Not Bob Ross badass, but then again few people are.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:15:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't believe in the concept of Artist either. Anyone, even a depressed accountant has some artistic talent.
It's about trends and a way of life
Submitted by jme7551 (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:12:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you have to realize that artists like van gogh and da vinci
weren't famous while they were alive. most of them barely
made any $$ at all. their art work was worth all that years ,
decades, even centuries after their death. it's like the legend
was worth more than the actual work of art itself.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:03:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Mona Lisa is more famous because of the symbology (did I make that word up?) behind it... the right side of her face is larger, which represents the feminine aspect... or something.
I can't god damn think right now.
Submitted by youarsoghey (user info) at 2004-05-27 12:03:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree that it's bizarre how certain things become more famous for no apparent reason. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is ranked relatively low on my list of favorite Da Vinci paintings/frescoes.
This is where I begin to disagree. Don't pretend you can paint as well as Vincent Van Gogh. He may not be one of my favorite artists, but he damn well could paint. And it's spelled Michelangelo, you dolt.
Here are some resources for you to consult in the future:
www.dictionary.com
www.google.com