Ruphus -> RE: Being an artist. (Apr. 11 2013 20:55:11)
|
I hope there are lots of people following this thread who to date hadn´t pondered over sense and nonesense of art. - Stephen, why don´t you at least try to be congruent? You are replying as if a Panorama that was made ( in cooperation with historians) to give the people an idea of the ancient Rome had been introduced as counter to bullsh!t named art. That however has not been the case. Instead have I been referring to Chester´ s initially shown picture as an example of artistic proficiency. A painting you havn´t reacted to. You have also not reacted to the artistic inability demostrated in pictures presented by you and critisized by me as whatever, but certainly nothing that deserved a specific term like "art". You could explain why painting skills are supposedly not required for producing art, and why makers who can´t draw a straight line, lesser even size up proportions and perspective ought to be out of all painters, and even artistic ones. - And when you scorn about the panorama, made by someone who earned a name as artist and art teacher for nothing but subject related reasons ... Don´t you think that you should at least be able to accomplish such yourself before spitting on it as if you could be knowing what it takes, from the craft alone? For people who don´t know what demand is in this realm, your take might appear impressive, with all the names and agendas that you be pulling. But to me you are proving nothing but sheer ignorance. What I see is dismissing of skills and traceable idea on behalf of arbitrary makes on primary school level at best, because of your being so far away from recognizing and appreciating what it takes in the field of capturing two or three dimensionally. Same principle in the field of music, where you spend foolish energy and time on cacophonies and nothings like Cale´s empty track, because of being literally def in your soul. That is the only way how your disdain for the Concierto de Aranjuez can come about, just complete with the same phenomenons evident in your perception of the theme of art. To much too many people your stand of for instance levelling a John Cale with a Joaquín Rodrigo, more even of prioring the first over the latter, may make you look like an intellectual. ( With the magical effect of: "He must be seeing something we can´t see", you know like in The Life of Brian or so ...) But to my sober eye you are only little deeper thinking than Andy Warhol, who actually was debil. The difference with you two is that you are intelligent; - but not smart, as it isn´t really bright to go a partout route for the sake of just it. Smart would be to have it content related when and whether to go common or astray. When things like to be `plain and boring´ like speciality requiring special skills, then that is what is. Beauty and ugly are not dependent of whether being mainstream or avantgarde. Just as ignoring talent and profound proficiency is no thinking shortcut, but just stupid and envy. As it takes practical insight in artistic skills to understand how cynical this "Modern art" bullsh!t is, you will probably never understand how downplaying your choice of intellectual appearing is. Ruphus PS: It hasn´t occured to you by chance how mainstream it actually is to be follower of "Modern art"?
|
|
|
|