Re: Amazing Artist
Stephen Cowell
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE5C552...@69.16.185.252...
>
>
> Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
> speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
>
>
> http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
In fact, I'd swear that they were painted *from* photographs...
__
Steve
.
Vito
news:Xns9CE5C552...@69.16.185.252...
|
|
| Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
| speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
|
|
| http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
|
The Older Gentleman
> Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
> speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
>
>
> http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
Holy Christ.
You are joking, surely? The most appalling collection of neo-Western
chocolate-box kitsch I've seen in ages.
Technically, nice brushwork, but really very, very cheesy.
Norman Rockwell: compare and contrast (and even NR has been accused of
being cutesy, by some).
Or, for an example of how a real artist can use photographic/lens
techniques (because they reckon, now, that's how he achieved his
astonishing mastery of light) just about anything by Vermeer.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> You are joking, surely? The most appalling collection of neo-Western
> chocolate-box kitsch I've seen in ages.
> Technically, nice brushwork, but really very, very cheesy.
> Norman Rockwell: compare and contrast (and even NR has been accused of
> being cutesy, by some).
Those paintings *may* merely be the technical work of a gifted
illustrator, and not "inspired" like the works of an "Old Master",
but, if the illustrator manages to *move* the viewer emotionally, he
has certainly succeeded at his craft.
> Or, for an example of how a real artist can use photographic/lens
> techniques (because they reckon, now, that's how he achieved his
> astonishing mastery of light) just about anything by Vermeer.
So what if the technician/illustrator/artist went to a Pioneer Days re-
enactment or
a few Native American Pow Wows and photographed the re-enactors in
their costumes and maybe smeared a little vaseline on his lens or used
a wide aperature to capture what the human eye sees *normally?
http://www.alfredoartist.com/Afternoon.htm seems to show that is what
he actually did.
If he *didn't* use optical equipment, he really *is* an expert in his
profession and I am impressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#cite_note-wadum95-25
"David Hockney, among other historians and advocates of the Hockney-
Falco thesis, has speculated that Vermeer used a camera obscura to
achieve precise positioning in his compositions, and this view seems
to be supported by certain light and perspective effects. The often-
discussed sparkling pearly highlights in Vermeer's paintings have been
linked to this possible use of a camera obscura, the primitive lens of
which would produce halation."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney-Falco_thesis)
"However, the extent of Vermeer's dependence upon the camera obscura
is disputed by historians. Indeed, other than assumptions made by an
analysis of his style, there is no evidence, either scientific or
historical, that Vermeer ever owned or used such a device."
"There is no other seventeenth century artist who early in his career
employed, in the most lavish way, the exorbitantly expensive pigment
lapis lazuli, or natural ultramarine. Vermeer not only used this in
elements that are naturally of this colour; the earth colours umber
and ochre should be understood as warm light within a painting's
strongly-lit interior, which reflects its multiple colours onto the
wall. In this way, he created a world more perfect than any he had
witnessed.[Liedtke 3] This working method most probably was inspired
by Vermeer’s understanding of Leonardo’s observations that the surface
of every object partakes of the colour of the adjacent object.[11]
This means that no object is ever seen entirely in its natural
colour."
BrianNZ
> Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
> speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
>
>
> http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
>
Not really my thing (cowboy/Indian) but impressive paintings when it
comes to detail, especially when there are a lot of people in the
painting (Gold!).
Gaidheal
> Not really my thing (cowboy/Indian)
Now, if it was Maoris having a cannibal feast, you'd get warm,
patriotic feelings...
BryanUT
<stephenleeNOSPAMcow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CE5C552...@69.16.185.252...
>
>
>
> > Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
> > speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
>
> >http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
>
>
I post off topic shit all the time, I think this is pretty cool. And
since Stephen lives in Montana I can see why he likes it.
BrianNZ
I prefer landscapes and architecture.
Road Glidin' Don
Gentleman) wrote:
> You are joking, surely? The most appalling collection of neo-Western
> chocolate-box kitsch I've seen in ages.
>
> Technically, nice brushwork, but really very, very cheesy.
Agreed.
MikeWhy
news:Xns9CE5C552...@69.16.185.252...
>
>
> Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
> speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
>
> http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
They are good, and I've seen other good examples of exquisite details in
oils. And while I don't intend this as criticism or condemnation, you can
see where he played loose and fancy with the light quality in the shadows,
compressing the dynamic range between bright sunlit areas and details in
what should be dense shade.
http://www.alfredoartist.com/HuntingbytheGunnison.htm, for example. Again, I
don't intend it as condemnation. If cameras could be made to do that, they
would. My observation only goes to point out one difference between these
paintings and photographs. The flip side to my comment is he likely would
have rendered them darker if he had painted from a photograph. Capturing the
play of light entirely in his mind as he did is testimony to his insight and
gift.
Gaidheal
> They are good, and I've seen other good examples of exquisite details in
> oils. And while I don't intend this as criticism or condemnation, you can
> see where he played loose and fancy with the light quality in the shadows,
> compressing the dynamic range between bright sunlit areas and details in
> what should be dense shade.http://www.alfredoartist.com/HuntingbytheGunnison.htm, for example. Again, I
> don't intend it as condemnation. If cameras could be made to do that, they
> would. My observation only goes to point out one difference between these
> paintings and photographs. The flip side to my comment is he likely would
> have rendered them darker if he had painted from a photograph. Capturing the
> play of light entirely in his mind as he did is testimony to his insight and
> gift.
Perhaps he actually did photograph the landscape, using a flash
attachment and then added the woodsrunner?
Or he posed a model and used a scrim?
Or maybe he had Klieg lights and a generator out there in the
riverbed?
OTOh, I have always been amazed by the abilities of the Old Masters to
paint atmospheric scenes, like sunsets, where the colors are rapidly
shifting through the spectrum and the clouds turns from orange to red
to pink and finally to dove grey.
They would have to be experts at mixing the pigments to get all the
tints and hues
in the limited time during which the atmospheric event took place, or
they had
an exquisite sense of color and could remember what each variation
looked like, as they completed the painting in their studio the next
day (under a different lighting situation!)
Gaidheal
> I prefer landscapes and architecture.
Giovanni Antonio Canal (Canaletto) is my favorite painter of
architectural subjects.
He was known to have used a camera obscura in his sketches for what
were essentially oil-painted postcards for the wealthy...
The Older Gentleman
Sorry, but he reminds me of Thomas Kinkade. He may sell these pix but
that doesn't stop them from being atrocious.
The Older Gentleman
> Those paintings *may* merely be the technical work of a gifted
> illustrator, and not "inspired" like the works of an "Old Master",
> but, if the illustrator manages to *move* the viewer emotionally, he
> has certainly succeeded at his craft.
Only if his craft is selling pictures.
You know *nothing* about art, but that doesn't stop you discoursing on
it at amazing length.
I doubt you'd even heard of Vermeer before I mentioned him.
The Older Gentleman
> Hey, ,art is in the eye of the beholder.
Yup.
I'm reminded of what King George the Fifth is supposed to have said when
we was touring the then-new Queen Mary, under fitting-out, and didn't
like the art nouveau paintings that hung in the ship. He suggested
giving them to the blind school.
I know lots of people get their rocks off on this sort of stuff, and
that's fine, so I'll leave it there. Just don't say it's great or even
good 'art'.
The Older Gentleman
<fx: high-fives RGD>
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> Only if his craft is selling pictures.
After all these aeons, it's suddenly venal to sell one's art? Get
real.
> You know *nothing* about art, but that doesn't stop you discoursing on
> it at amazing length.
That didn't stop me from bluntly expressing my opinion on Grandma
Moses' primitive art to the dean of fine arts at Boston College.
He didn;t even know where to begin in his defense...
> I doubt you'd even heard of Vermeer before I mentioned him.
Sez you. There was reference to painting of the girl with the pearl
earring made on some other group, so I studied Vermeer a few years
ago.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> I know lots of people get their rocks off on this sort of stuff, and
> that's fine, so I'll leave it there. Just don't say it's great or even
> good 'art'.
However, if anybody finds paintings of nancy boys with sticks and
hankies doing Morris dancing, let TOG know...
S'mee
There fixed it for you. I've now done my good deed for the day by
helping a senile chickenhawk with his righting redding.
The Older Gentleman
> Sez you. There was reference to painting of the girl with the pearl
> earring made on some other group, so I studied Vermeer a few years
> ago.
Trans: "I watched the film to letch at Scarlett Johansson".
You ain't fooling anyone.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> Trans: "I watched the film to letch at Scarlett Johansson".
>
> You ain't fooling anyone.
How can anybody older than 13 "letch" at a PG-13 film?
I was talking about the oil painting anyway.
Twibil
Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
> Trans: "I watched the film to letch at Scarlett Johansson".
Krusty? Not unless he thinks she's actually a transvestite.
And as for Art; I've always thought that impressionism can say more
with less than any other form.
Supposedly true story: Picasso once visited the Lascaux site to
observe the then recently discovered Cave Art, and came out shaking
his head and muttering "They knew! They knew!"
Anyway, even if it isn't true, it *should* be.
J. Clarke
> BryanUT <nest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hey, ,art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Yup.
>
> I'm reminded of what King George the Fifth is supposed to have said
> when we was touring the then-new Queen Mary, under fitting-out, and
> didn't like the art nouveau paintings that hung in the ship. He
> suggested giving them to the blind school.
>
> I know lots of people get their rocks off on this sort of stuff, and
> that's fine, so I'll leave it there. Just don't say it's great or even
> good 'art'.
Personally I'm not gonna throw rocks. I recognize that it's not the sort of
work that artists aspire to these days and that the skill level demonstrated
is just one step in the training, but it's vastly beyond anything that I'm
ever likely to accomplish.
However if I had grown up in walking distance of the museums of London I
might feel differently.
saddlebag
Exactly. My wife paints and her and her painting friends with their
messy er uh "abstract" paintings consider portrait type paintings to
be something less than "artistic." Who sells... people who paint
realistic life forms and situations like the ones at the OP's link,
Thomas Kinkade, Steve Hanks et al.
I always remind her that all the great "impressionists" first got good
at making things look realistic. And I haven't seen all that many who
do as good a job as Alfred. IMO, the excruciating detail that bring
those people to life is not something that many "artists" are ever
likely to pull off.
I'm with Clarke, unless you're going to post a painting of your own
that's better, you come off as pretty pompous. I say beauty is in the
eye and wallet of the beholder...
Gaidheal
> Supposedly true story: Picasso once visited the Lascaux site to
> observe the then recently discovered Cave Art, and came out shaking
> his head and muttering "They knew! They knew!"
Say! Did I ever mention that those Cro-Magnon artists were *my*
ancestors?
The Older Gentleman
> I'm with Clarke, unless you're going to post a painting of your own
> that's better, you come off as pretty pompous.
Well, that virtually destroys the whole basis of criticism. You can't be
an art critic unless you can paint better than Michelangelo, you can't
be a literary critic uness you can write better than Shakespeare and you
can't be a music critic unless you can out-compose Mozart. :-))
Going back down to earth: you don't have to taste a cesspit to know it's
full of shit.
Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
reeky....
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> Gaidheal <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sez you. There was reference to painting of the girl with the pearl
> > earring made on some other group, so I studied Vermeer a few years
> > ago.
>
> Trans: "I watched the film to letch at Scarlett Johansson".
>
> You ain't fooling anyone.
Nope I bet he was giving the guys the eye.
S'mee
agreed. But I always liked his pre-surreal days when he was doing da-
da. 8^)
S'mee
Nope yours were STILL ending up in a pile of shit...wishing they had
opposable thumbs.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I'm with Clarke, unless you're going to post a painting of your own
> > that's better, you come off as pretty pompous.
>
> Well, that virtually destroys the whole basis of criticism. You can't be
> an art critic unless you can paint better than Michelangelo, you can't
> be a literary critic uness you can write better than Shakespeare and you
> can't be a music critic unless you can out-compose Mozart. :-))
>
> Going back down to earth: you don't have to taste a cesspit to know it's
> full of shit.
>
> Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> reeky....
>
<raises eyebrow>
ah yes, the surprise of a city bred man to discover that a country
aquainticne not only owns a vermeer<sic> but has two pollack in the
barn for the cows to appreciate...but is having much fun combining
surrealism and impressionism in his backyard utilizing a 20tonne
granite block.
You'd be suprised at what folk on this side of the pond have seen and
done. Just never ask my opinion of that untalented unskilled cunt Jane
Austin.
J. Clarke
> saddlebag <sadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Clarke, unless you're going to post a painting of your own
>> that's better, you come off as pretty pompous.
>
> Well, that virtually destroys the whole basis of criticism. You can't
> be an art critic unless you can paint better than Michelangelo, you
> can't be a literary critic uness you can write better than
> Shakespeare and you can't be a music critic unless you can
> out-compose Mozart. :-))
>
> Going back down to earth: you don't have to taste a cesspit to know
> it's full of shit.
>
> Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> reeky....
I didn't say that one shouldn't criticize, but to dismiss something
completely that most people can't come close to matching is a bit much.
saddlebag
Gentleman) wrote:
> saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I'm with Clarke, unless you're going to post a painting of your own
> > that's better, you come off as pretty pompous.
>
> Well, that virtually destroys the whole basis of criticism.
Maybe, but you didn't critique anything besides saying what the guy
did was cheesy.
> You can't be
> an art critic unless you can paint better than Michelangelo, you can't
> be a literary critic uness you can write better than Shakespeare and you
> can't be a music critic unless you can out-compose Mozart. :-))
If you gave a reason, for instance if his natives were shaped like
Walrus then your criticism might be something to which I could
relate. But if I find a small Indian girl kissing a goat enduring,
does that make me cheesy?
I looked at the paintings by that Vermeer guy you mentioned. There is
some site with a bunch of his paintings of women called Vermeer or
some such. I'd call them "women I wouldn't fuck with your dick."
Maybe not cheesy, but not exactly something I'd hang on the wall and
think nice thoughts on passing...
> Going back down to earth: you don't have to taste a cesspit to know it's
> full of shit.
No, because you could relate the smell to human waste. Can you relate
highly detailed paintings of native Americans in their natural
settings to cheese?
> Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> reeky....
It's winter, let the keyboards roll...
Twibil
>
>
> > Supposedly true story: Picasso once visited the Lascaux site to
> > observe the then recently discovered Cave Art, and came out shaking
> > his head and muttering "They knew! They knew!"
>
> > Anyway, even if it isn't true, it *should* be.
>
> agreed. But I always liked his pre-surreal days when he was doing da-
> da. 8^)
What most people (probably not you) don't understand is that Pablo did
a bit of practically *everything* art-related before he eventually
settled on his own original style.
He was/is a poster-boy for the concept that you first have to
throughly understand what's already been accomplished in your field of
expertise if you intend to go beyond it some day.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> Well, that virtually destroys the whole basis of criticism. You can't be
> an art critic unless you can paint better than Michelangelo, you can't
> be a literary critic uness you can write better than Shakespeare and you
> can't be a music critic unless you can out-compose Mozart. :-))
Onbviously, since you have no talent besides scribbling and prancing
around with hankies and wooden swords, your role in life, by default,
is to be a cr-i-i-i-tic!
>
> Going back down to earth: you don't have to taste a cesspit to know it's
> full of shit.
What, have you been doing in here for the last ten years, the back
stroke?
Or have you been dog paddling?
> Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> reeky....
The kind of impression I'd like to make is a hob-nailed jack boot on
your pasty Limey face.
Gaidheal
> It's winter, let the keyboards roll...
What, is your favorite foil (Troy Cook) still indisposed?
Gaidheal
> He was/is a poster-boy for the concept that you first have to
> throughly understand what's already been accomplished in your field of
> expertise if you intend to go beyond it some day.
Or maybe you can systematically destroy your mind with drugs and
alcohol like Arthur Rimbaud or Jim Morrison did.
Then the gods will talk directly to you and inspire you...
BrianNZ
> On Dec 20, 1:16 pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> Well, that virtually destroys the whole basis of criticism. You can't be
>> an art critic unless you can paint better than Michelangelo, you can't
>> be a literary critic uness you can write better than Shakespeare and you
>> can't be a music critic unless you can out-compose Mozart. :-))
>
> Onbviously, since you have no talent besides scribbling and prancing
> around with hankies and wooden swords, your role in life, by default,
> is to be a cr-i-i-i-tic!
What is it that you have against Morris dancing? Does the thought of
people enjoying themselves with a bit of harmless fun somehow offend you?
S'mee
> On Dec 20, 4:31 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He was/is a poster-boy for the concept that you first have to
> > throughly understand what's already been accomplished in your field of
> > expertise if you intend to go beyond it some day.
>
> Or maybe you can systematically destroy your mind with drugs and
>
> Then the gods will talk directly to you and inspire you...
Fixed that for you bastard.
S'mee
hmph, my take was he tried everything for many reasons. One of which
was finding one he liked and was good at. Well that and because he was
that dang nosy...just had to stick his nose everywhere. I've got a
black lab that's just like picaso, always trying something new, that's
how he lost an eye.
It's wonder Picasso didn't do the same. 8^)
Gaidheal
> What is it that you have against Morris dancing?
Are you really that dense?
I have no quarrel with Morris dancing whatever.
Now exercise your neurons and see what you come up with as my true
motivation for making remarks about people dancing around with wooden
swords and hankies...
S'mee
ROTFLMAO you lying chickenhawk...they wont let you out of prison so
quit running your yap, ya yellow bellied impotent commie bastard.
BrianNZ
> On Dec 20, 5:24 pm, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> What is it that you have against Morris dancing?
>
> Are you really that dense?
>
Apparently so. I'm so dense I expected an honest answer from you.........
> I have no quarrel with Morris dancing whatever.
>
> Now exercise your neurons and see what you come up with as my true
> motivation for making remarks about people dancing around with wooden
> swords and hankies...
My inability to read your mind is why I posed the question in the first
place. You are constantly bringing it up as if it's a bad thing to be
doing. What is your motivation?
The Older Gentleman
> totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
> news:1jb1k94.xfwv5o1rqmxjwN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> > Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> > reeky....
>
> Especially from someone who's own country considers *THIS* art...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yc2o75v
Igor Gusev.
"His works are in corporate collections of Kyiv and Moscow banks, in
"TIRS" Museum (Odessa) and in private collections in the Ukraine,
Russia, UK, Sweden, Syria and Poland."
The Older Gentleman
> Can you relate
> highly detailed paintings of native Americans in their natural
> settings to cheese?
If you mean idealised pictures like those, no.
The Older Gentleman
> totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
> news:1jb151n.1ymv6k42xzjn0N%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> > Only if his craft is selling pictures.
>
> You did notice that all eleven pages of his gallery were nothing but
> "SOLD" paintings... No?
So? Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Your point?
As for being as realistic as a photograph: on that basis, where would
you place (for example) Turner's 'Rain, Steam and Speed'?
Lots of people like your guy's stuff. That's fine. You like it. That's
fine. It's still kitsch. That's fine. I like some kitsch stuff myself.
Twibil
>
>
> Or maybe you can systematically destroy your mind with drugs and
> alcohol like Arthur Rimbaud or Jim Morrison did.
Which brings up the obvious question of what you did to yours...
or were you simply *born* stupid?
Twibil
> people enjoying themselves with a bit of harmless fun somehow offend you?
As best we can tell, he's trying to associate Morris Dancing with
being Gay; and thereby thinks he's posting a deadly insult.
Of course, Krusty associates *everything* with being gay (motorcycle
riding in particular) so trying to twist folk-dancing into a Gay
behavior pattern is just par for his course, so to speak.
And, as we all know; Krusty himself prefers to "play the back 9".
Twibil
>
>
> > Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> > reeky....
>
(A) It *is* art. And the fact that you apparently don't like it
doesn't affect that fact one way or another.
(B) "Countries" don't consider things art (or not). Individuals
*within* countries consider things art (or not), and within any
country you can name you will find wildly differing tastes and
opinions.
Does this come as a surprise to you?
Twibil
>
>
> Other than age, what's the difference between this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydop3d3
>
> ...and this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yeg2gje
The fact that you apparently don't know the answer to that question
tells us things about you that were probably best kept secret.
BrianNZ
I wonder if he would be man enough to go tell the Morris dancers that in
person? :)
TOG@Toil
<fx: waves stave menacingly>
We were out doing our Mummers' Play on Friday night. Sword dances and
a skit with some groan-inducing puns. Some poor old ducks in the local
Old Peoples' Home are going to have it inflicted on them on Boxing
Day, little do they know :-)
saddlebag
He's too busy gathering gubament funds.
TOG@Toil
> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:671d3b2b-cbd2-4191-8e62-
> a9f9616ec...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > observe the then recently discovered Cave Art
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydop3d3
>
> ...and this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yeg2gje
>
Look at the cave art picture. Look at the marvellous economy of line
of the human figures. Yes, they're stylised, almost cartoon-like, but
don't you wish you could draw a human figure with so few brush-
strokes?
You can sense the pride in the archer: hand on hip, head thrown back,
back straight: I just bet he unleashed the killing blow. This is his
animal. He's drawn smaller, too. A young man, perhaps? A boy who's
made his first kill for the tribe? Either way, the body language just
shouts: "Look what I've done!"
Now look at the spearman. He's alert, taut, on guard. Guarding against
what? Is there a predatory animal ahead? Is he guarding the kill
against a rival human tribe? We don't know, but what does come across
is his incredible stillness. He has all the poised stillness of a wide-
awake cat. Yes, he's motionless, but his spear rests on his right
shoulder, and you know he could leap to his feet and hurl it in a
nanosecond.
And then there's the kill: the deer. One foreleg bent, both hind legs
flung out, neck arched back in death, ears flattened back. Look at the
subtle shading of colour on the underbelly.
Finally, look at the composition. Let your eye travel from the left of
the picture to the right. It starts small, with the tip of the deer's
tail. And then it builds as more and more information comes in, until
by the time your eye has travelled pat the tip of the spear, you have
all the information you need. It's magic.
And all this was done by men with pitifully few artists' tools. Any
modern artist would be proud to produce a work of such simplicity and
grace. And you're comparing it to gang slogans on the side of a house?
(Actually, I concede that some graffiti is art - Google for Banksy -
but not what you have displayed)
J. Clarke
> Stephen! <N...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
>> news:1jb1k94.xfwv5o1rqmxjwN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>>> Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
>>> reeky....
>>
>> Especially from someone who's own country considers *THIS* art...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yc2o75v
>
> Igor Gusev.
>
> "His works are in corporate collections of Kyiv and Moscow banks, in
> "TIRS" Museum (Odessa) and in private collections in the Ukraine,
> Russia, UK, Sweden, Syria and Poland."
What's not to like about that one? The thing I can't quite figure out
though (maybe it's more clear in the actual painting) is whether Ronald
McDonald is drunk or under arrest. And why at Autumn in Boldino?
Gaidheal
> Gaidheal wrote:
> > I have no quarrel with Morris dancing whatever.
> My inability to read your mind is why I posed the question in the first
> place. You are constantly bringing it up as if it's a bad thing to be
> doing. What is your motivation?
Start paying more attention to the interplay of poisonalities in this
grope and you will understand my motivation.
Gaidheal
> Other than age, what's the difference between this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydop3d3
>
> ...and this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yeg2gje
The former is sympathetic magic, hoping for luck in future hunts, but
the graffiti
is a form of encoded expression of territoriality.
In this case, members of the Eastside Crips are saying, "This is our
turf, for the purpose of cominance and drug sales," while bragging
about murdering human beings as an exression of "manliness".
TOG@Toil
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > Stephen! <N...@spam.com> wrote:
>
I don't dislike it at all. It amused me, rather. I was just startled
at a British gallery selling works by someone who's evidently rather
better known elsewhere.
As for drunk or under arrest - both, prolly :-)) Boldino? No idea.
TOG@Toil
> On Dec 20, 6:24 pm, "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > Other than age, what's the difference between this:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ydop3d3
>
> > ...and this:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yeg2gje
>
> The former is sympathetic magic, hoping for luck in future hunts,
Are you sure of that? Have you wiki'd it properly?
Gaidheal
As an atheist, I have spent the last 60 years studying languages and
symbology
in order to starve the fire of passion by removing the flammable
material from the inherent element.
S'mee
Are you sure? Maybe nonuts you have it backwards... Most likely you
aren't correct and I am, but that's because you are an insane idiot
adn I'm knot.
Gaidheal
The Cro-Magnons were hoping for success in future hunts by using
sympathetic magic to attract game animals in the same way that the
Melanesians of New Guinea's "cargo cult" hoped to attract airplanes by
building runways populated with fake airplanes.
Chapter 3, "The Golden Bough : a study of magic and religion" by Sir
James George Frazer
"1. The Principles of Magic
IF we analyse the principles of thought on which magic is based, they
will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that
like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and,
second, that things which have once been in contact with each other
continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact
has been severed. The former principle may be called the Law of
Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first
of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers
that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from
the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will
affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact,
whether it formed part of his body or not."
S'mee
Let me translate what krust(pick a name) said...(I did take a course
in understanding idiots)
"YES! RESOUNDINGLY YES!"
I couldn't get all the nuances of what he said but that is the best I
could do.
S'mee
He's jealous ol' senile goat raping bastard. That's why...he's only
here to start shit. WHat he fails to understand is there is a real
world and it could show up on a guys front door any second (that's why
I keep the guns loaded)
S'mee
> totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote innews:1jb1k94.xfwv5o1rqmxjwN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> > Actually, I'm amused and impressed to see art criticism appearing on
> > reeky....
>
> Especially from someone who's own country considers *THIS* art...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yc2o75v
I like it. <shrug> Then again I don't particularly like Kincaid or his
style much less others that paint that way. Gotta remember one mans
art is another mans doodle that's headed for the trash.
S'mee
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > Stephen! <N...@spam.com> wrote:
>
It's a take off of a photo that's been going around the net for
sometime. IIRC it was Central Park Ny. The police were recovering a
fiberglass Ronnie that somebody swipped.
Gaidheal
> I couldn't get all the nuances of what he said but that is the best
I
> could do.
Yes, I can see that you are one of those who has been exposed to
wisdom, but has subsequently worked to dull his mind again.
[I thought:]
"Plowing the field with plows,
sowing the ground with seed,
supporting their wives & children,
young men gather up wealth.
So why is it that I,
consummate in virtue,
a doer of the teacher's bidding,
don't gain Unbinding?
I'm not lazy or proud."
Washing my feet, I noticed
the
water.
And in watching it flow from high to low,
my heart was composed like a fine thoroughbred steed.
Then taking a lamp, I entered the hut,
checked the bedding, sat down on the bed.
And taking a pin, I pulled out the wick:
Like the flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness.
---Therigatha 5: 10 Verses of the Elder Nuns (Sister Patacara)
J. Clarke
I feel like I'm missing a piece of information--I mean symbolically it's
showing McDonalds the hamburger chain being dragged away from a Russian arts
festival but what would prompt the artist to make such a statement? Was he
advocating something or protesting something or what? The arts festival is
associated with Pushkin and there is a statue of Pushkin in Moscow that
faces what is reported to be the busiest single McDonalds in the world, so
does that have something to do with it?
Next time I talk to my art historian friend I'll have to ask her about it.
TOG@Toil
> The Cro-Magnons were hoping for success in future hunts by using
> sympathetic magic to attract game animals in the same way that the
> Melanesians of New Guinea's "cargo cult" hoped to attract airplanes by
> building runways populated with fake airplanes.
>
Only one theory of many, I'm afraid, and you had to Google to find it.
Have you no original thoughts at all?
don (Calgary)
>
>
> Rarely does an oil artist actually impress me. This guy leaves me
>speechless. I'd swear some of these are photographs not oil paintings.
>
>
>http://www.alfredoartist.com/Galleries.htm
Good stuff Stephen. Although the pictures are not to my taste I can
appreciate the artist's talent.
Of course we have seen the elite of Reeky chime in with their usual
pompous, arrogant, condescending, and I will add to the list, snobbish
comments about what is and isn't art. But that doesn't take away from
an individual's choice of what appeals to them, not does it detract
from the artist's talent.
Now that said, the most expensive piece of art hanging in my home is a
photo radar ticket I received many years ago in Edmonton. I don't care
if it may not share "the marvelous economy of line" with the masters.
It is a picture. It cost me a lot of money. It is in a frame. So in my
world it qualifies as art.
Here are a few other pictures I would consider "Art".
http://www.actualriders.ca/art.htm
I am surprised Thumper hasn't offered a selection of his collection to
add to the Great Reeky Art List. ;-)
Gaidheal
> Have you no original thoughts at all?
I have had as many "original thoughts" as you have had, which is to
say, zero unique and original thoughts.
The most original thinkers were those who invented language by quasi-
arbitarily assigning sounds to the material objects surrounding them.
However, thought ends when one arrives at the unconditioned
transcendancy
which sounds cannot begin to describe.
Which really doesn't matter, because one is *dead* in the
unconditioned transcendant state...
Gaidheal
> I am surprised Thumper hasn't offered a selection of his collection to
> add to the Great Reeky Art List. ;-)
Thumper, like Picasso is impotent, and he has already posted his link
to a gallery of human penii...
At least Picasso didn't paint human dicks...
Twibil
>
>
> >> What is it that you have against Morris dancing? Does the thought of
> >> people enjoying themselves with a bit of harmless fun somehow offend you?
>
> > As best we can tell, he's trying to associate Morris Dancing with
> > being Gay; and thereby thinks he's posting a deadly insult.
>
> person? :)
Don't be silly.
They'd use him for a dance floor. (Hey-Ninny-Ninny!)
Twibil
>
> Are you sure of that? Have you wiki'd it properly?
It's all supposition, and the poor fool isn't smart enough to realise
that *nobody* can tell you the intended meaning of an artwork unless
it's the artist himself. (And *he* might be pulling your leg.) Half
the fun of art is that it affects almost everyone in different ways,
and some of those ways are certain to be very different from what the
artist originally had in mind.
I used to go dirt-biking in the California high desert with a
Blackfoot Indian friend, and one day I asked him what he knew about
the meanings of some petrogylphs we'd seen on a volcanic neck out near
Barstow.
http://digitalextraordinaire.com/files/Petroglyphs1_copy.jpg
He replied with a long, windy, convoluted explanation that went on and
on until I stopped him and said "Wait a minute! How do you *know* all
this stuff?"
He looked at me perfectly deadpan and said "We guess".
Twibil
>
>
> > I'm a humorless twat.
> > Does this come as a surprise to you?
>
> Not at all...
Oh, look! He thinks it clever to make up his own text and then
fashion a mordant reply to same.
Alas for "Stephen!"; it's still just talking to yourself.
Twibil
>
> >> ÿ Other than age, what's the difference between this:> > The fact that you apparently don't know the answer to that question
>
> I *know* the answer to be "nothing". They're both just some punk
> expressing themselves on the nearest vertical surface.
Um, aside from the fact that the above reveals that you have
absolutely no art in your soul, you just said "nothing"; and then
followed that statement with what you think the two pics *do* have in
common.
Stop. Think it through. And decide which of those diametrically-
opposed things you want us to believe.
> > tells us things about you that were probably best kept secret.
>
> The fact that you answer a question with a piss-poor insult only tells
> us that you really are a prick and not very good at it either.
Gee, it must have been at *least* halfway decent as insults go, or
you'd not have got upset and replied as you did.
Twibil
>
>
> At least Picasso didn't paint human dicks...
Ah, the wonders of Krusty's massive ignorance strike home yet again.
http://www.join2day.net/abc/P/picasso/picasso222.JPG
And he's *really* gonna be upset when he finds out about "Picasso
Porn".
(Insert sounds of frantic Googling.)
Twibil
> pompous, arrogant, condescending, and I will add to the list, snobbish
> comments about what is and isn't art.
Free translation from the Canadian:
"I have no idea what these guys are talking about, and it fries my
egalitarian little soul". (whimper)
Gaidheal
> It's all supposition, and the poor fool isn't smart enough to
realise
> that *nobody* can tell you the intended meaning of an artwork unless
> it's the artist himself. (And *he* might be pulling your leg.) Half
> the fun of art is that it affects almost everyone in different ways,
> and some of those ways are certain to be very different from what the
> artist originally had in mind.
The native peoples that carved petroglyphs and painted rocks weren't
sending a message to the future, they were casting magical spells.
And the average member of their tribe wouldn't know what the meaning
of most of the symbols, those secrets would be passed from the shaman
to his disciple.
But, if you see a stick figure of a man holding a bow and arrow
adjacent to a stick figure of a big horn sheep on a desert petroglyph,
you may rest assured that the
petroglyph pecker was *not* trying to raise a bond issue for a petting
zoo.
don (Calgary)
And that childish petulant rant somehow makes you feel less pompous,
arrogant, condescending or snobbish?
Now we can wait for the other one to chime in.
The Older Gentleman
> The native peoples that carved petroglyphs and painted rocks weren't
> sending a message to the future, they were casting magical spells.
Or they were recording events. Fuckwit.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
The Older Gentleman
> I have had as many "original thoughts" as you have had, which is to
> say, zero unique and original thoughts.
Well, I've written a reasonably coherent summation of what *I* saw in
the cave painting. You've simply babbled about shamans and other stuff
you've Googled and wiki'd.
Biased I may be, but I think my thoughts (um, as it were...) are more
original. YMMV.
The Older Gentleman
> Although the pictures are not to my taste I can
> appreciate the artist's talent.
Pretty much what I said. At least we can agree on something.
Twibil
>
>
> The native peoples that carved petroglyphs and painted rocks weren't
> sending a message to the future, they were casting magical spells.
Arrogant fool.
You have not the slightest idea who carved those petroglyphs or what
they intended them for, and neither do the Anthropologists who study
them.
Even the indians don't know.
Chuck Rhode
> The most appalling collection of neo-Western chocolate-box kitsch
> I've seen in ages.
... more properly cigar-box kitsch:
o http://bottlesboozeandbackstories.blogspot.com/2009/10/cigars-under-glass.html
... no doubt a ripoff of this artiste:
o http://www.world-wide-art.com/art/Paul_Calle.html
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 25° — Wind WNW 6 mph — Sky overcast. Haze.
Road Glidin' Don
> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d2da28e6-5c7c-44a9-aff5-
> 75a45cd2a...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I'm a humorless twat.
> > Does this come as a surprise to you?
>
> Not at all...
<nods in agreement>
Gaidheal
> You have not the slightest idea who carved those petroglyphs or what
> they intended them for, and neither do the Anthropologists who study
> them.
>
> Even the indians don't know.
It's true that the Indians often don't know who pecked out the
petroglyphs or painted the pictographs in their area, because such
knowledge would have been passed on orally by the shamans or wouldn't
have been passed on at all if the peckers or painters were from a
completely different tribe that lived in an area before the second
tribe got there.
For instance, the Potwisha tribe that lived at Hospital Rock (the
beginning of the switchbacks up The Generals Highway) in Sequoia told
the first Europeans that they met that don't know who painted the
pictographs but the rock paintings hardly look to be fifty years old.
And, so far as what pictographs and petroglyphs mean, I've seen many
and I trust what the anthropologists have to say about their meaning.
After all, the scientists *do* get paid to formulate and publish peer-
reviewed theories concerning the subject of the symbols.
Gaidheal
Gentleman) wrote:
> Well, I've written a reasonably coherent summation of what *I* saw in
> the cave painting. You've simply babbled about shamans and other stuff
> you've Googled and wiki'd.
> Biased I may be, but I think my thoughts (um, as it were...) are more
> original. YMMV.
Oh, yass. You're a real egotiscal whizbang who believes that the Cro-
Magnon artist shivering in his cave was worried about what cr-i-i-tics
would think of their abstractions and sparing line work 40,000 years
later.
What the *hungry* Cro-Magnon man was doing was painting images in
hopes that the game animals would come back.
He had no idea what the advancing glaciers meant, he just knew that it
was getting harder and harder to find anything to feed his family.
Even in modern times, anthropologists tell us that the Haida-Gwai
Indians of British Columbia would pray and carefully meditate on the
whales they hoped to kill the next day...
But, of course the anthropolgists don't have *your* refined taste in
abstract art to realize that you're right and they are wrong...
BrianNZ
> On Dec 21, 6:56 am, Gaidheal <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 5:58 pm, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Gaidheal wrote:
>>>> I have no quarrel with Morris dancing whatever.
>>> My inability to read your mind is why I posed the question in the first
>>> place. You are constantly bringing it up as if it's a bad thing to be
>>> doing. What is your motivation?
>> Start paying more attention to the interplay of poisonalities in this
>> grope and you will understand my motivation.
>
> He's jealous ol' senile goat raping bastard. That's why...he's only
> here to start shit. WHat he fails to understand is there is a real
> world and it could show up on a guys front door any second (that's why
> I keep the guns loaded)
>
Well I asked fairly simple questions and he failed to answer so I guess
he doesn't know himself. As for keeping up with
personalities.....constant name changing doesn't help!
BryanUT
http://www.dreambreeze.com/Pages/Petros/HorseshoeCanyonPanel4.html
I imagine some might call this graffiti. Personally, I don't care.
I've been there, I've FELT it, Along with marks left by the white man
from the 1800s to 1940s, then it changes into defacement as the marks
become more recent.
And I've felt that also. "Modern" American's have no sense of native
history, nor respect, it saddens me.
S'mee
See that's a BIG fail on your part. Art doesn't HAVE to mean
anything...artists were saying the same thing Freud did only millenia
before "sometimes the cigar is JUST a cigar"
S'mee
> [I thought:]
See there's the problem. You were attempting something YOU aren't
qualified nor capable of...thought.
S'mee
> On 21 Dec, 14:30, Gaidheal <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Cro-Magnons were hoping for success in future hunts by using
> > sympathetic magic to attract game animals in the same way that the
> > Melanesians of New Guinea's "cargo cult" hoped to attract airplanes by
> > building runways populated with fake airplanes.
>
> Only one theory of many, I'm afraid, and you had to Google to find it.
>
> Have you no original thoughts at all?
You had to ask? I thought it was obvious...he's flat worm wired into a
computer as some grad students unfinished work(poor lad gave it up as
a bad go, but didn't have the heart to kill him)
S'mee
heh, he's off his meds big time now. Delusions of intelligence and
adequecy...
Gaidheal
> Well I asked fairly simple questions and he failed to answer so I guess
> he doesn't know himself.
You're wrong. I do know exactly why I'm putting one particular Morris
dancer down.
If you're too dull-witted to understand what's up with that, it's your
problem, not mine.