Which One Would You Call Art????

Post by **Dave The Dov** » November 10th, 2004, 12:18 pm

_________________
Asian Forum

Post by **Doreen Peri** » November 10th, 2004, 2:07 pm

Well, I'd call them both art.

The first one is excellent photography. (what is the explosion? and where? who is the photographer?)

The second is a lovely painting. Yes, art, of course. (who is the artist?)

It would be good if you post any images that you reference the artist and give credit.

hmmm.... are these your pieces?

perezoso · Post by **perezoso** » November 10th, 2004, 2:53 pm

Fallujah ? Gauguin? no, bay-be the Dow

Post by **Dave The Dov** » November 10th, 2004, 2:56 pm

Neither of them are mine. The first one is a press photo showing the fighting over in Iraq. The other is a Gauguin painting. I want to see which one people would pick the most as art.
_________________
economic stimulus

perezoso · Post by **perezoso** » November 10th, 2004, 3:05 pm

Well, comrade, though the bombing pic could be spruced up a bit--mangled bodies, rubble, grinning GIs, etc.-- its an obvious triumph over Paul G.'s somewhat ham-fisted opiated cartoons of everready island gals ..........

bunk up lil buddie, and immanentize the eschaton!

Post by **bennie** » November 18th, 2004, 2:49 pm

I don't really rate that Gauguin painting. It doesn't say anything to me. And, the colours look really vulgar and OTT. But it is art.

The photograph itself is art because there is an artistry involved in taking such a photograph. But the content is also art. Journalistic photos, such as this, can very often be incredibly beautiful (even, or especially, when they depict destruction).

I was looking through a book of photo-journalism the other day. And, excuse the pun, some of the photos really blew me away.

perezoso · Post by **perezoso** » November 18th, 2004, 5:14 pm

how would you "rate"/ compare these:

Lil' Abner, Capp

Bull, Picasso

{Methinx Capp wins}

Post by **Dave The Dov** » November 18th, 2004, 5:21 pm

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
_________________
Honda SL70

perezoso · Post by **perezoso** » November 18th, 2004, 5:28 pm

Jack Pollock

OR

T.H. Benton

?

Benton kicks his f-in azzz

(I happen to disagree Mr. Dov. Personally I think TH Benton is objectively "better"--more creative, more profound, technically and formally superior-- to Pollock.)

Post by **Dave The Dov** » November 18th, 2004, 5:34 pm

Pollock studied under Benton and was greatly influanced by him. Matter of fact Pollack shows up in a painting by Benton called "Wreck Of The Old 97." Your opinon on Benton over Pollack is what I'm looking for and a cherish it highly.
_________________
BMW 247 engine

perezoso · Post by **perezoso** » November 18th, 2004, 5:46 pm

Yes, I have heard that, but Pollock didn't study hard enough. Again, I think Pollock is WAY overrated, as is Picasso and many other modern "artists". Having perused quite a few of Benton's paintings online and in books, I think he was possibly the greatest American painter ever, and really comparable to old masters, or european greats, such as Delacroix or someone like that. His art is at least equal to Dali's or Rivera's, really surpassing it. And to be honest, I think a very great painter such as Benton puts poets and fiction writers to shame (though the painter defers in some sense to the authentic philosopher and scientist) . The same with great composers: Charles Ives is to me more profound than Wallace Stevens ever was. Apollo is Dionysius' top man: Fuck poetry, minstrelsy, and most fiction.

Post by **Dave The Dov** » November 18th, 2004, 6:10 pm

All are great but hearing what people like is just as great.
_________________
marijuana

perezoso · Post by **perezoso** » November 18th, 2004, 6:23 pm

.....That's not to say the "art world" is not corrupt and decadent: it is, very much so.....I think it is beyond obscene that a van gogh lived in total poverty; 10-20 years later his paintings were worth thousands and now are worth millions---but the ones being sold are his "pretty" ones of landscapes, flowers, etc. The same with "impressionists"--the bourgeois loves pretty spattered landscapes by Claude Monet or stupid sentimental crap (that painter of light guy); they don't enjoy far better realist art by say Benton or Hopper, or surrealist masters such as Magritte (though they are still fairly popular) . I think the art auction and gallery biz, museums, etc. is quite evil, but what is the solution, apart from armed revolution?

Post by **Dave The Dov** » November 19th, 2004, 11:45 am

That doesn't bother me that the rich pay so much when they buy art. What is obsence is that they will keep it to themselves after they buy it and then let no one else see it.
_________________
Codeine Rehab Forum