View Full Version : The art makes the man
Noticed a bit of a blank spot here, we discuss movies, games, books, but never art. Do any of you have a specific interest in something, from architecture in general to whatever how small
The Stranger
07-14-2011, 18:47
literature = art :yes:
literature = art :yes:
Sure, should have said visual art, paintings and sculptures (and architecture)
Anything painted or woven. Murals and such. Medieval or earlier.
I go to www.coolvibe.com rather often if that counts.
I love visiting art museums. I like just about anything but modern art. My favorites are probably Japanese painting and Mesoamerican art.
as long as it's not just a red dot on a white canvas, it is art, i.e. I don't care really.
Samurai Waki
07-15-2011, 02:16
My office is really the only part of my house that I have any content control in-- original paintings are too expensive for my taste, (though I do have some CM Russel paintings, copies of course, but in great condition).
Greyblades
07-15-2011, 02:28
I've allways been in awe of the giant sized landscapes locations and constructs like castles larger than mountains or cities that sprawl for tens of miles, a hall that's the size of a colluseum if rthe colluseum was built for giants 20 feet high that sort of thing. Basically this sort of scale. (http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-Gandalf_Rides_to_Minas_Tirith.html#grtmt)
Strike For The South
07-15-2011, 03:53
I know it when I see it
Major Robert Dump
07-15-2011, 04:26
I used to only decorate w/ my own art and photos, but after my award-winning piece,"Dolphins killed my Father", mt creativity ran dry.
So now I only use the art of classic, ancient artists like Derek Erdman
https://www.derekerdman.com/paintings.htm
Centurion1
07-15-2011, 08:10
im a big monet fan.
modern art usually angers me actually.
The Stranger
07-15-2011, 08:37
monet doesnt qualify as modern? or you mean post-modern?
monet doesnt qualify as modern? or you mean post-modern?
Impressionism, absolutely modern art
Centurion1
07-15-2011, 09:26
Impressionism, absolutely modern art
you could argue that the impressionists were the very beginning of the "modern art" period.
let me rephrase with the term contemporary.
you could argue that the impressionists were the very beginning of the "modern art" period.
Would be really hard to argue against it. I like Monet as well but it's a tier too high for me. Would love to own one one day.
Rhyfelwyr
07-15-2011, 09:59
I am artistically challenged. I don't get it.
Adrian II
07-15-2011, 11:14
Would be really hard to argue against it. I like Monet as well but it's a tier too high for me. Would love to own one one day.
Some art is too big to be 'owned' by anyone. Monet's work for instance.
Big impressionism fan here. Also Van Gogh, Kandinsky, Picasso, Hopper. Bit of a hodge-podge.
If you want to discuss art, you could start by helping me understand why I adore both figurative and non-figurative art. Because I don't.
AII
Take a Mondriaan and replace a color, it won't make any sense anymore as a composition
Adrian II
07-15-2011, 13:11
Balance on the eye, check for a 2/3 composition (figurative) or balance somewhere else, take a Mondriaan and replace a color, it won't make any sense anymore as a composition
A Mondriaan might make sense if you replace black by white. But your point is taken, you are probably right that colour has more to do with my inconsistent taste then anything else.
AII
A Mondriaan might make sense if you replace black by white. But your point is taken, you are probably right that colour has more to do with my inconsistent taste then anything else.
AII
Look at your hand, the point of your finger is 1/3 of your finger, just as your hand is 1/3 of your lower arm. No different with your feet, 1/3 of your lower leg. You will see that ratio in every composition if you look for it. Defigurative art goes against it and tries to find a new balance. Explained as good as I can
Hosakawa Tito
07-15-2011, 23:31
I enjoy and collect watercolors. Like Strike, I know what I like when I see it. Here are a few I display in the house.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/Backus_WindyDay.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/Backus_JamaicanFisherman.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/hayWagonLG.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/bridgeLG.jpghttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/irishMeadowLG.jpg
Drunk Clown
07-16-2011, 00:20
Look at your hand, the point of your finger is 1/3 of your finger, just as your hand is 1/3 of your lower arm. No different with your feet, 1/3 of your lower leg. You will see that ratio in every composition if you look for it. Defigurative art goes against it and tries to find a new balance. Explained as good as I can
Maybe I don't understand it the way you mean, but err... my hand is more than half my lower arm. Same goes for my leg. If your hand is 1/3 of your lower arm then something went wrong, really wrong.
Oh and I don't get what's so special about a Mondriaan. I'm too sober for those things. I do appreciate a nice landscape and such.
[edit]
Or do you include your hand by saying lower arm?
Peasant Phill
07-16-2011, 00:26
Fragony is talking about the golden ratio. Something you can find everywhere in nature amongst them our own body. Apparently it's very pleasing to the eye hence the use in composition.
Drunk Clown
07-16-2011, 00:31
But still, I don't get the lower arm comparison.
Populus Romanus
07-16-2011, 01:23
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/Backus_JamaicanFisherman.jpg
He looks like a fish.:laugh4:
Fishermen eventually show the wear of their trade, laddie.
edyzmedieval
07-16-2011, 02:34
Literature my friend. I love reading and I love writing.
Oh, you said visual art? Well in that case I shall mention murals and old paintings, preferably of historical characters or other history-related art.
I like portraits as such. There is something of a dark moodiness visible in them that I enjoy gazing at. More to be seen than just the models in my opinion.
https://img847.imageshack.us/img847/3580/puritan.jpg
https://img853.imageshack.us/img853/2935/mason1670.jpg
edyzmedieval
07-16-2011, 02:43
Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring is definitely one of the best portraits.
Hosakawa Tito
07-16-2011, 10:55
He looks like a fish.:laugh4:
You are what you eat.
Adrian II
07-17-2011, 01:58
I like portraits as such.
Same here: Lucian Freud, Francis Bacon, Marlene Dumas...
AII
Same here:
Something about the 2 dimensions and the sense of depression with which it is painted is very appealing to me. Speaking strictly with the lack of knowledge I have for Puritan art/portrait.
Art? Art? ART?
"Art is not like other culture because its success is not made by its audience. The public fill concert halls and cinemas every day, we read novels by the millions, and buy records by the billions. 'We the people' affect the making and quality of most of our culture, but not our art. The Art we look at is made by only a select few. A small group create, promote, purchase, exhibit and decide the success of Art. Only a few hundred people in the world have any real say. When you go to an Art gallery you are simply a tourist looking at the trophy cabinet of a few millionaires."
Same here: Lucian Freud
Bad news for ya, or good should you own one, he died a few hours ago
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.