View Full Version : The most talented artist today....
Devastatin Dave
02-20-2005, 03:21
No question, this is the greatest artist of our time. Follow this link great experience
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/lyle_24/myhero.swf
At least he's having fun. :balloon2:
Crazed Rabbit
02-20-2005, 03:44
That's why people should always think twice before uploading something to the seething cauldron of rancid wind blowing globally that is the international internet...
You never know where it will end up...
Crazed Rabbit
if ever there was a fan who deserved to be in a video for a song, it would certainly be that guy.
All salute the funny fat singing guy.
TheSilverKnight
02-23-2005, 01:41
That is awesome... ~D You were right Devastatin Dave ~:cheers: ~;)
Papewaio
02-23-2005, 01:48
Jack Blacks cousin...
Big_John
02-23-2005, 02:09
No question, this is the greatest artist of our time.incorrect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3701484.stm
Sasaki Kojiro
02-23-2005, 02:23
incorrect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3701484.stm
OMFG lololol I can't stop laughing over this one...funniest thing I've seen in ages.
The fat singing guy is hilarious too.
Big King Sanctaphrax
02-23-2005, 02:25
incorrect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3701484.stm
Pahahahaha! This has got to be a joke!
Big_John
02-23-2005, 02:34
small words from small beings, trying to attack what they don't understand.
bow to marla's greatness fools!
discovery1
02-23-2005, 03:47
That's a curious story. Anyone else thing the kids about to cry in the picture? Perhaps she's camera shy, at least going against the caption.
Hosakawa Tito
02-23-2005, 03:53
He's lip-syncing like Milli Vanilli. ~;)
Very good and very funny - though it was posted here already, no?
Byzantine Prince
02-23-2005, 07:06
incorrect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3701484.stm
People these days will buy anything. Pfft, what fools.
thrashaholic
02-23-2005, 08:45
incorrect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3701484.stm
Proof, if proof be needed, that abstract art is rubbish. If a child can do it anyone can.
Now, if she paint a Rubens, or a Hals, or a Velazquez, or a Vermeer, or even something as ghastly as an Impressionist painting...THEN I'd be impressed.
*grumbles* bloddy little girl...I can paint much better than that, but do I get all the fame 'n' fortune, no...*/grumbles*
Big_John
02-23-2005, 10:56
INFIDEL DEFILERS! ~:pissed:
don't you get it? kandinsky! pollock!!!!! she signs her paintings "marla" but sometimes the R is reversed.. can you not see the glorious genius? ~:confused:
you shall all drown in lakes of blood. :sleep:
doc_bean
02-23-2005, 11:38
I like the first painting !
And I like the second. Like the oscar thread in the backroom - art is TOO subjective for us to state 'that is crap' or 'this is the best piece in the world', etc. It is very, very, VERY ignorant for you all to state how her art is rubbish where the fact that it sells and people like it proves otherwise.
And I dislike people who state 'oh well I could have done that!' Well... If you could have then why didn't you? It is trying to take credit for things you do not do like stating 'well if only I had been in a better school I would be a billionaire', the fact that you didn't paint the picture, the fact that you are not a billionaire are the real facts not your attempts at glossing over your own real story. The girl created this art, she has had the thought of the art and the creation of it, you did not, simple as.
Everyone knows that art stopped in 1695 ~:)
Sasaki Kojiro
02-23-2005, 16:39
And I like the second. Like the oscar thread in the backroom - art is TOO subjective for us to state 'that is crap' or 'this is the best piece in the world', etc. It is very, very, VERY ignorant for you all to state how her art is rubbish where the fact that it sells and people like it proves otherwise.
And I dislike people who state 'oh well I could have done that!' Well... If you could have then why didn't you? It is trying to take credit for things you do not do like stating 'well if only I had been in a better school I would be a billionaire', the fact that you didn't paint the picture, the fact that you are not a billionaire are the real facts not your attempts at glossing over your own real story. The girl created this art, she has had the thought of the art and the creation of it, you did not, simple as.
She's 4 years old, what does she know about life? And if she doesn't know about life how can she create art? Calling this art lowers the standards for art considerably.
don't you get it? kandinsky! pollock!!!!! she signs her paintings "marla" but sometimes the R is reversed.. can you not see the glorious genius?
Like Toys'R'Us! Now that you mention it, I see a lot of similarities between the store and abstract art...
She's 4 years old, what does she know about life? And if she doesn't know about life how can she create art? Calling this art lowers the standards for art considerably.
What do you need to know about 'life' to make art? You have made a simplistic statement and not backed it up.
Why does this lower the 'standards' of art? Again a simplistic statement not backed up. Art is subjective, what you think 'lowers standards' and is 'crap' is the complete opposite for others. If you cannot grasp that.....
Sasaki Kojiro
02-23-2005, 18:11
What do you need to know about 'life' to make art? You have made a simplistic statement and not backed it up.
e.g., you can't write a poem about the loss of a loved one if you have never lost a loved one. You can't compose a song about being rejected by one you love if you never have. Common sense, being simplistic does not detract from what I said...minimilism is a form of "art" all in itself you know. I haven't heard why you think it's art other than that you liked it.
Why does this lower the 'standards' of art? Again a simplistic statement not backed up. Art is subjective, what you think 'lowers standards' and is 'crap' is the complete opposite for others. If you cannot grasp that.....
You have a messed up definition of art. It's not "you look at something and think it looks nice, therefore it's art". It has to speak to you in some deep way. Resonate with your soul. A talented artist takes their innermost feelings and puts them into words or into a picture or music. What do you feel when you look at the paintings? What was the artist feeling? Can you really tell?
In this case I do know what she was feeling: "I'm bored today, so why don't I make some pretty splotches of paint! Lalalala!".
It is not me that has the mixed up view of art, it is unfortunately you. I find it amazingly strange people who would impose their ideas of what is and isn't art onto people, it is the worst form of egotism. I wouldn't dream of telling you what you can / can't wear, what you can / can't listen to etc, yet you are quite willing to have only things with your rubber stamp marked up as art.
art1 Audio pronunciation of "art" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.
Art has a VERY broad destription because it is so subjective and you cannot go around stating x is art, y is not art, like you can with, say, colours.
I still fail to understand why an artist NEEDS to have 'life experience' when doing art, the very idea seems absurd.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-23-2005, 18:51
It is not me that has the mixed up view of art, it is unfortunately you. I find it amazingly strange people who would impose their ideas of what is and isn't art onto people, it is the worst form of egotism. I wouldn't dream of telling you what you can / can't wear, what you can / can't listen to etc, yet you are quite willing to have only things with your rubber stamp marked up as art.
Art has a VERY broad destription because it is so subjective and you cannot go around stating x is art, y is not art, like you can with, say, colours.
I still fail to understand why an artist NEEDS to have 'life experience' when doing art, the very idea seems absurd.
I have a drawing...I think it's beautiful, but no one else does...is it art?
If everything is art, then nothing as art.
And I think you misunderstand me. True, I'm not going to call something art just because someone else does, but I'm not going to say they can't look at it/can't draw it/can't buy it...there is no imposing here...I said what I thought nothing more. You are going over the top with this.
Byzantine Prince
02-23-2005, 20:07
Art is something that is man-made and that i inspired by nature or has it's roots somewhere in nature. Nature itself is not art. I do find problems with JAG's thinking here though.
Sure this girl's paintings could be considered by some to be "good" BUT such a thing artistic talent or merit DOES exist. You can't just sit there and throw brushes around aimlessly and have people think you did it for a reason. That is NOT art! You have to make something with the right intent even if it is abstract. A person who is 4 years old can't possibly comprehend anything deep enough to make real art.
Everything is subjective to a certain degree. Where art ends crap begins. And there IS crap out there! You can't deny that! You can't compare a Dali painting with the result of (let's say) me spraying diahrrea all over the wall and then selling. And trust me people would buy it!
thrashaholic
02-23-2005, 20:27
Everyone knows that art stopped in 1695 ~:)
Agreed, except for some Pre-Raphaelite works (Rossetti etc.) and the British Romantic and Neo-Classical painters (Turner, Constable, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Gainsborough etc.)
Baroque was the pinnacle of art, combining the attention to accuracy and detail of the rennaissance with ultra realistic light and perspective techniques that haven't been improved upon since. The dark backgrounds and contrast with subtle, delicate, well painted, light effects in the foreground create an atmosphere of intrigue, intensity, realism and dynamism that has not, and most probably will not, been matched by any later artistic movement.
Abstract Expressionism (the movement of Kandinsky and Pollock, and seemingly this little girl) has nothing that makes it 'good' other than simply being abstract; no movement, no light, no dark. I'm left completely and utterly cold by its unsubtle blocks of colour and complete lack of 'form', form that is necessary in order to be able to experiment with colour, light and indeed form itself.
I find it "very, very, VERY ignorant" of people who complain about people's opinion of art when they themselves clearly know nothing about it. As an artist, amateur admittedly, I can assure you that ANYONE could paint like an abstract artist (not so with some of the other modern art movements though) as it is essentially 'child art'. All art is social comment, it's just that modern art's is far easier to understand and the ideals it embodies are shared with today's patrons. Those ideals are, somewhat unfortunately, ones of deconstructionism and breaking with tradition, which invariably leads to the abominations we see selling for thousands today.
I have no problem with abstract art, in fact I quite like some of the small subtle pieces that one sees around in people's houses, restaurants and shops, but none deserves to be called a masterpiece, none of it is 'good' enough.
Big_John
02-23-2005, 20:45
sorry dave. :worried:
Devastatin Dave
02-23-2005, 22:25
sorry dave. :worried:
That's ok, I just made some art in my pants looking at some of your babe thread pics!!! Would that be conceptual art or abstract? ~D
Byzantine Prince
02-23-2005, 23:21
You'de be suprised by how many people would buy you cream if you marketed it the right way.
orgasmic experience of musical masterbation!!!
is it really necessary to use such vulgar and obscene lanuage. especially in the Frontroom. :dizzy2:
Big_John
02-24-2005, 02:19
i think it's cumpulsory actually.
Devastatin Dave
02-25-2005, 04:35
is it really necessary to use such vulgar and obscene lanuage. especially in the Frontroom. :dizzy2:
Sorry Nav, I edited...
Sasaki Kojiro
02-25-2005, 06:51
New, heres a real childhood prodigy:
http://www.artakiane.com/akiane_art.htm#
Togakure
02-25-2005, 08:16
Akiane's work is truly stunning. If there were evidence of the Divine, I would be inclined to see talent like this as such. What else can explain such a profound ability? It adds credence to the idea of channeling, as opposed to creating.
Regarding the banter in this thread, my take is: art means something different depending on whom you ask. Artists see things quite differently from those who admire art but don't create it themselves. I've heard people suggest that the determining factor for art is appreciation by the masses, and then there are those that believe it is in the eye/ear/mind of the artist and has nothing at all to do with those who simply observe and consume. Personally, while I think art is something created by a human being, whether a created thing is art or not depends on the individual making the judgement. If one believes it to be art, then it is art--to that individual. What others think does not matter to said individual. I think all those who insist on being able to say what is art or not for others are not much different from the politicians, religious leaders, and despots throughout the world--those that would tell us what we should think, how we should be, what we can or cannot do.
To hell with the lot of them. I'll decide for myself, thank you.
Togakure
02-25-2005, 08:59
... A person who is 4 years old can't possibly comprehend anything deep enough to make real art ...
I strongly disagree with this statement. Youngsters often see profoundly into the nature of things. Most simply aren't able to communicate what they understand effectively. Unfortunately, many are "schooled" into believing otherwise as they grow older. There are those who believe that the older we get, the more removed we become from the true nature of things ... .
I have heard very young musicians play more beautifully, with much more passion and musical awareness, than many, many college-educated musicians. True, sometimes their technique was limited by their small hands or lungs, but when it came to playing musically, they had naturally what so many of their seniors lacked. They made real art right before my ears, which sometimes brought tears to my eyes (both in admiration and frustration, as for all my advanced years I could not do what they could do).
KukriKhan
03-05-2005, 22:33
This thing has legs:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/myamya.html
almost like a cult following ~D
Byzantine Prince
03-05-2005, 22:41
I strongly disagree with this statement. Youngsters often see profoundly into the nature of things. Most simply aren't able to communicate what they understand effectively. Unfortunately, many are "schooled" into believing otherwise as they grow older. There are those who believe that the older we get, the more removed we become from the true nature of things
Young... yes. Four... NO! Four year olds are todlers. My comment wasn't directed at their skill level, just their age. At that age(4) you can't make paintings like a 16 year old and have them have meaning. I'de say anywhere between 6 and 8 is where maturity kicks in a notch.
Big_John
03-05-2005, 22:43
there's an exception to every rule..
Devastatin Dave
03-06-2005, 05:27
Young... yes. Four... NO! Four year olds are todlers. My comment wasn't directed at their skill level, just their age. At that age(4) you can't make paintings like a 16 year old and have them have meaning. I'de say anywhere between 6 and 8 is where maturity kicks in a notch.
And some would say that teens are too irrational and immature to debate on political forums as well... ~;)
Byzantine Prince
03-06-2005, 05:58
Who says that? *brings out his family AK-47 and gets his face all intense* :leer:
Kaiser of Arabia
03-06-2005, 06:41
that dudes from Cliffside park NJ
He's a Romanain Immigrant..
Anyway RAMMSTEIN OWNS HIm
And some would say that teens are too irrational and immature to debate on political forums as well... ~;)
*smack*
This thing has legs:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/myamya.html
almost like a cult following ~D
Now that one is funny.
Kaiser of Arabia
03-06-2005, 18:35
http://www.funpic.hu/swf/numanuma.html
i like this version
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.