Brought to you by CFC

[Phrossack]

Solution: Make Bieber clean up all of West Virginia with a toothbrush, then reward him by making him King of Thailand, Syria, and Ukraine.

-west india man, on how to solve several pressing issues.

 

[W|M]

Well the first thing you have to understand is that these aren't simple things Rothko built thoughtlessly. These paintings took months to construct. Every line, every "smudge" was one-hundred percent intentional. The real brilliance with Rothko is how his paintings were constructed. That red-orange you see there isn't just some red-orange paint he bought at the store. It's the product of literally hundreds of layers of paint that he mixed on the canvas culminating in that reddish-orange hue you see. The blocks and coloration are all the results of hundreds of fine-tuned layers of paint all mixing and coalescing to the finished product.

The other thing with Rothko is that he's not really an artist you can understand very well sitting behind a 21-inch computer monitor. It's kinda cliche'd to say "you'll never truly understand [x artist] until you see the work in-person" but this is never more true than it is with Rothko (and all the abstract expressionists, for that matter). Problem one with a digital viewing is that your computer screen doesn't properly convey just how absolutely massive these pieces are. That piece I showed above (Black on Maroon; on display at the Tate Modern) is 2.6m x 3.8m - that's 1.5 people wide by 2ish people high. And that's what's so moving about Rothkos - the sheer size of the canvas. The penetrating, pervasiveness of the color. Standing close to one, being enveloped by the color, and seeing the detail of the lines, every smudge, every little waver in the line, 100% planned and 100% crafted over the course of months. That's what brought me to tears the first time I saw it.

Owen Glyndwr on how a simple-looking piece of art can be beautiful.

 

[Phrossack]

Owen Glyndwr on how a simple-looking piece of art can be beautiful.

That's as incomprehensibly alien to me as my interests and beliefs are to anyone else.

 

[JohannaK]

Who doesn't love abstract art?

If we went back in time, I would probably stop enjoying the trip once we got to XVIIth Century art. Not meaning it's not good, but that it's all figurative and pretty much homogeneous.

 

[Phrossack]

Who doesn't love abstract art?

I certainly don't.

 

[Zack]

Why not? And don't say "it's not real art" or some dumb bs like that.

 

[Phrossack]

Why not? And don't say "it's not real art" or some dumb bs like that.

Look, I'm not really willing to get into an argument about art. It's all very subjective, and nobody agrees with or gives a damn about my views, anyway.

 

[Zack]

Look, I'm not really willing to get into an argument about art. It's all very subjective, and nobody agrees with or gives a damn about my views, anyway.

That's a lame copout...

 

[Phrossack]

That's a lame copout...

You asked a question in an aggressive tone, then replied rudely. That tells me you're not interested in an honest discussion, you just want to see what I say so you can rip it apart. Am I wrong, or does the subject of art actually get you pissy with people?

 

[sophie]

I certainly don't.

That's fine, everybody's entitled to their own opinions and aesthetics, because, as I said in the post that spawned that discussion, art is completely and utterly subjective. As long as you don't say some hogwash like "that's not art because it isn't pretty/doesn't look real", "that artist has no talent/any old person can do that/what a waste of paint supplies", I have no problem with it.

That being said, and as a person who up until relatively recently was totally baffled by modern art and its appeal, I would encourage you (and anybody, for that matter) if you have the time/free units, to take a History of Modern Art Course. Of all the classes at Uni (and this is embarrassing to say as a prospective History Grad Student), no one class so totally changed my personal beliefs and how I looked at something as that modern art class I took.

 

[SamSniped]

I, personally, have never really found modern or abstract art appealing. I really have no reason as to why, I just don't enjoy it.

 

[Phrossack]

That's fine, everybody's entitled to their own opinions and aesthetics, because, as I said in the post that spawned that discussion, art is completely and utterly subjective. As long as you don't say some hogwash like "that's not art because it isn't pretty/doesn't look real", "that artist has no talent/any old person can do that/what a waste of paint supplies", I have no problem with it.

That being said, and as a person who up until relatively recently was totally baffled by modern art and its appeal, I would encourage you (and anybody, for that matter) if you have the time/free units, to take a History of Modern Art Course. Of all the classes at Uni (and this is embarrassing to say as a prospective History Grad Student), no one class so totally changed my personal beliefs and how I looked at something as that modern art class I took.

You're polite, I'll give you that, so I'll answer you, at least. I have very different tastes and views of art and most everything else, and these views tend to get ridiculed, so I keep them to myself most of the time. I'll just say that abstract art isn't my thing and my interests and tastes probably aren't your thing or anybody else's, so I don't try to encourage others to try to enjoy them. Nobody would.

Anyway, I've derailed the thread long enough and I shouldn't have answered JoanK's probably rhetorical question.

 

[Zack]

You asked a question in an aggressive tone, then replied rudely. That tells me you're not interested in an honest discussion, you just want to see what I say so you can rip it apart. Am I wrong, or does the subject of art actually get you pissy with people?

You get offended way too easily. I wasn't being aggressive or rude - "it's not real art" is not a credible argument, and it's a really tired and common one at that. Why would you speak up about your distaste for modern art if you're going to back out of a potential discussion about it? It was a lame copout. If you'd like, in the future I'll be sure to sugarcoat my discussions with you and compliment you on your hair and such. Would that make you feel better?

I, personally, have never really found modern or abstract art appealing. I really have no reason as to why, I just don't enjoy it.

This is fine. I was just curious, man. Don't get so defensive (@ Phrossack).

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would you speak up about your distaste for modern art if you're going to back out of a potential discussion about it?

Because this is a quote thread, and not a discussion thread?

 

[Phrossack]

You get offended way too easily. I wasn't being aggressive or rude - "it's not real art" is not a credible argument, and it's a really tired and common one at that. Why would you speak up about your distaste for modern art if you're going to back out of a potential discussion about it? It was a lame copout. If you'd like, in the future I'll be sure to sugarcoat my discussions with you and compliment you on your hair and such. Would that make you feel better?


This is fine. I was just curious, man. Don't get so defensive (@ Phrossack).

Maybe I was too prickly--I'm just used to having my views disliked--but your sarcasm isn't helping anything. I wasn't intending to have a discussion, I was just intending to show JoanK that not everyone likes abstract art. I shouldn't have answered his rhetorical question.

 

[Zack]

Because this is a quote thread, and not a discussion thread?

I disagree with your point. Please don't press me further, though, this isn't a discussion thread.

Maybe I was too prickly--I'm just used to having my views disliked--but your sarcasm isn't helping anything. I wasn't intending to have a discussion, I was just intending to show JoanK that not everyone likes abstract art. I shouldn't have answered his rhetorical question.

Don't take everything so personally.

 

[JohannaK]

And we didn't "just survive".

Today the numerical ratio of Germans to Poles is more favourable for us than ever before.

Current western border of Poland is also satisfactory for us. The same as 800 years ago.

Do you not think that comparing ethnic populations and calling them "favourable" is a bit, y'know, um... Hitler? It's a bit Hitler. You sound like Hitler. These are Hitler things to say.

I'm sorry that there's no more subtle way to put that.

 

[Hygro]

Just start here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13038113&postcount=87

Seriously. It was the best thread we've had in a while, but this, this was is where things got amazing.

 

[Mise]

Oh man, I can't believe I missed that thread

 

[Crezth]

Because this is a quote thread, and not a discussion thread?

ooOOOOH SO WHY NOT JUST BAN *ALL* DISCUSSION THEN? SFHKADJFASJBDJA