Cool Pictures IV: The Awesomeness is Volatile

[Meteor Man]

I beg your pardon? Then please tell me just how "realistic" dyed oil or eggs slapped on a color by number canvas is compared to what it supposedly represents?

Like I said, it's a trompe l'oiel (trick of the eye). Albertian illusionism is a trick of painting that utilizes lines to create the illusion of perspective in a painting, as if the picture frame were a window into another world, and we are viewers looking through that window witnessing the event in question.

Don't forget that these were once considered to be "true to life" in their time as well.

I guess I misunderstood your post, then.

I know what trompe l'oiel is. I guess I need clarification of what "dyed oil or eggs slapped on a color by number canvas" is.

Do you mean "realism?"

Spoiler :

15th Century Italian realism?

Spoiler :

Or modern art?

Spoiler :

...and we should probably get back on topic because this thread is going to hell.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

"But the LORD our Horton is a jealous God! Lo! HE hath demanded us that we must render unto HIM our firstborn sons lest he surrender our world to the Vladikoff and Hazlenut!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It would be nice if a mod could split all these art posts into a new thread.

And that is the art of it.

Your statement on the bottom of 47 is still 100% bull, no substance.

What the Christ are you talking about?

I guess I misunderstood your post, then.

I know what trompe l'oiel is. I guess I need clarification of what "dyed oil or eggs slapped on a color by number canvas" is.

It was a snarky reference to paint tools. Oil and egg have historically been the two most common art media: oil for oil paints, egg for tempera and frescoes. When you paint, with tempera/fresco in particular, you draw it all out beforehand with just the outlines, and then fill in the areas with color later, because the egg bonds with the plaster on the wall very quickly and doesn't leave much time for manipulation. It's literally a "paint by number" process, as children color by numbers in their coloring books.

My point being, this stuff that you're holding up as being "realistic" is really just a trick of the eye, accomplished by careful line drawing to mimic the disappearing perspective.

Do you mean "realism?"

Spoiler :

15th Century Italian realism?

Spoiler :

Realism is not a word used to describe any of those things. "Realistic" is a loaded term, and "realism" describes a late 19th century art movement that focused on benign and banal subject matter, like gleaners in the fields and such. The word you want is "illusionism," because that's what it is: an illusion. You just think it looks "realistic" because it appears as your mind might imagine it to be, were you looking at the image through the "window" of the picture frame. That's really what perspective is all about. But the point is, it's just a trick. It's a two-dimensional surface being made to look like a three-dimensional event or object. That's not very "realistic" or "honest!"

Or modern art?

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Futurist art like this typically represents emotions or concepts, and would never be said to "realistically" represent anything as an image. Personally, I'm a fan of Futurism, I don't care if they were associated with the Italian Fascists or not.

 

[Meteor Man]

Thanks for the explanation, Cheezy. I suppose I mean "illusionism" when I say realism. Personally, illusionism is for me.

I second the thread split recommendation.

 

[Agent327]

Trying to find Cool Pictures in the Art Discussion thread...

 

[cardgame]

I'll save you!

 

[Arakhor]

Oooo! Red's not my colour at all, but that's still nice.

 

[Traitorfish]

New thread for the art debate here.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

 

[cardgame]

More pomo salvation

Spoiler :

 

[Monsterzuma]

Most of the art discussion in this thread: read up on it. Traitorfish and Cheezy have the long end here. Counterarguers don't. Facepalming isn't an argument! Calling bs because you don't understand the intellectual discussion of the aesthetics behind something is antiintellectualism! I have my own preferences in regards to artwork where I disdain a lot of stuff, for the reasons you say a spot painting isn't art actually, but that's not to say metaart is invalid simply because it's selfcritical in itself.

The most laughable thing is that most of the counterpoints are sticking to romantic/Kantian aesthetics that are basically rationalizations of the divine. That is, obsolete. There are a number of tendencies I recognize of this; you seem to have a preference for the artistic genius and the ability that is behind making art. You kneejerk over seeing some spots and denounce the work & artist for being talentless, but fail to properly deconstruct Traitorfish's points other than "I don't get it". Now, I'm not to say there's something specifically wrong with Kant, but the discourse you're riding is about 200 years old and has been picked completely apart since, by the exact artworks you don't like.

Note that I can fully understand and appreciate your tastes, but your rationalizations over why you feel that way - antiintellectualism, indifference in regards to aesthetic discussion and cultural contexts, a requirement for talent - something that is a romantic construct as well, and simple kneejerk reception without explaining or understanding why - that's not particularly nice for me to read.

There's a difference between art you don't get, art you don't like, and things that aren't art, as each can be discussed individually as an aesthetic problem.

 

[Angst]

LOOK I SMART I KNOW GOOGLE AND MEMES

#yolo

 

[Monsterzuma]

LOOK I SMART I KNOW GOOGLE AND MEMES

#yolo

I'm just meeting these apologisms for calling paintings of uninterestingly arranged squares and circles "art" and paying millions for them on a level playing field. It's hard but these pictures narrowly do the trick.

On tangentially related note, these are cool pictures, so it's 100% legit. *bad joke eel face*

New thread for the art debate here.

good, that tells me which thread i should be avoiding and we can go back to posting cool things here.

 

[Angst]

I'm just meeting these apologisms for calling paintings of uninterestingly arranged squares and circles "art" and paying millions for them on a level playing field. It's hard but these pictures narrowly do the trick.

On tangentially related note, these are cool pictures, so it's 100% legit. *bad joke eel face*



good, that tells me which thread i should be avoiding and we can go back to posting cool things here.

then don't post your discussion here? your pictures do not meet the merit sufficient for a meaningful art discussion: you just appear as trolling, effortless and/or stupid. choose your picks of intentions. as one thing is certain, from what i read of your posts, you don't actually study art or don't have enough to say about it with any substance; it's ill fit and pretty much more ridiculable than you attemp to make the art you dislike. i listed a number of reasons why it was infact art, as agreed upon by the art community, people who produce and/or analyze art. you appear as having no such qualities. you have perfectly fine qualities for determining whether you like it or not, but then you can say "this is good" or "this is bad" art, not determining whether it is or not; because most of the analyses of art in this thread have been horribly shallow or ignorantly founded upon non-existing art principles. so, again, you seem to attemp trolling, but your posts are pretty much just mockery of any kind of substantial discussion, making your gifs even more ridiculable and fun for people-in-the-know to yell at. so thankyou for perhaps trying to make me upset, but i mostly get a minor adrenaline rush.

that said your gifs are fine for the thread so w/e

i should post something neat too. quite random and possibly to some apologetic for this post

 

[Monsterzuma]

that said your gifs are fine for the thread so w/e

I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

 

[Angst]

any is good as any

i'm a sucker for deep sea great beasts

 

[Monsterzuma]

Illustrations for Paradise Lost. Retrieved through a google search. I think *most* of these are by Gustave Dore.

 

[Monsterzuma]

In this week's edition of Uncool Pictures I: Microsoft Has A Creepy Patent That Lets You Hug Someone Over The Internet Using A Robotic Pillow

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patents-long-distance-handshakes-and-hugs-2012-12

 

[Meteor Man]

then don't post your discussion here? your pictures do not meet the merit sufficient for a meaningful art discussion: you just appear as trolling, effortless and/or stupid. choose your picks of intentions. as one thing is certain, from what i read of your posts, you don't actually study art or don't have enough to say about it with any substance; it's ill fit and pretty much more ridiculable than you attemp to make the art you dislike. i listed a number of reasons why it was infact art, as agreed upon by the art community, people who produce and/or analyze art. you appear as having no such qualities. you have perfectly fine qualities for determining whether you like it or not, but then you can say "this is good" or "this is bad" art, not determining whether it is or not; because most of the analyses of art in this thread have been horribly shallow or ignorantly founded upon non-existing art principles. so, again, you seem to attemp trolling, but your posts are pretty much just mockery of any kind of substantial discussion, making your gifs even more ridiculable and fun for people-in-the-know to yell at. so thankyou for perhaps trying to make me upset, but i mostly get a minor adrenaline rush.

that said your gifs are fine for the thread so w/e

i should post something neat too. quite random and possibly to some apologetic for this post

Nice Cthulhu.

Redirect your art discussion to the art thread, por favor.

 

[Angst]

Redirect your art discussion to the art thread, por favor.

I did, he didn't.

The Cthulhu is a classic though. I've been watching Call of Cthulhu lately. Funny little picture.