Cool Pictures IV: The Awesomeness is Volatile

[madviking]

Yeah, but come on. For something as small as that, it's ridiculous. Maybe if it's going .9999c, but in real, practical life, nope.

We're not talking about relativistic masses here...

 

[Meteor Man]

We're not talking about relativistic masses here...

No I know, you're talking about E=mc^2. The more energy in a system, the more mass, by a factor of E/c^2. It's still ridiculously small and much too small to measure accurately.

 

[Cutlass]

 

[Monsterzuma]

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/12/lord-of-the-rings-crocheted-dwarf-helmet.php

 

[Yeekim]

Top 40 best photographs in russia 2012
http://englishrussia.com/2012/12/18/top-40-best-photographs-in-russia-2012/

A taste:

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

All those are incredible, Yeekim!
These are my favorites:

And my absolute favorite:

 

[Cutlass]

There are some great pictures there

 

[Borachio]

 

[Monsterzuma]

2. “Orange, Red, Yellow” by Mark Rothko sold for $86.9 million at Christie’s International in New York in May.

3. Another Rothko, “No.1 (Royal Red and Blue), sold for $75.1 million at Sotheby’s in November.

http://qz.com/38491/it-was-2007-in-the-art-world-this-year/

Another one for the Uncool Pictures I thread ...

 

[Meteor Man]

Maybe, but this is cool:

Raphael's Head of an Apostle.

 

[Monsterzuma]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/alien-looking-human-skulls-found-in-mexico/

Not aliens, but this: http://sci-ence.org/mayan-papoose/

(or so the gullible are led to believe)

 

[eduhum]

That rothko thing is a complete fares...
I mean, every artwork posted on this thread is more beautiful than that piece of excrement.

 

[madviking]

Abstract expressionism isn't about the art, it's about the message.

 

[Traitorfish]

2. “Orange, Red, Yellow” by Mark Rothko sold for $86.9 million at Christie’s International in New York in May.

3. Another Rothko, “No.1 (Royal Red and Blue), sold for $75.1 million at Sotheby’s in November.

http://qz.com/38491/it-was-2007-in-the-art-world-this-year/

Another one for the Uncool Pictures I thread ...

Why? Those are good paintings. They only look dumb because you're seeing them as flattened four-inch jpegs, when they're meant to be seen as wall-sized slabs of colour and texture.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Why? Those are good paintings. They only look dumb because you're seeing them as flattened four-inch jpegs, when they're meant to be seen as wall-sized slabs of colour and texture.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm serious. The concrete medium of the pieces are absolutely necessary to them. You can't abstract it away without losing the reality of them any more than you could show them in black and white or at an absurdly low resolution (which, incidentally, you are also doing). That's beyond philistinism; it's just lazy.

 

[Monsterzuma]

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I saw a couple of Rothko's works very similar to those in person at the Atlanta High Museum of Art once. It certainly seemed different than a mere jpeg of it I'd seen online, but not really in a good way. It was smaller and a bit more pastel than I expected. I was not at all impressed.

 

[Traitorfish]

See, that isn't really contesting my accusation of intellectual laziness so much as confirming it.

I saw a couple of Rothko's works very similar to those in person at the Atlanta High Museum of Art once. It certainly seemed different than a mere jpeg of it I'd seen online, but not really in a good way. It was smaller and a bit more pastel than I expected. I was not at all impressed.

Ah, see, but you actually saw them, so you're in a position to say as much. That's the difference! Anyone like or dislike whatever they like, all I object to is doing so for thoughtless reasons.

 

[Monsterzuma]

See, that isn't really contesting my accusation of intellectual laziness so much as confirming it.


Ah, see, but you actually saw them, so you're in a position to say as much. That's the difference! Anyone like or dislike whatever they like, all I object to is doing so for thoughtless reasons.