nairi Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 (edited) Nairi, you want me to tell from my computers monitor on whatever or not it is a masterpiece. What has your computer screen got to do with it? Okay, you can't see technical details, but surely you can see enough at first sight to decide--in your definition--whether Manet's (or Goya's, for that matter) more or less qualifies as a masterpiece or not. Edited May 20, 2007 by nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 What has your computer screen got to do with it? Okay, you can't see technical details, but surely you can see enough at first sight to decide--in your definition--whether Manet's (or Goya's, for that matter) more or less qualifies as a masterpiece or not. You are pulling my leg. It is visual art, it is not only about "technical details", it includes colors used, color variations, etc. You are showing a piece which was influenced by real life event, probably the transition between the second and third republic and every aspects of a work is important it represent the period, masters don't only inovate, they do also give their opinion in their piece, in ther creative and particular way. Manet was part of a thought school, there is a transition in his work, from reproduction to naturalism... even with his repdocutions he was inovating as his most famous ones were not meant to be replicas but "his version" or his view of a piece, with his style. What I can see is that you're trying to be an arse by constantly attempting to pull my legs. I told you think of written works, suppose that you have read all the books in the world what new work will get your attention? Something new!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zartonk Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 (edited) What has your computer screen got to do with it? Okay, you can't see technical details, but surely you can see enough at first sight to decide--in your definition--whether Manet's (or Goya's, for that matter) more or less qualifies as a masterpiece or not. What defines a masterpiece and how concrete is that definition? Edited May 20, 2007 by Zartonk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 What defines a masterpiece nairi and how concrete is that definition? Why are you asking me? You should ask Domino. He's the one who started talking about masterpieces. Domino, I wasn't pulling your leg. And no, I don't actually believe it's possible to read every single book ever written in the history of mankind. For this reason, I guess I'll never know what a true masterpiece is and what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zartonk Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 (edited) Why are you asking me? You should ask Domino. He's the one who started talking about masterpieces. Sorry then. Allow me to edit. Edited May 25, 2007 by Zartonk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I think its really nice Hand Painting I agree, it's freaking cool! Wish I had all that time on my hands...oh wait time...on...my...hands.... I think I just created a pun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) This'll frustrate people... Ellsworth Kelly Orange curve [Orange white] 1964-65 oil on canvas 310 (h) x 244.5 (w) cm God dammit Arvestakeeed, I am so frustrated that I am going to draw little x's along the sides of two notebook pages. Edited May 21, 2007 by Anileve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 It's not in my ability to give you that eye. Anyway, the impact of many abstract peices is very mitigated in photographs. If you can tell me what you appreciate in it, I might be able to see it as well, or in any case see something more than I am seeing now. I have to disagree with you and support nairi's view. It's definitely possible to appreciate a certain piece once you learn something about it or about the artist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll like it or you do like it. For instance, a while ago I went to see Jean Basquiat's work, and even though I don't like that kind of art I was able to appreciate it for what it was. My husband was fascinated by his work and did a lot of reading and research; he was able to walk me through his life and his views. I gained an insight into what seemed to me ridiculous work at first. It was interesting, but not inspiring. It's rather pompous of you to claim that either you do appreciate it or you don't. I think there are several facets to art or art forms, thus it isn't possible to have such rigid analysis. Ÿou like it or you don’t. You always like or dislike something “because…” Esthetics is integral and so is the technique, both can be split into many layers which makes it that much more interesting. Thus Nairi's question, asking you to share with her your thoughts or any knowledge, since you are an artist yourself, seems very reasonably to me, but your pissy reaction on the other hand, is not reasonable at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I answered your questions. You set out from the beginning to prove your fantasy that I would appreciate something for no reason and now you're trying to convince yourself that you succeeded. You didn't. At least not in a way that allowed me to gain more insight into your appreciation for those pieces. If you had, I would have stopped "grilling" you, as you put it. You got me. Bravo. I'd say that this is what an intellectual foreplay looks like. Does anyone else agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 This'll frustrate people... Ellsworth Kelly http://www.nga.gov.au/International/Catalogue/Images/LRG/116211.jpg Orange curve [Orange white] 1964-65 oil on canvas 310 (h) x 244.5 (w) cm See. Crap like this shouldn't even be called art. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I have to disagree with you and support nairi's view. It's definitely possible to appreciate a certain piece once you learn something about it or about the artist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll like it or you do like it. For instance, a while ago I went to see Jean Basquiat's work, and even though I don't like that kind of art I was able to appreciate it for what it was. My husband was fascinated by his work and did a lot of reading and research; he was able to walk me through his life and his views. I gained an insight into what seemed to me ridiculous work at first. It was interesting, but not inspiring. It's rather pompous of you to claim that either you do appreciate it or you don't. I think there are several facets to art or art forms, thus it isn't possible to have such rigid analysis. Ÿou like it or you don’t. You always like or dislike something “because…” Esthetics is integral and so is the technique, both can be split into many layers which makes it that much more interesting. Thus Nairi's question, asking you to share with her your thoughts or any knowledge, since you are an artist yourself, seems very reasonably to me, but your pissy reaction on the other hand, is not reasonable at all. Looks like you were also not paying attention. You yourself said that you didn't like Basquiat's work when you looked at it, and you still don't. However you gained a certain respect for it after learning about him. This perfectly illustrates what I said. You will probably decide rather immediately whether or not a given work of art speaks to you but that is unrelated to the respect you give an artist for his efforts. Why is this so difficult to understand. I guess I'll have to post it a few more times. Maybe then it'll sink in just a bit more successfully than osmosis through a tub of wax. I wasn't presenting such a rigid analysis and nothing you said about the sources of appreciation were incompatible with what I said before. My pissy reaction came after she said that she questions how much theory I have studied. It was rude the way she said it and no response I had given before that deserved it. From the beginning her tone implied that she set out to win an argument instead of have a civil conversation and I don't appreciate that and for that she can lick perineum. Nothing about my presence on the board obligates me to pursue to the fullest every possible argument that is presented to me and I don't need every possible idiot "reading between the lines" when I am not in the mood to do so. So what the hell are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 See. Crap like this shouldn't even be called art. Sorry. Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 My pissy reaction came after she said that she questions how much theory I have studied. It was rude the way she said it and no response I had given before that deserved it. From the beginning her tone implied that she set out to win an argument instead of have a civil conversation and I don't appreciate that and for that she can lick perineum. Nothing about my presence on the board obligates me to pursue to the fullest every possible argument that is presented to me and I don't need every possible idiot "reading between the lines" when I am not in the mood to do so. For someone who apparently likes art so much, my opening should have come as a gift from heaven. It could have been an interesting exchange. But you allowed to ruin it because of your hysterical paranoia that I had some imaginary ulterior motive. I still question how much art theory you have in fact studied. I'd expect less vagueness and more maturity from someone who was better versed. You're always free to prove me wrong. No offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 For someone who apparently likes art so much, my opening should have come as a gift from heaven. No, I've never liked discussing art with anyone unless it is someone whose opinion I already respect. Read between the lines if you like since you're so adept at it. Sorry to burst your bubble about being a gift from heaven but I don't really feel the need to talk about art with anyone other than my father. It could have been an interesting exchange. Not necessarily. But you allowed to ruin it because of your hysterical paranoia that I had some imaginary ulterior motive. Yes, I'm very hysterical. Look at me. I'm nuts. So hysterical. Hysteria incarnate. I still question how much art theory you have in fact studied. Question what you like. I'd expect less vagueness and more maturity from someone who was better versed. Sorry to disappoint. You fulfilled all of my expectations, though. You're always free to prove me wrong. No offense. That's what I need to do! Prove myself to you! Yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 No, I've never liked discussing art with anyone unless it is someone whose opinion I already respect. Read between the lines if you like since you're so adept at it. Sorry to burst your bubble about being a gift from heaven but I don't really feel the need to talk about art with anyone other than my father. Not necessarily. Yes, I'm very hysterical. Look at me. I'm nuts. So hysterical. Hysteria incarnate. Question what you like. Sorry to disappoint. You fulfilled all of my expectations, though. That's what I need to do! Prove myself to you! Yeah! You are such a drama queen!!!! And a papa's boy...." I don't talk about art with anyone other than my daddy." I was really enjoying your exchange with nairi, but you had to go and resurrect your uber sensitive side. By the way what you said was inaccurate. I never said that by learning about something you can't start liking it. I just brought an example of Jean B. as one instance. I hated Anna Karenina when I first read it, but I was basing that solely on my personal values and passing a judgment on the character, rather than a revolutionary piece of that time. Now I certainly appreciate it and LIKE IT much more, but for other reasons. There are many other examples of this. You either like it or you don't doesn't always apply, given the right circumstances you can learn to like or dislike something. And I don't know why you have to be so stubborn, you could have simply explained why you liked a painting or a photograph, even if it's simple an explanation can vary from "I love the vivid colors, or the monotone composition or the geometric simplicity or the lack of emotion....whatever else." Nairi is right for grilling your stubborn derrier. And you love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 (edited) And a papa's boy...." I don't talk about art with anyone other than my daddy." I don't know what the point of meaningless, patronizing rhetoric is. but you had to go and resurrect your uber sensitive side. It may seem sensitive to you but there really was no other way to write it out. I never said that by learning about something you can't start liking it. I didn't say you said that. You either like it or you don't doesn't always apply, given the right circumstances you can learn to like or dislike something. No one is fool enough to think that someone's feelings towards something can never change. They do and they have for me. But typically your initial reaction to a work of art will always be there. And I don't know why you have to be so stubborn, you could have simply explained why you liked a painting... Jesus phuck. I did. It may have been a one-liner but I did say about at least Peter Wegner's work that it make syou think differentliy about art awhile stille being quite pretty. Why are you two ignoring the fact that I did answer the question. If you think you're worth my writing a paragraph for every brush stroke you can think again. Nairi is right for grilling your stubborn derrier. And you love it. Not everything I do is flirtatious. More often than not I am unimpressed with people and I have no qualms about not wanting to hear or read their opinions. Edited May 22, 2007 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Jesus phuck. I did. It may have been a one-liner but I did say about at least Peter Wegner's work that it make syou think differentliy about art awhile stille being quite pretty. After I grilled it out of you, you finally came up with this. Indeed. Admittedly, I was not satisfied with this answer, hence my continued "grilling," because I still found it extremely vague and unhelpful to understanding better what I should be looking for when looking at Wegner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALMA Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 (edited) I agree, it's freaking cool! Wish I had all that time on my hands...oh wait time...on...my...hands.... I think I just created a pun. I wish I could have the skills to paint so well Edited May 23, 2007 by ALMA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 http://www.artchive.com/artchive/s/sargent/sargent_daughters.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 i saw that peace many times for hours, its in boston, wonderful peace every time i go to boston me and my brother go see it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 i saw that peace many times for hours, its in boston, wonderful peace every time i go to boston me and my brother go see it I don't blame you. How did he get them to look so guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zartonk Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 BTW nice to see you back Arvestaked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted May 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Minas Avedissian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 JANSEM / Jean Semerjian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.