If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Dec 2005 17:04:21 -0800, wrote: The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/ ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world. The word "atelier" means "workshop". No Really???? The use of the word in this web page means that ARC provides references to ateliers that art students can attend. It is not, as you imply, a title assumed by the people. Nor did I imply it. The business are run as "ateliers" in essence conservative formally uncredited art schools. the web page goes on to give information about the schools and workshops available. I didn't read all of the descriptions, but it does not seem that the workshops and schools are run by ARC people. In which case you would be wrong. They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. Please check your facts more thoroughly and avoid intentional misreadings before posting. |
Ads |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Dec 2005 22:29:51 -0800, wrote: Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Dec 2005 17:04:21 -0800, wrote: The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/ ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world. The word "atelier" means "workshop". No Really???? If you understood this, then you should have cast your sentence to convey your understanding. Devotees who run business(es) as ateliers... means they are functioning as ateliers. The difference is in "as" instead of "of". The use of the word in this web page means that ARC provides references to ateliers that art students can attend. It is not, as you imply, a title assumed by the people. Nor did I imply it. The business are run as "ateliers" in essence conservative formally uncredited art schools. I'm sure you had a meaning in mind when you wrote this. It doesn't come across. I think you are talking about "unaccredited" art schools, but it's hard to tell. If, as I'm beginning to suspect, English is not your first language, then I apologize for criticizing your ill-formed attempts at meaningful sentences. If English is your first language, then I urge you to complete your GED program. the web page goes on to give information about the schools and workshops available. I didn't read all of the descriptions, but it does not seem that the workshops and schools are run by ARC people. In which case you would be wrong. They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. Please check your facts more thoroughly and avoid intentional misreadings before posting. I checked. I stand by my comment. Yes, the site does promote the workshops and other art training programs, but they seem to be run independently of ARC. -- Tony Cooper Orlando, FL Ah if only grammer trolls or silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC. Unfortunately they do not and I stand by my comments as well. They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. As such they are truly bad art critics (or alternately banal painters) with little to no recognition in established circles. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
"Dan Fox" wrote in message ... wrote: The art world is totally divided on the matter. You can check out opinions from the other side at http://www.artrenewal.org/ ROTFL!! Please.... a bunch on Ayn Rand devotees who run side business as "ateliers" do not constitute half of the art world. Especially when the majority of them post under multiple aliases. As far as I know none has written published criticism in major periodicals or books. (Leaving aside your own chimeral tome.) And for good reason: 1) they are primarily propagandists and 2) don't have the discipline to provide a reasoned argument for the importance of the derivative pastiches that populate their "Living Masters" gallery. Exactly. The notion that 'the art world is divided on this' is the same kind of argument christians give apropos evolution: 'scientists disagree on evolution.' The art renewal kooks are no more a part of the art world than the creationists are a part of the scientific world. The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the 19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib Death, Iowa. The art renewal website is a hoot to be sure, but my favorite sites are the ones that refute the theory of relativity and reformulate physics without mathematics. The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the 19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib Death, Iowa. I had not realised that anyone had tried to put up this view, which on it's own, cannot stand. The same goes of course for those who try to fix some sort of justification for modernism merely on the existence of the same brief French period. I have read a few tracts which in essence seemed to me to rely upon this. I can't recall the actual page, but in his introduction somewhere, Gombrich (Art and Illusion) makes the point that a recognition of skill is essential for understanding style and expression. Which relates to one aspect of art which the French Academic championed and Modernism tried so hard to ignore. -- Thur |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
On 14 Dec 2005 00:16:12 -0800, wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Dec 2005 22:29:51 -0800, wrote: Ah if only grammer trolls or silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC. Unfortunately they do not and I stand by my comments as well. They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. As such they are truly bad art critics (or alternately banal painters) with little to no recognition in established circles. Seems like a still life of sour grapes. Whatsa matter, Sunshine, did they reject your Draw Me matchbook cover? -- Tony Cooper Orlando, FL |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Tony Cooper wrote: On 14 Dec 2005 00:16:12 -0800, wrote: Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Dec 2005 22:29:51 -0800, wrote: Ah if only grammer trolls or silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC. Unfortunately they do not and I stand by my comments as well. They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. As such they are truly bad art critics (or alternately banal painters) with little to no recognition in established circles. Seems like a still life of sour grapes. Whatsa matter, Sunshine, did they reject your Draw Me matchbook cover? -- Tony Cooper Orlando, FL Ah if only silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC. They don't and I stand by my original comments. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
(Dan Fox) wrote:
The art renewal kooks are no more a part of the art world than the creationists are a part of the scientific world. One need only look at Fox's 1960 furniture store abstraction to see who's a kook. It also pays to read his stuff on RAF to see that he is a Modern Academic Art fundamentalist. The strange notion that legitimate art is limited to the realism of the 19th century french academy is laughable unless you're a janitor from Crib Death, Iowa. The strange notion that the only legitimate art of the 20th century is limited to the crap in the modern sections of museums is laughable especially when you see mountains of Fox type wall covering all over the net and in the painting racks of accredited schools run by people who know even less than Fox.. The art renewal website is a hoot to be sure, and a poke in the cerebral hemorrhoids for anyone like Fox who can't draw and exhibits little more than post Kindergarten craft. ARC at last shows the artwork of the past which was suppressed for four generations and offers an alternative to the slanted art history taught in "accredited" schools. Among other things it suggests schools that offer an alternitive to those which teach a creed instead of a craft. Here one can see and compare the alternitive to Modern academic Art and decide about it for one self. Before the advent of the net this was not available. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
ARC (http://www.artrenewal.org/) seems to be confused that a particular
style is "better" because it looks more photorealistic. It is precisely because of the invention of the photograph that this style of painting became less desirable... because they're expensive to commission compared to a photograph. That doesn't mean people can't still do it. I argue that in fact, painting like the "old masters" is a very easily learnable step-based progression of paint buildup on the canvas. It's easier to erase mistakes, it's easier to blend away brushstrokes, and it works well for creating that particular style of painting. However, it is just a style, and it is not objectively better than any other style. If I compare a landscape by Constable to a Rothko based on realism, Rothko loses. If I compare them based on which one makes better use of just a few color fields, then Constable loses. Just because something takes longer doesn't make it better. Just because something looks realistic doesn't mean that anything else was created by untalented hacks. Those painters knew their market, just like painters today do. Except for one thing: It may have been much more difficult in the heyday of realistic painting to sell anything else. That's why you see so few surviving examples of major undertakings in any other style. Previous to realistic paintings, the church only commissioned UNrealistic works, because a realistic, human likeness was considered blasphemous. It's not that medieval artists couldn't draw realistically. Which would you rather do, burn at the stake or sell tons of art and retire? That may have been the choice they faced. wrote: Tony Cooper wrote: On 14 Dec 2005 00:16:12 -0800, wrote: Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Dec 2005 22:29:51 -0800, wrote: Ah if only grammer trolls or silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC. Unfortunately they do not and I stand by my comments as well. They are the population of supposed "Art Experts" and "Living Masters" which the site promotes. As such they are truly bad art critics (or alternately banal painters) with little to no recognition in established circles. Seems like a still life of sour grapes. Whatsa matter, Sunshine, did they reject your Draw Me matchbook cover? -- Tony Cooper Orlando, FL Ah if only silly insults actually contributed to the validity of ARC. They don't and I stand by my original comments. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
On 14 Dec 2005 09:29:18 -0800, "sir_haxalot"
wrote: I argue that in fact, painting like the "old masters" is a very easily learnable step-based progression of paint buildup on the canvas. It's easier to erase mistakes, it's easier to blend away brushstrokes, and it works well for creating that particular style of painting. Modern Academic Art school mythology, its easy, sure! Its a good excuse for those who teach without any knowledge of their craft. The results are the armies of failures. Like most Modern Academic art fundamentalists this guy imagines that at present the only choice is between 19th century academic subject matter and abstraction. Along with this he imagines the only abstract art is the Modern Academic stuff in museums. However, it is just a style, and it is not objectively better than any other style. If I compare a landscape by Constable to a Rothko based on realism, Rothko loses. and if you compare Rothko to an average horse blanket, Rothko loses. If I compare them based on which one makes better use of just a few color fields, then Constable loses. Just because something takes longer doesn't make it better. Previous to realistic paintings, the church only commissioned UNrealistic works, because a realistic, human likeness was considered blasphemous. No, in the dark ages they couldn't do any better because the knowledge was lost. It's not that medieval artists couldn't draw realistically. They couldn't. Which would you rather do, burn at the stake or sell tons of art and retire? That may have been the choice they faced. Nobody was ever burned for drawing realistically and if you know art history you will know that the best minds in Europe made great efforts over a long time to figure out how to paint realistically and nobody complained about it. Bet this guy's work looks even worse than Fox's |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
2nd request -
Would you guys mind dropping the crossposts from alt.marketing.online.ebay. It's obvious you're not involved in the discussion there. Craig |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Star Trek cards for auctionne! | Lynne Stewart | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | September 27th 04 01:50 AM |
NEW TRADE LIST | Ray Morgan | Basketball | 0 | January 20th 04 03:42 PM |
FS - Football Singles | The Dogger | Football (US) | 0 | November 5th 03 01:04 AM |
FS - Early 90's Football (Long List) | LD | Football (US) | 0 | October 16th 03 12:58 AM |
CPK Dolls & Misc Items--- FS | Sue from NY | General | 0 | August 28th 03 05:53 PM |