I love modern art. Especially the kind that looks "real" but couldn't
possibly exist, like glass spiral trees or whatever. I even like just plain
photographs of things like mountains, fish, etc. Nature is beautiful. What I
hate are those really old, pre-renaissance paintings where people just
painted people and everything was flat. What's so aesthetic about a bad
painting of a chubby explorer with a huge mole that has no depth (except the
fact it's worth a fortune)? Even with the introduction of perspective, a lot
of paintings during the 1500s and 1600s still lacked shading and still only
showed people and buildings.

David
visit my homepage! http://thunder.prohosting.com/~davidf
---------------------------------------------------------

Fabian Brau wrote:

> Hello,
>
> it seems that, like in painting, everyone see things differently: one
> will try to reproduce reality, one will make a king of Picasso (even if
> Picasso has also made some very realistic painting :)), and another will
> try to tell something with realistic object but which are in strange
> scenes as Magritte!
>
> This is a very good thing :)!
>
> Fabian.

Post a reply to this message