|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3ea32da0@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> I have a large boar skeleton here in my office
>
> Now there's got to be a story there!
I work in a Agricultural University and a long, long time ago, skeletons of
farm animals were used in anatomy classes. When anatomy was phased out in
favour of computer science (for example), the skeletons were discarded in
different ways. Some human bones were just put in a desk drawer (where the
desk's new owner found them recently to her big surprise, "oops, a tibia")
but larger animals were stored in the basement and later sent to the dump
when the administration thought they were taking too much valuable space. We
couldn't do nothing for a horse and a cow, but we rescued a big male pig and
put it on display in our office, where it's used for decoration (it looks
nice at Christmas for instance). We also got a chicken but it's less
impressive.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3ea36e13$1@news.povray.org...
> I really need to get out more. In fact, I'm hoping to do just that.
> Suddenly, I'm realizing how art-deficient I am. Even so, I've been
viewing
> more and more things via the Web. I realize that it's not the same as
> actually viewing a painting or other work of art first hand (perhaps
digital
> art excepted), but until I can afford to travel around, it gets me by.
Well, it surely helps to live at 30mn from several major art museums :) I
have a year pass at Pompidou, so sometimes I just "drop by". Of course, the
web is better than nothing, but if there's a big difference between
traditional and digital art media it is certainly that the digital
experience of non-digital art is often a letdown, while digital looks good
on the web. This perhaps even more the case for non-digital contemporary
art, and stuff that look just dumb where you read about it or see it printed
somewhere can be really great in real life.
> Unfortunately, much of my French was learned via Asterix comics. :-/
Certainly a pleasant way to learn French!
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> LOL I've been thinking it was a monochrome painting all along. Oh well,
> I guess what I've been saying still stands LOL
>
I posted this link awhile back, too. It's a larger image.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.peasant-woman.jpg
I had a few co-workers stare at this with me. Some tried to figure out if
perhaps there was a hidden picture within the different shades of red paint.
Well, if Malevich was happy painting what he did, more power to him (except
that he was eventually forced to stop and died penniless).
If you notice, the square is not [square]. That bothers me. My first
thought was that the picture was taken from an angle, but then I realized
this wasn't the case. If I could imagine myself standing in front of it, I
would figure that I would feel compelled to change where I was standing
several times, thinking that if I just stood a little bit more to the left,
it would look better to me. But doing so would make the bottom look wrong
(assuming Malevich envisioned a "top" and "bottom"). In that sense, I could
see myself staring at it from several different directions.
Ok. So what seemed like a worthless picture (to me) initially is suddenly
taking on some meaning. Even so, I'm not sure I'll ever truly understand
it. However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.
That said, I still prefer realism and/or surrealism (leaning more toward
"real" than "surreal").
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
=
> I posted this link awhile back, too. It's a larger image.
Yes and I opened the link at the time, but I saw what I *expected* to
see, a red painting on a white wall. This expectation was based on my
association of Malevich's name with the painting I remembered which is a
white square against white ground. Now I am even doubting that memory.
>
> If you notice, the square is not [square].
This is seen as introducing a *tension* to the composition within the
reduced pictorial elements. So, in a way, it's supposed to bother you.
> Ok. So what seemed like a worthless picture (to me) initially is suddenly
> taking on some meaning. Even so, I'm not sure I'll ever truly understand
> it.
Doubt I will either.
However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.
Well Klein is a real showman and its hard not to enjoy his various
antics and means of poking tradition in the eye. He mocks the 'system'
then promptly makes money off of it.
> That said, I still prefer realism and/or surrealism (leaning more toward
> "real" than "surreal").
>
Nothing wrong with it, just remember, many cultures over human history
have shown a decided preference for the abstract. And no doubt you do
enjoy the formal abstract qualities of some architecture, music, and car
design, even some paintings.
One more anecdote. I should start by admitting my bias that I dislike
the artwork of a German artist named Joseph Beuys. I know I am probably
offending some Germans in the audience but I mean no disrespect to
Germany or Germans, I just don't like Beuys' art. It seems overly
precious, serious, and didactic to me, and most of the time quite
derivative. Never-the-less he enjoyed a tremendous popularity,
internationally, a few years back. At this time I did not realize how
much I disliked the work. Beuys was so embraced by the modern art world
that I figured I had better learn to like/understand his work or remain
a philistine. So it was that I returned several times to a large
retrospective of his at the Guggenheim. On one visit, I was standing
near a work that was a small piece of dull steel, a few cm's in each
dimension and flat, just sitting on the floor. An older, middle aged
man, with a weatherbeaten face, very sincere, looked like he earned his
living with his hands, came over to me and asked me if I could explain
to him what it meant. With my newly minted MFA degree I was quite taken
aback as I realized I didn't have the first idea of what it meant nor
could I even speculate about it in any kind of terms that this man was
likely to understand. I felt quite embarrassed on behalf of this
artwork, myself, and modern art by extension. It seemed to me, suddenly,
that it had become so inbred that it pretended that looking at a small
piece of steel on the floor was an enlightening thing to do. The man,
when he got no satisfactory answer from me, went over to a nearby museum
guard and asked him the same question. The guard, young and seemingly
fresh from the Marines, tried to be helpful and suggested that they look
at the title. I'll never forget the sight of the two of them bending
over the museum tag, next to this piece of steel, and the guard reading
in a dispirited voice, "steel plate". I felt that the whole edifice of
modern art had nothing to say to these two men who in their own way,
probably knew more about steel than did Joseph Beuys. I suppose in the
same situation today I might point out that our shared knowledge of
steel is what Beuys was about. Still don't think it would have
impressed the guy much.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3ea47d3c@news.povray.org...
> at the title. I'll never forget the sight of the two of them bending
> over the museum tag, next to this piece of steel, and the guard reading
> in a dispirited voice, "steel plate".
Hey, when this exhibition came to France some years ago I took a picture of
an elderly woman bent over the same steel plates, with her head framed by
the legs of the felt trousers hanging on the wall behind her :)
Actually I like Beuys. There's a large part of showmanship/histrionics at
work there too, including the (bogus?) story about him being saved by Tatars
please...), but there's some genuine emotion in some of his work. A piece
like "Plight" for instance (a walk-in installation with rolls of felt, see
http://perso.ensad.fr/~longa/cours/B4.html) is a very comforting, relaxing
place to be and one I regularly go to (and again it looks silly on the web).
The 30-year old butter stuff is yucky though so here's my advice to artists:
don't play with perishable, organic food. The steel plates, of course, are
quite the opposite, with a weighty, mineral, crude, everlasting presence.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea47d3c@news.povray.org...
|
| However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.
|
By the way. Is this:
http://www.poster.net/klein-yves/klein-yves-das-blaue-schwammrelief-3500
045.jpg
a painting? rocks glued to a board? hot solder dripped onto a piece of
metal? It is very hard to tell from the picture.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> By the way. Is this:
> http://www.poster.net/klein-yves/klein-yves-das-blaue-schwammrelief-3500
> 045.jpg
> a painting? rocks glued to a board? hot solder dripped onto a piece of
> metal? It is very hard to tell from the picture.
>
I believe it's a "sponge relief" (?) from what I can gather by viewing some
of his other works. It's very difficult to get a sense of scale, but my
guess would be that it's probably a rather large item. I guess I used the
term "painting" rather loosely.
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> One more anecdote. I should start by admitting my bias that I dislike
> the artwork of a German artist named Joseph Beuys. I know I am probably
> offending some Germans in the audience but I mean no disrespect to
> Germany or Germans, I just don't like Beuys' art.
;-) There are many Germans don't liking Beuys, me included. There's the
funny story of a cleaning woman, who removed a piece of butter from the
corner of a room, not recognizing that it was art. She was taken to
court for that but won the processes IIRC.
Well I never understood art, which only tries to provocate the viewer.
Maybe Beuys is more than that, I don't know.
For the record: I really like some abstract art such as Miro or
Hundertwasser. But I only like art, which doesn't need a theoretical
explanation to give the viewer something. In german there's the saying
think that's the precondition for good art.
Florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> Well I never understood art, which only tries to provocate the viewer.
> Maybe Beuys is more than that, I don't know.
> For the record: I really like some abstract art such as Miro or
> Hundertwasser. But I only like art, which doesn't need a theoretical
> explanation to give the viewer something. In german there's the saying
> think that's the precondition for good art.
>
And I like Richter and Kiefer :) Nothing is ever pure. I must admit
that the Beuys retrospective came at a time when the fact that European
artists had wrested the lead from New York was just starting to really
sink in. It's hard to explain but the chauvinism favouring American and
especially New York art was so internalized I didn't realize I was
subject to it. I still don't think that Beuy's was as innovative as the
hype would suggest, but to the extent that he did add something new, it
flew in the face of the tenets that I had learned*. Consequently I saw
his work as largely derivative and when new, just wrong. It may have
been that I sort of sacrificed Beuys to my prejudice in order to allow
myself to accept the invasion of the next generation of European artists.
-Jim
*What seems to be new in Beuys is the combination of serious
expressionistic content with conceptual art means.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|