Y'all heard me.
Discuss.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:29 PM
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:34 PM
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:39 PM
A kid's doodles may be just as good as the sistine chapel.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:42 PM
That's not true, kid's drawings tend to be shit. I'm always disappointed with the work I did as a child as I look back now.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:42 PM
That's not true, kid's drawings tend to be shit. I'm always disappointed with the work I did as a child as I look back now.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:55 PM
Edited by Ivysaur, 14 August 2012 - 12:57 PM.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:57 PM
What makes it any worse then people flinging paint at a canvas and selling it for thousands?
Who are you to determine that the latter is shit and the former isn't?
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:01 PM
I didn't say they were any worse, the people willing to pay so much money for paint flung at a canvas have terrible taste too.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:05 PM
But that's the point.
How do you know they have terrible taste?
Just because you don't like it, it's bad taste?
Maybe you just have bad taste and don't know it?
I am Waser Lave.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:05 PM
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:21 PM
That is beauty.
I can say that 99% of the world's most famous artwork has followed that ratio.
People that repeatedly follow and recognize that ratio have great taste.
Edit: It's the golden ratio btw.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Golden_ratio
The Sistine Chapel was an incredible expression of technique and skill. Centuries of talent went into everything from the paint to very scaffolding that was used, to the incredible engineering that made the backdrop. The perspective, the use of positive and negative space that takes a soul into the act of Creation, mere pictures are shit compared to the real thing, all that, with all that.,.,..
I call you a fool, for even bringing the point to discussion.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:23 PM
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:36 PM
http://emptyeasel.co...an-for-artists/Sorry, but how does art follow this ratio?
And if I don't follow it, then why does that make my taste bad? What, because I don't subscribe to some "ratio" that most art just happens to follow, according to you, I do not have good taste? Who says? Who are you to determine that?
Edited by Ivysaur, 14 August 2012 - 01:37 PM.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:03 PM
So? Maybe I prefer the simplicity of a child's drawing to all that work. What do I care about all that? Why should care about that? I simply do not find it beautiful. You can't tell me I'm wrong for not doing so.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:06 PM
http://emptyeasel.co...an-for-artists/
Look it up. The painting you presented, though chaotic, has a flow and proportion to it.
The golden ratio does NOT designate one form of art from another nor does it value one medium above another
It is merely a method of space distribution that humans are more likely to find aesthetically pleasing.
We are all naturally tuned to find this proportion beautiful.
People who are unable to naturally identify this proportion have bad taste.
Edited by kami12, 14 August 2012 - 02:10 PM.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:09 PM
Of course I can, I'm an engineer. You're bloody wrong, you were bloody wrong the moment you started this nonsense, you think its some how mind expanding, but that's because you've not developed you mind the the degree that is required to understand how meaningless you context free abstraction is to the world.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:11 PM
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:15 PM
The fact that something is subjective does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Edited by kami12, 14 August 2012 - 02:16 PM.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:17 PM
All meaning is self-defined. Engineers don't dictate aesthetic canons... or any important cultural convention.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:19 PM
Oh child, you think you can look upon all of the works of your betters, and just by your great importance decide that all the skill, talent and ability are meaningless, you'd rather bang a couple of pots together than hear Bach.
Meaningless tripe, heard it all before from foolish people 30 years ago, and you somehow think you're clever with the same silliness.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:19 PM
No, but the fact that something is subjective means that it cannot be used as an objective criterion.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:30 PM
No, but the fact that something is subjective means that it cannot be used as an objective criterion.
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:31 PM
What is the point of this thread then? It's equivalent to creating a debate thread about the existence (or not) of god and following every point with "but you can't prove that something doesn't exist".
Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:33 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users