Posted on 02/28/2007 6:55:38 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Ever hear of private property?
Ever hear of private property?
Ever hear of private property?
sorry for the triplicate ...my computer must have liked that comment
This is tragic and funny at once.
The brains of people are so limited in what they can actually comprehend.
It has nothing to do with taste, it only has to do with lack of imagination.
Now that's the real deal. I'm an illustrator, and those paintings are just jaw-dropping.
He didn't. He loathed reality and had even more contempt for the human form. He was a talented man, but he wasted it on his nonsense abstract cubism (savage primitivism). You want to see a real cubist, see the works of Max Weber.
The whole thing is a hoax, no different from Freudianism and Marxism. But people have a lot invested in it, including art investors and talentless art professors, and can't afford to have the hoax exposed.
The philosophy behind modern art is fairly simple, and stupid.
Modern artists are told that they must create something totally original. Nothing about what they do can ever have been done before in any way shape or form otherwise they risk being called "derivative" How utterly absurd.They've been indoctrinated with the concept that bad = good. Every parameter upon which any standard for quality and excellence can be deduced, they have been told is improper because it's "limiting to freedom of expression."
1) There can be no story for then you have to stay within the "tight boundaries" of the tale.
2) There can be no illusion for then you are "chained" by the need to recreate a sense of three dimensions.
3) There can be no drawing, as that can be "limiting" to objects of people or things taken from the real world.
4) They want to remove the "shackles" of modeling, perspective, or subject matter of any sort.
5) There certainly can be no attempt at harmonizing of the above parameters with composition, color and tonality, for that would "restrict" one to making everything work together.On the contrary they have been propagandized by modernism into believing that only those works that break boundaries, ignore standards, and show no interest in skill or technique can be truly "original" or "inspired."
Modernism is art about art. Whereas all of the great art in history is Art about life.
In fact, originality of methods takes precedence over everything else. If something has been done before, or is derivative in any way of anything that was done before, it thereby loses value proportionate to those similarities. In such a "through the looking glass" world, every would-be "artist" is placed in the untenable position of trying to create an entirely new art form in order to be considered relevant.
The sheer glaring reality is that nothing could be more imprisoning, binding, restricting, chaining and shackling than the impossible limitations of modernism and post-modernism, that remove from the would be artist every tool (including training) that could give them the ability to create great works of art. The simple truth is that each and every one of us is capable of thinking of something that has never been done before. Does that make it worth doing and the work of genius?
For example:
I could carefully (with enough money) dig up an old bombed out tenement building in the Bronx, and have it transported to a special slab built for it in Central Park. Rope off the structure, aim lights at it, give it a title and with enough pomp and circumstance think of twenty reasons why this is sheer brilliance in its commentary about the inner city.
I could boil the entrails of several different animals and then preserve them by imbedding them in clear plastic. I could then hang them from a mobile with similarly preserved body parts of cadavers, and have critics claim that this is the greatest artistic statement about the horrors of war since Guernica.
I could imbed into the walls, ceiling and floors of a small room, pieces of neon lights, parts from broken machines and engines, and broken pieces of structural building materials like bricks, beams and cinder blocks. Then I could glue between everything millions of nails, nuts and bolts, and have clever writers and critics point out how this room (which could be installed at MoMA or the Guggenheim) is the quintessential statement of the effects of the industrial age on human psychology.
Well, those three ideas took all of 3 minutes to think of. MY GOD! This must mean I'm three-geniuses-rolled-into-one. Why at this rate I could come up with more brilliant ideas for modernism, than all of the modernist geniuses put together, if I just would put aside a week or two.
I'm pretty sure he'd been drinking.
It's possible to make a beautiful abstract design or pattern. God does this with cloud formations and sunsets.
On the human level, pleasing wallpaper designs come to mind. But Picasso's junk doesn't even rise to that level. It's chaotic and ugly. I can't think of a redeeming feature.
I was saw a looped tape of a woman sucking her toes at the Hirshhorn in DC. Guess who paid for that.
People still argue
about communism, too . . .
Some fights never die.
 |
I go to Cezanne, but that's where I draw the line. (And it's a straight line!) |
Thanks for the beautiful link. What a joy to see real art.
Thanks for that link! I bookmarked it.
It is a hoot! I'd love to visit that museum. (But I'm sick.)
"... but his draughtsmanship was/is impeccable."
Yes, I've always thought that he was bored with how easy it was for him to reproduce what he saw, so he just kept pushing forms until he ended up with what most think of as typical Picasso.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.