General Discussion

CTyankee

(68,045 posts)

62. I don't think there is anything you are "supposed" to be realizing, except what

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 10:55 AM

Apr 2012

matters to you when you look at a painting. You can be stunned by art because it touches something at your core. For some people, for instance, Rothko's empty frames are heartbreaking and some people break down in sobs when they view them (I don't but they don't affect me in the same way). It really goes to what moves you. I have both laughed in delight at works (Joan Miro's "Still Life with and Old Shoe" at MoMA) and I have cried before paintings (one of Van Gogh's wheatfields works at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam). I sometimes feel as if I am swept away, desert island style, by a work for its sheer power ("View of Delft" seen in person in The Hague, quite a bit different from reproductions seen in art books...it is said that Salvador Dali sank to his knees upon seeing it). All of this is highly subjective, I realize...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The pile-on on Thomas Kinkaide - it's not about the art - [View all] hedgehog Apr 2012 OP

Was he an asshole? Confusious Apr 2012 #1

art vs. cars Syrinx Apr 2012 #2

It's more like that he 'painted' pictures that were to art like candy is to food. Demit Apr 2012 #4

Why are elves, and unicorns, and rainbows not art? nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #5

OK, I'll tell you what... CTyankee Apr 2012 #11

I'm more into steampunk. Never really liked many paintings except for Monet regardless of the Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #14

"Steampunk Elves" klook Apr 2012 #15

That is so awesome. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #17

Well, you can compare Monet's treatment of the little footbridge in his Giverny garden painting CTyankee Apr 2012 #24

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be realizing from their treatment of footbridges. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #29

I don't think there is anything you are "supposed" to be realizing, except what CTyankee Apr 2012 #62

you think so? mimitabby Apr 2012 #32

Of course. You are right about Christina. But I do think that Wyeth was aware of Eakins works. CTyankee Apr 2012 #52

Wyeth certainly did value Eakins starroute Apr 2012 #63

Not what I have read edhopper Apr 2012 #45

Yes. Correct. Don't get me wrong here. The pose is what I am talking about. CTyankee Apr 2012 #54

Could well be edhopper Apr 2012 #68

Art is largely a matter of haircut. BiggJawn Apr 2012 #35

It is certainly an argument that has gone on throughout time, I agree. CTyankee Apr 2012 #55

"It's not art" is a ridiculous statement. Atman Apr 2012 #10

No he wasn't very talented. edhopper Apr 2012 #22

Much like Picasso. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #31

Please don't show your ignorance. edhopper Apr 2012 #39

Why should I consider a stray eyeball art? nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #40

Because you don't understand what he was doing edhopper Apr 2012 #43

Maybe you don't understand what other artists are doing? nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #44

If you are referring to Kinkade edhopper Apr 2012 #46

That is quite an ability. Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #47

His art isn't hard to fathom. edhopper Apr 2012 #67

I have never been intellectual enough to tell people what qualifies as art and what does not. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #73

Glad you admit your ignorance. edhopper Apr 2012 #92

Now art is a science? Reminds me of parents telling their kids "that's not real music" througout Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #93

It's about edhopper Apr 2012 #94

"In my day we knew what real music was" nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #95

You speak as if I am condemning modern art edhopper Apr 2012 #98

It took me a while to get cubism KamaAina Apr 2012 #89

And besides, Picasso was, with his Analytic Cubism, carrying Cezanne's vision (see his Bibemus CTyankee Apr 2012 #60

Exactly! edhopper Apr 2012 #71

You totally made my point for me...a Big Mac is still "food." Atman Apr 2012 #36

As I said, it's art edhopper Apr 2012 #42

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Atman Apr 2012 #48

art bongbong Apr 2012 #69

I actually agree with your assessment of Gauguin edhopper Apr 2012 #70

That's exactly ProfessionalLeftist Apr 2012 #23

Skill doesn't make something art. Viewers liking something doesn't make it art, either. Demit Apr 2012 #66

What makes it "art" is being collected by rich people. That's the sum & total of it. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #82

one of my favorite Monty Python bits OriginalGeek Apr 2012 #99

hysterical! CTyankee Apr 2012 #108

BTW, "high quality prints on canvas." Atman Apr 2012 #12

You are right on this. edhopper Apr 2012 #25

Which often prices people like me out of the market entirely. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #61

There is nothing wrong with artists edhopper Apr 2012 #65

I will agree, that is pretty lame. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #86

This is simplified but, a lithograph is when edhopper Apr 2012 #87

You say the prints you buy are affordable--not quite sure what you mean marions ghost Apr 2012 #110

I'm not really sure what an 'average' piece by Kinkaide went for. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #112

It should be actionable in court... marions ghost Apr 2012 #114

He stood there next to a stack of printed canvases, dabbed on a highlight, signed the canvas, and Demit Apr 2012 #77

Chill. I'm not only NOT preaching to you, I wasn't even addressing you! Atman Apr 2012 #96

Of course you were addressing me. You hit Reply to my post, and you were quoting my words. Demit Apr 2012 #107

First of all, sorry for the disconnect in the thread... Atman Apr 2012 #109

"Did in fact seem to"? Fact is one thing, what seems to be is another thing. Demit Apr 2012 #115

Let's just be honest and say 'if I don't like it, it's not art'. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #19

IMHO, art HAS to be groundbreaking; if not, it's just craft... joeybee12 Apr 2012 #30

I think the two categories overlap considerably AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #57

I agree with you mimitabby Apr 2012 #33

I thnk the analogy is more like McDonalds to fine French cuisine. DCBob Apr 2012 #37

Seems, he was somewhat of a vicious hypocrite with socoipathic tendencies....wow. Ecumenist Apr 2012 #3

YES! No time to go into details, but he was unethical and treated people badly. TalkingDog Apr 2012 #7

Not Ford, more like Amway. Starry Messenger Apr 2012 #8

Apparently he was. grantcart Apr 2012 #74

He liked himself a WHOLE LOT. YellowRubberDuckie Apr 2012 #104

Thank you. That's exactly what I keep saying. Hell, I even "like" Bob Ross on my facebook page. TalkingDog Apr 2012 #6

I don't give a shit. it's still stupid. And I hate, hate, hate his "art" cali Apr 2012 #9

Plus Bob Ross was rockin' a cool 'fro. progressoid Apr 2012 #13

I thought his animals playing poker were a hoot. nt arthritisR_US Apr 2012 #16

a few words from the art critics Generic Other Apr 2012 #18

I think Zippy The Pinhead said it all... Atman Apr 2012 #41

"He evokes feelings of a simpler mind" Generic Other Apr 2012 #97

Good point. Bob Ross also encouraged people to be creative. mistertrickster Apr 2012 #20

I put him right in the same class as Warhol CBGLuthier Apr 2012 #21

You really don't understand edhopper Apr 2012 #26

Making money. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #83

Thanks for making my point. edhopper Apr 2012 #88

People like warhol aren't hard to understand. They like cash, they like to be around people with HiPointDem Apr 2012 #101

Do you think we'll see Kinkade's stuff at MoMA, on the same floor with the Jasper Johns and CTyankee Apr 2012 #27

Nope, we'll only see them at Sunday sales at hotels...nt joeybee12 Apr 2012 #34

Don't be so sure of that... Atman Apr 2012 #53

As I have said, this "high art/low art" discussion is timeworn. It goes on and on. And there is CTyankee Apr 2012 #58

Except that the people doing the pile-on seemed to make it about his art. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2012 #28

The guy's work is art like Fox News is journalism. EFerrari Apr 2012 #49

Yeah, so what? Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2012 #56

I feel the same way. Cobalt Violet Apr 2012 #102

It's Godwin time! GoneOffShore Apr 2012 #38

you win! dionysus Apr 2012 #106

Cheesy as Kincaide's work may have been IDemo Apr 2012 #50

Kinkaide was an amazing artist who sold out Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #51

His personal work was edhopper Apr 2012 #75

So that's his private stuff, huh? Pretty pedestrian. Demit Apr 2012 #84

You Cherry Picked some of his worst stuff Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #103

I picked the first few I found on Google. edhopper Apr 2012 #105

Why is it that people excuse Kinkade? marions ghost Apr 2012 #111

He should have just done a "Piss Christ" and others would have loved him The Straight Story Apr 2012 #59

Either you don't actually know any artist edhopper Apr 2012 #76

And a lot of people get their ideas of christians from the 700 club The Straight Story Apr 2012 #80

Nice non response edhopper Apr 2012 #91

but DuChamp REALLY did do that. nt LaydeeBug Apr 2012 #100

He did that to Winnie The Pooh instead. nt Starry Messenger Apr 2012 #78

He's right up there with Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo LanternWaste Apr 2012 #64

What an idiotic thing to say edhopper Apr 2012 #79

Having been a fan of all three at different points in my life... LanternWaste Apr 2012 #81

Boris is still alive edhopper Apr 2012 #90

it's outrageous that Kinkaide was rewarded with million$ for his unoriginal appeals librechik Apr 2012 #72

It's about the hypocrisy Taverner Apr 2012 #85

lots of hypocrisy out there; this guy's hypocrisy seems to have spawned threads all out of HiPointDem Apr 2012 #113

You post a topic to complain about piling on? OMG. Mimosa Apr 2012 #116