Kosh's Shadow 7/15/2021 3:53:32 PM

2

Interesting - I had made sure there were initial posts but that turned out to be the pub picture.

Oh well. 

The fireworks were also coming out of those squares at each end of the bumper in my dream.

Jukebox

Kosh's Shadow 7/15/2021 4:36:33 PM

3

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 5:18:50 PM

4

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 3:

The 1914 version...

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 5:25:25 PM

5

Kosh's Shadow 7/15/2021 5:25:37 PM

6

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 4:

This is getting tired and exhausted/

JCM 7/15/2021 5:33:51 PM

7

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 6:

Are you saying the thread should be re-bored?

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 5:35:22 PM

8

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 6:17:18 PM

9

What is agonizing about Facebook is seeing a number of people I've known and respected throughout my professional life---artists who were my colleagues back when I was still a commercial artist, some of whom later became my clients when I switched fields---and seeing how truly Leftist-insane they are.  I'm talking about comments advocating "reforming" (i.e., scrapping) the filibuster, voting every Republican out of office, why-isn't-Trump-in-jail, etc., etc.

Part of this is the echo-chamber nature of FB---if you're "following" and commenting on the posts of someone you admire, you don't want to disagree with them---which is exacerbated by both the FB format and the censorship (excuse me, "fact-checking") that it has been documented that FB engages in.  But au fond, there is a really serious hard-Left bent in the art community.  It is disturbing to see so much talent so uniformly misdirected.

Kosh's Shadow 7/15/2021 6:47:59 PM

10

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 9:

It seems like artists see the world as they want it to be, not as it is. This can be positive, but they need to realize the canvas, the block of marble, is not already in the shape they want it to be. 

Kosh's Shadow 7/15/2021 7:08:32 PM

11

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 10:

To elaborate, artists might see the world as their canvas or block or marble, but don't realize its properties. You can't make a movie on a canvas, and a block of marble has its flaws that you have to work around.

Another problem is they think the world is their art, not G-d's. What they want as a desirable outcome might not be possible at all.

As I have said before, the search for a workable system of redistribution of wealth is the search for the Philosopher's Stone of political science alchemy, trying to turn people's baser instincts into gold, instead of recognizing them and using them to produce an artistry of life, not an artistry constrained by their thinking, like propaganda.

JCM 7/15/2021 7:13:18 PM

12

Reply to Kosh's Shadow in 11:

Art is also emotional. Liberals place feelings over results.

doppelganglander 7/15/2021 7:24:36 PM

13

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 9:

The end result is shitty art. I don't follow the visual art world, but it seems safe to say that film, music, and literature are a wasteland.

Kosh's Shadow 7/15/2021 7:26:56 PM

14

In #12 JCM said: Liberals place feelings over results.

Jukebox

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 7:56:17 PM

15

In #13 doppelganglander said: The end result is shitty art.

These are illustrators and cartoonists I'm talking about---and they are extremely talented.  It used to drive me crazy that people in the art world would speak sneeringly of "commercial art," as opposed to "fine art"; early on, I stopped referring to "fine art" and substituted the term "galllery art"---since I don't think most gallery art is "fine."  For that matter, artists going back to Picasso and Braque---not to mention Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein---have relied on that much-despised "commercial art" for the inspiration of their own art, and occasionally inserted collage pieces of actual "commercial art" into their "fine" works, when they are not slavishly copying the commercial art.

doppelganglander 7/15/2021 8:15:10 PM

16

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 15:

I'm no art historian, but I don't see much difference in purpose between modern commercial art and, say, Renaissance art commissioned by the Church or patrons like the Medici. Both are created to satisfy the patron. 

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 8:31:30 PM

17

In #16 doppelganglander said: I'm no art historian, but I don't see much difference in purpose between modern commercial art and, say, Renaissance art commissioned by the Church or patrons like the Medici. Both are created to satisfy the patron. 

There's quite a bit of truth in that, but with the coming of the Industrial Revolution art more or less "split" into "commercial" and "fine."  I can give you some background on that, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.

doppelganglander 7/15/2021 8:41:31 PM

18

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 17:

I see your point. Mass advertising arose in the 19th century; instead of promoting piety or testifying to the glory of a wealthy king or nobleman, art was used to sell soap. That left fine (non-commissioned?) art to become an outlet for the artist's personal feelings. I'll be interested to read about your thoughts if you feel like writing about it later.

buzzsawmonkey 7/15/2021 8:55:22 PM

20

Reply to doppelganglander in 18:

Another element is that, with the advent and subsequent popularization of photography, the idea of "realistic representation" via paint seemed increasingly pointless, so paintings started to get into the dreams and fantasies of Symbolism, mythological paintings like those by Burne-Jones or the Pre-Raphaelites, and then on into Impressionism, Cubism, and its variants like Futurism.   

The wilder and less-realistic painting became, starting in the later 19th century, the more the "fine artists" despised the artists who used their talents for crass commercial purposes like packaging, posters/advertising, etc.---even though, as I said, the "fine artists" frequently used "commercial" art as reference and information.

Part of this was tied into the snobbishness of the better-off with regard to the Industrial Revolution and its products, which enabled poor, or poorer, people to live not unlike their supposed "betters."  Wealthy people could afford paintings, and even painted walls in palaces, chateaux, and grand houses; with the Industrial Revolution, the middle class could purchase printed wallpaper which closely resembled such wall-paintings, and could purchase chromolithographs which, if they did not duplicate oil paintings, at least were a reasonable facsimile of hand-tinted prints.  The wealthy hated this; hated that the poor, or less-well-off, could afford glass goblets, changes of clothes, etc., etc.   When machines were designed that could simulate the ornate hand-carving that adorned expensive furniture, making it available to vastly more people, is when the Arts and Crafts Movement started going in for simplicity---first with Eastlake furniture and then with "Mission" furniture.