My BMI is 17 as well. I used to weigh 60kg and gaining, then I got in a small (read stupid) accident and broke my left collar bone. That weight went away and never came back.
I'm a very nervous type as well, it's like I immediately burn off everything I eat.
That Chris Sanders drawing: I really don't like 3/4 pants. I think they're very unflattering to the female figure, in that they accentuate the lower legs so much they make them look like tree trunks.
That Chris Sanders drawing: I really don't like 3/4 pants. I think they're very unflattering to the female figure, in that they accentuate the lower legs so much they make them look like tree trunks.
Abstract art? This is what it's come to? The artist's job is to depict the world as it ought to be, not as it is damned to be by some spasm of the lower mind.
Yes, but what does it mean? Does it depict our world in a straightforward and elegant fashion? No. It's all... blocks and squares. In my opinion, a talentless animal could paint a flotsam of squares upon the sea of a canvas. It is not talent, and it's just not good art.
My mother was an abstract artist. She trained traditionally and went to the same school as Ang Lee (albeit a different department). Sincerely painting abstract takes a lot of skill and study. It takes a concept or feeling and condenses it into its raw form. If you are able to convey this feeling into your piece, as an artist, you have exceeded.
It's like when you draw characters. You have to convey your own feelings of what these characters are or who they are into each and every pose and facial expression they make. You have to make them live, feel, and breath using still images. That's the greatest thing you can do when drawing characters and people. If you don't feel something about, for, or from those characters in how they look, then no amount of great writing can save them or your work on them.
The same goes for environments. You have to feel some sense from an environment in how it looks before you even know what the environment is for. If an environment doesn't make you feel some emotion: peace, fear, magic(yes I see magic as an emotion as well in that you can feel a magical quality about some things like stories or places, not as in magic exists excuse me while I try to jump off a cliff and fly), anyway if an environment doesn't make you feel something, then its useless.
I feel nowadays art isn't about reproducing things as faithfully as possible. Not as far as drawing/painting/etc is concerned. After all, we have photography now.
I'm pretty sure cubism is abstract, but abstract art isn't about just throwing stuff on a canvas. I find it harder than non-abstract art where at least there is something you can see that you're trying to reproduce. With abstract art, what you're trying to reproduce is in your head only, or to put it differently, you're producing, not reproducing.
I find cubism very interesting. It's all about seeing objects in ways you never could in real life, from various angles at the same time, to capture their essence in a two-dimensional way. In analytical cubism, they pretty much do away with colour, as well. It's kind of sculpting on a canvas, in a way. And I think it looks awesome, but that's a taste thing of course.
Some abstract art was a lot about thinking about it first (monochromes, action painting...) and just don't have the same impact nowadays (if I do it, it's probably not going to be art, is what I mean. Especially the monochromes). Some were all about rebelling against conventions (dadaism is all about that). Surrealism is pretty awesome too, it gives you to think and dream, I find.
Some is about the fact of doing the art as much as the end result (action act again with pollock, and that guy who writes number in a paler and paler colour) and some are about the medium (like painting with blood for instance).
There are lots of things I don't "get" in contemporary art (what's the point of putting a urinal in a museam?) but I guess it's about the novelty and the "shock" factor still?
Some things seem a bit "pointless" (wrapping up a bridge, then unwrapping it) yet at the same time I like how it just lasts a little while and then it's gone.
I had assignments to produce abstract art and I was terrible at it. And I realised that there are still rules, a least as far as composition goes. My work ended up unbalanced, it was missing things, things weren't in the right places, or it was too crowded... And you could see it.
Anyways, I guess my point is that a lot of abstract art is still about learning how to draw things realistically and then descronstructing that.
And a lot of it I feel looks wicked awesome. If I ever get a painting hanging in my home, it's more likely to be something abstract I think.
Urinal "contemporary" art? Do you mean "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp? Seeing how the "original" piece is more than 90 years old I wouldn't exactly call that contemporary. Peeing in it, yes, but it does kind of beg for that sort of thing. I'd say that much of the art I see displayed publicly isn't particularly interesting to me, but I'd guess that's the way it's always been. Not every piece is a master piece, and not every master piece will be enjoyed or understood by everyone. Not because they're not "good" or anything, but just because people approach things differently one from the other. Heck, your opinion of a piece can change drastically just as you age! (Boy, what an original thought I just posited! I am truly a genius critic. Yup.)
Seriously though, I do find that there's a lot of interesting work out there in more of a "design school vein" if that makes any sense. Like this artist, Miki Sato who seems to have more of an illustrating background, but makes these amazing, tactile works. People who are "working" artists, i.e. in the entertainment, marketing fields as opposed to "pure" artists in the more traditional sense. I'm explaining myself horribly; I don't mean to denigrate more traditional or modern artists. But I think it's interesting that we've gone from Warhol's "raising up" of a Campbell's soup can to "true art" status to having people who design soup cans making them works of art from the get-go. (Okay, so it wasn't soup cans, it was kick ass book designs, but still, I'd be just as willing to display them as art as any painting.)
Urinal "contemporary" art? Do you mean "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp? Seeing how the "original" piece is more than 90 years old I wouldn't exactly call that contemporary.
Oh, when does contemporary start? But "modern" if you prefer, since modern refers to stuff that's older than contemporary. (Right?)
My point was that I don't get it. now I didn't see that in particular, but I went to a museum a few years ago in which some exhibits looked like someone was having a yard sale. A bunch of old crappy items laying on tables and in boxes and stuff. I didn't get it at all.
Or there was the exhibition that had fix in food processors. Now I guess I'd kind of get the message if someone showed a picture of it or something, but the actual thing? And honestly, what was the point of leaving the things plugged? (yeah, it ended badly).
Anyway, I'm not an art critic or anything, I'm pretty limited by "I like how it looks" and "I don't like how it looks", with some doses of "I like it but I can see how it needs work" or "I don't like it but I can tell the artist is talented".
Avant-garde stuff can be weird, but also fun to look at.
I remember I got so excited when I found an old advant-garde room set up type thing rodney greenblatt (the guy who did the art for parappa the rapper) in one of my mom's art books.
Actually it would be cool if it just became general artistic discussion thread.
Technically, anyone reading it from start to finish would begin by reading about boobs and end up reading an artistic discussion. But yeah, it seems that there's certainly an interest in an artistic discussion thread.
I like the current title. It's satirical, funny, and abby normal to me and hence I think it should stay how it is. Why must everything be made so ordinary? We may be talking about art here, but just because we talk about statues of David and paintings by Van Gogh doesn't mean we need to act like we, as Mozart would say, "sh-- marble".
I think threads are made better by putting "Boobs:" in front anyways. So even if the thread would work well as "an artistic discussion", "Boobs: an artistic discussion" is better!
Now I'm going to mentally add "Boobs:" at the beginning of each thread title and see how that works.
I'm already liking the "Boobs: Q&A with..." threads.
Honestly, I was almost entirely teasing. I see no need to change the title. Though I have to say that the results of "suggesting" it are extremely amusing.
It also has applications in the other boards. For example:
Boobs: Obscure Russian Monkey Island game
Boobs: My idea of a location for season two
Boobs: Screaming Narwhal Concept Art
Boobs: Writing Elaine
Boobs: Your burning questions answered... on our site!
Boobs: My idea for a location of season two
Boobs: Everything is a lie
Boobs: Dreams
Boobs: Hello!
Boobs 101: Culture Shock
Boobs: Package has not arrived
Boobs: It looks like I'm getting overcharged for my credit card order
Boobs: 17$ shipping for Europe is crazy
Boobs: item on backorder?
Here I am, adding "boobs" to titles and giggling. I agree we're drifting away from the "artistic discussion" part of it.
Comments
Man I am TRIPPIN!
They're also pretty much all orphans. Goddamn creepy Disney...
I'm a very nervous type as well, it's like I immediately burn off everything I eat.
That Chris Sanders drawing: I really don't like 3/4 pants. I think they're very unflattering to the female figure, in that they accentuate the lower legs so much they make them look like tree trunks.
The same goes for environments. You have to feel some sense from an environment in how it looks before you even know what the environment is for. If an environment doesn't make you feel some emotion: peace, fear, magic(yes I see magic as an emotion as well in that you can feel a magical quality about some things like stories or places, not as in magic exists excuse me while I try to jump off a cliff and fly), anyway if an environment doesn't make you feel something, then its useless.
I'm pretty sure cubism is abstract, but abstract art isn't about just throwing stuff on a canvas. I find it harder than non-abstract art where at least there is something you can see that you're trying to reproduce. With abstract art, what you're trying to reproduce is in your head only, or to put it differently, you're producing, not reproducing.
I find cubism very interesting. It's all about seeing objects in ways you never could in real life, from various angles at the same time, to capture their essence in a two-dimensional way. In analytical cubism, they pretty much do away with colour, as well. It's kind of sculpting on a canvas, in a way. And I think it looks awesome, but that's a taste thing of course.
Some abstract art was a lot about thinking about it first (monochromes, action painting...) and just don't have the same impact nowadays (if I do it, it's probably not going to be art, is what I mean. Especially the monochromes). Some were all about rebelling against conventions (dadaism is all about that). Surrealism is pretty awesome too, it gives you to think and dream, I find.
Some is about the fact of doing the art as much as the end result (action act again with pollock, and that guy who writes number in a paler and paler colour) and some are about the medium (like painting with blood for instance).
There are lots of things I don't "get" in contemporary art (what's the point of putting a urinal in a museam?) but I guess it's about the novelty and the "shock" factor still?
Some things seem a bit "pointless" (wrapping up a bridge, then unwrapping it) yet at the same time I like how it just lasts a little while and then it's gone.
I had assignments to produce abstract art and I was terrible at it. And I realised that there are still rules, a least as far as composition goes. My work ended up unbalanced, it was missing things, things weren't in the right places, or it was too crowded... And you could see it.
Anyways, I guess my point is that a lot of abstract art is still about learning how to draw things realistically and then descronstructing that.
And a lot of it I feel looks wicked awesome. If I ever get a painting hanging in my home, it's more likely to be something abstract I think.
Seriously though, I do find that there's a lot of interesting work out there in more of a "design school vein" if that makes any sense. Like this artist, Miki Sato who seems to have more of an illustrating background, but makes these amazing, tactile works. People who are "working" artists, i.e. in the entertainment, marketing fields as opposed to "pure" artists in the more traditional sense. I'm explaining myself horribly; I don't mean to denigrate more traditional or modern artists. But I think it's interesting that we've gone from Warhol's "raising up" of a Campbell's soup can to "true art" status to having people who design soup cans making them works of art from the get-go. (Okay, so it wasn't soup cans, it was kick ass book designs, but still, I'd be just as willing to display them as art as any painting.)
Oh, when does contemporary start? But "modern" if you prefer, since modern refers to stuff that's older than contemporary. (Right?)
My point was that I don't get it. now I didn't see that in particular, but I went to a museum a few years ago in which some exhibits looked like someone was having a yard sale. A bunch of old crappy items laying on tables and in boxes and stuff. I didn't get it at all.
Or there was the exhibition that had fix in food processors. Now I guess I'd kind of get the message if someone showed a picture of it or something, but the actual thing? And honestly, what was the point of leaving the things plugged? (yeah, it ended badly).
Anyway, I'm not an art critic or anything, I'm pretty limited by "I like how it looks" and "I don't like how it looks", with some doses of "I like it but I can see how it needs work" or "I don't like it but I can tell the artist is talented".
I remember I got so excited when I found an old advant-garde room set up type thing rodney greenblatt (the guy who did the art for parappa the rapper) in one of my mom's art books.
Technically, anyone reading it from start to finish would begin by reading about boobs and end up reading an artistic discussion. But yeah, it seems that there's certainly an interest in an artistic discussion thread.
Now I'm going to mentally add "Boobs:" at the beginning of each thread title and see how that works.
I'm already liking the "Boobs: Q&A with..." threads.
Boobs: New Logo Shape
Boobs: Adventure Time!
Boobs: Demo?
Boobs: Max Watch
Boobs: Writing Elaine
Boobs: is this perverted
Boobs: -1% hate it!
And, of course, the best:
Boobs: What do you look like? (Post a Pic!)
Followed closely by:
Boobs: Novelization?
It also has applications in the other boards. For example:
Boobs: Obscure Russian Monkey Island game
Boobs: My idea of a location for season two
Boobs: Screaming Narwhal Concept Art
Boobs: Writing Elaine
And winner for worst (best?) pun:
Boobs: what's with all the wii hate?
Boobs: Your burning questions answered... on our site!
Boobs: My idea for a location of season two
Boobs: Everything is a lie
Boobs: Dreams
Boobs: Hello!
ninja'd
Boobs: My Sam and Max fangame
How about this one?
Boobs: Q&A With... Steve Purcell
EDIT: Even better than Boobs: Hello!, I give you Boobs: Welcome!
Also, Boobs: Q&A with the design team.
Boobs; The Goal
Boobs: The Counting Game
Boobs: A Game
Boobs: The Censor Game
Boobs: edible
Boobs: Falling
Boobs: I need a brain!
Boobs: Easter Egg for first season
Boobs: Wack-Da-Rats Help
So much for the artistic discussion...
Boobs: Package has not arrived
Boobs: It looks like I'm getting overcharged for my credit card order
Boobs: 17$ shipping for Europe is crazy
Boobs: item on backorder?
Here I am, adding "boobs" to titles and giggling. I agree we're drifting away from the "artistic discussion" part of it.
Okay, I cheated, there's no thread with that name. Yet.
I thought about this one but didn't find a thread title that was just "Special Edition"