BJB said:Lovely blandness to accessorise a neutral colour scheme
And thus, your cynicism now becomes part of the art.
BJB said:Lovely blandness to accessorise a neutral colour scheme
Abitrary said:And thus, your cynicism now becomes part of the art.
Aperitif said:If you look at a painting - like a Mark Rothko for example - the 'field' of colour seems to change (no - not as your eyelids close together either...)
Once upon a time, modern art (in its broadest, 'recognisable' sense) did more to adjust one's visual perceptions, rather than illustrate an ideology/a politic as an abstract.
Morris Louis, Frank Stella etc etc - powerful stuff...and the viewer takes from the pics. what they can.
Technical ability - no matter what the subject, always appeals to me - look at the way a button on a soldier's tunic is painted - totally abstract close up, but a perfect button resemblance when one stands back...
In short - Modern Art contains a lot of 'emperor's new clothes' type of stuff but, historically, the 'good work' always wins through - like it or not.
So complicated - wish I never started but I'm not going to rub it out now
Aperitif said:So complicated - wish I never started but I'm not going to rub it out now
One cannot see what one must hold. Close now. Video the many time.Abitrary said:Look at this. What do you see.
http://desaparecidos.ilcannocchiale.it/blogs/bloggerarchimg/desaparecidos/rothko.jpg
Noodley said:Oooh 'ark at 'im
Aperitif said:sorry
oh- sorrylongers said:Don't apologise, it was good.
Creamcrackered said:90% of it probably is rollocks, but 10% hits the spot and moves things along. There were probably people wandering around in the 19th century saying "Impressionism, what's that all about?"