|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Picasso Portrait Fetches $95.2 Million
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-09-2006 07:07 PM
quote: Mike Heenan
So Bobby, you dont have any of your money in investments? Stocks, bonds, etc?
Yes, I do. And those investments are in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. -not high risk, high profile stuff like the game called fine art. Lots of bullshit is involved in that scene. That's one reason why I chose illustration for my major in art school, rather than fine art.
quote: Will Kutler
I have always found it interesting that the so called "art experts" can psycobabble about how great Picasso, Pollaack and those of similar ilk are, yet they diss on artists like rockwell or Kinkade. And yet Rockwell and Kinkade are two of the most p[opular artists in history.
Norman Rockwell is one of the greatest illustrators who ever lived. But he was not the first to make paintings that approached photo-realism or captured the "slice of life" kind of thing.
Lots of people who take pride in not being experts in art typically judge paintings by whether they look like a photograph or not. And the paintings are crap if they don't look like a photograph or at least appear to have taken a great degree of skill to create. Frankly, I think that's a very closed-minded point of view.
Photo-realism in painting was more important in the 18th and 19th centuries because there were no cameras.
Once cameras proliferated in the 1800s there was little point for many highly skilled artists to pursue photo realism. If they wanted something that looked like a photograph they would take a photograph.
Many of the greatest illustrators of the 20th century, such as Rockwell, did work you could not achieve with a camera. They would exaggerate proportions of figures, warp perspective, amplify or mute color or get a more edgy look by being deliberately messy with the drawing or paint strokes. Rockwell did very precise and humourous illustrations. But he also did darker works that drew inspiration from people like Picasso and Van Gogh. Google his illustration of "Southern Justice," a work that appeared in a June, 1965 issue of Look magazine. It's not photo-realistic at all. But it is a pretty emotional piece and one of his more important works.
Fundamentally, visual art is more about communicating a feeling or emotion (and finding new visual ways to do it) rather than simply copying real life.
Picasso was the first to do a lot of things in fine art. In fine art, you score a lot more points by being innovative. All of the "great artists" through time have been innovators more than anything else. Picasso certainly did not have the best painterly skill, but he pioneered techniques like cubism and almost single-handedly swept aside the era of impressionism that had held for decades. He's the first guy most people think of when the term "modern art" is mentioned.
To use another analogy, let's bring up Jimi Hendrix.
Many rock music fans feel Jimi Hendrix is the greatest guitar player who ever lived. If one were to listen to his playing from a strictly clinical standpoint, why would so many be impressed? He's not especially precise or very fast in his playing. Guys like Eric Clapton, Richie Blackmoor and Edward Van Halen (or even non-rock guys like Al DiMeola) could play circles around Hendrix.
Hendrix' legend endures because he innovated. He brought about a whole new way of playing the electric guitar no one ever heard before. And every rock guitarist who has played since owes some influence to the guy. Just like Citizen Kane changed the language of filmmaking, Hendrix changed the language of electric guitar.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 05-09-2006 07:36 PM
Speculators, in general, are good for the economy. They lower the risk of certain activites, like exploring for oil or planting crops.
If the producers of commodities did not know that they could sell their products for a certain price at a later date, then the producers will produce less of that risky commodity. The risk gets transfered to the speculator, who is guessing what the future price will be, and who is usually better able to handle the loss if he or she is wrong.
Society at large benefits because we get more wheat, or oil, or whatever.
The producers benefit because they know they are going to get paid a certain price for their product.
The speculators benefit on any profits they may make. Let it be said that speculators often lose, because no one can see 100% into the future.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic