Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MisSFiT
There are a few artists that can be considered "real" I guess you can say.
Although they have been dead for hundreds of years they are really great artists.
Michealangelo (sp?)
DaVinci was basically a genius.
The basic people that everyone has heard of one point in time.
Then you have those that have made millions off of splatter paint-Jackson Pollack.
Or silkscreen "pop art"
Andy Warhol-OVERRATED.
I think anybody can pick up a paint brush and draw a few shapes and call it abstract.
But to be a success you have to appear as an oppressed alcoholic that had a bad childhood.
I have no idea where the hell I was going with this. I think it had something to do with what Supafly wrote.
|
Andy Warhol is a genious. Your grasp on art is very narrow if you cannot see that.
I know what is art and what is not. Sadly, my mind is set to be able to understand it, which I wish it coulden't because it ruins many things that idiots enjoy. I can appreciate simple but brilliant art such as Malevich's "White on white", as well as colorful expressionism like Vlaminc's " Woman's Straw Hat". Both of which many people do not get but assume is art. I don't assume, I know it is art.
These examples are rare. 95% of art isn't real art. Truely good artist can make a healthey living on it. If you are a " starving artist" it means you suck. If you have the ability you can make it happen.
I am sick an tired of uninspired, garbage heaps of art. That is why I am so disinteristed in persueing it.
Hybrid Mode
