Art

[ABSTRUSE]

Is it celebrity that forms quality? Or has the quality of art or artist become dependant upon the amount of money that can be drawn by the artist? Perhaps its always been this way? That, I don't know.

A few years back and up and coming artist named Mark Kostabi appeared on the scene, he had some great stuff, but he became more or less jaded by his new found fame, celebrities clamoured for his works and he took to the idea of having others produce works for him, which he then signed his name to. Not only did he plagerize the works of others(IMO) but he openly discussed how he conned people out of their money by doing so.
Artist or ConArtist?

The term 'Art' can be so generalized as it breaks into so many catagories, genres and subject matter as well as medium.

On can say that Art is a matter of opinion and passion, it's the interpretation of the artist vs the interpretation of the viewer.

What does one consider "Good Art"?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Wall-Eye May Have Helped Rembrandt's Vision

BOSTON (Reuters) - Rembrandt, the 17th-century Dutch master known for his skill in using light to carry perspective, may have been wall-eyed, a U.S. researcher proposed on Wednesday.

An analysis of 36 self-portraits of the great painter suggest he had a strabismus -- a misalignment of one eye that caused it to point slightly outward.


This condition, popularly known as wall-eye, may have given Rembrandt van Rijn an advantage in translating three-dimensional scenes into two-dimensional paintings, said Margaret Livingstone, a Harvard Medical School (news - web sites) neurobiologist.


"It illustrates that disabilities are not always disabilities. They may be assets in another realm," Livingstone said in an interview.


"I like the idea that there may be a biological basis for different talents, even if it's something as dumb as a lack of depth perception."


An inability to see with world with normal depth perception can be an advantage to an artist, who must flatten a view to render it accurately, Livingstone said.


Art teachers often advise students to close one eye when they compose a painting. Livingstone and Harvard co-author Bevil Conway looked at 36 self-portraits painted by the prolific artist. In 23 out of 24 oil paintings, Rembrandt's right eye gazes to the right while the left eye looks straight ahead, they write in a letter in this week's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites).


Livingstone said because the paintings were done looking in a mirror, the left eye is probably the one that was off center.


A dozen etchings he did of himself show the other eye off center. But left and right are reversed in an etching, which is made by scratching lines on a metal plate and using the plate to make a print.


Livingstone said the works show Rembrandt's errant eye to be gazing off center by an average of 10 degrees.


As a result, Rembrandt probably could not see in stereo, which requires the proper alignment of the two eyes. About 4 percent of the population suffers a similar problem.


Only one oil painting shows the correct orientation of the eyes. "We wonder whether Rembrandt painted it from an etching, or whether it was painted by a student looking directly at Rembrandt, and not at a mirror image," the researchers wrote.

 

[Guest]

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Hmmm, how about this one?

The Meaning of Michelangelo's "David"
Wednesday September 1, 2004
By: Lee Sandstead

Michelangelo's projection of the human ideal expresses a view of man as efficacious and heroic.

This September 8 marks the 500th anniversary of Michelangelo’s “David,” one of art-history’s greatest masterpieces. Crowds of visitors have been drawn to Florence to experience this magnificent sculpture over the past 500 years--and they continue to visit in record numbers. Why does a work of art created half a millennium ago possess such a timeless, universal appeal? What meaning does this 500-year-old sculpture hold for modern-day man?

To answer these questions, consider the significance of Michelangelo’s “David” to the Renaissance Florentines who first revered it.

During the 1000 years preceding the Renaissance, the West had been mired in the medieval Christian worldview, which divided the universe into two spheres: a heavenly realm of perfection, happiness and truth, and this dark world of imperfection, misery and falsehood. Man, forever paying for his crime of Original Sin, was regarded as powerless and ignorant, with blind obedience to God and his earthly spokesmen as his only recourse.

As expressed by one of the leading Christians of the time, Saint Augustine, man is “crooked and sordid, bespotted and ulcerous.” Consequently, man as depicted in medieval art is a deformed beast, wailing for the salvation of his soul. At best, the human ideal was represented as a bloody, beaten and crucified Jesus Christ; a man who resigned himself to his preordained fate: a violent, sacrificial death.

The Renaissance was the rebirth of man’s life on earth. Freed from the shackles of authority, man’s mind was viewed as able to understand the universe. Far from being a tortured soul trapped in a deformed bodily prison, man was regarded as rational, beautiful and heroic--worthy of happiness and capable of great achievement. Man, in the Renaissance view, need not bow down in passive resignation, praying for salvation. He can choose to undertake great challenges in the face of seemingly impossible odds; he can actively pursue success, fight for victory--even slay a giant.

Michelangelo’s “David” is the best expression of this Renaissance sense of life. The sculpture was inspired by the story of the young shepherd boy who chose to fight a far stronger adversary in order to save his people from invasion. Wearing no armor, with a sling as his only weapon, David defeats Goliath using superior skill and courage.

Although there had been many earlier portrayals of David in art, Michelangelo’s was revolutionary. The others depict David after the battle had been won--often standing on the severed head of a defeated Goliath. Michelangelo chose to show David not in victory, but at that point in time that prefigured victory: in that instance between conscious choice and conscious action, that moment when an individual makes a choice--and commits to act on that choice. David stands, with furrowed brow, looking over his left shoulder into the distance for Goliath. Michelangelo shows David not as a triumphant victor, but as a thinking, resolute being--the preconditions for victory.

The key to the “David”’s appeal is Michelangelo’s magnificent projection of man at his best--vigorously healthy, beautiful, rational, competent. It expresses a heroic view of man and of a universe auspicious to his success. Such a projection is of immeasurable worth to anyone who holds such a sense of life--whether that person lived 500 years ago or lives today.

Unfortunately, this kind of artistic projection has almost entirely been relegated to the past.

Today intellectuals once again view man as an ugly, corrupt being, trapped in an incomprehensible universe and not in control of his own destiny. Consequently, man and his values are not considered a serious subject for art by Modernists; “serious art” contains the defecations of an elephant or the rusty steel of a garbage dump.

Michelangelo’s “David” thoroughly rejects both the Christian and Modernist conceptions of man. The David projects man as neither a monster nor a hapless victim, but as an efficacious and noble being. The “David” is the ultimate projection of heroic choice and heroic action.

What is the meaning of Michelangelo’s “David” for modern-day man? The same as it was 500 years ago--the brilliant projection of the ideal.

Lee Sandstead, an art historian, is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead

 

[vargas111]

"Primavera" by Bottaceli

I'm sure the two women are just slightly pregnant.

Most erotic image I can imagine.

 

[Guest]