good or bad

Visual art, party pics, and the like
Locked
<rosie>

good or bad

Post by <rosie> »

what is good art to paxacidus?
what is bad?
<Jack Chiefton>

good or bad

Post by <Jack Chiefton> »

May I Rosie?

ahem..well in my honest humble opinion, the art that truly gets me off are the intricately and fine detailed drawings and comics in the Penthouse magazine.

I also have this huge poster on my apartment wall of Las Caux cave, which is the location of ancient pictographs and petroglyphs of the finest detailed wooly mammoths and aurochs. Keep in mind the cave art at Las Caux is quite old dating to about 20,000 BC if I'm not mistaken.
<rosie>

good or bad

Post by <rosie> »

why do these topics get you off?
why do you consider them to be good.
please indulge.
<Jack Chiefton>

good or bad

Post by <Jack Chiefton> »

well actually the reference made to penthouse was an attempt at bad humor.

However, the cave art at Las Caux is (besides evidence of first flint tools) perhaps the defining moment in our species evolution towards identity. These pictographs are 20,000 years old at las caux. The oldest pictographs and petroglyphs date to around 35,000 years old, and people think of Van Gogh as ancient. Van Gogh painted yesterday; the Homo sapiens drawing in the caves of Altamira, Las Caux, Cueva de los Caballos, and Dordogne were painted 1,000 years ago. That's just my odd temporal comparison similar to the comparison of a crationists 7 day beginning as opposed to a 30 day geologic creation.

These paintings were not merely stick figures with atl-atls and spears in their hands. Yes there were quite a few hunting scenes (but that defined our early ancestors lifestyle) that depicted intricately designed paintings of aurox, mastodon, wooly mammoth. A couple paintings depict a beautifully painted (in a red pigment of some sort perhaps ochre) pregnant horse. The details were exquisite.

And now keep in mind that most of these cave and rock paintings were composed in the black depths of a cave, miles and miles in. Nevermind the giant cave bear and short faced bears that stood about 15 feet tall roaming these caves, but why would these people choose to paint these figures by a dim glow of a flare of some sort miles into this unknown void of darkness? Their heart was in their art, that's why.

Oh yeah, I also like Van Goghs self-portrait of course, and that silly midget LauTrec was quite good.
<rosie>

good or bad

Post by <rosie> »

which self portrait , he did many.
<Jack Chiefton>

good or bad

Post by <Jack Chiefton> »

you know, uh, that one that he painted.
<Jack Chiefton>

good or bad

Post by <Jack Chiefton> »

ok, it's the exact same portrait they have on the bus. I first saw a duplicate when i was about 13 years old out of one of my fathers art history books. I also love the bedroom picture with the bed and the desk and lamp. It reminds me of my place right now, even though i can't paint worth a damn. I borrowed my father's book and saw the copy of the room picture of Van Gogh, and it was so lonely it made me sad, but I realized that it was my room.
<rosie>

good or bad

Post by <rosie> »

chiefton, which one?
<sarah>

good or bad

Post by <sarah> »

rosie,
I liked your question

I think good for me is what I need at the moment, which is probably really philistine. I will always need Matisse's blue nudes. I also need Andrew Wyeth's pictures of everything. Sometimes I need a Westermann sculpture of a wooden ship surrounded by sharks and dollar bills and a big chrysler tire print running over it.

I saw this one exhibit at the pompidou the whole thing was dark, sadistic, and scary -- raw meat dress for the anorexic, blood stained panty collage, black penis shooting bullets of sperm into a shriveled vagina -- I hated it, that was five six years ago, I still think about it, what an impression, that's got to have merit too.

I have no critical sense, but art has helped when everything felt turned inside out.
<rosie>

good or bad

Post by <rosie> »

yes , that is right. a virtual reality.
Locked