 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Agree completely posted by SR on October 17, 2003 at 11:33:14:
You know, the movie never explained why his splattered paint was considered art? Because Peggy Guggenheim thought so? That's part of the reason I went to see it. His work is like 20th Century composers--lost on me.
Follow Ups:
When I see a real artist that has proven ability to accuratly portray people or landscape or fruit bowls start to push the envelope into expressionism, cubism or what have you I'm willing to consider it art, I may not like it but if the man is an artist (or musician) I'm willing to consider it art. Examples of that would be Van Gogh and Picasso. Pollack AFAIK never could paint, didn't push any envelopes, and was a mean untalented drunk.The fact that Guggenheim or anyone else decided to declare "he is an artist" doesn't make it so, for me.
Steve
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
