ken hubert Loc: Missouri

How true!
:-D

egegikbob

to Ken from the show me state....

the group is all warmed up


SHOW US your best work....and let's
get all the real critics to rip on your "art"

I'm going to guess they will be kind, however,
not sold that represent the BEST.......

fantom Loc: Colorado

great

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Good story with a lot of imagination to fit your point of view. But it is not what happened to Picasso.

Perhaps his first Cubist painting is what we now call the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" which he painted in 1907.

http://www.pablopicasso.org/images/paintings/avignon.jpg

The painting took 9 months to complete, and Picasso worked feverishly, telling friends he was seriously doing something of real significance. (It is thought that he wanted to outdo Henri Matisse, whose latest art was getting great attention for it's unusual nature.)

Picasso let only his closest friends see the painting, and all but one told him it was despicable. He was advised to never let the public see it, lest he be ruined forever. Picasso called it "Le Bordel d'Avignon". In 1916, literally 9 years after it was finished, it was exhibited in Paris by Andre Salmon who renamed it to help reduce the expected public outrage at such an immoral and unnatural painting.

The public was not impressed. Matisse thought it was a hoax. Another contemporary suggested suicide. The art critics denounced it and the man in the street saw it as immoral and vulgar.

The painting was then rolled up and stored in Picasso's studio, unnoticed and untouched for more than a decade, when Jacques Doucet bought it.

It is worth noting that 1911 is the year that Alfred Stieglitz discovered Picasso's Cubism and brought more than 100 works of art to the United States for an exhibition in New York City. They were called "gibberings of a lunatic" by art critics in the New York newspapers, and not one single work was sold. They were returned to Europe. (A Matisse exhibit in 1907 was very successful, by comparison.)

That is how Picasso's Cubism was initially received. It took years before it became accepted.

clicker44 Loc: Oakland California USA

Well, where I come from the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I don't consider responding to someone's demeaning of my reputation "bragging"...I don't mean to do that ever. I was just stating a fact.

I'm going to post the $30K work now. I got, out of that, $1,200. For materials. It was a charity job for arts programs for the children in New Mexico. Twenty NM artists were invited to participate. I spent 3 months near full time completing it. And I really don't care if somebody thinks I'm bragging about that because I'm darned proud of it. Not the money, the effect.

BTW, the $$ were probably inflated because the works were bought by corporations or high rollers...being for charity. Mine now resides in a penthouse overlooking Chicago's Lakeshore drive.

The Iron Horse


Ditto

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Ah, money earned for charity, that is all good. In that kind of case I hope the buyers all get in a contest to spend the most.

I kind of like the horse. And the old steamer is a nice touch. I am a streetcar motorman, train conductor and sometime announcer at a Railway Museum. I go through periods of doing a lot of photography there also. It is a large museum and holds car and truck shows, Civil War Re-enactments and has a yearly "Iron Horse Family Steampunk Carnivale". It will be March 19 & 20. Not to mention the train stuff like Thomas the Tank Engine and other holiday themed trains.

I really do like some of the photos you posted. Esp the reflection one. I have a thing for reflections. I do a lot of water birds, I think I enjoy the wading or swimming ones with reflections the most. I keep trying for a perfect one where people can't tell which way is up. I would love to get a flying bird over the water with a perfect reflection to mirror the bird.

The last few weeks I have been into hummingbirds and flowers. Natural light hummingbirds for now, then work on use of flash and maybe later multiple flashes.

Oh, and I see the thread attracted one of our real nasty types. Just scroll past him. And when he starts getting replies from some of the A** H****s of the opposite political view, scroll faster. I will say I am sorry but he picked up my first post when I was upset and gave it two :thumbup: .

shagbat Loc: London

Well put the lid back on the bottle, take your sister's clothes off and be creative yourself?

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

As person who was in the "Art" business for thirty years, as a manufacturer, retailer, and advertising entrepreneur, I can say without a doubt that his art shows a very keen understanding of color theory, edge control, and perspective. All of these are also the hallmarks of great photographers. I started painting eight years ago, and mostly do representational (real objects, people, things) painting with oil. I wish I could create the art that the OP does, because it takes far more imagination to create an image that cannot be seen with the eyes. Then to be able to compose a color system that is as pleasing and descriptive as his is also a tremendous feat. Those who make fun of the type of art, do not truly understand what they are looking at. This is not just a matter of "taste". It is a matter of quality!

Croce Loc: Earth

Art, regardless how technical one wants to pick at it, is non the less judged by the majority of those who view it, subjectively. Those not in the business could care less about the technics of the work. They either like it, or dislike it, or give it a eehh its OK.

Wine is judged the same way, except for sommeliers, growers, vintners, wine snobs, etc. who gives a shit what number Wine Spectator puts on it or how grandiose the label description. I mean how many people can seperate the apricot, loganberry, tanin, stewed tomato, beef knuckle with subtle hints of amazonian chocolate? Come on ... when one comes right down to it there are only 3 kinds of wine. I like it, I don't like it or eehh, it's OK.

And... One more thing. The most biased judge of anything judged subjectively is of course... the creator. Concomitantly, that person is usually also the most stringent critic of the work. Go figger
:? :?

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

And... One more thing. The most biased judge of anything judged subjectively is of course... the creator. Concomitantly, that person is usually also the most stringent critic of the work. Go figger
:? :?[/quote]

Yes, and that is why the "process" is what is the important part for the artist. Once I am done with a painting, I do not enjoy it quite the same as when I was working on it. Not to belabor a point, you can not like a piece of art, but still understand the technical wonder that the artist instilled in it. Quality matters even more than taste, because it is the initial arbiter of desire.

venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

Good grief alf85 There are painters who do worse than that and making hundreds of thousands of dollars.....

Mike

Croce Loc: Earth

Yes, and that is why the "process" is what is the important part for the artist. Once I am done with a painting, I do not enjoy it quite the same as when I was working on it. Not to belabor a point, you can not like a piece of art, but still understand the technical wonder that the artist instilled in it. Quality matters even more than taste, because it is the initial arbiter of desire.[/quote]

Yes,For the artist
But that's the artist's problem.
Me, I am in the category 3. If I like it I buy it. If I don't, I don't. Eeehh is a pass. The only technical thing I may be interested is the material. Is it gold, stone or plaster of paris. Even then I might buy it if I like it and the price is right. The suffering is for the artist. I don't care to think about it or even know about it. The enjoyment is for the buyer, not the suffering.

valley9photo

I'm sorry, just not my thing.