Just wondering if anyone here has been to see the
Picasso exhibit in Richmond.
And if you have...what did you think.

Paloma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wondering if anyone here has been to see the
>
> Picasso exhibit in Richmond.
> And if you have...what did you think.


the eesh family has
Attachments:

Picasso was a big fat faggot. Give me Norman Rockwell any day.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picasso was a big fat faggot. Give me Norman
> Rockwell any day.


Picasso knew how to get pussy....enuf said

you think Norman Rockwell wasn't face deep into some muff?

I'll take Rockwell AND Picasso (although Picasso is much the greater artist, Rockwell did some beautiful stuff).

Damn, that looks like it could be a good show, I might just have to check that out. Hadn't even heard about it. Thanks for the tip.

FU field trip?

Heaven forbid!

Can anyone suggest a 2-hour time frame when the museum would be least crowded? I hate having to fight through big crowds at a show like this. It just spoils it.

tinymont Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll take Rockwell AND Picasso (although Picasso
> is much the greater artist, Rockwell did some
> beautiful stuff).
>
> Damn, that looks like it could be a good show, I
> might just have to check that out. Hadn't even
> heard about it. Thanks for the tip.
>
> FU field trip?
>
> Heaven forbid!
>
> Can anyone suggest a 2-hour time frame when the
> museum would be least crowded? I hate having to
> fight through big crowds at a show like this. It
> just spoils it.


I'm planning on going during the week. when it's less crowded. It's an exhibit
of his personal collection. and Richmond is the only place it will be shown on the east coast.Should be interesting

Shit, they've also got 500 Years of Graphic Art.

That could be really good, too.

Picasso is boring he appropriated what he is famous for. Norman Rockwell is a cliche art school joke. Sally Mann though from va is anemic at best. when's the kinkade exhibit?

artfag, go die in a fire, kthxbye.

artfag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picasso is boring he appropriated what he is
> famous for. Norman Rockwell is a cliche art school
> joke. Sally Mann though from va is anemic at best.
> when's the kinkade exhibit?


I won't even acknowledge female artists. The simple fact is: there are NO great female artists or writers. Women are just not good at creating. They're great at manipulation and pulling the strings behind some 'great' men, but they are NEVER great themselves. Sad fact of life. Face it, ladies: you just can't be great at anything artistic. You can be very good and talented, but never, never, never EVER great. It's true, it's true.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> artfag Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Picasso is boring he appropriated what he is
> > famous for. Norman Rockwell is a cliche art
> school
> > joke. Sally Mann though from va is anemic at
> best.
> > when's the kinkade exhibit?
>
>
> I won't even acknowledge female artists. The
> simple fact is: there are NO great female artists
> or writers. Women are just not good at creating.
> They're great at manipulation and pulling the
> strings behind some 'great' men, but they are
> NEVER great themselves. Sad fact of life. Face it,
> ladies: you just can't be great at anything
> artistic. You can be very good and talented, but
> never, never, never EVER great. It's true, it's
> true.


Retard. You can't be serious.

Who the fuck wrote Harry Potter? You dumb mother fucker ;)

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Misery Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > artfag Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Picasso is boring he appropriated what he is
> > > famous for. Norman Rockwell is a cliche art
> > school
> > > joke. Sally Mann though from va is anemic at
> > best.
> > > when's the kinkade exhibit?
> >
> >
> > I won't even acknowledge female artists. The
> > simple fact is: there are NO great female
> artists
> > or writers. Women are just not good at
> creating.
> > They're great at manipulation and pulling the
> > strings behind some 'great' men, but they are
> > NEVER great themselves. Sad fact of life. Face
> it,
> > ladies: you just can't be great at anything
> > artistic. You can be very good and talented,
> but
> > never, never, never EVER great. It's true, it's
> > true.
>
>
> Retard. You can't be serious.
>
> Who the fuck wrote Harry Potter? You dumb mother
> fucker ;)
Attachments:

there are no "great" artists today. the industry is democratized. it's kind of like TMZ. you're hot for 5 minutes, branded, sold,...next.
as far as females go, yes there are pioneering and respected artists. their downfall is that their subject matter is informed by the female experience which is unpalatable to most unfaggedout men. I should add that in the world of graphic design including pattern, layout, and color, females tend to excel.

are you drinking right now?


Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> artfag Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Picasso is boring he appropriated what he is
> > famous for. Norman Rockwell is a cliche art
> school
> > joke. Sally Mann though from va is anemic at
> best.
> > when's the kinkade exhibit?
>
>
> I won't even acknowledge female artists. The
> simple fact is: there are NO great female artists
> or writers. Women are just not good at creating.
> They're great at manipulation and pulling the
> strings behind some 'great' men, but they are
> NEVER great themselves. Sad fact of life. Face it,
> ladies: you just can't be great at anything
> artistic. You can be very good and talented, but
> never, never, never EVER great. It's true, it's
> true.

i'm drinking chardonnay, lol!!!

Georgia O'Keefe ranks with the supremely great artists, such as Rembrandt, Leonardo, and Michelangelo.

If you can't see that it's simply because you're blinded by sexism, and not because of any inherent deficiencies in her art (it's laughable to even suggest there might be any).

Similarly, Jane Austen and George Eliot are as great as, say, Shakespeare, or any other male "giant" you might wish to mention.

Jennifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Georgia O'Keefe ranks with the supremely great
> artists, such as Rembrandt, Leonardo, and
> Michelangelo.
>
> If you can't see that it's simply because you're
> blinded by sexism, and not because of any inherent
> deficiencies in her art (it's laughable to even
> suggest there might be any).
>
> Similarly, Jane Austen and George Eliot are as
> great as, say, Shakespeare, or any other male
> "giant" you might wish to mention.

Everyone was joking. There are amazing female artists. No need to google and learn a new thing or two for a forum post.

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jennifer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Georgia O'Keefe ranks with the supremely great
> > artists, such as Rembrandt, Leonardo, and
> > Michelangelo.
> >
> > If you can't see that it's simply because
> you're
> > blinded by sexism, and not because of any
> inherent
> > deficiencies in her art (it's laughable to even
> > suggest there might be any).
> >
> > Similarly, Jane Austen and George Eliot are as
> > great as, say, Shakespeare, or any other male
> > "giant" you might wish to mention.
>
> Everyone was joking. There are amazing female
> artists. No need to google and learn a new thing
> or two for a forum post.

yeah, there are a handful of very good, even excellent female artists and writers. But none great. Georgia O'Keefe? Great? On the level of Michelangelo? Sorry honey, that's just not true, and I'm not even kidding. She was very good, fine, thanks, but come on. I'm open to debate, but you've got to come up with better examples than that. For your health.

You think I had to google that?

Think again, buster.

Sisters are doing it for themselves.


PS - Do you ACTUALLY think Georgia O'Keefe ranks with Rembrandt, etc??

Ay yi yi.

I didn't say women could TEACH art. puh lease girlfriend.






Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jennifer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Georgia O'Keefe ranks with the supremely great
> > artists, such as Rembrandt, Leonardo, and
> > Michelangelo.
> >
> > If you can't see that it's simply because
> you're
> > blinded by sexism, and not because of any
> inherent
> > deficiencies in her art (it's laughable to even
> > suggest there might be any).
> >
> > Similarly, Jane Austen and George Eliot are as
> > great as, say, Shakespeare, or any other male
> > "giant" you might wish to mention.
>
> Everyone was joking. There are amazing female
> artists. No need to google and learn a new thing
> or two for a forum post.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Georgia O'Keefe? Great? On the level of
> Michelangelo? Sorry honey, that's just not true,
> and I'm not even kidding. She was very good, fine,
> thanks, but come on. I'm open to debate, but
> you've got to come up with better examples than
> that. For your health.


You're a fucking sexist, that's all.

If the same paintings were by George O'Keefe you'd be ejaculating over them.

amirite?

oh, I just got it. you're a troll. kthnkbai

you're picking the most cliched trash to prove your point. get an artforum magazine.




Jennifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Misery Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Georgia O'Keefe? Great? On the level of
> > Michelangelo? Sorry honey, that's just not
> true,
> > and I'm not even kidding. She was very good,
> fine,
> > thanks, but come on. I'm open to debate, but
> > you've got to come up with better examples than
> > that. For your health.
>
>
> You're a fucking sexist, that's all.
>
> If the same paintings were by George O'Keefe you'd
> be ejaculating over them.
>
> amirite?

artfag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you're picking the most cliched trash to prove
> your point. get an artforum magazine.


I've got a stack of em, hon, but what's the point discussing contemporary art with someone who thinks "there are no 'great' artists today"?

I would tend to agree that there are no supremely great artists today, or at least none that I'm aware of (there may be a Van Gogh or Grandma Moses laboring away in obscurity somewhere out there).

has alias gone to the exhibit yet?

abusive spouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> has alias gone to the exhibit yet?

yes.

Olga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abusive spouse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > has alias gone to the exhibit yet?
>
> yes.




ok, that's cool

i'm in my blue period.

Free for VMFA members and children 6 and under
VMFA Membership $10 for current students.

$20 for adults

$16 for seniors 65+, students
with ID, adult groups of 10+, and youth ages 7–17

Premium Mornings ($40)

VIP Wednesdays ($75)

Tickets can also be purchased by calling 804.340.1405


We’ve added more hours!
Sat 4/23, 4/30 & 5/7 until 9 pm
Fri & Sat (5/13 & 5/14) until midnight


EXHIBIT CLOSES MAY 15TH

Norman Rockwell was a statist and FDR suckup. His happy-go-boyscout art was full of statist cliches and plays to the lowest common denominator of peckerwood populism.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Norman Rockwell was a statist and FDR suckup. His
> happy-go-boyscout art was full of statist cliches
> and plays to the lowest common denominator of
> peckerwood populism.


Who cares? His politics are irrelevant to the quality of his art.

Picasso was a Communist, an ideology that resulted in the deaths of some 94 million people in the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

Nonetheless Picasso was a very great artist, and Rockwell a very good one.

curious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Free for VMFA members and children 6 and under
> VMFA Membership $10 for current students.


curious, have you been to the exhibit?

people like Picasso but his works are cold and boring. hopefully the exhibit has his early work from when he was a child. his later work may have made a splash at the time but its just dusty modernism now. and let's not forget that he stole cubism from georges Braque. or as he would say "good artists borrow, great artists steal".

tinymont Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tomahawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Norman Rockwell was a statist and FDR suckup.
> His
> > happy-go-boyscout art was full of statist
> cliches
> > and plays to the lowest common denominator of
> > peckerwood populism.
>
>
> Who cares? His politics are irrelevant to the
> quality of his art.
>
> Picasso was a Communist, an ideology that resulted
> in the deaths of some 94 million people in the
> 20th century.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Com
> munism
>
> Nonetheless Picasso was a very great artist, and
> Rockwell a very good one.


So Picasso was a communist, and Rockwell was an American leftist or nationalist or whatever. It's not the politics that make his art suck, it's the fact that he was a propagandist for his regime that makes it suck. I am not a Picasso expert, but I don't think he ever did anything quite like this:



FDR's slogans in Rockwell's art. The worst kind of nationalist flag-waving schlock, an appeal to middle-American peckerwoods (who were FDR voters back then, and are tea-party types today). And every one of his illustrations/paintings had that sort of golly-gee leave-it-to-Beaver kind of thing to it. Republican/conservative types love his work because it shows an idealized view of America that they think was the norm for America in the good ole' days.

If Picasso ever did any such obvious propaganda then he is also guilty of schlock, but most of what I've seen of Picasso's work was just art. Wierd art, but art.

Rockwell did those paintings at the height of WWII. He wanted to contribute something to the war effort, and exhibitions of those paintings were used to promote the sale of war bonds.

I think "freedom from want" is not a great but is a rather fine painting, with its sense of compressed space, the variety of facial expressions, the nicely rendered visual textures, the quality of light, the cheeky glance "into the camera" by the fellow in the lower righthand corner, and the overall capturing of the ambiance of a particular time and place that is now largely lost from American society (with the possible exception of Meade Skelton's household).




I'm less enamored of the other ones, with prayer and kids-to-bed seeming overly sentimental (I think the gravitas of the grandparents (?) balances out the sentimental elements of "freedom from want"). I love the gesture, angle and facial expression of the man in the lower right corner of "freedom of speech" -- the character seems vivid, alive, and just right, although the central figure does not quite come off for me.

In sum, not his best work, imo, but of sufficient craftsmanly skill as to raise it, at least, above the level of schlock.


tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not the politics that make his art suck, it's the
> fact that he was a propagandist for his regime
> that makes it suck.

I don't have an objection in principle to artists (such as Goya or "Dr. Seuss") using their talents to create wartime propaganda, which can certainly vary widely in quality. Nor do I have an objection to anti-war propaganda, which is subject to a similar range of quality.

Rockwell's quartet of paintings were a heartfelt gesture created on behalf of his country in a time of war. In my understanding they were a spontaneous effort, not something commissioned or requested by the government.

Picasso did a couple of pieces that fall into the propaganda category, most notably Guernica, which is considered by many one of his greatest works, although it's never been one of my favorites (I have not seen the original, but am told that it makes a very strong impression that simply cannot be conveyed in art-book reproductions). Another of his propaganda pieces, "Massacre in Korea" (below), is among his lesser works, imo; heartfelt, no doubt, but rather ham-fisted in its execution.



YMMV

tinymont Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YMMV

Fair enough. We like what we like.

there's a lot of good propaganda art. And there's a lot of propaganda in art in general; it doesn't necessarily have to be political. Religion is propaganda and a lot of the greatest art ever made is religious. Rockwell gets singled out because he's a certain type of right-wing American propaganda that most artistic-minded people can't stomach.

what do you do with the golden age of comic books? Comics are quickly becoming considered art here in America, and the whole genesis of that industry as we know it today is somewhat fascist if you look closely at it. I look at stuff like this just as a reflection of the times; if you have a knee-jerk political reaction to something, that's as far as you get. The first step is divorcing the art from the artist. Who cares what political party Picasso belonged to? Just look at his paintings and decide if you like what you see or not. I object to the idea of needing some authority or institution there to interpret art for us, which seems to be the model for anything modern or postmodern.
Attachments:

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there's a lot of good propaganda art. And there's
> a lot of propaganda in art in general; it doesn't
> necessarily have to be political. Religion is
> propaganda and a lot of the greatest art ever made
> is religious. Rockwell gets singled out because
> he's a certain type of right-wing American
> propaganda that most artistic-minded people can't
> stomach.
>
> what do you do with the golden age of comic books?
> Comics are quickly becoming considered art here in
> America, and the whole genesis of that industry as
> we know it today is somewhat fascist if you look
> closely at it. I look at stuff like this just as a
> reflection of the times; if you have a knee-jerk
> political reaction to something, that's as far as
> you get. The first step is divorcing the art from
> the artist. Who cares what political party Picasso
> belonged to? Just look at his paintings and decide
> if you like what you see or not. I object to the
> idea of needing some authority or institution
> there to interpret art for us, which seems to be
> the model for anything modern or postmodern.


"A pictures' worth a thousand words"