• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

<insert name here> painting sparks outrage.

Aitch

Unregistered
A
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,723
A link I posted in the Hitler painting thread got ignored; probably correctly - it was technically off-topic. So let's have a general discussion of shock/horror/outrage in relation to works of art.

For example, here's another painting causing a certain amount of outrage. Mind you, it is a painting of a living subject who is very un-Hitler-like.

Comments?
 
I for one am glad that painting still has the power to work up people's passions and get a real emotional response.

I'd be much more distraught if no one cared.
 
very easy for any artist to paint a picture of someone dying and get heaps of publicity .
 
Why did they cover his crotch?

Wussy art.

hitler's water colors were "not bad".
Too bad he had to go on to such bizarre performance art.
 
Shortly after we moved into our brand new house, the paint began peeling on our garage doors. I was outraged but the builder came up with a cheque of $150 to get them repainted. :eye-poppi
 
Just_Me said:
very easy for any artist to paint a picture of someone dying and get heaps of publicity .
Click to expand...

About as easy as a scientist developing or discovering something and getting heaps of publicity. Some art may appear easy, but portrait art (I hope you'll agree) is considerably less 'easy' than some conceptual or abstract art may appear to be. It takes training and study and dedication.

And no, science is not 'better' than art because it can be proved, it's just 'more provable'. It's not better than art because it solves problems (the solutions are generally problems of another sort) nor because some of it can keep people alive (a life without art would a dull thing indeed).

Note that I don't believe art is better than science either (though I'm confident artists get laid more often and hold better parties...) The most enjoyable art exhibition I can recall was of the work of a scientific illustrator in the field of entymology (the artist was Cornelia Hess-Honeger), but maybe I'm odd in thinking that bugs are almost as pleasing to look at as human faces (that's faces, though there are artists concerned with the potential typo).

I look forward to your evidence that portrait art is 'easy' (and as a bonus, you'll get heaps of publicity).
 
jiggeryqua said:
And no, science is not 'better' than art because it can be proved, it's just 'more provable'. It's not better than art because it solves problems (the solutions are generally problems of another sort) nor because some of it can keep people alive (a life without art would a dull thing indeed).
.
Click to expand...
I think neither is better - they do different, generally equally valid, things. IMO. ;)
jiggeryqua said:
Note that I don't believe art is better than science either (though I'm confident artists get laid more often and hold better parties...)
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't know about that - yer man Dawkins managed to marry Lalla Ward! Mind you, IIRC, she's an artist. That may or may not prove something. :boggled:
 
jiggeryqua said:
About as easy as a scientist developing or discovering something and getting heaps of publicity. Some art may appear easy, but portrait art (I hope you'll agree) is considerably less 'easy' than some conceptual or abstract art may appear to be. It takes training and study and dedication.

.
Click to expand...

i was talking about the subject matter not the skills of the painter . do anything controversial and someone somewhere will talk about it especially if it is connected to someone well known , and mandela is well known .
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to hear Mandela's reaction. Less hysterical and more humorous, I'd expect.
Art can crystallise a real life issue. This may. A lot of controversial art is just about publicity. Some has shore term relevance, some long term. I'd say this is in the middle.
 
I think that while this painting has tried to express the eventual passing of Mandela, it falls a tad short on the message. Why use a dissection theme? What purpose does it have? Are we to pick apart the man's life? I feel that in this case this artist was seeking sensationalism. And while it is making ink, print and virtual; it is not going to be a painting to stand the test of time.
 
Just_Me said:
very easy for any artist to paint a picture of someone dying and get heaps of publicity .
Click to expand...

Dying? You mean they didn't wait til he was dead before they performed the autopsy.
That must hurt.
No wonder people are outraged.
 
I'm outraged at the lack of Tom of Finland paintings in my dentist's office.





Not really. It would be fun though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom