sorry about that buggered up post: Its been years since I've perched at Chess.com and I forgot some basic traps when posting. I've lost what I meant to post and so I've cowardly deleted the crap I did post. Whoops a daisy!
What it's really like being a female chess player.
Sort:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Whip_Kitten wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Uh, no. His paintings are far from random. They are part of Abstract Expressionism whereby, among other things, the paint has a layered, textured quality. He found a new way to apply AE's principles, namely through dripping the paint.
Part of what AE renounced was realism. By employing the dripping technique, Pollock removed yet another layer of representational painting.
Well yeah, but that's not really understanding anything. It goes beyond words of course and is very subjective. I would fall in the positive category.
Agreed.
0110001101101000 wrote:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
BlargDragon wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Ok...if youre gonna start sounding all smart and what not, youre outta the cool kids club.
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Richter is the artist who best shows the gradations between realism and abstraction, and that the same basic principles of art apply.
He literally blurs the artificial distinction between representational and non-reprresentational painting.
I like those. I'm so bad with remembering terms for things and names of artists and other famous people, though, so I'll forget the name but remember the art forever. I think my memory is, like, 98% visual and conceptual.
Diakonia wrote:
BlargDragon wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Ok...if youre gonna start sounding all smart and what not, youre outta the cool kids club.
Can I at least stay until the end of the club meeting for refreshments? I did bring cupcakes.
BlargDragon wrote:
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Richter is the artist who best shows the gradations between realism and abstraction, and that the same basic principles of art apply.
He literally blurs the artificial distinction between representational and non-reprresentational painting.
I like those. I'm so bad with remembering terms for things and names of artists and other famous people, though, so I'll forget the name but remember the art forever. I think my memory is, like, 98% visual and conceptual.
I took two art history courses (19th century & ancient) in one semester in college. For each, we had to memorize ~100 pieces of art (title, artist, and year of completion) for every single test. I think there were 4 or 5 tests throughout the semester. It was a pain in the ass. I don't remember any of it anymore. In fact, I'd forget pretty much every single thing I memorized a week after taking the test. My memory is very visual too. So for example, in 19th century art history, obviously everything was completed in 18-something. And then I'd find forms in the paintings that looked like numbers from the year they were painted, like a 7 and a 0 if it was 1870. It probably seems really weird and convoluted to other people, but it worked.
TRextastic wrote:
BlargDragon wrote:
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Richter is the artist who best shows the gradations between realism and abstraction, and that the same basic principles of art apply.
He literally blurs the artificial distinction between representational and non-reprresentational painting.
I like those. I'm so bad with remembering terms for things and names of artists and other famous people, though, so I'll forget the name but remember the art forever. I think my memory is, like, 98% visual and conceptual.
I took two art history courses (19th century & ancient) in one semester in college. For each, we had to memorize ~100 pieces of art (title, artist, and year of completion) for every single test. I think there were 4 or 5 tests throughout the semester. It was a pain in the ass. I don't remember any of it anymore. In fact, I'd forget pretty much every single thing I memorized a week after taking the test.
That's what tests do: burden the memory with irrelevant stuff.
TRextastic wrote:
BlargDragon wrote:
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Richter is the artist who best shows the gradations between realism and abstraction, and that the same basic principles of art apply.
He literally blurs the artificial distinction between representational and non-reprresentational painting.
I like those. I'm so bad with remembering terms for things and names of artists and other famous people, though, so I'll forget the name but remember the art forever. I think my memory is, like, 98% visual and conceptual.
I took two art history courses (19th century & ancient) in one semester in college. For each, we had to memorize ~100 pieces of art (title, artist, and year of completion) for every single test. I think there were 4 or 5 tests throughout the semester. It was a pain in the ass. I don't remember any of it anymore. In fact, I'd forget pretty much every single thing I memorized a week after taking the test. My memory is very visual too. So for example, in 19th century art history, obviously everything was completed in 18-something. And then I'd find forms in the paintings that looked like numbers from the year they were painted, like a 7 and a 0 if it was 1870. It probably seems really weird and convoluted to other people, but it worked.
That sounds... horrifying. This is making me glad I haven't opted to take an art history course. The subject fascinates me, to be sure, but I'm much more interested in general cultural trends and philosophies and politics and how they were reflected in theme and style than to cram in so many specifics. I'd almost certainly have to survive by doing what you did--which is a really creative idea and sounds much easier than the alternative to me, too.
BlargDragon wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Yeah, I heard about it on these forums 2 or 3 years ago. One of the popular terms to throw around on a form like "ad hominem" and "strawman"
Ever heard of branding? As in marketing?
Just like when wine experts fail to identify the $1000 dollar bottle from the "trash" in a blind taste. The deep expressionist paintings... put it next to a toddler's mess and how many "experts" can tell the difference?
Check out this masterpiece that sold for 43 million dollars. Clearly not just anyone can touch the soul like this:
http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/2/
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Yeah, I'm not well-versed enough in Abstract Expressionism to articulate its principles beyond a cursory way. Suffice to say that abstract art follows the same artistic principles as representational art (like composition, color theory, etc.). Pollock didn't just randomly throw paint on the canvas.
I was being silly.
I can respect a move away from realism, but at some point it's no longer art.
0110001101101000 wrote:
BlargDragon wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
timbeau wrote:
Try painting like Jackson Pollock before resorting to humour as dumb as that 1970's door-cartoon.
I'm sure taking an enema of enamel paint and then saving the diarrhea explosion on canvas takes a lot of preparation and is perhaps even erotic to some... but I don't imagine it being difficult by any stretch of the imagination.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Yeah, I heard about it on these forums 2 or 3 years ago. One of the popular terms to throw around on a form like "ad hominem" and "strawman"
Ever heard of branding? As in marketing?
Just like when wine experts fail to identify the $1000 dollar bottle from the "trash" in a blind taste. The deep expressionist paintings... put it next to a toddler's mess and how many "experts" can tell the difference?
Check out this masterpiece that sold for 43 million dollars. Clearly no just anyone can do this:
http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/2/
You'll get no argument from me that branding and marketing does some wild and crazy things to the value and popularity of art. However, your comments were dismissive of abstract art entirely. My own opinion is that there's hogwash to be found in the art community, but it's quite a strawman fallacy (an overused term, like you said, but applicable) to kick apart the entire concept because of it.
In your example with wine, just because wine connoisseurs sometimes can't tell the difference between a $1000 bottle of wine and a #20 bottle of wine doesn't debase the legitimacy of wine, or mean it's nothing more than alcoholic grape juice.
What do you think of the rxamples of Richter's art whip kitten posted above?
I liked all 3 of the Richter pieces whip kitten posted... not millions of dollars liked! but if I saw a reproduction in a home or something like this, I would probably think it's nice or interesting.
I don't mean to say all of it is crap.
Anyway, my main point was to timbeau who said to try painting like Pollock. I'm sure it takes... tens of minutes to learn the technique well enough for the below... I'm not impressed at all.
Being a woman in chess = getting weak titles and money for no reason.