Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_fever, Feb 12, 2018.
Looks like obama is fixing to take a dumb
Yup.The irony of advanced education is that you realize so many things are questionable, you even begin to second guess things you know are correct. You even entertain the bad faith arguments of people who really know nothing about the subject you have spent years of study in out of some sense of intellectual rigor. People that don't subject themselves to higher learning have the luxury of never doubting what they think they know, and don't seem to fear being wrong or having their facts incorrect.
Is that a Van Go?
Yeah and you also forgot handsome, witty, a gracious humanitarian and irresistible to all women
Ol' school bubba...
A pattern, or mold, and stamp it a few different places...*photoshop* for back in the day...
Still pretty lame/cheesy, against the project.
What the hell more important did the artist have going on? Paint a few more leaves gonna' make him late to happy hour or something???
(btw, it's why I followed 'photoshopped' with '...or whatever' in the post you replied to).
Or maybe he just used the same reference to paint each portion where it appears. That seems most likely to me. Regardless it's a stupid argument either way. Picasso took a bike seat and a pair of handlebars and called it a bull, do you think he wasn't a good artist because of that?
Someone better call Liam Neeson. Obama is fixing to take Trump.
Pretty sure this PRESIDENTIAL PORTRAIT represents the Magnum Opus of this guy's career, at least to date.
Picaso dicking around long after being historically accomplished, being regularly listed among the greatest ever while he was alive, is like comparing a HS QB's championship game, with Tom Brady throwing a kleenex he just sneezed in, into a nearby trash can.
Uh...no. Not same reference--same image, repeated a few times.
...and even that would still be stupid, lazy, cheesy and trite.
As Obama selected the artist and previewed the portrait before its official unveiling, the unfortunate depiction is on him. He could have nixed the choice of background but did not.
That the designated sprigs of leaves are copies of each other seems to be a given. As mentioned, it is not possible to 'photoshop' an oil painting, so how exactly did he do it? And why?
I have no clear idea, it would be speculation at best. But artists have for centuries employed mechanical devices in creating their paintings. One of my favorites, Vermeer - the artist who painted 'Girl with a Pearl Earring - depicted in an image mere inches from this text - is thought to have used a device called a camera obscura in creating his beautiful paintings.
Penn Gillette and his friend Tim, a passionate fan of Vermeer's work, made a movie Called "Tim's Vermeer" to record the results of what they found when Tim reproduced one of Vermeer's paintings using a camera obscura. The movie they made is about an hour, so I am posting trailers if you don't want to view the entire movie which can be found on Amazon.
Paint each background leaf as a unique snowflake or you are bad at art. You learn that in day one of art school.
How can someone disagree that it sticks out like a sore thumb? lol
Actually, it would be very easy to copy if one simply made a stencil.
Why bother with a stencil?
Well, you responded.
You don't like his art, that's fine, but to say this particular piece is no good or he was being lazy because he uses a repeating background is silly. That's his style. It's what he does. It's be like saying Pollack was being lazy on a particular work because he used paint splatters on it.