|
Punching Bag Bitch, cry and whine your way into oblivion. |
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
|
|||
Quote:
i agree. i should have explained better. i love having heart filled debates about art, however, i dont enjoy conversations with people who have no idea about art, and make really stupid comments about something they dont understand at al. the guys opinion wasnt directed towards my own art, it was a general comment on art, one that i really couldnt let fly. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
me and a friend were talking about cars, like we normally do and i had just gotten off work exp. and he was talking some stuff about water pumps (ironicly enough i had spent about 3 hours remvoing, fixing and replacing one earlier in the day) and when he said something that was wrong, i politely corrected him and then he goes and flat out calls me wrong. now ..... if you really want to esclate a conversation extremly quickly with me, that is how you do it. accusing someone of being flat out wrong is just asking for everything to turn ugly. that little remark striked a good hour and a half argument with me ending up being right pissed off and lost my temper a "little":296: i don't like being all fired up, takes too much energy.
thus accusations should be avoided |
|
|||
-people who think they know everything about everything and will spit out bullshit just so they can say theyre right
gotten to the point where i dismiss EVERYTHING some people say cause theyve guaranteed me facts that turned out to be fiction the phrase "i dont know" is a sin. |
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by Mr.Wrong; Jan 31, 05 at 04:03 AM. Reason: die sig |
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|||
man, I shoulda caught this thread sooner:
1. Art is Personal Taste: That guy is an asshole for trying to say he knows more about you on with the technicalities of art. His taste might be different, but techniques are fact. 2. Art Reflect Society: Current western society is very, very much style over substance now. I'm not generalizing and saying that today's art is all like that, I'm just saying the MAJORITY of what's out there (the asthetic pieces) are a reflection of our society. In earlier times art wasn't as wide spread or common because society didn't allow for people to spend time on art, those that could spend time on it were paid to do so to complete the works that we see today. When people started to have time to do art purely for arts sake, and not the pay of a Lord or Duke, art changed dramatically to be more style than substance. Aesthetics of a piece of art have a lot to do with what makes modern art tick. If the Mona Lisa was just a photo-portrait of a woman, it wouldn't have the impact of the painted piece. Classical art of the type that wum refers to was created in a time where there was no photography, so the majority of pieces comissioned were of famous events or past events that the artists' employer would like to display. Frequently these were events that were of personal pride to the employer. For instance the Catholic Church, which was hugely wealthy at the time and continues to be, comissioned the Sistine Chapel depicting God reaching out for Adam rather than clocks melting on a surreal landscape. 3. An Artists Tools Are Only As Good As the Artist: Computers don't make art less challanging. They make basic drawing simpler, of course, but creating something that's impressive using Photoshop requires just as much time, energy and focus as creating something on a canvas. And that's all I gotta say about that. |