bimbopbimbop

PoutingBear 書き込み：

No problem, we'll definitely be keeping an eye on your flickr, sometimes even two :)

返信

PoutingBear 書き込み：

Hello, just stopped by and wanted to compliment you on your flickr. We particularly like this one :)

返信

betty_zyklodol 書き込み：

Great taste man. Nice 2 meet u.

返信

MishMog 書き込み：

Fantastic drawings, mirrors your musical preferences too ^^

返信

AnnaMoki 書き込み：

hey) your drawings on the sand are amazing! great taste as well :)

返信

foundobject 書き込み：

Kant is the most evil philosopher ever - but besides that he was the first to critique the critique itself, or something. Did you see what McCarthy got up to when he left 2000ad? He went to Hollywood and worked on The Coneheads. And then seems to have been trying to get a new Mad Max movie off and running ever since. What a waste. http://www.swiminipurpose.co.uk/images/yoyo.gif

返信

foundobject 書き込み：

'seagrass' is a very successful picture from a Modernist pro-eye point of view - the sense of direction caused by the plant like things takes the eye to the top of the picture and to the obvious limits of the picture plane - to which we are made aware that we are looking at a picture. You see, before Modernism art, it was all about making the work of art what is wasn't - i.e. flowers, or some rich folk. But what was the point of that? You can see flowers and rich folk - art needed to get away from such things and see what it was - at a pure level. What made it what is was if it didn't just imitate things - because to imitate things is pointless, because these things are perfectly fine in themselves. Modernist art went off to find its limits and therefore gain strength from that. It's all Kant's fault. 'Eat my face' is cool too. :)

返信

foundobject 書き込み：

yeah, sorry I wasn't trying to be obscure - the names were relevant. I'm confused though - I presume you didn't have to look up Jackson Pollock, but Brendan McCarthy?! Have you forgotten one of your chief influences? The two critics were very interested in the idea of imagery that looked 'flat' - that fought against traditional illusions of depth because they were exactly that - illusions. I've forgotten the exact details, but Fried liked his 'all-over paintings' - paintings that didn't allow the eye to rest on purely one focal point. You were - in some way - drawn into the artwork but only through the eye, or something. It's pure art - modernism. It's all very interesting stuff. Honest. This is what your pictures made me think of...

返信