Didn't work through a standard .net email. But using my alumni .edu address (also this time I said I was a student and I was born in 1986 - a total lie!), it worked like a charm. US resident as well. Not sure if this made a difference or if the promotion is just random, but those were the variables that worked for me.
Hey Sid, I'll bite (once more) because you obviously have little inkling into the process of how those are pieces are created.
No, it's not "krap" or "trash" (that kind of dismissive language disqualifies your argument from any serious consideration -- which boils down to 'I know what I understand, and I don't understand this, so it isn't art'). Based on your posts, you simply relate to pieces you can see representations of yourself in (obvious human figure; your interest in certain type of methodology). There's nothing wrong with having an opinion of what you like or dislike. What is wrong is the hubris you demonstrate in thinking that you've figured out that "the emperor is naked" and you can conclusively dismiss a product of hundreds (if not thousands) of years of art history and tradition as "krap". You are just really showing how little you actually know.
If you had bothered to try to educate yourself on the pieces you linked you, you'd realize they are part of a great tradition of pushing the methods, concepts and materials ahead and away from their traditional origins. That they are part of a tradition and not removed from it. The methods that went into the examples you point out would require many of the same processes that the past masters' would have utilized. The Malevich painting was meant to be seen up close. The subtly of the white shifts and intricate, delicate building of the pigments was a continuation of what medieval monks were creating with their painstaking illuminated gospels -- Malevich was getting closer to God through the details. I wouldn't want to wager how long he spent hunched over that piece, methodically building it.
Look at this way: Bernini would never have conceived of creating anything like that Brancusi piece. His time and place wouldn't have allowed it. He would never have known it could be done. That's the point: modernism happened as a reaction to it's time.
Picasso was a child prodigy who could paint as well as many of the great masters. But he kicked that direction to the curb because he was bored and adventurous. He was a man of his time. He was influenced by moving pictures and photography. He had a massive visual vocabulary of the art past to build on. Producing another historical or biblical based rendering of the human body is done and done to death even by his time. Why bother beating that horse when there fresher avenues to explore?
I wonder what Bernini would have produced if born in the 20th century. Probably not "Apollo and Daphne".
Becki: Nail-head? Because a half-baked post utilizing the word 'krap' repeatedly is the final word. Gimme a break.
Actually I think the inspiration to shift from realism to abstraction is a lot more complex than just the wider availability of education and materials (Including massive 20th shifts such as industrialization, economics and the meat-grinder world wars). The list of historical triggers is long and diverse -- including the accessibility to art by the public that made it more vernacular. Which I don't think is a bad thing. Art was no longer a domain for wealthy institution such as the church.
I would argue that technical skill is not an absolute requirement for great art. By saying that, you discount most of our modern culture, including other mediums such as music (rock and roll & blues for example, which I think are forms of GREAT art. As great as anything Botticelli ever produced).
And to make a further point about technical skill, abstraction doesn't mean easy or necessarily technically simple. What you see Brancusi or Wharhol doing is a damn spot harder to pull off than you are saying. The statement that any community college student could reproduce "The Kiss" is disingenuous (besides reproducing is not the same as creating).
I would compare Warhol to Vermeer for any day of the week. I would go as far as saying Warhol is a more important influence on art and culture at this point in history.
Wow, how incredibly uninformed and simplistic, Sid. NIce to have you pipe in and add positively nothing to the discussion with your wonderful aesthetic observation!
Anyway, this list is more like the 5 greatest classical sculptors. This 20th century art link at wikipedia is a good link for a springboard to discover modern sculptors and their related movements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century_art
It includes links to the main art movements that encompass modern sculpture. Historical events that dictated a move away from classical realism and into abstraction are essential to understand why Brancusi appears as 'krap' to some (hi Sid!).
This is a non-story. An utter BS rightwing smear to distract from the global warming issue at hand. Dude wins an Academy Award and some small minds go apoplectic.
http://rateyourmusic.com/misc/link_image?album_id=77306&q=+Protein+Songs+About+Cowgirls
http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/o77306.jpg
No, it's not "krap" or "trash" (that kind of dismissive language disqualifies your argument from any serious consideration -- which boils down to 'I know what I understand, and I don't understand this, so it isn't art'). Based on your posts, you simply relate to pieces you can see representations of yourself in (obvious human figure; your interest in certain type of methodology). There's nothing wrong with having an opinion of what you like or dislike. What is wrong is the hubris you demonstrate in thinking that you've figured out that "the emperor is naked" and you can conclusively dismiss a product of hundreds (if not thousands) of years of art history and tradition as "krap". You are just really showing how little you actually know.
If you had bothered to try to educate yourself on the pieces you linked you, you'd realize they are part of a great tradition of pushing the methods, concepts and materials ahead and away from their traditional origins. That they are part of a tradition and not removed from it. The methods that went into the examples you point out would require many of the same processes that the past masters' would have utilized. The Malevich painting was meant to be seen up close. The subtly of the white shifts and intricate, delicate building of the pigments was a continuation of what medieval monks were creating with their painstaking illuminated gospels -- Malevich was getting closer to God through the details. I wouldn't want to wager how long he spent hunched over that piece, methodically building it.
Look at this way: Bernini would never have conceived of creating anything like that Brancusi piece. His time and place wouldn't have allowed it. He would never have known it could be done. That's the point: modernism happened as a reaction to it's time.
Picasso was a child prodigy who could paint as well as many of the great masters. But he kicked that direction to the curb because he was bored and adventurous. He was a man of his time. He was influenced by moving pictures and photography. He had a massive visual vocabulary of the art past to build on. Producing another historical or biblical based rendering of the human body is done and done to death even by his time. Why bother beating that horse when there fresher avenues to explore?
I wonder what Bernini would have produced if born in the 20th century. Probably not "Apollo and Daphne".
Becki: Nail-head? Because a half-baked post utilizing the word 'krap' repeatedly is the final word. Gimme a break.
I would argue that technical skill is not an absolute requirement for great art. By saying that, you discount most of our modern culture, including other mediums such as music (rock and roll & blues for example, which I think are forms of GREAT art. As great as anything Botticelli ever produced).
And to make a further point about technical skill, abstraction doesn't mean easy or necessarily technically simple. What you see Brancusi or Wharhol doing is a damn spot harder to pull off than you are saying. The statement that any community college student could reproduce "The Kiss" is disingenuous (besides reproducing is not the same as creating).
I would compare Warhol to Vermeer for any day of the week. I would go as far as saying Warhol is a more important influence on art and culture at this point in history.
Anyway, this list is more like the 5 greatest classical sculptors. This 20th century art link at wikipedia is a good link for a springboard to discover modern sculptors and their related movements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century_art
It includes links to the main art movements that encompass modern sculpture. Historical events that dictated a move away from classical realism and into abstraction are essential to understand why Brancusi appears as 'krap' to some (hi Sid!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Oak
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/talking-points-on-the-gor_b_42335.html