the guy was either pissed when he gots his paint out or he had a wonky easel all his paintings are lopsided ! must be true was in the Guardian.noooooooooo he was representing the inner self !!!!!!!!!! of course he was--------------like bollox ,he was rat arsed pissed !!
seen better panting on Kidbrooke station (sorry Kidbrooke Village Station)
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]the guy was either pissed when he gots his paint out or he had a wonky easel all his paintings are lopsided ! must be true was in the Guardian.noooooooooo he was representing the inner self !!!!!!!!!! of course he was
like bollox ,he was rat arsed pissed !!
seen better panting on Kidbrooke station (sorry Kidbrooke Village Station)
It's truly a strange world you inhabit GH - somehow relating a work by arguably the greatest and most important artist of the 20th Century to the Guardian.
We should start a game like 'six degrees of Kevin Bacon'. We could call it 'one degree of relating everything to the left-wing-meeja-conspiracy-against-the-goodly-folk-of-these-British-Isles'
It's a very interesting observation on the priorities of the human race. We should be safe if the aliens ever arrive, they will take one look and then go straight back.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Greenie[/cite]A question for those that like it, what makes it so good, just so us non-arties can understand and appreciate it?[/quote]
As I said I don't like it but if someone else likes it then good luck to them. I'll no doubt like stuff they don't. It's personal choice and taste.
They shouldn't have to explain what makes it "good", that they like it is enough. you're not going to change your opinion of it whatever they say.
Rumours are that Abramovitch bought it.[/quote]
Really Henry? I totally disagree. Art is something that should be appreciated, however some people who do not appreciate or maybe do not understand art, will say its crap because they do not have the appreciation, therefore people that do have the understanding or appreciation can give thier reasons why it is good. Not liking it is different, Arsenal are a good football team, but people will say what makes them a good team, the fact that I do not like them is neither here nor there. So why is Picasso better than say Dali, or someone who is tripping and paints some abstract work? I know that Clapton is a better guitarist than say Johnny Marr or The Edge, people will disagree but I can tell them why he is, they may not like it but that is not the point. I'm not trying to be controversial for the sake of it, my original question was so that the art lovers can give their reasons why.
[cite]Posted By: Greenie[/cite]A question for those that like it, what makes it so good, just so us non-arties can understand and appreciate it?
As I said I don't like it but if someone else likes it then good luck to them. I'll no doubt like stuff they don't. It's personal choice and taste.
They shouldn't have to explain what makes it "good", that they like it is enough. you're not going to change your opinion of it whatever they say.
Rumours are that Abramovitch bought it.
Really Henry? I totally disagree. Art is something that should be appreciated, however some people who do not appreciate or maybe do not understand art, will say its crap because they do not have the appreciation, therefore people that do have the understanding or appreciation can give thier reasons why it is good. Not liking it is different, Arsenal are a good football team, but people will say what makes them a good team, the fact that I do not like them is neither here nor there. So why is Picasso better than say Dali, or someone who is tripping and paints some abstract work? I know that Clapton is a better guitarist than say Johnny Marr or The Edge, people will disagree but I can tell them why he is, they may not like it but that is not the point.
I'm not trying to be controversial for the sake of it, my original question was so that the art lovers can give their reasons why.
The point is not if Clapton is a better guitarist than Marr but who's music do you enjoy most.
I don't have to be a musician to "appreciate" music or an artist to "appreciate" art. Nor do I need it explaining to me. I either like/enjoy it on an emotional level ie it moves me, makes me laugh, cry, dance, sing, makes me happy, sad, angry or it doesn't.
If I like it I might want to find out more about it and the artist and that might heighten my enjoyment. Clapton's song about his young son dying is more poignant when you know that but it doesn't make it a better song. Picasso's Guernica(sp) might have more impact when you know that is about the bombing of a Spanish city but if you don't like it you don't like it.
[quote][cite]The point is not if Clapton is a better guitarist than Marr but who's music do you enjoy most.
I don't have to be a musician to "appreciate" music or an artist to "appreciate" art. Nor do I need it explaining to me. I either like/enjoy it on an emotional level ie it moves me, makes me laugh, cry, dance, sing, makes me happy, sad, angry or it doesn't.
If I like it I might want to find out more about it and the artist and that might heighten my enjoyment. Clapton's song about his young son dying is more poignant when you know that but it doesn't make it a better song. Picasso's Guernica(sp) might have more impact when you know that is about the bombing of a Spanish city but if you don't like it you don't like it.[/quote
But the emotional level is not enough for some. There is more than one level to any form of art, not just the emotional level. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one :o)
[cite]Posted By: Mendonca In Asdas[/cite]In my opinion that painting is complete guff , and not worth 50p , but what do i know about art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If you've got any old Piscasso's you want to sell to me for ten bob I can collect : - )
[cite]Posted By: Greenie[/cite]
[cite]
But the emotional level is not enough for some. There is more than one level to any form of art, not just the emotional level. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one )
But the emotional level is the most important IMHO. Why intellectualise something as fundamental as art?
That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Mendonca In Asdas[/cite]In my opinion that painting is complete guff , and not worth 50p , but what do i know about art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
If you've got any old Piscasso's you want to sell to me for ten bob I can collect : - )
But the emotional level is not enough for some. There is more than one level to any form of art, not just the emotional level. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one :o)[/quote]
But the emotional level is the most important IMHO. Why intellectualise something as fundamental as art?
That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.[/quote]
Sorry Henry , i haven't got any Picasso's either, let alone Piscasso , i think his are even dearer :)
I went to the Tate Modern in Liverpool the other week and saw firsthand two works by Picasso and Dali, and they were very, very special. I would go as far as to say, genius. Just go and take a look for yourself, that would be my suggestion.
This is not coming from a Guardianista meeja ponce, but from a cynical scientist. There was much in the gallery that was utter, utter toss and brought home the fact that most of the modern art world appears to have disappeared up its own fundament. However, there were works of outstanding quality as well and they more than made up for the rest of the rubbish. I know that art is deeply subjective, but I do think that most people would recognise quality, ability, imagination and outstanding talent when they see it. The works of Picasso and Dali made me feel very humble - you really have got to hand it to them. Examine a Dali work at close quarters and see the detail and brushwork and it will take your breath away, honest! Picasso just decided to see the world in a different way to anyone else and I think that the results are stunning, IMHO.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote
That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.[/cite]
Disagree RE Johnson and Clapton, also Dylan is a great 'voice' not a great singer same as Jagger IMHO![/quote]
Where would Clapton be without Johnson? Nowhere. Eric might be a better technical player but I could find dozens of classical trained guitar players who are better players than Clapton. The point is that Johnson is better to my ears because his music hits me while most of Clapton's music leaves me cold.
Dylan is a great voice which is my whole point. His voice is more emotive and has more impact than someone who is "better" technical singer like Susan Boyle.
[cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]My uncle (a musician) was forever banging on about how bad the Beatles were....
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Greenie[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.[/quote][/quote]
Disagree RE Johnson and Clapton, also Dylan is a great 'voice' not a great singer same as Jagger IMHO!
Where would Clapton be without Johnson? Nowhere. Eric might be a better technical player but I could find dozens of classical trained guitar players who are better players than Clapton. The point is that Johnson is better to my ears because his music hits me while most of Clapton's music leaves me cold.
Dylan is a great voice which is my whole point. His voice is more emotive and has more impact than someone who is "better" technical singer like Susan Boyle.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]My uncle (a musician) was forever banging on about how bad the Beatles were....[/quote]
That's true though. : - )[/quote]
OK here goes, Clapton would be in the same place, he had other blues influences other than RJ. Clapton plays the blues better than Johnson, there are various reasons why, he has been playing longer, he has refined his technique, he can play most styles of music, He has played with the greatest musicians in the world. Clapton plays with more feel than any other guitar player imho, with the possible exception of Hendrix, I dont buy into the devil legend that is RJ. Just because RJ was first it does not make him better, see Chuck Berry, most pub bands play Johnny B Goode better than Berry. Listen to Claptons, From the Cradle for some cracking blues.
RE Dylan, you said great singer, he is not but he is a 'voice', it does not do much for me, he cannot carry a tune in a bucket but you know when its Dylan, and like Berry most bands do his songs better. Like I said earlier we will have to agree to disagree Henry!!
Comments
It's certainly a cracker.
seen better panting on Kidbrooke station (sorry Kidbrooke Village Station)
The price though, that's just ridiculous...
We should start a game like 'six degrees of Kevin Bacon'. We could call it 'one degree of relating everything to the left-wing-meeja-conspiracy-against-the-goodly-folk-of-these-British-Isles'
Pablo Picasso was never called an arsehole,
They've already been to Millwall.
As I said I don't like it but if someone else likes it then good luck to them. I'll no doubt like stuff they don't. It's personal choice and taste.
They shouldn't have to explain what makes it "good", that they like it is enough. you're not going to change your opinion of it whatever they say.
Rumours are that Abramovitch bought it.
As I said I don't like it but if someone else likes it then good luck to them. I'll no doubt like stuff they don't. It's personal choice and taste.
They shouldn't have to explain what makes it "good", that they like it is enough. you're not going to change your opinion of it whatever they say.
Rumours are that Abramovitch bought it.[/quote]
Really Henry? I totally disagree. Art is something that should be appreciated, however some people who do not appreciate or maybe do not understand art, will say its crap because they do not have the appreciation, therefore people that do have the understanding or appreciation can give thier reasons why it is good. Not liking it is different, Arsenal are a good football team, but people will say what makes them a good team, the fact that I do not like them is neither here nor there. So why is Picasso better than say Dali, or someone who is tripping and paints some abstract work? I know that Clapton is a better guitarist than say Johnny Marr or The Edge, people will disagree but I can tell them why he is, they may not like it but that is not the point.
I'm not trying to be controversial for the sake of it, my original question was so that the art lovers can give their reasons why.
The point is not if Clapton is a better guitarist than Marr but who's music do you enjoy most.
I don't have to be a musician to "appreciate" music or an artist to "appreciate" art. Nor do I need it explaining to me. I either like/enjoy it on an emotional level ie it moves me, makes me laugh, cry, dance, sing, makes me happy, sad, angry or it doesn't.
If I like it I might want to find out more about it and the artist and that might heighten my enjoyment. Clapton's song about his young son dying is more poignant when you know that but it doesn't make it a better song. Picasso's Guernica(sp) might have more impact when you know that is about the bombing of a Spanish city but if you don't like it you don't like it.
I don't have to be a musician to "appreciate" music or an artist to "appreciate" art. Nor do I need it explaining to me. I either like/enjoy it on an emotional level ie it moves me, makes me laugh, cry, dance, sing, makes me happy, sad, angry or it doesn't.
If I like it I might want to find out more about it and the artist and that might heighten my enjoyment. Clapton's song about his young son dying is more poignant when you know that but it doesn't make it a better song. Picasso's Guernica(sp) might have more impact when you know that is about the bombing of a Spanish city but if you don't like it you don't like it.[/quote
But the emotional level is not enough for some. There is more than one level to any form of art, not just the emotional level. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one :o)
If you've got any old Piscasso's you want to sell to me for ten bob I can collect : - )
I am disappointed that even though it must be flammable, Goonerhater did not suggest burning it on Blackheath ;-(
If you've got any old Piscasso's you want to sell to me for ten bob I can collect : - )
[quote][cite]Posted By: Greenie[/cite][quote][cite]
But the emotional level is not enough for some. There is more than one level to any form of art, not just the emotional level. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one :o)[/quote]
But the emotional level is the most important IMHO. Why intellectualise something as fundamental as art?
That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.[/quote]
Sorry Henry , i haven't got any Picasso's either, let alone Piscasso , i think his are even dearer :)
This is not coming from a Guardianista meeja ponce, but from a cynical scientist. There was much in the gallery that was utter, utter toss and brought home the fact that most of the modern art world appears to have disappeared up its own fundament. However, there were works of outstanding quality as well and they more than made up for the rest of the rubbish. I know that art is deeply subjective, but I do think that most people would recognise quality, ability, imagination and outstanding talent when they see it. The works of Picasso and Dali made me feel very humble - you really have got to hand it to them. Examine a Dali work at close quarters and see the detail and brushwork and it will take your breath away, honest! Picasso just decided to see the world in a different way to anyone else and I think that the results are stunning, IMHO.
That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.[/cite][/quote][/quote]
Disagree RE Johnson and Clapton, also Dylan is a great 'voice' not a great singer same as Jagger IMHO!
Disagree RE Johnson and Clapton, also Dylan is a great 'voice' not a great singer same as Jagger IMHO![/quote]
Where would Clapton be without Johnson? Nowhere. Eric might be a better technical player but I could find dozens of classical trained guitar players who are better players than Clapton. The point is that Johnson is better to my ears because his music hits me while most of Clapton's music leaves me cold.
Dylan is a great voice which is my whole point. His voice is more emotive and has more impact than someone who is "better" technical singer like Susan Boyle.
That's true though. : - )
That's why Robert Johnson is better than Clapton and Dylan is a great singer.[/quote][/quote]
Disagree RE Johnson and Clapton, also Dylan is a great 'voice' not a great singer same as Jagger IMHO!
Where would Clapton be without Johnson? Nowhere. Eric might be a better technical player but I could find dozens of classical trained guitar players who are better players than Clapton. The point is that Johnson is better to my ears because his music hits me while most of Clapton's music leaves me cold.
Dylan is a great voice which is my whole point. His voice is more emotive and has more impact than someone who is "better" technical singer like Susan Boyle.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]My uncle (a musician) was forever banging on about how bad the Beatles were....[/quote]
That's true though. : - )[/quote]
OK here goes, Clapton would be in the same place, he had other blues influences other than RJ. Clapton plays the blues better than Johnson, there are various reasons why, he has been playing longer, he has refined his technique, he can play most styles of music, He has played with the greatest musicians in the world. Clapton plays with more feel than any other guitar player imho, with the possible exception of Hendrix, I dont buy into the devil legend that is RJ. Just because RJ was first it does not make him better, see Chuck Berry, most pub bands play Johnny B Goode better than Berry. Listen to Claptons, From the Cradle for some cracking blues.
RE Dylan, you said great singer, he is not but he is a 'voice', it does not do much for me, he cannot carry a tune in a bucket but you know when its Dylan, and like Berry most bands do his songs better. Like I said earlier we will have to agree to disagree Henry!!