Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Jesus Darth Vader Painting By Cedric Chambers Selling On eBay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wolseley" data-source="post: 64470553" data-attributes="member: 632"><p>The purpose of art used to be thought of as creating something that appealed to mankind's more noble instincts; something that took him out of himself, that inspired him, uplifted him, made him reflect of the larger world, his place in it, and the Creator Who made it.</p><p></p><p>Somewhere along the middle of the 19th century, however, art took a sharp turn; it was no longer about inspiration; it was about "expression". The artist's purpose was to rattle his viewer's cages---to get them to look and think about old topics in a new way. Of course, this soon grew stale, and then as time went on, the focus shifted more towards creating shock; and, eventually, to create outrage.</p><p></p><p>I myself think that one can create art that is very much thought-provoking without being offensive; Andrew Wyeth is a good example. So is Edward Hopper. In a different vein, Peter Max, or even, Lord save us, Andy Warhol. Naturally, I don't expect those of you who stoutly defend the <em>avant-garde</em> to agree with me, and that's your right. I'm just laying it out there as I see it.</p><p></p><p>As for this particular painting, I don't find it offensive, I just find it shallow and silly. It strikes me as something produced by a guy who is bereft of ideas, and resorts to this type of caricature to, as has been said, simply get noticed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wolseley, post: 64470553, member: 632"] The purpose of art used to be thought of as creating something that appealed to mankind's more noble instincts; something that took him out of himself, that inspired him, uplifted him, made him reflect of the larger world, his place in it, and the Creator Who made it. Somewhere along the middle of the 19th century, however, art took a sharp turn; it was no longer about inspiration; it was about "expression". The artist's purpose was to rattle his viewer's cages---to get them to look and think about old topics in a new way. Of course, this soon grew stale, and then as time went on, the focus shifted more towards creating shock; and, eventually, to create outrage. I myself think that one can create art that is very much thought-provoking without being offensive; Andrew Wyeth is a good example. So is Edward Hopper. In a different vein, Peter Max, or even, Lord save us, Andy Warhol. Naturally, I don't expect those of you who stoutly defend the [I]avant-garde[/I] to agree with me, and that's your right. I'm just laying it out there as I see it. As for this particular painting, I don't find it offensive, I just find it shallow and silly. It strikes me as something produced by a guy who is bereft of ideas, and resorts to this type of caricature to, as has been said, simply get noticed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Jesus Darth Vader Painting By Cedric Chambers Selling On eBay
Top
Bottom