Art trends.
2003-10-20 19:29:36 ET

Tomorrow Iíll rake back my painting I did for the contest on September; Iím thinking on giving it to our music teacher/director of the orchestra, I hope he likes it. Because Iím really disappointed on many of the paintings delivered in the contest, itís amazing how fucking horrible works some did and won, and how there were others with magnificent talent and didnít win anything. It was a painting contest, and yet there were many works that hadnít even paint on it, you know, all those modern art-object shit, itís so annoying; others were indeed paintings, but fuck damned, what a lot of crap on a canvas, really, since the contest was about painting something representing music I became extremely mad at the first winning place of the classical music category: It was a painting consisting in the left side painted like dark gray, the right side of light fray, and in the middle a stupid curved line of red... excuse me sir, you piece of modern/abstract artist shit of hell, but what in the name of fuck is that? You cocky retard fuck, what kind of hog-work is that? I had nothing to do with music! Less with classical music... maybe Iíd have accepted that for the crappy new age music category, but in classical? Come the shit on! There were a lot of bullshit works like that, which pissed me off when I went to see them last month.

And excuse me you all people followers of this mediocre art category, of this, modern art, pop art, abstract/object/new-aged art, but you all may burn in hell. I fucking hate it. Iím not sure of whoís the direct responsible of this stupidity, who started all the crap, Iíve heard of this guy Andy Warhol created this pop art... well then sir, with all my respect, you mar burn in hell, fucker. I just donít understand it. How come crap like his can be considered art? In the name of shit! Art? You know the average IQ is within 100 and 115, well, according to several studies on famous people, this retard Warhol has 80! This lame bastard! Hence another crime evidence: be stupid and youíre cool! Isnít that right all you jackasses and pop singers out there? Yes, be stupid but very extroverted and be rich and famous.

What has happened to the artists that cried passion, who strived hard for doing true fine art? Iíve always said that Art requires of Passion and Ability, if you Ėat first- donít have the second one, you try your best to gain it until you have. But now, any stupid figure and ink drops can be held as art, just saying it represents our so stupid state of mind... jus gather some noises, create new noises, repeat them together, all incoherent and voila! You have music representing other abstract bullshit. Unfortunately for this world, my woe is living with this 80 IQ artists, ...it just make me admire more and more the true artists once lived, like one of my favorites and perhaps an idol: Leonardo DaVinci, universal genius whoís IQ reached 220.


2003-10-20 19:50:01 ET

so Malk, tell us wht you *really* think. ;)

It all too often happens that people with no talent or ability do "modern" art because they can't do anything else. :(

And I just learned that Da Vinci invented the spinning wheel flyer! <3 Da Vinci. :)

2003-10-20 20:16:53 ET

some people think art is just a splash of paint. its lame. you make beautiful stuff. thats blows balls dude.

2003-10-20 20:59:02 ET

Iíve heard of this guy Andy Warhol created this pop art... well then sir, with all my respect, you mar burn in hell, fucker. I just donít understand it. How come crap like his can be considered art? In the name of shit! Art? You know the average IQ is within 100 and 115, well, according to several studies on famous people, this retard Warhol has 80! This lame bastard! Hence another crime evidence: be stupid and youíre cool! Isnít that right all you jackasses and pop singers out there? Yes, be stupid but very extroverted and be rich and famous.

I think you underestimate him.
Warhol is one of my absolute favourites.
At the same time, I adore artists like Dali&Picasso.

While you're entitled to your opinion, Im somewhat offended by the above statement.
:/

2003-10-21 19:33:39 ET

and this guy did stuff for the roling stones.

2003-10-21 19:34:29 ET

&produced the Velvet Underground.

2003-10-21 19:36:19 ET

well he did 2 kool things then.

2003-10-21 19:42:46 ET

I think he did more than 2 cool things..but that's just me. :]

2003-10-21 19:48:44 ET

yeah well. only those are kool. that and the marilyn picture he did.

2003-10-23 21:44:13 ET

  • I'm sorry if I ofended you.
  • Though, due to my strong believes on this art, I cannot regret what I said, and will never change my mind on this Warhol person.
  • I don't know how you brought up Dali and Picasso; They did were great artists! Dali is very good suing colors, and (ironically) awesome at geometry perspectives, thus he could manage them as he wanted, he was in fact a true artist. Picasso.. oh Picasso, another great one, normal people just think of him with the word of "abstract" but he did not initiated that way just like that, he in fact started doing realistic paintings, then he gradually became into abstract, BUT, if you study carfully his artwork you can see, why they look like that. Critics observed that, and they have now said ha might just have been like the "third" great one painter, next to DaVinci or Michaeangello. But... alas... I cannot connect them in any possible way with this andy guy.
    I love black and white photography, you DO have art in your works, I mean it.


    ...Yet, if this is with visual arts... I wouldn't like to start some ranting with music... or I could be banned from subkultures.net
  • 2003-10-24 05:27:59 ET

    Like I said, you're allowed your beliefs as I am mine.
    I brought up Picasso&Dali to make a point that I enjoy many types of art as opposed to what you personally consider 'actual art'.
    &thank you about my own work.
    <3

    2003-11-02 18:48:55 ET

    Yes, I believe art shouldn't be just paint thrown onto something. (Who can't do that?)
    Although, in my art class last year, I did this horrible pastel drawing, I knew it was horrible, but my teacher seemed to like it because of the "emotion" I said it had.

    2003-11-04 14:44:58 ET

    you might wanna see the movie "Pollock" anyhow. There are many ways to paint, and some capture a motion rather than represent a figure. :)

    2003-11-04 19:32:04 ET

    Yes, but just "representing" or "capturing" the emotions would be as absurd just buying, say, butter because you like the taste of it, when a good cook tries as hard as he can to use all of the posibilities of its flavor to cook something so exquisite made out of it, with a lot of effort, passion and hability, which makes a good artist really give this emotion to this figure. Anyhow I would need to see this movie you talk about to understand you better.

    2003-11-05 07:24:06 ET

    I have to see it all the way through as well. ;)

    there are many stunning talents in the realm of 'modern' art, including: Max Ernst, Wassily Kandinsky, Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, Constantin Brancusi, Yves Tanguy, Alexander Calder...none of them have meaningless abstractions or swatches of paint. It's harder to understand why someone like Klein does all blue paintings, but he did have his reasons...and ultimately, it's all up to one's taste. I could be given reasons why Rothko is great all day, and I'd still hate him. On the other hand, I don't need to know why I like Damien Hirst. Damien Hirst is neat-o, and that's all.

      Return to Malkavian's page