Aw, that's so sad! That poor girl. :(

And I as just trying to reference Tommy Boy. :gonk:

Howdy wins Killjoy of the Week!

Was anyone else even in the running?

Well, I heard that Kenneth Starr had been planing to shut down a puppy fair, but then he caught a cold.

...

Sweet Jesu. A Kenneth Starr reference. I didn't see that coming...

*laughs*

I was thinking of someone to reference and Kenneth Starr was the first name that popped up.

And I honestly thought to myself, "Kenneth Starr? Where the hell did I pull him out of?"

:lol:

I wonder how many people in here are old enough to actually remember who he is :?

These young whippersnappers wouldn't know a stained blue dress if they saw one.

God, I never could figure out how she could resist the urge to get that dry cleaned. Evidence-shemevidence.

I'm not old enough to remember, but I know, does that count at all? :gonk:

NO. Your book learning means nothing, DO YA HEAR? You had to be there, man.

Aw, just like you had to be there for the whole French Revolution thing? DAMMIT, I miss all the good stuff in history!

Originally Posted by Cardinal Biggles

There is only so much to "get", Cherry...

Well, right, but I mean there's a certain amount of "getting it" necessary to appreciate it. I don't see meaning or art, I just see dribbly splats.

That's pretty much what I see too, Cherry, But the colours are pretty. It's a form of ambient artwork for me.

Now that we are back on the topic, I was just reading this months' Architectural Digest, and there's an article on the repercussions of myth, and the cult of the artist, in modern art. Very interesting,

Originally Posted by Cherry Flavored Antacid

Well, right, but I mean there's a certain amount of "getting it" necessary to appreciate it. I don't see meaning or art, I just see dribbly splats.

Have you seen a Pollock in person? After oodles of art history classes, I also didn't quite get it....I mean, I understood the "deep psychological process" that went into his meditation/artwork...but when you see one in person, and not a tiny one but one of his HUGE works...THEN you get how amazing it is. The paint is literally layered on about 4 inches thick in the one I saw in Italy (I went to the Guggenheim...OMG was that an amazing experience!!), it was truly amazing to see! Slides and pictures in books really don't do his work any justice.

I will admit though, I like the work his wife, Lee Krasner, did better.

I can definitely say that I haven't seen one in person. I do imagine that'd be a completely different thing. The pictures just look hectic. :lol:
Unfortunately, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to art, so I couldn't even tell you what styles I prefer. I mean, not... "real art" styles, at least.

LOL, some would say that there is no such thing as "real art" styles;)

I haven't a clue what you are all talking about.
Guess I'm not much of an art lover either...

Mmmm, I'd say there are. I like children's books illustrations, and I don't think that's really on the same level. :lol:

Originally Posted by DariaMorgendorfer

Have you seen a Pollock in person? After oodles of art history classes, I also didn't quite get it....I mean, I understood the "deep psychological process" that went into his meditation/artwork...but when you see one in person, and not a tiny one but one of his HUGE works...THEN you get how amazing it is. The paint is literally layered on about 4 inches thick in the one I saw in Italy (I went to the Guggenheim...OMG was that an amazing experience!!), it was truly amazing to see! Slides and pictures in books really don't do his work any justice.

I will admit though, I like the work his wife, Lee Krasner, did better.

Ah, there is nothing like seeing a piece of art in person. It can be quite the religious experience.

Originally Posted by Cherry Flavored Antacid

Mmmm, I'd say there are. I like children's books illustrations, and I don't think that's really on the same level. :lol:

I disagree. There is art for art's sake, and then art for commercial use...The reason Worhol got away with the stuff he did is because he mixed the two, elevating commercial art to "gallery" art.

I guess I think a lot of things can be art...Then there's the question of "high art" and "low art".

Okay...I'll stop now:)

Daria's a geek!

Well, yes, it's technically art, but if someone asked me who my favorite artist was and I answered with "who illustrated Where the Wild Things Are?" I think I'd be laughed out of the room. :lol:

@ Cherry: Oh I wouldn't be so sure. Maurice Sendak does more than just children's books. He worked with the Seattle ballet on at least one project, and I think there was even an opera based on his works. That gives him plenty of artistic cache, I should think.

Warhol is another of the modern artists that I actually like. Perhaps I am falling prey to the cult of personality, because in many ways it's more the man himself that that interests me, before his works.

Yeah, the whole cult of personality aspect can play a major role sometimes. I thought that warhol was an interesting individual, and I like some of his works, but I've never really looked up to him very highly or anything. xD

I think Bowie played as Warhol in a movie about the man, himself. Never seen it, though...

Yep, he did. I just looked it up. Basquiat
I'm not surprised. Bowie's a biiig Warhol fan. He wrote a song about Warhol, and when given the chance to play it for him he was just giddy. Afterwards, Andy said he thought Bowie was making fun of how he looked and they just sat there in silence for ten minutes. :lol:

Biggles - Maybe. But not all of the illustrations I like have artists with that kind of prestige. I mean, I consider it lovely art, I just don't think many other people do.