I Said I'm Happy (What More Do You Want) 09 Eelus

New topics are added by clicking the "Add Comment" link on an art entry. Off-topic posts may be purged.
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
Post Reply
automator
Nobody
Posts: 129659
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:00 am

Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:52 pm

AKBAPE
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:00 am

Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:53 pm

Choice.
User avatar
bloodthrust
Art Expert
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: The OC brah.

Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:30 pm

AKBAPE wrote:Choice.
Seriously?
Perkins wrote:Hmm. Art with rules. Doesn't sound like all that great of an idea to me.
mistersmith wrote:It's Pearl Jam. You could poop on a piece of French Paper and write "Pearl Jam" in it with your finger and have a decent shot at AoTW.
User avatar
cadeallaw
Art Expert
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:12 pm
Location: Dayton, OH
Contact:

Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:58 pm

Last edited by cadeallaw on Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mistersmith
Art Freak
Posts: 13557
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:09 am
Location: SF, CA

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:02 pm

If this were like a $20 screenprint the guy pulled in his kitchen, it would be pretty cool.

If this were one of those 18-color gallery editions it could be pretty cool.

Anything in between and it seems, to me, like another "create a stencil and a not-the-defnintion-of-irony ironic statement" piece of "street art" that probably never saw a street. Anyone could have scanned a Ladies Home Journal from 1952, upped the contrast, blown it up, cut it out, and then made a smiley face outta lipstick. Edith Wharton wrote those books 100 years ago. For this thing the proof is probably in the execution...which I know nothing about. So what's up with this print?
electrachrome, mostly kidding wrote:mr smith, EB's poet laureate.
Take this man at his word:
misterx wrote:Don't enter into discourse with me.
AKBAPE
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:00 am

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:04 pm

bloodthrust wrote:
AKBAPE wrote:Choice.
Seriously?
I'm particularly interested in gender relations. To me it's all about the framing and message for this one. In the days of portraits a woman was only as good as the public's 'portrait' of her. Shockingly almost nothing has changed. Things nowadays may be even worse. Woman are told to look and behave a certain way by more forms of media and stimuli then ever before.
User avatar
mistersmith
Art Freak
Posts: 13557
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:09 am
Location: SF, CA

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:41 pm

AKBAPE wrote:I'm particularly interested in gender relations. To me it's all about the framing and message for this one. In the days of portraits a woman was only as good as the public's 'portrait' of her. Shockingly almost nothing has changed. Things nowadays may be even worse. Woman are told to look and behave a certain way by more forms of media and stimuli then ever before.
That's just what college kids say to get laid and/or please their profs (sometimes one in the same) and, like I said above, Edith Wharton wrote that novel 100 years ago. It's just such an easy observation that it makes the art seem lazy.

Some women will always feel bad if they're not 5' 7" blonde/blue (or 34-24-34 or whatever is most popular that day). Some women don't care, some don't pay attention, some know better. But as long as humans care about sex it'll always be that way. And it always has been, and I don't think the world needs another peice of art reflecting it.

Unless it's hand-made on the cheap or incredibly well-made, like I said... :)
electrachrome, mostly kidding wrote:mr smith, EB's poet laureate.
Take this man at his word:
misterx wrote:Don't enter into discourse with me.
User avatar
cadeallaw
Art Expert
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:12 pm
Location: Dayton, OH
Contact:

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:52 pm

I still like it
AKBAPE
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:00 am

Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:53 pm

mistersmith wrote:
AKBAPE wrote:I'm particularly interested in gender relations. To me it's all about the framing and message for this one. In the days of portraits a woman was only as good as the public's 'portrait' of her. Shockingly almost nothing has changed. Things nowadays may be even worse. Woman are told to look and behave a certain way by more forms of media and stimuli then ever before.
That's just what college kids say to get laid and/or please their profs (sometimes one in the same) and, like I said above, Edith Wharton wrote that novel 100 years ago. It's just such an easy observation that it makes the art seem lazy.

Some women will always feel bad if they're not 5' 7" blonde/blue (or 34-24-34 or whatever is most popular that day). Some women don't care, some don't pay attention, some know better. But as long as humans care about sex it'll always be that way. And it always has been, and I don't think the world needs another peice of art reflecting it.

Unless it's hand-made on the cheap or incredibly well-made, like I said... :)
I see what your saying (I'm also no longer a college kid). That said, I think this piece is not as well executed as it could have been but is clever nonetheless. To say it shouldn't be done because Edith Wharton did it 100's of years ago seems silly though. Nearly every single issue and idea has been taken up in art over the years be it literature, painting, or film. That doesn't mean that there aren't interesting new ways to express old ideas. Personally I would love to see this piece on the street. It uses an old form (18th century portrait) and a pop-art simple face to express a universal truth. Sure it's simple but I think it's fun nonetheless.
User avatar
mistersmith
Art Freak
Posts: 13557
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:09 am
Location: SF, CA

Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Yeah. It's not bad, it's kind of a fun way to get at it, actually, I guess I'm just hoping the artist didn't take him/herself too seriously on this one.

And true, there are no more original ideas. It all boils down to sex and money and God I guess anyway.
electrachrome, mostly kidding wrote:mr smith, EB's poet laureate.
Take this man at his word:
misterx wrote:Don't enter into discourse with me.
User avatar
Codeblue
Yaks 2 Much
Posts: 53100
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Expresso Beans

Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:03 pm

Don't forget the need to be important or great.
RupertPupkin wrote:I live by this rule and this rule alone: people are drymounting idiots.
tinkicker
New User
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:56 pm

Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:06 pm

From reading you comments on this painting one thing struck me was that it has brought up debate on ideas and discussion on different issues!To do this in itself is no small fete which only proves this is a true work of art! :notworthy:
automator
Nobody
Posts: 129659
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:00 am

Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:32 am

New image I Said I'm Happy (What More Do You Want) 09 Eelus


Image
Post Reply