Melvins Portland 09 Burwell

[ricv64]

El Greco , try that one nljdj , composition is closer to that or baroque with the use of the curtin device. super print guy

[nljdj]

El Greco , try that one nljdj , composition is closer to that or baroque with the use of the curtin device. super print guy

Wrong. The subject matter might look similar.

Do you see any hard defined lines within this image that give the 3d aspect of the image away? I do not.




... in these images there is a lot of modeling going on (which is the use of value and curo scuro-ish [light to dark]).

Lets compare everything, shall we?
burwell...


el greco...


picasso....


What I was saying is that the use of width and line is quite similar (as we can obviously see from the images) to Picasso's work. The use of color (in which there is NO local color used) is also the same.

El Greco's images heavily depend on the use of local color (which is representational color of objects, things etc.) NO heavy surreal colors have been used yet in this time period (for one they have not been produced with the natural elements of the earth in the 17th century...). He also does a great deal of modeling (which is the range of value within a color that depicts light / darkness and 3d form). This does not represent Guy Burwell's style (of this image) one bit. Again we can see Guy's use of heavy line that throws any chance of dimension away, his use of color, shape and form. Less abstract than a Picasso, of course, but the techniques used still remain. All I had said that is resembles the way a Picasso would typically look (..."very picasso-ish"). We can obviously see from the compared images which artist Burwell most likely pulled influence from in this piece.

The only thing you were close to hitting is subject matter, and it is somewhat obvious you were swinging in the dark. Next?

[fredo]

Not one bit? Isn''t burwell using a form of light manipulation/modeling/whatever to create depth in the face and upper chest area? Maybe I am misunderstanding something/everything.

[nljdj]

Not one bit? Isn''t burwell using a form of light manipulation/modeling/whatever to create depth in the face and upper chest area? Maybe I am misunderstanding something/everything.

[aahnutz]

The only thing you were close to hitting is subject matter, and it is somewhat obvious you were swinging in the dark. Next?

Everyone will have to excuse the obnoxious little prick. He's going to "art school". And he really has no idea what he is talking about nor to whom about the subject.

[nljdj]

The only thing you were close to hitting is subject matter, and it is somewhat obvious you were swinging in the dark. Next?

Everyone will have to excuse the obnoxious little prick. He's going to "art school". And he really has no idea what he is talking about nor to whom about the subject.

I thought an intelligent conversation about art (for a change) instead of personal attacks like "little prick" would be a change. Guess I can't find that here.

You know if I were wrong I would love to be enlightened, but you obviously have no insight besides a burnt out "momma" or penis joke.....

I see thee insight.....

[aahnutz]

The problem is you are not engaging in "intelligent conversation". Not when you're telling other people they're wrong, then ending it with "Next. " and " " There are some great art minds here whose opinions I value. It wouldn't hurt to listen to what they have to offer rather than dismiss them because their interpretation is not something you agree with. Think about it. My apologies to the other members for veering somewhat off topic, but I felt it needed to be said. Have a good evening.

[jojobadass]

art babble is boring unless it's coming from the artist.

[nljdj]

The problem is you are not engaging in "intelligent conversation". Not when you're telling other people they're wrong, then ending it with "Next. " and " " There are some great art minds here whose opinions I value. It wouldn't hurt to listen to what they have to offer rather than dismiss them because their interpretation is not something you agree with. Think about it. My apologies to the other members for veering somewhat off topic, but I felt it needed to be said. Have a good evening.

I totally agree. Calling someone "super print guy" doesn't start the intelligent conversation off to a good foot. Neither does "obnoxious little prick".

[nljdj]

art babble is boring unless it's coming from the artist.

I would disagree here as well. I would say art historians and other educated individuals interpret art just like a language. If there were no one to do so, then a picture or painting would just be a freeking image with no message.......

[nljdj]

Have a good evening.

oh sorry. good night.

[Codeblue]

art babble is boring unless it's coming from the artist.

I'm offended.

[jojobadass]

art babble is boring unless it's coming from the artist.

I would disagree here as well. I would say art historians and other educated individuals interpret art just like a language. If there were no one to do so, then a picture or painting would just be a freeking image with no message.......

art means something different to different people..........so, why do I need an art expert to tell me what it is susposed to be? or, how I'm susposed to feel? That said, why would I listen to a sophmoric response from someone who thinks they are an art expert? Seriously, if you're so interested, why don't you ask the artist what his inspiration was for a piece?..........instead of speculating about it like some know-it-all. That dialog would be much more interesting than what you are providing.

[hatredofhuds]

This is pretty bad ass, wish it was not a concert poster. Very Pablo Picasso ish...

[fredo]

I get a bullshit little emoticon for asking a serious question?
waaaaaaaaaah! <sobs>
Ah, well...Makes no nevermind on me what'n yiz edjumicatid peeplz be thankin' 'bout a bunch a homo painters anyhow.

This poster rules any which way you look at it.