Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
McGrew's School of Fine Art

By mcgrew in Culture
Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 03:27:56 AM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)
/etc

The Faculty
A bunch of people who were dumb enough to study art and smart enough to get a Master's Degree in it, plus a few who went on to obtain their doctorates, thus condemning themselves to teaching Art History for the rest of their lives. For the ultimate college art teacher, rent The Eiger Sanction.


The job you get after you graduate
You might become a high school art teacher and teach a bunch of talentless miscreants and hoodlums who won't listen to a word you say to go out and vandalize box cars with spray paint. A job in advertising, you say? HAH! Forget it. Marry someone whose dad owns an ad agency instead. Advertising is a field where they want to know who you know, not what you know. They don't care if you graduated Kindergarten. Can't you tell from looking at ads? The only talented person ever in the advertising field was Andy Warhol, and he hated it. You want to be an atriste' and have your crap hanging in fine gallerys? Marry a gallery owner or an art critic. You want to make a lot of money? "Look at Van Gogh", you say, "his paintings sell for millions!" As your will learn in Art History, poor Vincent only sold one painting in his entire life, to his brother, for about five dollars in today's money.

Lesson 1: The Critique
The ultimate in masochism. Your grade depends on the critique. In the critique, everyone in class exhibits their work, and comments on all of it. How good yours looks depends on how bad theirs looks. Each work is scrutinized and ruthlessly shredded by your competitors, whose grades depend on how good their work looks compared to yours. These people are mostly talentless losers, not unlike yourself, who desperately want their work placed somewhere where someone might see it, just like you and Vincent.

To survive this ordeal, keep your work covered until nearly everyone has their work displayed. Place yours prominently next to the worst piece of crap in the room. While everyone is ripping each other to shreds with pompous, empty, multisyllabic phrases, translate what they say into plain english, which will demonstrate to the instructor that you, unlike they, actually understand this gobbledygook. Praise everyone's work with backhanded compliments in such a way that the teacher knows that you know it's crap, while the other students think you're complimenting their work.

Beat everyone to the punch by being merciless about your own work, especially if you've outdone yourself and have actually produced something that doesn't suck. The teacher knows what you've done right; show him/her/it that you know what you've done wrong.

Smile smugly when you're ripped. Let your face say "HA! It worked! They HATE it!" (See Insulting an Art Student and Art History, below.)

Lastly, be an attractive woman with large breasts. The heterosexual men and the lesbians will all be trying to get in your pants and won't be hard on your work, the homosexual men will be afraid of being thought of as misogynistic, and the heterosexual women will dismiss you completely as a total, talentless airhead. This is the only place they won't think of you as a threat.

Insults for the art student (see The Critique, above)
"Gee, that's really nice"! "Nice" is the worst insult you can give to an artist (See Art History, below).

Call a sculpture a "statue". Besides "nice", "statue" is the worst thing you can call a sculptor's work. The only person who hates "statue" worse than a sculptor is an actor.

Call a painting a "picture". Go ahead, show your ignorance!

Call the work "pretty". This is an insult to every artist except Audry Flack.

Those of you who are art students or have been art students understand this. Those who aren't have probably hit the "back" button (or the "get me the hell out of here right now" button) already. For those of you non-art students who've stayed with me (i.e., so stoned out of your mind that even this is entertaining even though you don't understand a bit of it), although the original purpose of art was decoration, it no longer is. "Decorative art" is considered by those who know and understand art an Oxymoron. Art stimulates the mind, the brain, the senses, or better yet, all three at once. If it doesn't make you think and/or feel, it isn't art. See Art History, below

Art History, or "Who the hell is this Vincent guy, anyway?"

In the beginning, some ignorant savage discovered that a burned stick made marks. After he discovered that spoiled grapes and some kinds of poisonous plants made him feel really funny without actually killing him, he discovered that sometimes those marks could look like more than marks. Somewhere around the same time, some other ignorant savage discovered that the spoiled berries she was gathering also made marks, and these were in color! WOW, look at the colors! These two got together, smoked some poisonous plants and drank some spoiled berry juice and procreated some more ignorant savages. These two ignorant savages became "medicine men" and "witch doctors", known to us who live tens of thousands of years later as Politicians. Bill never inhaled. Oxygen deprivation does weird things to the brain.

Later, the biggest and baddest of each group of ignorant savages beat the bejeebers out of everyone else, took their stuff and declared that everything they could see for as far as they could walk was theirs and if anybody had anything bad to say about this they were going to take a real long nap under the dirt. Nobody complained much, at last nobody with much sense. These jerks were known as "kings", and some of the less unenlightened ones let those who could make marks that looked like something other than marks make marks instead of working. Note that the German currency is known as the "mark".

Some four to ten thousand years (the figure is disputed by those who don't know for sure, meaning everybody) before a guy got nailed to a cross for not stealing an ass (go figure), one of these incestuous Egyptian kings decided that he wanted a really nice grave. Prehistorians (or "archaeologists") claim that it really had something to do with the economy instead of the fact that the guy was stupid and crazy because his father was also his uncle. Anyway, this prehistoric era is know as the dawn of post-prehistoric art.

After this civilization (run by people who called their dad both Dad and Uncle) perished (see the Old Testament for details; hey, it's documented, if you don't believe witnesses you probably think Elvis is alive and the moon landing was a hoax), the Greeks (Sodom wasn't in Greece but don't tell that to a Greek) built a civilization of their own. These folks (Aristotle, for one) kind of figured stuff out without the benefit of modern science, much like our present day politicians. They brought art to a high not seen since the Egyptians, even without all that gold. About the time their civilization bit the dust, the Romans rose (at least the male Romans), famous for their drunken orgys. The poor Jews still weren't over what the Egyptians had done to them.

During the early part of the Greek civilization there was another culture, the Minoans, who produced stunning works of beauty and grace, and are thought to have been wiped out by an explosive volcano. It is also believed that this same explosion caused a tidal wave that caused the parting of the Red Sea, just in time for the Jews to get across and drown a bunch of mean guys that were chasing them with big knives.

Meanwhile, my ancestors were painting themselves blue and worshiping trees. Funny what spoiled berries will do! When they were a little more sober, if not completely sane, they were building the world's first PC, known to us as "Stonehenge". The hardware was fairly simple, but programming it wiped out their culture completely (the YzeroK problem; they were too stupid, cheap and shortsided to use more than one digit for date calculations).

Of course, after the Romans built their famous roads, Visigoths used those roads to come for a visit. Civilization as we know it came to an end.

A thousand bloody and pestilence filled years or so later, give or take a couple of centuries, after the visigoths paid their nice visit to the Romans, the Renaissance began. Art and Science started to be reborn, and we actually know some of the artists' names. Artists were known as artisans; well, not really, since English as we know it wasn't spoken, but that's what the art historians teach so I'll repeat it here. They weren't superstars like the artists of the twentieth century, such as Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, or O.J. Simpson. They didn't get paid much, (Except that brown noser Leonardo) even the ones who were well known in their time.

The people of this time had discovered the ancient Romans and Greeks and said "Wow, this crap is pretty good! How the hell did they do that?"

Some of them got pretty good themselves. Michelangelo Buonarroti nearly went blind painting some pictures on the Pope's ceiling (wasn't that Pope guy really nice?) and carved a bunch of statues of naked men with small penises (the Greek influence) out of big rocks. Jan Vermeer invented oil paint, making art theft much easier. Leonardo Da Vinci made a few bucks painting pictures while trying real hard to be Orville Wright.

Then, as now, only the rich or boring had access to fine art.

A "Library" was any building with a book in it. Books were chained to the walls of these buildings. So were people (usually not in libraries, though).

Not content with ruining things in Europe, the Europeans sent their worst politically connected criminals to Australia.

While all this was going on the Asians and Americans were building civilizations, inventing computers (The Mayan's computer, like our own, stops at the end of the 20th century, but it didn't matter nearly as much to them as to us, since they're all dead) and gunpowder, and, of course, destroying their own civilizations again and again in the process. Aren't computers and gunpowder fun?

A couple of hundred years later, the peasants were revolting. "I could have told you that", the aristocracy said; but they were pretty stupid, and didn't know that what was meant was that revolution was brewing, not that the peasants weren't pleasant. The Queen of France, when she heard that the peasants had no bread, said "let them eat cake". The King of England, when he heard that the colonists were unhappy with taxes, raised the taxes on tea and passed a law making it illegal not to drink tea. In France, then considered the "art capital of the world", Neo-Clacissism (meaning that painters and sculptors were still in awe of the Romans and Greeks) was all the rage. The French revolution was blamed by some art historians on some of this neo-classical art (Example: Marat In His Bath). In the English colonies, nothing was blamed on art, since all the homegrown stuff was really crap, and they were too busy growing hemp and plotting revolution, much like the hippies of the 1960s. They had long hair, too.

I have completely glossed over the Victorians, like Renoir, Titian (honest, that was really his name), etc., who liked to paint obscene pictures of fat naked women swinging on swingsets, laying on couches, and doing other silly things, and some of the art from Holland, including whats-his-name, who painted dark, gloomy pictures of ugly and/or dead people.

In the late nineteenth century, the galleries were filled with some real sucky crap that is considered crap even today. You won't see any of them in any museum, and may be unlucky enough to see one or two in an art history class as a good example of what art isn't. The painters that you will recognize weren't being hung; they were too busy getting big red "R"s for "rejected from this art show" stamped on the back of their paintings so nobody would dare offend the art establishment by trying to sell one. We will go into some of them in detail here.

Art as we know it was being born in this period; art for art's sake (yeah, like they would have been offended if you offered them money) which explored light, color, form, abstraction, and all of the elements that make the average layman say really lame things like "my five year old could do better than that" and "but what is it?"

There were several different "schools" (meaning kinds of painting, not where they learned to do it). The first were the impressionists, such as Renoir, who I lied about earlier, well, it was the Victorian era but he was known as an impressionist, with such greats as "child with a whip", "Head of a dog", and "Bather arranging her hair". Mainet painted such memorable works as "The queer musician" and "Fruit on a table". Edward Degas painted "After the bath" and "Woman Drying Herself". Claud Manet painted the "Luncheon on the Grass" picture, famous for its big red "R" stamped on the back, "Lady in the Garden at Sainte-Adresse", a nice picture, it's really pretty, and "Poppy Field", which may give you an idea of where some of their inspiration came from.

The impressionists were trying to "catch the light", the way a scene looked like in an instant that the light was unusual, which explains why so many of their paintings look fuzzy and/or sketchy. Pretty avant-gard for the time, but if you try to do it they'll say it's real lame.

Then there were the post impressionists, who painted pictures of posts. Well, ok, that's a lie, too. They were Post Impressionists because by the time they found out they weren't ever going to be hung in the fancy high priced galleries Impressionism was already starting to be passe', so they painted pretty much the same way and gave it a new name. Two of the most infamous were Vincent Van Gogh (So that's who Vincent was) and Paul Cezanne. They were "roommates" at one time, and Cezanne hated Van Gogh's guts. Nobody except a few other artists ever heard of Van Gogh at the time, and all of them thought his stuff sucked.

Gauguin is known for spreading syphilis in Tahitin and having a penchant for thirteen year olds. He is also known for some of his primitive looking pictures of unclad and scantily clad ugly women, one of whom was his wife. Gaughan used bright, garish, clashing colors, much like I was criticized for in critiques. Thes colors are now widely used in advertising by dimwits who don't know any better or care.

Van Gogh was a real nut case, a homosexual alcoholic drug abuser who cut off his ear and mailed it to Gaughan as an indication of his affection. Limp-wristed Vincent only sold one painting in his entire life, to his brother, for a pittance, as payback for some money his brother owed him. This loser painted some incredibly stunning paintings that must be seen in the flesh to be appreciated. Actually, all of the paintings mentioned here must be seen to be appreciated. Most of them are really huge, and there's no way the detail and color can be reproduced in an obscenely expensive art book, let alone on a computer screen. One of Van Gogh's paintings is of a branch of a blooming dogwood tree. Up close, it is completely abstract, and you can't tell what it's a picture of. From across a very large room it stands out in stunning detail, and appears to be a real branch with real flowers standing out about three feet from the canvas. His last three works were of the same corn field. The first was very detailed, using a very small brush and must have taken forever to paint. The second was much sloppier and painted with the kind of brush most people use to paint window trim with. The last is a finger painting. After he painted the third version, he sat down in the cornfield he had just painted and shot himself in the head.

The opening of the twentieth century brought even wierder stuff. The cubists attempted to portray four dimensional images on a two dimensional surface. The most well known of these was Pablo Picasso, whose early work wasn't cubistic at all, but quite realistic. Laymen who see Picasso's early work say "That's Picasso? When did he learn to paint?"

The Surrealists Attempted to make sense of their dreams, or what they would like you to think were their dreams. Surrealism was first invented by German writers, and visual artists, always looking for something different, stole the idea.

The most famous Surrealist was Salvador Dali, a Spanish guy who was nearly as nutty as Van Gogh, although he had better reason to be out of his tiny little mind. Dali's older brother was also named Salvador (Hi, I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl). Salvador is Spanish for "savior", as in "Our lord and savior Jesus Christ". After the older brother died, Dali was born, and his parents, obviously at least as nutty as their offspring, named the second baby Salvador, also, thinking the second baby was the reincarnation of the first baby. Salvador was led to believe that he was Christ, or at least the AntiChrist. This loony tunes is most famous for the picture of melted clocks hanging from dead tree limbs. Another of his paintings has some very photorealistic images of dead flies on it - no, wait, they're real flies stuck on the canvas! Dali had himself hung from a flying airplane by his mustache. Even Van Gogh wasn't crazy enough to do something like that.

Some of Dali's works are disturbing; hell they're all nutzo. This guy was downright weird. This guy, who you definitely wouldn't want your daughter (let alone your son) to date, painted some beautiful stuff, none of which makes any sense to anybody except another lunatic. Terrified of dying, he found religion in his later years and painted huge religious pictures that are as crazy, weird and beautiful as the early stuff. When you go to Florida to see Mickey Mouse and try and get a job making cartoons for the kiddies, be sure to go to Tampa and see the Dali museum.

In the 1920s another school of artists sprung up, this bunch also rejected by the art establishment. If you're starting to get a clue, well, good for you. This art is known as "Dada" (Note that there is an art museum in Chicago known as MOMA). Dada was anti art art (Huh??), a total rejection of the art establishment. Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal from the wall as a statement about the art establishment, and critics praised it for its color and form. A dada exhibit featuring a woman reading poetry wearing nothing but a hat was busted by the local constables.

By the end of the twentieth century, things were changing at such a rapid pace that I would get way too bored to get into all of them with even the most cursory examination, but some of the folks that may or may not be remembered by art historians include Andy Warhol, the shoe salesman turned pop culture icon, Jackson Pollack, who made nice pictures; well, actually he did it by splashing paint on canvasses from usually about six feet away, Audry Flack, Robert Rauchenberg, Lets see, that guy that made that one picture, you know the one...

Painting

Color

There are only three of them. They are not the same three you see on your monitor. In painting, the only three colors there are are red, yellow, and blue. At least, they are the only colors that matter, since you can theoretically make all the colors from those three. Theory is often wrong in art.

Your Eyeball

There are theoretically an infinite number if colors, some of which you can actually see. Light bounces off of things right into your eyeball through the part that isn't opaque, called the pupil. A lens focuses the light through this apurture where it lands on what is known as "that movie screen thing on the back of the inside of the eye, or TMSTOTBOTE, also known as a retina.

The retina falls on microscopic rods that can detect brightness, and on microscopic cones that detect certain wavelengths, roughly corresponding to magenta, cyan, and yellow. These cones send signals through nerves to the brain, where you actually do all the seeing. Nobody has the faintest idea of how the brain works.

There are an infinite number of colors, but you can only see about four thousand of them. You can make all four thousand of them with just red, blue, and yellow. At least, if also use black and white. Anduse warm and cool versions of each of your three colors.

Your first assignment is to make a color wheel using only black and red. And you have to be blindfolded.

Design

There are three kinds of design: Good design, bad design, and design that everybody argues whether or not it's good or bad design. You should strive for the third. You will not accomplish it unless you understand both the principles of good design and bad design. For an example of bad design, see " The very worst page on the web" and "webpagesthatsuck.com".

Learn the "Golden mean". It was good enough for Leonardo and Michaelangelo, it's good enough for you. Unfortunately, it's a mathematical concept which is way too boring for art students. Infoseek lists 902 pages discussing it, if you want to get really bored, look it up. Hey, you have a computer, use it!

After learning how to use burned sticks and spoiled berries, my attention turned to more modern (and postmodern, and postpostpostmodern) media, such as acrylic polymers, airbrush, and pixels. Art is art. Since the newest art form is electrically stimulated glowing phosphors, further discussion of design will use (yawn) HTML.

Here are a few less uninteresting design principles:

If it's boring, it sucks.

Heavy things fall and light things float. Somehow, the untrained seldom realize this.

Keep your audience's eye on the media (see "the golden mean" and "If it's boring it sucks", above).

Yellow on white is very hard to read. Use it if you wish to induce insanity. Yellow on black is readable, but not until the background loads.

Yellow on black is ugly, unless your ancestors came from Mars or Stroggos.

If you go far enough back in prehistory, everybody's ancestors came from Africa. At least, that's the prevailing theory. They may even be from Mars.

Frames usually make paintings suck less. Frames usually make web pages suck more.

Tables are often useful in sculpture. They are also often useful in HTML.

Never, EVER, make a web page as long as this one.

In painting, Java is often useful to make a nice brown color, or to stay awake. In HTML design, Java can be used to drive viewers away from your page. Never EVER make that "There is a possible security risk" window come up unless you don't want anybody except the violently insane to see your page.

To plagarize, uh, I mean "quote" one of my instructors (John Adkins Richardson) from his book "The Complete book of CarTOONing", which we had to buy or flunk, so I'm finally going to get my money's worth:

"I do not for one minute believe that Milton Caniff laid out the composition by any procedure as organized as this, but he might have." and "The way in which such relationships actually develop on paper is made clearer when they are seen in working drawings. Gil Kane's preliminary layout for his book Blackmark is uncommonly coherent..." (page 169)

I would have quoted some of my more serious (painters, sculptors, printmakers) instructors, but they didn't make me buy anything but art supplies, and not from them.

Next: Perspective, color, and a bunch of other junk nobody will read

----


Originally published at my own web page in late 1997

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Favorite artist?
o Leonardo 9%
o Audrey Flack 0%
o Picasso 3%
o Van Gogh 4%
o Gaugan 0%
o Marcel Duchamp 9%
o Dali 20%
o Michaleangelo 1%
o O.J. Simpson 3%
o Homer Simpson 9%
o Matt Groening 20%
o Me 6%
o Other (write in) 9%

Votes: 62
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o The very worst page on the web
o webpagesth atsuck.com
o Also by mcgrew


Display: Sort:
McGrew's School of Fine Art | 113 comments (75 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
can I have the number to your dealer? (none / 2) (#2)
by Rupert Pupkin on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 04:50:21 PM EST



Van Gogh (3.00 / 7) (#4)
by rusty on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 05:07:50 PM EST

I hadn't heard the Van Gogh suicide story before, so I looked for some more info, and found this page. According to that, Van Gogh actually shot himself just below the heart, and went home and lived another whole day before he died. Didn't tell anyone about his injury, he just waited it out.

____
Not the real rusty
Hmmm... (none / 0) (#32)
by mcgrew on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 12:11:19 PM EST

That's a lot more interesting than what they taught in school!

There was a Van Gogh exhibit that travelled around the world while they were building the museum in Amsterdam. I was a teenager then, and saw the exhibit at the St. Louis Art Museum, and took the tour.

They didn't mention it either. I wonder if the tour guide knew that little tidbit?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Correcting myself (none / 0) (#35)
by rusty on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 03:15:19 PM EST

I guess I didn't read carefully enough. Apparently he was attended by his doctor and his brother at the end, so they did know. I guess there wasn't anyhting they could do about it though.

Now I want to visit the Van Gogh museum. This was a very entertaning article, by the way. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

If you ever get to Amsterdam (none / 0) (#56)
by mcgrew on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 02:20:27 PM EST

don't miss it. Some people skirt the line between genius and madness, Van Gogh staggered along it. The illustrations you've seen don't nearly do the originals justice.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

geez (none / 0) (#66)
by speek on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:05:54 AM EST

Didn't you see the movie? He shot himself right in the side, clear as day.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Ah! There you are (none / 0) (#109)
by jeroenb on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 11:45:56 AM EST

By accident, I came along K5 again this week and after reading the site news I decided I might make a return here, to follow-up on my previous story. But after reading this just minutes after subscribing again, I wonder whether that could be taken seriously :)

Anyway, nice story.

--
"The mouse, I've been sure for years, limps home from the site of the burning ferris wheel with a brand-new, airtight plan for killing the cat." -J.D. Salinger
[ Parent ]

mcgrew. (2.64 / 14) (#5)
by Hide The Hamster on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 05:30:18 PM EST

Despite the lack of psychadelic beer-and-paxil tripping stories about how you hit on bar hags, I have to say that your general descent into pure insanity makes for some fine literature. +1,FP


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

I don't know why this entertained me (3.00 / 9) (#11)
by llimllib on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 06:43:03 PM EST

but it did. Mcgrew: k5's Hunter S Thompson.

Peace.
Well... (none / 1) (#95)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:24:18 PM EST

For one guy it was the Nyquil...

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

My art history class (2.25 / 4) (#18)
by sophacles on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 09:15:38 PM EST

was taught this way.  It was an intro class, and what I bothered to remember of it follows this pattern.  

During office hours my professor explained that I should just quote her on the test because I would never get it from the teaching slides and photos in the text book.  I should just remember about the paintings for when I actuall came across them.  

Doesn't this make some sort of fundemental flaw? I was actually interested in Learning a thing or two about art, but she couldn't use local (if not great) examples that I could see as they were meant to be seen.  How am I supposed to care about this stuff for years before I can afford to go see these things?

Anyway before I go into a tangential rant I just want to mention one of my favorite tidbits (boiled down to essentials, with a similar stylistic element added in case you want to rip off this part (you have my permission)):

During this thousand year period, known as the "dark ages" because the painters knew nothing about shading or light, they painted stuff with egg yolk and hadn't invented perspective yet.  Also the people they drew looked like comic strip figures.  Good thing were smarter than that now.

Hello (2.00 / 5) (#22)
by conthefol on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 12:22:05 AM EST

There is only one art that remains, and it is called photography. Mona Lisa would have been a Kodak Moment(tm) if Davinci had the equipment.

--
kuro5hin is about to E.X.P.L.O.D.E!!!

No, she would never have existed (none / 0) (#94)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:23:09 PM EST

You have to actually have the camera in your hand, pointed at the subject, to catch an instant.

A painter can catch any instance he or she wants, and recreate it at will.

A photographer can't do that.

As a photo, Old Lasy Mona would have sucked hard. Might as well take a polaroid of your grandma.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Recreate at will? Doubt it. (none / 0) (#99)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 06:37:07 AM EST

A painter can catch any instance he or she wants, and recreate it at will.

No they can't. They can only recreate what they remember, and memory isn't very reliable. And of course, they would have to be a very good painter aswell.
All a photographer needs is to know how to use the camera, and good timing. They could also just recreate the scene.

This is what happens when you make a bad comparison. Care to go explain yourself better?

[ Parent ]

You can only remember what you see (none / 0) (#105)
by mcgrew on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 06:39:25 PM EST

A camera can only capture patterns of light. A painter can capture what people at a scene actually see, as opposed to what is actually there.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

That's not the same as recreating, really. (none / 0) (#108)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 03:56:38 AM EST

It's interperatation. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Infact that is my point. It's silly to argue which one is more of an art, unless your view of what art is is very primitive and conservative.

A good photographer can manipulate the scene to show what they want, just like a painter will paint what they want people to interperate their subject as.

I've seen many photos that more like a painting, and many paintings that look more like a photo.

[ Parent ]

You forgot the greatest insult of all (3.00 / 4) (#37)
by flo on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 05:39:14 PM EST

"interesting"
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Greatest Insult (none / 2) (#81)
by sakusha on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 04:36:27 PM EST

No, you've obviously never been to art school. The greatest possible insult:

"It's been done before."

BTW, Matt Groening did a Life In Hell comic about art school a long time ago, I never forgot it, it was really funny (and a hell of a lot wittier than this article's lame ranting). One panel asked "how do you insult an artist?" Answer: by being an artist.

[ Parent ]

-1, "Claud Manet" (none / 1) (#38)
by chuhwi on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 06:13:05 PM EST

While I appreciate that you took the time to attempt to correct your statement that Monet painted "Luncheon on the Grass" I don't understand how you then managed to come up with "Claud Manet."

Edouard Manet n/t (none / 0) (#43)
by skelter on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 07:40:31 PM EST



[ Parent ]
The original article... (none / 0) (#93)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:20:17 PM EST

deliberately confused Monet and Manet, but a few folks say "WTF???" and nobody got it, so I changed it. Misssed the first name though. Oops.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Well damn... (none / 3) (#47)
by Elendale on Sat Apr 03, 2004 at 11:58:20 PM EST

"This guy, who you definitely wouldn't want your daughter (let alone your son) to date, painted some beautiful stuff, none of which makes any sense to anybody except another lunatic."

I knew there had to be some reason everybody thinks Dali's pantings don't make any sense. I guess now i know what that reason is.


---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


Also... (none / 0) (#52)
by Eater on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 04:02:45 AM EST

...I now understand why my high school art teacher used to give me odd looks when I claimed to understand said paintings.

Eater.

[ Parent ]
+1 FP NyQuil (none / 1) (#48)
by unknownlamer on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 01:35:09 AM EST

I didn't read the entire thing because the NyQuil has finally kicked in and destroyed my ability to form a complete thought.

I demand that you trade me your daughter for a non-Jensen brand head unit and some webspace!



--
<vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
Ever hear that Dennis Leary skit? (none / 2) (#51)
by 123456789 on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 04:01:45 AM EST

[Dennis Leary:]I love NyQuil, man. Because NyQuil has never changed, man. It's never changed. All the other medicines are doing that inner-child thing. "we know that there's a small child inside of you, so now we have grape and cherry and orange flavor." Not NyQuil! They still have the original green death fucking flavor! You know why!? Because it doesn't matter what it tastes like! It's so strong you go, "*wheeze* Hey this stuff really tastes like.." Bang! Yer in the coma already!

...

It says on the back of the NyQuil box, on the back of the box it says, "May cause drowsiness." It should say, "Don't make any fucking plans! Kiss your family and friends goodbye.

---
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
[ Parent ]
the Q is talking to me (none / 0) (#63)
by Abominable Abitur on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 02:54:43 AM EST



"Terrorism is only a viable "political activist" method for marginalized nutjobs, bottom line. The backlash that it causes makes it intractable for any reasonable ideology. Which is why you don't generally see wild athiest suicide bombers in america's streets." - lonelyhobo
[ Parent ]
NyQuil (none / 1) (#68)
by wurp on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 09:47:11 AM EST

The coughing, sneezing, what the hell am I doing in the kitchen floor medicine.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]
"Interesting" (and +1 FP) (2.60 / 5) (#49)
by gr3y on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 01:42:37 AM EST

Originally published at my own web page in late 1997

Yes, and notice how it's still relevant seven years later? Warhol's still dead, history is still history, and you can still find a website on the Internet that sucks.

For what it's worth, I was in the Army in late 1997, and that's still relevant also.

I am a disruptive technology.

art sucks (none / 3) (#50)
by circletimessquare on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 01:55:59 AM EST

but this story rules

+1 fp

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

here's your problem (none / 2) (#55)
by ljj on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 02:00:35 PM EST

You can't commodify art.
Dude.

--
ljj

Surrealism makes sense to me (2.42 / 7) (#58)
by wiredog on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 03:24:57 PM EST

But then,I did lots of lsd in the 80's.

Also, from The Post, Reubens,

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

The colors! Aaaaaaaah..... (none / 1) (#59)
by stephensells on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 06:41:58 PM EST

Great article, really enjoyed it. The only problem is the colors... they are all wrong.

Our eyes have red, green, and blue receptors (cones). Evidence of this is here, here,and here.

These are considered the primary additive colors. When you add them together you get white. When you see all three of them, you perceive white. The reason that monitors and televisions have a red, green, and blue portion in each pixel is because this is what your eye perceives as color.

Secondary colors are the colors that you get when you mix two of each of the primary colors. When you mix each of the two secondary colors you get the primary colors.

The secondary colors are Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow. These are the primary pigments; you can make all of the colors on your painting from these three colors.

Here is a great site on photo.net about primary and secondary colors.

This is a site about the use of cyan, magenta, and yellow versus red, yellow and blue. From what I can tell, the use of red, yellow, and blue is just a hold-over from the past and is not generally the best choice given only three colors.

That is correct, but the way it works is (none / 1) (#60)
by esrever on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 07:58:39 PM EST

That when you mix light, you cause the addition of wavelengths, so your eyes see what you recognize as the 'secondary' colours.  When you mix paints, you cause the deletion of wavelengths from what the paint will reflect, thus reducing things down to what you recognise as the 'primary' colours.  So when painting, because you are effectively 'deleting', instead of 'adding' all the definitions of primary and secondary colours are reversed.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Correct. (3.00 / 4) (#82)
by sakusha on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 04:57:29 PM EST

Artists deal with subtractive colors since they generally use pigments, not pure light. Mixing paint is a whole different subject from mixing light.
But artists go much farther than simply using 3 primary colors. The parent post suggested that you can mix any color with just cyan, magenta and yellow. But no artists actually work with that method. The basic painter's pallette consists of 6 primaries, one "warm" and one "cool" color of red, blue, and yellow. It may seem odd to think of a cool red or a warm blue, but that's how it's done. For example, Cadmium Red is warm red and Alizarin Crimson is cool red. A skilled painter does not just apply a cad red or alizarin straight, they make a puddle in the middle of their pallette between cad red and alizarin, and continuously mix the proper "warmness" or "coolness" of the red they want.
And let's not forget the secondaries. Many artists like to use secondaries like orange, green, or purple. I particularly like Cobalt Violet since it makes wonderfully warm browns when mixed with yellow. I also use a lot of greens, to subdue reds.
Also don't forget white. Every painter uses a ton of white paint. But a skilled oil painter almost never uses black. Black is a totally worthless color, it is almost always preferable to make your own "black" from colors already in the painting. One of the deepest mixed-black is Phtalo Blue plus Cad Orange. You can make it a cool or warm black depending on what you need.

[ Parent ]
Nice - thanks for the summary (none / 0) (#83)
by esrever on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 05:09:54 PM EST

Visual art (and especially painting) as a subject has always interested me, but my eye for colour and shape has never been great.  I content myself with making music instead :-)

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Bingo! (none / 0) (#91)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:09:47 PM EST

Primaries in paint are red, yellow, and blue. Primaries in light are yellow, magenta, and cyan.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 1) (#84)
by sakusha on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 05:23:32 PM EST

RYB is conventionally used in painting because magenta is a "fugitive pigment," it fades rapidly. There is no such thing as a permanent magenta pigment. If you paint with magenta, your painting will fade away quite rapidly. But there are permanent reds, which will not fade even over hundreds of years.
Haven't you ever seen an old poster hanging in a sunny shop window? Offset printing uses CMYK, but when it's exposed to the sun, the magenta all fades away, leaving only sickly greenish yellow colors, which is especially bad on skin tones.

[ Parent ]
See later ... (none / 0) (#92)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:15:42 PM EST

Red, yellow, and blue are subtractive primaries, used in pigment. Mixed together they, in theory, produce black. The secondaries are orange, purple, and green.

Additive primaries are cyan, magenta, and yellow. Kind of a greenish blue and a purplish red.

You are correct about cones. However, there are still virtually infinite number of visible colors. A person with red/green color blindness still sees an infinite number of colors- just not the same ones you do.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Vive le Quebec libre! (1.75 / 4) (#61)
by onemorekiss on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 09:55:32 PM EST



-1 pretty (2.80 / 5) (#62)
by khallow on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 02:40:23 AM EST

Actually, I'll just pass. I just can't vote +1 for anyone who states unconditionally that Andy Warhol was an artist. Though I do allow that Warhol was a competent advertiser. Norman Rockwell could easily whip Andy and his entire drug crazed army either on the artistic or advertising fronts.

I'll remember the insults though so I can appropriately thank the artist for puking on the picture. :-)

Stating the obvious since 1969.

You have that painting of dogs playing poker, too? (none / 1) (#71)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 11:40:07 AM EST

You should get that. You'd love it!
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Yea, that's the bomb (none / 0) (#78)
by khallow on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 03:21:21 PM EST

Maybe I'll tattoo that on my chiseled biceps.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Velvet Elvis! /nt (none / 0) (#90)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:08:06 PM EST


-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Norman Rockwell? (none / 0) (#73)
by playdough on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:38:13 PM EST

Norman Rockwell is corny. His sentimental, patriotically correct themes can only be properly appreciated by someone in the 1950s.

I'd almost prefer vomit on the canvas.

[ Parent ]

Is there an echo here? :-) (none / 0) (#76)
by khallow on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 03:20:17 PM EST

Norman Rockwell is corny. His sentimental, patriotically correct themes can only be properly appreciated by someone in the 1950s.

I'd almost prefer vomit on the canvas.

And your point is? I merely pointed out a better artist and advertiser than good old Andy. Don't shoot the messenger.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Rockwell and Warhol (none / 0) (#89)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:07:08 PM EST

Rockwell was an illustrator. Warhol was a shoe salesman.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Surrealism is not German ! (none / 1) (#64)
by helianthi on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 03:40:32 AM EST

It was invented by André Breton, a french writer and philosopher, as the Encyclopedia says.
+1, anyway ;-)

They mentioned it in art school (none / 1) (#88)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:05:57 PM EST

Breton was one of the ones who stole it from the Germans. The German Surrealism, though, was written, not painted.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Such bitterness.. (1.37 / 8) (#65)
by sakusha on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 05:54:00 AM EST

On my first day in art school, over 25 years ago, I attended the mandatory colloquium, and received a lecture from the Dean. He started by telling everyone to look at 9 students sitting next to them, because only 1 out of 10 students ever made a living as an artist, and the odds were against you.
But I made it. Obviously you didn't. Art school is like every other school, you get out of it what you put into it. It's your loss.
Art is a field of intellectual endeavors, just like the sciences and the humanities. Becoming a great artist is harder than becoming a great computer programmer or neurosurgeon, they're a dime a dozen compared to the number of great artists. Not everyone has it in them. You don't. You either have talent, or you don't, it's not something you can learn. Art school can help you develop talent if you have any, but if you don't, you just become a bitter loser, as you have demonstrated so vividly. Your screed is as irrational as denouncing computer programming as worthless because you flunked out of CS in college.

Art is silly. (none / 1) (#67)
by Kax on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 09:16:15 AM EST

Because the entire value of a painting is completely volatile and subjective.

I wouldn't pay $10 for a Van Gogh just to hang on my wall.  I would pay $10 for a Van Gogh for resale purposes.

[ Parent ]

Quite obviously... (none / 2) (#87)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:04:36 PM EST

you have never actually seen a real Van Gogh.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

saw one last Friday (none / 1) (#98)
by khallow on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 12:24:49 AM EST

I'd pay maybe $50 for this one. If I still had my dotcom job, I'd probably go up to $200.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Where does it live? (none / 0) (#104)
by mcgrew on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 06:36:31 PM EST

That's not one of VG's best, but his worst is great.

For fifty bucks you could get a good student work that you might like better than the VG. For two hundred you can get a lithograph from a top name (live) painter.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Getty "center" (none / 0) (#106)
by khallow on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 10:46:45 PM EST

It's an amply funded museum on the outskirts of Los Angeles. Perhaps it is the best funded private museum in the world. The art selection is decent but surprisingly weak given the funds the museum commands. I gather that it'll improve in coming decades with turnover in private holdings and the occasional selling of estates (particularly the old European elites).

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Haha... (none / 0) (#70)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 11:36:11 AM EST

...you reminded me of the comic book guy in the Simpsons when he sees an oncoming car and declares: "I've wasted my life." Thanks for the laugh!
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Heathen. (3.00 / 6) (#72)
by Miniwheat on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 12:37:40 PM EST

You're thinking of the story "The Homega Man" in Episode 5F02, "Treehouse of Horror VIII".  It was a missile launched by the French in retaliation for Mayor Quimby's now famous frog's legs joke, not an oncoming car.

If you insist on misquoting The Simpsons, we may have to revoke your license to use the Internet.  We do have standards around here, you know.


[ Parent ]

I'll leave... (none / 0) (#74)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 01:25:24 PM EST

...the depressingly pendantic dust-collection to you, k?
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Could you enlighten me ... (none / 1) (#97)
by Lorien on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 10:10:36 PM EST

... as to what exactly, in mcgrew's article pointed out the fact that he doesn't have it in him to become a great artist and that he doesn't have any talent to develop?

I must've missed out on when they settled the debate on how talent, or lack thereof, may manifest itself. (I would really like to acquire the skill to determine whether or not someone has a certain talent or capacity, simply be reading some of their opinions on art and how it is taught.)

[ Parent ]
Ah, the key... (none / 3) (#103)
by mcgrew on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 06:32:24 PM EST

"On my first day in art school, over 25 years ago..."

Everybody who has ever been to art school thinks everybody else is a talentless hack. knows that they are talentless, without ever meeting them or seeing their work.

The flamage tells me- this piece was art!

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

Au Contraire (none / 0) (#107)
by sakusha on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 01:13:12 AM EST

You have that quite backwards. In art school, you can always tell the talentless hacks because they think everyone is a talentless hack, even their teachers and the artists they study. And of course 90% of art students are talentless hacks.

But you can always tell the talented students because they can recognize talent, even when it isn't immediately apparent. It takes talent to know talent.

However, it takes no talent to trash talent. I often think about a picture I saw long ago in the National Lampoon. It was a photograph taken in Moscow in front of a dissident artist group's unsanctioned gallery show. A group of uniformed Red Army soldiers tore the paintings out of the gallery, the picture showed them dragging the paintings into the muddy streets, and stomping on them. A speech baloon overhead said, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like to stomp into the mud!"

[ Parent ]

Poll write-in: Monet? (none / 0) (#69)
by mooZENDog on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 11:00:05 AM EST

I saw his paintings of water lilies in Paris (but can't remember the name of the gallery where they were exhibited, I suppose they're being moved around all the time). Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

--------
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
- Gandhi

Water Lillies (none / 3) (#80)
by sakusha on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 04:32:09 PM EST

There are a lot of Monet's Water Lillies paintings all over the world. FYI, Money was an old man when he painted them, he was so arthritic he could barely hold the brush, and his eyesight was failing. But still he kept painting. I vividly recall seeing a photo of  a grey-haired, disheveled Monet sitting outdoors at an easel painting in a driving rain. Yes, you can oil paint in the rain because oil paint doesn't run in water. Now THAT's dedication.
The most famous collection of Water Lillies is at the New York Museum of Modern Art. There's a special room where they are displayed. Now here's an interesting side story: quite a few years ago, a fire broke out and one of the paintings was scorched on the surface so badly that it was blackened beyond repair. So MOMA donated it the curatorial school at the Art Institute of Chicago, they could use it as they wished, in the hopes that researching this destroyed painting could help develop new methods to restore paintings. And they made a breakthrough. The AIC curators developed a new laser technique to vaporize a few microns off the surface of the paint, removing the blackened surface and revealing the color underneath. The painting will never be returned to its original condition, but it may be restored to a condition where it can be displayed and appreciated again.

[ Parent ]
Amazing what they can do re: Restoration [n/t] (none / 0) (#100)
by mooZENDog on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 08:51:08 AM EST



--------
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
- Gandhi

[ Parent ]
Absolutely! (none / 1) (#86)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:02:56 PM EST

The museum in St Louis has a couple of his larger pieces in their permanent collection. Beautiful stuff.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

hmmm... design != web design (none / 0) (#75)
by sambuca on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 02:03:30 PM EST

Somehow the last part about design is focused on Web design. There is so much more about and around design.

Comments (1.00 / 5) (#77)
by niku on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 03:20:55 PM EST

Wow, I started writing a somewhat serious response to this artice, until I realised that the author is a complete ass. Seriously, how does troll bait like this get posted? Below is the portion of the response I wrote. If you notice, the last paragraph is the "be an attractive woman with large breasts" paragraph -- that's when my suspicions that the author, was either a troll or someone who enjoys the tase of lead based paint.

The job you get after you graduate
You might become a high school art teacher and teach a bunch of talentless miscreants and hoodlums who won't listen to a word you say to go out and vandalize box cars with spray paint. A job in advertising, you say?

If you are worried about the job you will get after you get out of school, you're on the wrong path. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's something you either have to do, or a hobby

Advertising is a field where they want to know who you know, not what you know. They don't care if you graduated Kindergarten. Can't you tell from looking at ads?

I can tell that you're looking at crappy ads. The people who did the BMW print ads were not hired because they are friends of the owner, same with volkswagon, or Apple.

The only talented person ever in the advertising field was Andy Warhol, and he hated it. You want to be an atriste' and have your crap hanging in fine gallerys?

Andy warhol's artistic talent is debatable. It's beyond the scope of this response, but many consider him to be a brilliant marketer, and a mediocre artist

Lesson 1: The Critique
The ultimate in masochism. Your grade depends on the critique. In the critique, everyone in class exhibits their work, and comments on all of it. How good yours looks depends on how bad theirs looks. Each work is scrutinized and ruthlessly shredded by your competitors, whose grades depend on how good their work looks compared to yours. These people are mostly talentless losers, not unlike yourself, who desperately want their work placed somewhere where someone might see it, just like you and Vincent.

While I agree that critism is not the best way to grade things, it is worth pointing out that no one gives a damn what grades you got in art school they care about your portfolio. And not even your school portfolio, the portfolio you have right now.

To survive this ordeal, keep your work covered until nearly everyone has their work displayed. Place yours prominently next to the worst piece of crap in the room. While everyone is ripping each other to shreds with pompous, empty, multisyllabic phrases, translate what they say into plain english, which will demonstrate to the instructor that you, unlike they, actually understand this gobbledygook. Praise everyone's work with backhanded compliments in such a way that the teacher knows that you know it's crap, while the other students think you're complimenting their work.

Beat everyone to the punch by being merciless about your own work, especially if you've outdone yourself and have actually produced something that doesn't suck. The teacher knows what you've done right; show him/her/it that you know what you've done wrong.

Smile smugly when you're ripped. Let your face say "HA! It worked! They HATE it!" (See Insulting an Art Student and Art History, below.)

Wow, that's a great way to go about it. The reason that they do this is to help you learn to a) deal with critism, b) answer questions and comments about your work c) see what others are doing. A decent way to go about it is a) answer any questions that anyone may have, openly and honestly b) don't point out any bad things in your paintings, you wouldn't want to do that at a gallery (they'll probably miss it unless it's glaring anyway) c) consider what people bring up.

Lastly, be an attractive woman with large breasts. The heterosexual men and the lesbians will all be trying to get in your pants and won't be hard on your work, the homosexual men will be afraid of being thought of as misogynistic, and the heterosexual women will dismiss you completely as a total, talentless airhead. This is the only place they won't think of you as a threat.
--
Nicholas Bernstein, Technologist, artist, etc.
http://nicholasbernstein.com

Last paragraph is authors, not mine (none / 1) (#79)
by niku on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 03:33:34 PM EST

Forgot to put the last paragraph in italics.
--
Nicholas Bernstein, Technologist, artist, etc.
http://nicholasbernstein.com
[ Parent ]
Here's a clue (none / 2) (#85)
by mcgrew on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:01:08 PM EST

It's not supposed to be serious. Are you lacking in humor, or intelligence? It got voted to the front page, so a whole lot more people enjoyed it than not. You had your chance to vote.

So quit whining.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

No. (1.50 / 4) (#96)
by niku on Mon Apr 05, 2004 at 08:51:00 PM EST

Even with your assertions that this is humor, which, if it is, is poor, this article comes very close to living under a bridge and bothering billygoats.

As for my humor or intelligence, take a look at some of my other posts and replies - I /dont/ gripe about bad articles, but this one was just... blech. And as for voting, I'm sorry, I don't spend every waking minute in eagerly staring at the k5 queue; some articles I vote on, some I don't. In this instance, this was bad enough that I thought I should publicly say so. If you don't like the critism, and feel like you have to call me a whiner, that's fine.
--
Nicholas Bernstein, Technologist, artist, etc.
http://nicholasbernstein.com
[ Parent ]

I don't mind the criticism (none / 1) (#101)
by grouse on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 05:24:56 PM EST

It wasn't my article. But I do feel like I have to call you a whiner.

Whiner.

You sad bastard!

"Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs
[ Parent ]

Don't like it? (none / 2) (#102)
by mcgrew on Tue Apr 06, 2004 at 06:29:08 PM EST

Then don't read it. When you see "mcgrew" on the byline of a story, don't open it. Simple as that.

Those here who have less of an impairment of humor and intelligence like my stuff.

Ever hear of Zoloft? Ask your doctor, life's to short to waste flaming somebody because you don't like the atrticle.

I must than you for taking me back to the critique- yours was exactly like in art school.

-------
"Those who would give up, um, yada yada yada" -Anonymous Coward
[ Parent ]

nah man, he's right. (none / 2) (#111)
by IlIlIIllIIlllIII on Sun Apr 11, 2004 at 06:54:45 PM EST

it's really not the article he doesn't like, it's you. You just have a personality that annoys the fuck out of some people, including myself and niku there, as well as the Balsamic Vinigga. It's not necessarily an impairment of humor and intelligence on our part, friend, but a difference in taste. The way you invariably incorporate a joke or sardonic comment in every single sentence of yours in the article is something that reminds me of this 200 lb lardass hyperactive anime queen that used to be in my Japanese class. Nothing personal, this entry actually came up through my google searching and I felt like taking a few minutes to edify you. I've already taken your advice and I usually stay the hell away from anything with mcgrew mentioned in it.

Cheers,

C

[ Parent ]

love it ;-) (none / 1) (#110)
by dke on Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 04:52:46 PM EST


Nothing is ever easy
Your color theory is completely dead wrong (none / 0) (#112)
by skintigh on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 12:44:53 AM EST

For starters, the normal human eye detects three colors: red, green and blue (mutations can cause up to 5 primaries, see wikipedia if you care). The three primary colors of light (additive) are thus red, green and blue, since that is all we can see. It's purely biological. The three secondary colors of light, which also happen to be the three primary colors of pigments (subtractive) are magenta, yellow and cyan ***NOT*** red, yellow and blue like we were all taught in school. WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT AS A CHILD IS WRONG. Historically, magenta and cyan were not available in nature, so we settled on close approximates, and continue teaching our children this falshood as fact, much like we teach them that Marconi invented the radio. Anyway, there are many ways to prove that red, yellow and blue are not primary colors in pigment, the most elegant way in my opinion is a simple challenge: mix me some cyan using your "primary" red, yellow and blue.

Cyan, Magenta, Etc, (none / 0) (#113)
by dogeye on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 02:17:33 PM EST

So are these colors defined as the subtractive colors to the human eye, or vice versa?

[ Parent ]
McGrew's School of Fine Art | 113 comments (75 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!