-->
@David
@Barney
@Speedrace
@DynamicSquid
This thread very ironically belongs in this subforum. Why this was created here post-separation beats me.
--> @oromagiArt's main point isn't history though, it's how it looks like. If you want to learn history become a historian. And the Mona Lisa was famous because it was one of the first portraits of someone not noble.
Music is art but has no appearance. Debate is art but has no appearance. Clearly, the point of art is not mainly appearance.
Everybody ought to learn history but few need become historians. Art is a primary source for history. The Caves at Lascaux are 100% art and 100% history. Art and history are seldom distinguishable. READ => Simon Schama's "Dead Certainties"
- Most art historians agree that the Mona Lisa is a portrait of the Italian noblewoman Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo. The earliest portrait of someone not noble that I can think of in the Caves at Lascaux. The painting hung in the baths at Fountainebleu for the first 300 years where it was seen by Kings of France and their guests, admired but hardly famous. In fact, da Vinci himself was not particularly famous for 350 years after his death. Napolean's admiration sparked some interest but the work was not even on the first floor of the Louvre until art critics like Pater and Gautier began publishing magazine articles about her in the mid-19th century. At the same time, Napolean's invasion of France had plundered the diaries and notebooks of da Vinci and brought them back to France, where they were slowly being translated and wondered at. Victorian England is the culture that made da Vinci famous and the Mona Lisa came along for the ride. Without all that back story, the Mona Lisa would probably be just another old portrait at the Lovre, of which there are thousands.
Music is art but has no appearance. Debate is art but has no appearance. Clearly, the point of art is not mainly appearance.But we're talking about modern art here and modern art isn't music.
Everybody ought to learn history but few need become historians. Art is a primary source for history. The Caves at Lascaux are 100% art and 100% history. Art and history are seldom distinguishable. READ => Simon Schama's "Dead Certainties"They may be intwined but art (specifically modern art) is something that you visualize, not something of history. In schools, history is one subject while art is another.
Real art takes skill, and possibly weeks of painting.
Change my mind.
7 days later
58 days later
7 days later
8 days later
Some great novels have arisen in the modern era.Harry Potter
Yes, Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible, that is true true.Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible.
Take religion for example.
"Some". No..... Religion in general..... I'm not picky.
As I always say, all hypotheses are valid as such.
If a god does exist,....
...it surely doesn't require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up
7 days later
360 days later