Author Topic: Evilbore Pseudo-Academic Faggotry: Installment #1 -- A Poll (Read 2259 times)

Van Cruncheon · « **on:** December 17, 2006, 09:18:19 PM »

Behold: Graydon Parrish's first salvo fired in the so-called "rebirth or realism". This painting -- titled "The Cycle of Terror" -- supposedly heralds a return to "classic realism" within the greater art community, after a couple decades of Modernism and post-Modernism.

Thoughts?

(Personally, I find it utterly unpleasant and more didactic and self-revealing than a year's worth of shrill small-town newspaper editorials. I never much liked realism in general; good photography is more interesting, and allegorical realism is just so ham-fistedly obvious that it hurts. Impressionism and post-modernism is far more challenging to a receptive audience, and given that good art is a niche -- most folks keep to Yes album covers and Thomas Kincaide when pleasing the ol' ocular bits -- I really find the move to realism fuckin' insulting.)

Mupepe · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:22:04 PM »

I don't like it. I've had this argument before too. There is nothing subtle about it and nothing really creative either. It honestly reminds me of projected thought vomit. He kinda just spilled his unorganized thoughts on a canvas without thinking.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I bet it would be a panty dropped for some girls if it was on my wall though

[close]

And Drinky, I agree. What's the point of realism? Realism is fine if you're not trying to really portray anything more than a realistic image IMO. It just doesn't do it for me.

etiolate · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:29:00 PM »

For some reason I wish they had modern clothes on.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:41:00 PM »

What's going on in the right side of the painting.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:41:04 PM »

Mupepe, haha. What is it with chicks and "realism" anyhow? My bro and I were talking about how there were very few women in the graphic design field, but loads of 'em in the fine arts -- and the ones in the fine arts field usually favored oil/acrylic and generally hovered between impressionism and realism.

We then discussed the "matrix of art chicks" -- with "a) likes art for art's sake" and "b) like art for politics' sake" on the X-axis; and "1) prefers realism" and "2) prefers post-/modernism" on the Y-axis. His observations were what follows, haphazardly recalled (I was an English and Engineering double major; rarely did I tread into the Fine Arts territory.)

a1 types always tried to paint like Thomas Kincaide. He says they are fundamentally undate-able on the grounds that they were RELIGIOUS WACKOS or old chicks looking to get a job doing advertising or greeting card work.

a2 types are dudes. Usually gay dudes with Rick Nagel pictures in their apartments. Rare is the woman that did a post-modernist work "just 'cuz".

b1 types were your typical art-hippie type of chick and were apparently easy to score with.

ultra-rare b2 types were awesome and scary at the same time, and usually were into some seriously fucked up bauhaus sexual arrangement. Their piercings had piercings, he said.

demi · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:41:13 PM »

I seriously do not understand a single word you said, let alone make a thought about the picture.

I'm pretty stupid.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:42:34 PM »

yeah, but you're pretty and that's okay.

Takuan · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:48:46 PM »

Is there a bigger version of this somewhere? I can't make out that thing with the tendrils in the right corner. Anyway, the picture does nothing for me, but I'm not into this kind of stuff at all.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:49:17 PM »

I couldn't find a bigger one. it's an 18' x 8' mural and I imagine they want folks to view it in person (the assholes).

Mupepe · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:51:59 PM »

Quote from: Drinky Crow on December 17, 2006, 09:41:04 PM

Mupepe, haha. What is it with chicks and "realism" anyhow? My bro and I were talking about how there were very few women in the graphic design field, but loads of 'em in the fine arts -- and the ones in the fine arts field usually favored oil/acrylic and generally hovered between impressionism and realism.

We then discussed the "matrix of art chicks" -- with "a) likes art for art's sake" and "b) like art for politics' sake" on the X-axis; and "1) prefers realism" and "2) prefers post-/modernism" on the Y-axis. His observations were what follows, haphazardly recalled (I was an English and Engineering double major; rarely did I tread into the Fine Arts territory.)

a1 types always tried to paint like Thomas Kincaide. He says they are fundamentally undate-able on the grounds that they were RELIGIOUS WACKOS or old chicks looking to get a job doing advertising or greeting card work.

a2 types are dudes. Usually gay dudes with Rick Nagel pictures in their apartments. Rare is the woman that did a post-modernist work "just 'cuz".

b1 types were your typical art-hippie type of chick and were apparently easy to score with.

ultra-rare b2 types were awesome and scary at the same time, and usually were into some seriously fucked up bauhaus sexual arrangement. Their piercings had piercings, he said.

"matrix of art chicks"

Most art majors make me sick. They're walking, breathing and most importantly, fucking stereotypes.

The only reason I ever encountered those types of faggurts was because I married a Fine Arts major. All her friends were those people and only one of them was a decent human being. Your friend forgot one kind though... the male art freak that thought it made him more sexually appealing and a better person in general. These are the worst of all. These are the people that related everything to art. You have to scream at them "Walter, what does this have to art (vietnam), man??"

And yeah, dense chicks dig realism. I think it's because it makes them feel cultured and intelligent without making them really think. It's like an ego boost on a canvas.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:54:47 PM »

politically-motivated art is almost always shallow and obnoxious. see: the cycle of terror!

etiolate · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:57:40 PM »

Hardly any of the female artists I know favor realism, if any do at all. There's a little gallery here which is all abstract and made up mostly of female artists.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:57:50 PM »

Quote from: etiolate on December 17, 2006, 09:29:00 PM

For some reason I wish they had modern clothes on.

Graydon Parrish is gay and a Texan. Solve for X!

Himu · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:00:33 PM »

All the female artists I grew up favored realism. That's why I always got in trouble in my art classes and they'd be pissed off at me: I never really went with a realistic style. Ever.

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:02:35 PM »

It's a pretty boring painting, though I'd have to see it in person, or at least a larger version of it. Right now, it doesn't have anything that immediately grabs my attention, which is utter failure on the artist's behalf. I guess I shouldn't talk, seeing as how I haven't done anything with the fine arts in....six years or so.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #15 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:04:21 PM »

they're calling him "the next Picasso" on NPR -- apparently, they mean "the next Picasso before Picasso got interesting"

etiolate · « **Reply #16 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:08:36 PM »

I have no problem with more realistic work, because sometimes I think there is a lack of actual skill in today's art and that lack of skill brings down the quality, even if it isn't realistic. It use to be you were skilled, but you broke away from realism of your own choice. Now it feels like you lack skill, so you just avoid realism out of neccessity.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #17 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:09:02 PM »

I voted for the one with the HYUCK HYUCKs.

etiolate · « **Reply #18 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:12:01 PM »

New picasso? It's unfair to judge on the small size of that picture, but it's nothing like picasso and does nothing like what picasso meant to art. The one striking thing about it is the chidlren, but the two tower men are just boring and I wish they had modern clothes.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #19 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:13:42 PM »

There's nothing wrong with a display of pure technical skill. Rush has sold quite a few CDs all these years, after all! Still, it's not terribly stimulating from where I stand; it's more of a circus act -- "boy golly that kid shore can paint" -- than something as participatory and interpretive as art's potential allows it to be.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #20 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:14:38 PM »

Picasso did a healthy amount of realistic images of the Spanish Revolution before he became "that guy who painted square heads with eyes on their necklike geometries".

etiolate · « **Reply #21 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:16:54 PM »

I know, but Picasso wanted to really just draw/paint from the mind without thinking about it and this piece is obviously planned out.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #22 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:18:09 PM »

Hence, my suggestion that NPR's observation was completely disingenuous. Really, I have no idea why they drew the comparison outside of some desire to hype their Gay Texan of the Week.

Cyanista · « **Reply #23 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:19:48 PM »

It's tripe. I mean really the painting itself isn't bad. . .at that size it looks decently executed, just extremely uninspired. The symbolism is clunky and distracting. I find myself wrinkling my nose at cheesy elements rather than seeing a picture.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #24 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:20:54 PM »

You dont like Rush???

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #25 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:21:25 PM »

It's cheesy enough to be included in a "Images of Struggle" 2007 Hallmark calendar!

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #26 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:22:02 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on December 17, 2006, 10:20:54 PM

You dont like Rush???

The intentional irony of my three-character signature aside? No.

Cyanista · « **Reply #27 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:23:26 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on December 17, 2006, 10:20:54 PM

You dont like Rush???

Rush AND Star Wars?? God.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #28 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:24:28 PM »

Oh man I like two popular things. I guess im not indie enough for you EMO fegs.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #29 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:25:29 PM »

Rush is popular? Perhaps in the same way D&D is "popular," I guess.

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #30 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:25:39 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on December 17, 2006, 10:24:28 PM

Oh man I like two popular things. I guess im not indie enough for you EMO fegs.

Rush is popular?

EDIT -- Beaten by seconds. :'(

etiolate · « **Reply #31 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:29:50 PM »

Rush is like a metal band formed by D&D nerds, but I like it. It adds to their charm.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #32 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:30:39 PM »

Close! It's a prog rock outfit formed by a castrato, a Randroid, and their dad!

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:35:00 PM »

Rush has ties to ATHF, so they're fine by me.

Vizzys · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:40:15 PM »

Bleach IS awesome, was that option added just for me? ( As the anime is quite awesome if you've watched more then a few episodes. )

Anyway its a rather interesting painting, but I fail to see how these two things are related. One can appreciate this painting for what it is, question its meaning and then watch some anime.

Vizzys · « **Reply #35 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:53:02 PM »

Slightly bigger:

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #36 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:54:07 PM »

Someone post that Ghostbusters painting from the end of Ghostbusters 2

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #37 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:00:41 PM »

Here's MY kinda allegorical realism:

[I'm So Cool Sidebar: my bro is totally pals with Brandon Bird.]

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #38 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:11:42 PM »

Now thats a painting for the ages.

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #39 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:12:58 PM »

That's pretty awesome, and strangely, conveys more emotion than We Will Never Forget The Two Half-Naked Guys And Kids Throwing Planes, which I find pretty hilarious. Even with the slightly bigger version, it's still an uninspiring image. I'm intrigued enough to want to see it in person, though.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #40 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:14:03 PM »

Looks like a rejected Slayer album cover to me!

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #41 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:15:07 PM »

never mind that all Brandon Bird art comes with the inherent conflict between the profound (allegory) and the profane (pop culture) absolutely free!

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #42 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:18:17 PM »

omgz the right side is totally Ogdru-Jahad (lolz whoops spelling correction don't kill me Tentacle Satans!). I SEE THE CONNECTIONS WITHIN CONNECTIONS MAN

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #43 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:18:57 PM »

I've seen better paintings at the local Big Boy and Old Country Buffet

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #44 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:19:54 PM »

the ole triangle

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #45 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:20:37 PM »

HE WAKENS, HUNTER OF THE SHADOWS IS RISING
IMMORTAL
IN MADNESS YOU DWELL

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #46 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:29:56 PM »

If we take "Graydon Parrish" and jumble it up, then add the letters, E, H, M, and U, we get Sadu-Hem! Guys, this is serious! Parrish is painting our inescapable future as enslaved playthings for Those Who Wait Outside!

He's doing it REALISTICALLY!

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #47 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:33:15 PM »

a shoggoth is lurking

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #48 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:34:20 PM »

Be strong

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #49 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:36:35 PM »

i will not fear the goat with a thousand young

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #50 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:48:36 PM »

At the end of the day, at least it's not an upturned toilet with Parrish's signature on it.

Man, Nyarlathotep would be so pissed off at that one!

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #51 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:50:01 PM »

The upturned toilet at least pisses people off -- the real art is all the shrieking conservative hausfrau that pen reams of anti-NEA screed.

Yog-Soggoth loves suburbia.

Mondain · « **Reply #52 on:** December 18, 2006, 12:06:05 AM »

urgh wtf

without Christian or Greek mythology as inspiration, these kinds of paintings just don't work

Mupepe · « **Reply #53 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:07:28 AM »

Quote from: Mondain on December 18, 2006, 12:06:05 AM

urgh wtf

without Christian or Greek mythology as inspiration, these kinds of paintings just don't work

I agree in way. Except that it doesn't necessarily have to be Christian or Greek mythology. But this seems extremely uninspired. Part of the appeal of art is reference. We need something to reference to so that it means something to us. ZOMG, AIRPLANE AND NUDINESS! Yeah, not working for me, buddy.

Vizzys · « **Reply #54 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:46:15 AM »

So Drinky how do you feel about fractal art, which is mostly mathmatical. Yay or nay?

Example: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40179726/

News:

Poll

Is Graydon Parrish's "The Cycle of Terror" OMG DEEP?

Author Topic: Evilbore Pseudo-Academic Faggotry: Installment #1 -- A Poll (Read 2259 times)