Can you name this artist without looking?

Education has nothing to do with what someone likes. What you like is what you like, and you should never try to like something you don't. You will only resent it and the person you feel forced you to like it.

I like realism, too.

I also like the idea that this:

and this:

are the same artist.

Or that this:

and this:

Are also the same artist, and he never saw them differently, and considered them basically the same thing.

Surrealism also speaks to me, like Dali's use of intensely accurate perspective and lighting, to create impossible images:


I never, in any way said what I liked was what was best, I merely said I was too close to Fshguy's poll, since, it was me that inspired it.

Now, realism in sculpture is amazing to me. I got to spend some time in that section of the Art Institute early this year, and the amount of detail some of those artists could get is baffling. I can barely whittle a stick into a slightly smaller stick, to think some of them turned stone into people...

(I know it is cliche, but, I like Rodin, a lot)

Education has nothing to do with what someone likes. What you like is what you like, and you should never try to like something you don't. You will only resent it and the person you feel forced you to like it.

Originally Posted by futiles

What I meant by that is, I would have to be educated to understand what I'm looking at. I can have an emotional reaction (which I did earlier in the thread) but that's different than an educated one. I'm sure there are technical reasons some of what looks like child scribble to me is skilled. I don't doubt there is some technique that once pointed out to me, I would never be able to unsee. It's no different than when judging a television set, I don't look at the brights I look in the blacks. Once you know what to look for, you have a better understanding. I'll never like Dali or Van Gogh, but MAYBE I could respect them one day.

Originally Posted by futiles

I'm way too literal to ever appreciate these two. I'm not wired that way.

Are also the same artist, and he never saw them differently, and considered them basically the same thing.

Originally Posted by futiles

Never in a million years could these artist convince me of the sentiment you just repeated for them. Saying shit like that is what makes me want to smack "artists". Again, I'm sure I'm being too literal.

Surrealism also speaks to me, like Dali's use of intensely accurate perspective and lighting, to create impossible images:

Originally Posted by futiles

Okay, honestly, Surrealism is the only "weird art I could respect. There is obvious skill and something to look at for hours. I'd still never buy it and put it in my home if examples I gave were available.

I never, in any way said what I liked was what was best, I merely said I was too close to Fshguy's poll, since, it was me that inspired it.

Originally Posted by futiles

No, but you did say you already have two big prints and want to get the original size print. Then you proceeded to berate other people for not knowing the 'obvious' answer, suggesting you are familiar with all of the artists. I don't think it's a huge leap to think you may have a preferential leaning based on your purchases and glowing comments of the museum.

I think we've already given Fshguy's blatant poll spam too much effort, but I love how side tracked we get around here. He just needs a few more polls for his badge and that's all this is really about.

Now, realism in sculpture is amazing to me. I got to spend some time in that section of the Art Institute early this year, and the amount of detail some of those artists could get is baffling. I can barely whittle a stick into a slightly smaller stick, to think some of them turned stone into people...

(I know it is cliche, but, I like Rodin, a lot)

Originally Posted by futiles

And yes, realistic sculptures are amazing. Anyone who's ever tried to make something out of PlayDough should be impressed at the detail and emotion they are able to capture. Hell with all the modern technology pulling off realistic faces/eyes/emotions is still the hardest thing to do.

Never in a million years could these artist convince me of the sentiment you just repeated for them. Saying shit like that is what makes me want to smack "artists". Again, I'm sure I'm being too literal.

Originally Posted by Kaens

It may (or not) help to see how the progression appears to him:

No, but you did say you already have two big prints and want to get the original size print. Then you proceeded to berate other people for not knowing the 'obvious' answer, suggesting you are familiar with all of the artists. I don't think it's a huge leap to think you may have a preferential leaning based on your purchases and glowing comments of the museum.

Originally Posted by Kaens

I'm sorry, but, that is just me. There are never multiple obvious answers. Facts are facts. The poll is the same to me as what does 2 + 2 = and then listing 1, 2, 4, 6, 10 as answers. It is OK to not know a fact, but, to suggest that multiple answers are obvious is silly. Just like you aren't wired to like impressionism, I cannot see questions like that any other way.

If you asked me which Country Music performer sang a certain song, and then list five performers, I may happen to know it (not likely), but, I would not say two performers were the obvious choice. (Unless it was a bad pop song, and it was sung by Peter Cetera and Peter Cetera and Chicago were choices. Then, maybe then, I would say there were two obvious choices...)

Honestly I had no clue, nor do I really feel bad about that. I can appreciate the skill that goes into some art, but personally I could not tell the difference between the "Lady in Blue" and something my niece drew. Maybe it is because my mind is wired to look at things objectively, and probably why I ended up going into science.

It is kind of like wine snobs...you can feel special with all your fancy lingo, but I am not going to feel less sophisticated because I just prefer the taste of a good IPA.

Although, I do enjoy watching Bob Ross paint, but maybe just for when he beats the devil out of his brush.

Honestly I had no clue, nor do I really feel bad about that. I can appreciate the skill that goes into some art, but personally I could not tell the difference between the "Lady in Blue" and something my niece drew. Maybe it is because my mind is wired to look at things objectively, and probably why I ended up going into science.

It is kind of like wine snobs...you can feel special with all your fancy lingo, but I am not going to feel less sophisticated because I just prefer the taste of a good IPA.

Although, I do enjoy watching Bob Ross paint, but maybe just for when he beats the devil out of his brush.

Originally Posted by Elem3ntal80

Isn't saying "IPA" just the same thing, but fancy lingo for beer?

Isn't saying "IPA" just the same thing, but fancy lingo for beer?

Originally Posted by futiles

Yes, I am a bit of a beer snob, which is slightly less snobby than wine people. Even then, I couldn't really tell you what all the beer styles meant, other than an IPA is more bitter and a Hefeweizen is more sweet.

Back to art...I guess I like the realism stuff the most. If I can say "holy crap that looks exactly like what it does in real life," then I am impressed.

Yes, I am a bit of a beer snob, which is slightly less snobby than wine people. Even then, I couldn't really tell you what all the beer styles meant, other than an IPA is more bitter and a Hefeweizen is more sweet.

Back to art...I guess I like the realism stuff the most. If I can say "holy crap that looks exactly like what it does in real life," then I am impressed.

Originally Posted by Elem3ntal80

And, I can tell that things with fancy names taste different than the swill most people drank as beer for may decades, but, that's about it.IPAs and Hefeweizen and Dunkles and whatevers are just another type of bad taste (to me).

Again, this is back to my similar statement of like what you like. I like American Whisky and Bourbon, Canadian Whiskey is fine, but, I don't like Scotch, even though they are all the same family. When it comes to wine, I pretty much only like Pinot Noirs (or the French Bordeaux- which is really similar...), but, I like ones all over the range (and have tasted some horrible expensive ones, and great cheap ones)

I think we've already given Fshguy's blatant poll spam too much effort, but I love how side tracked we get around here. He just needs a few more polls for his badge and that's all this is really about.

Originally Posted by Kaens

What's wrong with a conversation about art, beer and wine???

What's wrong with a conversation about art, beer and wine???

Originally Posted by Fshguy

Conversation about beer and wine should consist of samples. Since I don't currently have any on hand, that's what's wrong.

Other than that, nothing at all.

Did I just step into "The Finer Things" club?

Just add literature and we have the trifecta!

It may (or not) help to see how the progression appears to him:




I'm sorry, but, that is just me. There are never multiple obvious answers. Facts are facts. The poll is the same to me as what does 2 + 2 = and then listing 1, 2, 4, 6, 10 as answers. It is OK to not know a fact, but, to suggest that multiple answers are obvious is silly. Just like you aren't wired to like impressionism, I cannot see questions like that any other way.

If you asked me which Country Music performer sang a certain song, and then list five performers, I may happen to know it (not likely), but, I would not say two performers were the obvious choice. (Unless it was a bad pop song, and it was sung by Peter Cetera and Peter Cetera and Chicago were choices. Then, maybe then, I would say there were two obvious choices...)

Originally Posted by futiles

Love how you always seem to come back to my words and twist them around to your own evil agenda..( That's meant as a joke, so please don't be hurt by that) But I say two obvious answers because I think everyone would know some of these artist, or should I say most people would. Just by looking at the painting you see a more modern details this would rule out:

1. Leonardo da Vinci
Born: April 15, 1452, Anchiano
Died: May 2, 1519, Amboise, France

The style of art would also automatically rule out:

2. Andy Warhol
and
3. Vincent van Gogh

This would leave the other two: which I would think were more obvious to the lesser educated person in art such as myself.. I don't think it was:

Claude Monet
Born: November 14, 1840, 9th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, France
Died: December 5, 1926,

but I could be very wrong, but he was a part of the times that the picture depicted.

So my educated guess, and as the title ensued without out looking was:

Georges Seurat
Born: December 2, 1859, Paris, France
Died: March 29, 1891, Paris, France

I have since looked and I was correct in my assumptions because I thought Monet wasn't that type of artist but was not entirely sure of my self.. again without looking and an educated guess, so please don't twist my words to paint me to look bad. It is what it is a fun little poll to get people talking and or serve as a poll to get a poll count.

I just have very vivid memories of someone telling me that that was a Monet, and therefore it stuck with me. I don't mind being wrong, because it allows me to correct the misinformation I was fed as a child.

Love how you always seem to come back to my words and twist them around to your own evil agenda..( That's meant as a joke, so please don't be hurt by that) But I say two obvious answers because I think everyone would know some of these artist, or should I say most people would. Just by looking at the painting you see a more modern details this would rule out:

1. Leonardo da Vinci
Born: April 15, 1452, Anchiano
Died: May 2, 1519, Amboise, France

The style of art would also automatically rule out:

2. Andy Warhol
and
3. Vincent van Gogh

This would leave the other two: which I would think were more obvious to the lesser educated person in art such as myself.. I don't think it was:

Claude Monet
Born: November 14, 1840, 9th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, France
Died: December 5, 1926,

but I could be very wrong, but he was a part of the times that the picture depicted.

So my educated guess, and as the title ensued without out looking was:

Georges Seurat
Born: December 2, 1859, Paris, France
Died: March 29, 1891, Paris, France

I have since looked and I was correct in my assumptions because I thought Monet wasn't that type of artist but was not entirely sure of my self.. again without looking and an educated guess, so please don't twist my words to paint me to look bad. It is what it is a fun little poll to get people talking and or serve as a poll to get a poll count.

Originally Posted by B8TINGU

I think what you may have meant was there were two "possible" answers based on logic and analysis. Which could be correct. But, obvious was the wrong word, and I did not twist it, I pointed it out.

I would actually put Seurat and Van Gogh together before I put Monet and Seurat together, but, that's me. I see more similarities in their styles than Monet and either of them.