Keep your paws off my links! LOL

How did you do that? I need to learn please.

Very long links will sometimes split themselves into 2 lines ~ you should be able to see that before you hit 'post' ~ when they don't, there are at least three ways to 'fix' them ~

1. Make sure there is a check mark in the 'convert URLs' box underneath the message window while you are typing a post [that should be the default]~ that automatically shortens the link with '...' placed within the link ~ but sometimes the link is still too long [as your op link was] ~

2. Manually highlight the link and decrease the font size ~ but sometimes the link is still too long ~

3. Type the word 'link' or 'source' or whatever you want where the link will appear; then highlight the word; then click the 'insert hyperlink' icon [it looks like a solid black link in the tool bar above the message window while you're typing]; then click 'allow scripted windows' on the pop-up; then click the 'insert hyperlink' icon again and c/p the link into the box that will pop up ~ that sounds much more complicated than it really is ~ try it a couple of times and let me know if you have questions ~

I used both #s 1 and 2 on the link in your op, roseanne ~ when it was still too long even with the auto shortening in #1, I just decreased the font size down to 1 ~

Sooz 

Re: #3    LOL!  Ok, here goes.............

LINK

btw, I didn't get an "allow scripted windows" or "insert hyperlink" pop-up.   All I had to do was paste the URL into the box and the click "ok''
Of course I haven't checked my link above. I can't until I post this. brb..........


It worked. Ty, ty, ty. Now if I can just remember, ha ha ha ha.....

On your original question Roseanne: what it takes these days to become an Artisté is to be promoted by the right gallery with the right media company in the right city. Anybody else - talented or not, and you can forget about it. Oh and... in Canada, it helps to have the right political party willing to back you up with the right bureaucrat.

sooz, I have no idea, lol. I have Vista and I use Firefox.


Sid, It irritates me no end to see what passes for "art" sometimes. I've seen amateurs who have more talent in their little finger than many of the famous artists of today, yet they are unknown. You see them all the time at craft fairs and such. There is an ad on Bravo for one of their series that profiles famous artists of all genre. One lady, who is a photographer, says something like "I want to capture on film things that speak to people"
Her photos are crap. One is a woman with all sorts of barbed wire wrapped around her, some horns on her head.....that sort of thing. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky, but the only thing that says to me is "I want to be as outrageous and ridiculous as I can so that my work can be noticed". 
That takes no talent, imo.

To me, art has depth, movement, shadows and light. It is real. Give me an artist that can capture a sunset that makes me feel like I'm almost in the moment, or one that paints a native face with all the lines, wrinkles, eyes and expression so real that you feel you are looking into their soul. A sculptor who brings to life a grizzly out of nothing but a chunk of stone. That is art for me.

I take it then, you didn't like the "meat dress". 

I realize this thread is a year old but I just got here and MUST comment, lol. This particular artist was working in the 30s so let's put that in context. The movement he was working within was exploring space and dimension and at that time was quite groundbreaking. I actually love his works.
Sometimes when in a gallery, especially in modern art galleries, we might see some things that look like a monkey could do it. One example my husband and I still laugh about is one we saw in the MOMA which was essentially a chunk of burlap stretched over a black box sort of frame and the burlap had one slash in it, the fabric was pulled back a bit to reveal the black inside and that is that. My husband was a bit more derisive than I but I could see his point.  This is my personal opinion, but in order to appreciate what the artist is intending it really helps to read the artist statement...for me that puts it all in context and helps me to understand what they're doing. I happen to be a very big fan of modern, abstract and performance or installation art and some of it is really weird but I love it.

I disagree with Sid about arts in Canada. Luckily we have the Canadian Council for the Arts which is an arm's length funding body. Up to this point we have managed to keep the government and politics OUT of our art making however, Harper is trying to change that. Art making here does not depend on a political body to back you up, but it does unfortunately rely on the support of the government to help the arm's length funding agencies to do their jobs. In Alberta we have the Alberta Foundation for the Arts which is also arm's length.

Capturing a sunset is fine, representational art has its place but you may be interested to know that still life art was borne out of the Reformation as a backlash against the prescriptive religious paintings....you can thank the Renaissance painters for perspective, the pointilists were probably the first to perceive life in pixels and everyone loves Van Gogh now but in his day he could hardly feed himself. If it weren't for the artists, some of our communities would still be crumbling.

When the government or even 'the people' start dictating what is or is not art then we are going to be in deep shit!

Now on that note, the latest controversy is an exhibit currently on display at the Smithsonian of Video Game Art...what do you think about THAT?  http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/

Well, I've always had a thing for Lara Croft.

This is my personal opinion, but in order to appreciate what the artist is intending it really helps to read the artist statement..

And there's where we can part ways. If I have to read a statement about art to appreciate it, then to me it becomes more utilitarian. I don't dislike all modern art and I agree that it's a personal thang. Whatever speaks to you..... or me. 

Well it is personal Roseanne but I feel strongly that we should never let personal opinions get in the way of arts funding or other means of supporting the arts. But seriously...the next time you see something wacky, if you would take a minute to read what the artist is up to, you might find it interesting, even if you don't like it.

For the most part I agree with you, Sis.  If the interpretation of what is art were left to me, galleries would be full of fuzzy paintings of dogs playing poker with Elvis.  But when it comes to funding art I think there has to be limits.  The "artist" who "created" by dropping cement blocks on mice shouldn't get a dime and I'm still fuming over the National Art Gallery paying $1.8 million for Voice of Fire which is nothing more than a red band down the middle of a blue canvas.   

  

I definitely agree with you there Jim. I would never advocate funding anything that involved harming animals or people. I have heard about the mouse crushing cinder block art piece but know nothing of the origins, who did it, who funded it, if it was accepted or if it is an urban myth.

There have been some notorious court rulings involving art and censorship; those always stimulate 'interesting' discussions.

And that's what I'm talking about. WTH? I don't care how many times they are explained to me, it won't matter. Blocks of color. Pffffft.

OTOH, I don't just dislike a lot of modern art. Thomas Kincade (rest his soul)makes me barf, lol. 

What about the craze over the paintings done by a dog (or elephant or some animal?) I really don't think they could explain anything.

Jabra: I love Mark Rothko! Thanks for posting this.

Roseanne, re: the animal paintings, I think those are largely publicity stunts for zoos and fundraisers for rescue organizations. But perhaps the elephant derives some pleasure from painting, and if he does, it doesn't require an artist's statement. It is just a joyful expression. Sometimes art is just a joyful expression and therefore probably not very kind to shit all over it.

A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artistâ€

On this topic, a Canadian photographer's image just sold at Christie's auction house for over 3 million: the most to ever be paid for a Canadian photograph. The artist is Jeff Wall and the painting is below. I hope you will take the time to look at the video (Analyzing Wall's Work) that explains the work...really it is not what it appears to be. I was quite surprised! And for a photograph to be blown up to that size takes considerable skill.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/ca...-wall-photo-auction.html

Posted: May 8, 2012 9:36 PM ET

Last Updated: May 9, 2012 1:32 PM ET

Read 72 [/i]comments[/i]72[/i]

Dead Troops Talk (A vision after an ambush of a Red Army patrol, near Moqor, Afghanistan, winter 1986) by Vancouver photographer Jeff Wall set a new auction record for the artist at auction in New York on Tuesday. (Christie's)[/i]

(You can see the video at the link I provided if you like)

I don't think you get what I'm saying. If someone derives pleasure from doing something, more power to them. Just don't expect me to derive pleasure from it, even if it's "explained" it to me. It either pleases my eye or it doesn't. Personal preference or whatever floats your boat.

Here's a great example: Our Aunt Carol has an original painting that hangs right in her entry. The first moment I saw it, I fell in love with it without knowing it was an original or who the artist is. It's a winter scene in the woods. And old man loading wood on a sled drawn by an old horse. The horses head is bent against the cold and wind.  I find it poignant and it seems to "speak" to me, to draw me into the scene. Carol's son and daughter hate it! lol. She's going to leave it to me.

I accept that in the eyes of some I'm an art nincompoop although I've always enjoyed visits to the Louvre, the infamous Haus der Kunst and the Pinakothek in Munich, the Vienna Art Museum, and many, many other exhibitions in Europe.
When I saw "Orange, red, yellow" I immediately figured that for roughly 50 bucks I could get a few pints of colors and a lambswool paint roller, and at Michael's a large piece of canvas, and go to town.
I figure that after applying the basic colors wetting it down with water via a spray bottle would result in about the same effect at the edges of the edges.

Now all I need to find out how I can get Christie's to go for the real big sales record.
Somehow I wonder if at least a few buyers of this kind of art have buyer's remorse a few days after the purchase. Maybe those people just have too much money and too much peer pressure. Keeping up with the Uber wealthy and so.

Tough crowd here, lol...it's ok I don't mind.

I know a lot of people think that way but I doubt that Rothko opened up a tube of Liquitex and went to town.  You folks should get a copy of that doc "Who the Fuck is Jackson Pollock?"...I think you can get it on Netflix actually. You might like it, lol.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. If someone derives pleasure from doing something, more power to them. Just don't expect me to derive pleasure from it, even if it's "explained" it to me. It either pleases my eye or it doesn't. Personal preference or whatever floats your boat.

I get exactly what you're saying and in fact you are making my point quite nicely for me.  Since personal preference floats one's boat, I am glad we have arm's length professional bodies letting the artists do their thing. What I really don't understand is your lack of willingness to read an artist's statement. The only reason I bring it up is because of your OP which seemed to have a questing nature to it. I thought that if you were curious enough to look up Calder and then trash him and all of abstract art, you might like to inform yourself on what you're trashing.  Sometimes when we take the time to learn about other people and their processes it can be personally enriching. For example, I would be quite happy if professional sports did not exist but I like to read about the athlete's mindset/process/techniques etc. I can appreicate their professionalism without being in the least bit interested in watching or participating in any of it. Except for Olympic Pole Dancing maybe.

Now what do you think of the photograph that just sold for a cool 3 mill?