Is that a sequel to “I Loved Her, But She Was a Zombie”? (Actual title is something like “I Saw Her Standing There (And Then She Was a Zombie).”) Or are you referring to in-universe feels here, or a reference I don’t get?
On the fancy art you aren’t allowed to touch front, a family friend when I was a kid had a wire sculpture by someone relatively famous that I’m sure was worth a small fortune, but it was expressly designed to be touched. Always liked that thing.
There’s a group, the name of which I can’t remember, creating computer programs so that classical paintings can be reinterpreted with a 3D printer so blind people can touch them. Or little kids, I suppose. Tactile exhibits always get a bigger crowd at galleries and museums than ‘no touching’ ones.
So the guy was impressed with an angel wing, a random assortment of red colored lines, a thorny rose growing in the dark and bathroom stall people, but Andi’s shoe art is crap?
At least Andi’s is outside the box creative and not generic.
I can see being impressed with the wing and the flower in the darkness. It’s obvious that a LOT of work went into those. I’m not sure what the point of all the red lines is supposed to be, but there was work that went into that one too, even if it’s confusing. The “Bathroom stall people,” as you put it, do appear to be somewhat lacking in creativity, although I assume that the artist did have something that he was trying to say.
How the curator could give the okay to “bathroom stall people,” and NOT to Andi’s piece, I don’t know. Andi’s piece certainly deserves to be there. But the other pieces also deserve to be there.
I believe the “bathroom stall people” is trying to point out how people ignore signs of abuse. The “mom” has a black eye, and the “daughter” has bruising on her shoulder and hip.
Not sure why I quoted mom and daughter, but there it is. Not like i can go back and change it. (/end bad ?joke?)
I don’t think the guy was the curator. I think he was an art critic and the woman he was talking with was the curator. Andi’s piece was already installed before he arrived. (We see the front of the ‘dead panda’ gallery before cutting to the interior.)
I like the red lines one, and the rose. The bathroom one, I think is meant to be symbolic. And sculpture is the “meh” part of arts to me, so I have nothing to say.
I’m not trying to dump on the other art. It seemed he though Andi’s message was ‘a little girl throwing a tantrum’ and yet we have, ‘a woman is like a thorny rose struggling to grow in a dark place.’ ‘A woman is like an angel/fallen angel’ and then the abuse one. I mean if he’s gonna point fingers then those are all clichéd as hell. They’re nice art, but they are in no way more profound or meaningful or artistic than the one he called a piece of crap.
At least for Andi’s you kinda have to think about or you can interpretat it in many ways.
I’m so done with flowers as metaphors for femininity ,my first thought when Todd said he liked the flower one was “Waitwut??” Maybe I’m projecting by my sister who’s an architect and would like the redlines one, but cheesy and trite hold no water with me.
I kinda thought the ‘bathroom figures’ one was actually the darkest and most poignant piece- notice that it is a male figure standing between two female figures with wounds, obviously it’s about domestic violence.
I’m talking about the critic guy. He seemed to be giving Andi shit for her art being uninspired, but at a first glance all of this art is technically uninspired and clichéd so he has no room to call Andi’s art just tantrum crap.
I don’t know what the other art is inspired by it could be any number of things, but first thoughts of looking at it made me think of tired clichéd bullcrap. So I’m a little floored at his comments on how great the other art was, but Andi’s was somehow terrible, because my first impressions are anything but.
Ah, my… Art is art. Everyone looks and sees what they see. There is no good or bad. Meanings can be assigned or not. Someone will always like some and hate others. ‘Tis the way of things. It’s all individual — the art as well as the onlookers. Perception:) My personal take? Pohl’s wife’s art could be cultural and not necessarily feminine-themed. The rose growing out of the sidewalk, casting light in a dark world amid what looks like rain or snow… Yeah. That’s pretty clearly how the artist views how women are viewed today. I totally do not get the female/male/female child art except the extra discolorations on the woman and child may mean that women have it in for them because the man remains untouched? Perhaps even quite literally. And all those lines… That is some passionate art. Model of society? Frustration and menstruation? Abuse? Hates men? Who knows:)
Again, these are all just what one person sees. To me, Andi’s art is exactly what she said it was.
I used to think modern art was stupid. Then I wandered by accident into a Robert Ryman exhibit. You know, the “White On White” guy, the quintessential modern artist?
I spent half an hour going “This is stupid.” And then I saw it. A small ugly gray dented cardboard box, next to an attractive architectural model in the same shape… but it was white.
And I was enlightened. And I reexamined the rest of his pieces I had thought were stupid. And they turned out to be brilliant, each in a different way.
And I resolved, then and there, to never criticize a piece of modern art until I had understood it.
It turns out that a lot of modern art is actually really cool, if you take time to understand it rather than dismissing it out of hand.
That picture on the right is full of feels.
Is that a sequel to “I Loved Her, But She Was a Zombie”? (Actual title is something like “I Saw Her Standing There (And Then She Was a Zombie).”) Or are you referring to in-universe feels here, or a reference I don’t get?
The picture strikes an emotional cord with me.
I;m glad I’m not the only one to divvy up territory after a breakup. I always thought I was just being weird,
…well the one on the right is rather depressing.
On the fancy art you aren’t allowed to touch front, a family friend when I was a kid had a wire sculpture by someone relatively famous that I’m sure was worth a small fortune, but it was expressly designed to be touched. Always liked that thing.
Hm, guessing the wings are by Pohl’s wife?
I’ve got 50 internet cookies that says you’re right. Who’s betting against?
There’s a group, the name of which I can’t remember, creating computer programs so that classical paintings can be reinterpreted with a 3D printer so blind people can touch them. Or little kids, I suppose. Tactile exhibits always get a bigger crowd at galleries and museums than ‘no touching’ ones.
So the guy was impressed with an angel wing, a random assortment of red colored lines, a thorny rose growing in the dark and bathroom stall people, but Andi’s shoe art is crap?
At least Andi’s is outside the box creative and not generic.
I can see being impressed with the wing and the flower in the darkness. It’s obvious that a LOT of work went into those. I’m not sure what the point of all the red lines is supposed to be, but there was work that went into that one too, even if it’s confusing. The “Bathroom stall people,” as you put it, do appear to be somewhat lacking in creativity, although I assume that the artist did have something that he was trying to say.
How the curator could give the okay to “bathroom stall people,” and NOT to Andi’s piece, I don’t know. Andi’s piece certainly deserves to be there. But the other pieces also deserve to be there.
I believe the “bathroom stall people” is trying to point out how people ignore signs of abuse. The “mom” has a black eye, and the “daughter” has bruising on her shoulder and hip.
Not sure why I quoted mom and daughter, but there it is. Not like i can go back and change it. (/end bad ?joke?)
I don’t think the guy was the curator. I think he was an art critic and the woman he was talking with was the curator. Andi’s piece was already installed before he arrived. (We see the front of the ‘dead panda’ gallery before cutting to the interior.)
I like the red lines one, and the rose. The bathroom one, I think is meant to be symbolic. And sculpture is the “meh” part of arts to me, so I have nothing to say.
The bathroom one is probably about Domestic Violence. Those look like bruises on the women
I’m not trying to dump on the other art. It seemed he though Andi’s message was ‘a little girl throwing a tantrum’ and yet we have, ‘a woman is like a thorny rose struggling to grow in a dark place.’ ‘A woman is like an angel/fallen angel’ and then the abuse one. I mean if he’s gonna point fingers then those are all clichéd as hell. They’re nice art, but they are in no way more profound or meaningful or artistic than the one he called a piece of crap.
At least for Andi’s you kinda have to think about or you can interpretat it in many ways.
I’m so done with flowers as metaphors for femininity ,my first thought when Todd said he liked the flower one was “Waitwut??” Maybe I’m projecting by my sister who’s an architect and would like the redlines one, but cheesy and trite hold no water with me.
I kinda thought the ‘bathroom figures’ one was actually the darkest and most poignant piece- notice that it is a male figure standing between two female figures with wounds, obviously it’s about domestic violence.
I thought the big woman had a flower in her hair and the little woman had a flower print dress.
Maybe it’s just a nice picture of a flower and a pretty statue, you are reading things from it that might not even be there. :p
Didn’t Andi say something along the lines that she just felt like destroying a wall when making hers?
I’m talking about the critic guy. He seemed to be giving Andi shit for her art being uninspired, but at a first glance all of this art is technically uninspired and clichéd so he has no room to call Andi’s art just tantrum crap.
I don’t know what the other art is inspired by it could be any number of things, but first thoughts of looking at it made me think of tired clichéd bullcrap. So I’m a little floored at his comments on how great the other art was, but Andi’s was somehow terrible, because my first impressions are anything but.
Also art is meant to be read into.
The angel wing kind of makes me think of Maleficent’s wings on display after being torn off. I like it but its odd with that thought-inspired lens.
Red lines makes me think of Jackson Pollock. The rose looks like not only is it in a dark place but it’s rising from the cracks in a sidewalk.
Ah, my… Art is art. Everyone looks and sees what they see. There is no good or bad. Meanings can be assigned or not. Someone will always like some and hate others. ‘Tis the way of things. It’s all individual — the art as well as the onlookers. Perception:) My personal take? Pohl’s wife’s art could be cultural and not necessarily feminine-themed. The rose growing out of the sidewalk, casting light in a dark world amid what looks like rain or snow… Yeah. That’s pretty clearly how the artist views how women are viewed today. I totally do not get the female/male/female child art except the extra discolorations on the woman and child may mean that women have it in for them because the man remains untouched? Perhaps even quite literally. And all those lines… That is some passionate art. Model of society? Frustration and menstruation? Abuse? Hates men? Who knows:)
Again, these are all just what one person sees. To me, Andi’s art is exactly what she said it was.
I used to think modern art was stupid. Then I wandered by accident into a Robert Ryman exhibit. You know, the “White On White” guy, the quintessential modern artist?
I spent half an hour going “This is stupid.” And then I saw it. A small ugly gray dented cardboard box, next to an attractive architectural model in the same shape… but it was white.
And I was enlightened. And I reexamined the rest of his pieces I had thought were stupid. And they turned out to be brilliant, each in a different way.
And I resolved, then and there, to never criticize a piece of modern art until I had understood it.
It turns out that a lot of modern art is actually really cool, if you take time to understand it rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Thank you, Robert Ryman!