Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

pop art questions

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:18 am

another false dichotomy, I don't think you can split it like that, but I'll try to answer your question on your terms

artist tech/genius

LdV 10/10
Raph 10/9
HB 9/8
V 10/8 (although as you know Mrs Taw would disagree with that as he's her fav)
T 9/10
Rube 7/9

they're all brilliant artists although I'm not a big fan of Rube, sloppy painting like Sir "Sloshua" Reynolds, I prefer an emphasis on line and draughtsmanship myself.

No Michelangelo? he would provide a better contrast with LdV rather than the sweetness of Raphael.



.."Give in to lust,
Give up to lust, oh heaven knows we'll Soon be dust"..

Post Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:49 am

I omitted Michelangelo because I felt he would make a hash of my false dichotomy.

I used Raphael instead because I thought that his "popularity" might hint at whether it was his technique that was so beloved.

I was surprised that you rated Rembrandt so much the lesser than many of these guys.

I like V myself but it is more of a visceral reason than anything to do with skill or genius. I would have rated him no differently than Rembrandt.

Post Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:19 am

Vermeer was (imo) the most technically skilled of all the "Flemish" school and brought together many techniques utilised by other painters. The "mystery" of his time-frozen interiors isn't a mystery at all, no more than the Mona Lisa's smile* is a "mystery" - it's all technique. But Vermeer does it so well, a virtuoso performance, that the untrained eye doesn't see the technique.

However Rembrandt never made any attempt to hide his technique, in fact he flaunted it. I 'd say on balance he was probably more creative than Vermeer in the sense that he was more experimental and empirical, and had a much greater output, and did a lot of work for himself, whereas Vermeer was more technical, more interested in optics and perspective theory, and did a lot less work, mostly to commission.

*why isn't it a mystery - sfumato, literally "smokiness;" In the mid-to-late Renaissance, artists developed this technique to soften contours and line (as a reaction to the predominance of Florentine draughtsmanship as exemplified by Piero della Francesca, Andrea Mantegna, Ghirlandaio and Domenico Veneziano. Neo-Platonically, this technique was justified in that it supposedley revealed a dualism of character, but visually it produced a more painterly and rounded technique than the flatter and more decorous leftovers from the earlier and pre-Renaissance styles.

there you go, another free art history lesson. Now you can go to the Louvre and when you're being fed full of sh*t about about the Mona Lisa's smile, you can cut the guide-prat dead by saying "Huh, just sfumato that is, no bloody mystery at all.."

if you ever get round to it and get yourself to Italy or Holland, I'll meet you there and give you and Mrs Ed a proper introduction to the Italian and Flemish Renaissance, and not the drivel the tour guides spout off for the masses.



..the Devil will find work for idle hands to do; i stole and I lied, and why? because you asked me to..

Edited by - Big Monkey on 6/12/2004 2:46:56 AM

Return to Off Topic