On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM Charles Haynes
wrote:
> Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal
> at the Tate. I now "get" him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could
> not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work
>
Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal
at the Tate. I now get him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could
not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work
reproduced in art books, or viewing reproductions of his work. However
once I was actually *there*
On 4/24/07, Lawnun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these
works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the
status of the prior owner? When I read the economist piece, it struck me
that part of the
On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp
Super...
quote
Subbana always reacted sharply to the criticism that Neenasam's
activities at Heggodu are irrelevant in a poor country like ours. The
On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but i think you will agree that the public is not a apriori
conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence
through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not
emerge spontaneously.
There was a recent
of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder,
unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is
malevich:
The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective
feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the
It feels nice that one can get so much good information to understand
art... Being rather art-illiterate (I can appreciate good landscapes, is
all), I have newfound respect for art. But, I still do not understand
art any better than I did yesterday. I guess this is how my wife feels
when I
Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the
representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact
that feeling had here assumed external form
this tension between communication vrs intent has a long history and
something that gets hotly contested when in comes to
At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers
showed their film of a train pulling into a platform
I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've
looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas?
Is there anything that's not up on youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk
On 4/25/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers
showed their film of a train
At 2007-04-25 19:53:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anything that's not up on youtube?
Wow. I didn't even *think* of looking on Youtube.
Thank you!
-- ams
Is there anything that's not up on youtube?
super! thanks.
well, if the Lumiere's are there then Feynman has to be there too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfVX3f5q30
On 4/26/07, Aditya Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anything that's not up on youtube?
stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth?
apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david
rockefeller who's selling it.
-rishab
1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg
2.
$46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any
painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of
color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more
compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or
even a print or photo of
That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese.
Deepa.
On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any
painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of
color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods
Agreed. An excellent description. As I've only seen the copies (or images
on the web), I never really saw how a Rothko work commanded the $ that it
does. I have a new appreciation.
On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these
works of art are high both due to
thanks for that interesting take on Rothko, Danese.
minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job.
And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one
almost seems warranted to ask, what's so great about that black
square on white background? Even I could
17 matches
Mail list logo