Maxwell Render | Official public forum

At first, I thought there are photos. whoa.

http://www.raphaellaspence.com/






more artists and works.

http://www.bernarduccimeisel.com/flashIndex.html

and she's pretty... Man these are the real artits of today... but do you see them on TV.. never... you see just idiots.. star academy, US idol and so on... and stupid news..

I think I'll trash my TV very soon.. tv is obsolete.. I fell that was a thing to hypnotize us from thinking..

I want to go to an exhibition of her now... !

Thanks for the link Sandy..

WOW

I've had a look at the larger images on the second link and I still can't believe they're not photos

Herve,

When Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses..." it was only because TV hadn't been invented yet!

oz42 wrote:Herve,

When Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses..." it was only because TV hadn't been invented yet!

he he.. 100% right..

wow...nice pieces of art

she's talented & a hottie! wonder if she gives private art lessons..

/ Max

She's impressive on many levels.

I'm gonna get a lotta sh*t for this ...

I'm not that impressed, really. While I admit the girl's skilled, I feel she's not displaying any true artistic vison yet (!).

Good art is about hierarchy and choice. There's neither of those here. While physical reality's an interesting starting point, in itself it is not enough.

To see what I mean, compare, if you like, the works of Chuck Close and Philip Pearlstein to those of, say, Manet or Bacon.

Ugh. I have spoken.

Stinkie7000,

I agree with you...Looks to me that she has a really cool painting/rendering technique, but it doesn't seem to add any great shakes to the art scene...other than a nifty photocopy thing. To me it doesn't say anything other than what the original photo captured...

Stinkie7000 wrote:I feel she's not displaying any true artistic vison yet (!).

My first thought aswell, but then I had a look into her biography, exhibitions list and bibliography... looks like a lot of qualified people and galleries have other points of view...

KurtS wrote:

Stinkie7000 wrote:I feel she's not displaying any true artistic vison yet (!).

My first thought aswell, but then I had a look into her biography, exhibitions list and bibliography... looks like a lot of qualified people and galleries have other points of view...

You kidding? You gonna let other people make up you mind for ya? Mate, when it comes to appreciating art, don't blindly trust the experts. Go with your gut. Like what you like.

Take it from an expert.

Having a rigid concept of what art should be is a mistake in my opinion.

She demonstrates technical prowess with the medium, a natural understanding of light, adeptness with color etc.. She's simply performing an expression -- it is what it is. Picasso is what he is.

Everyone has to have an agenda, POV, assessment --- any chance of just letting things Be and then sitting back as a pure non-polarized perceiver? ..just a thought.

In her non-artistic way, .....she kicks ass.

How would one go about appreciating (and therefore judging) art as a "non-polarized perceiver"? The very nature of judging excludes that approach. Also, people are not cameras.

Don't get me wrong now. Sure, I have an agenda - but I don't expect people to adopt it. Plenty of different kinds of art for everyone. You like this stuff? Great - enjoy it as much as you can.

I've never quite understood why people take offense at another person's view on a certain artist (I don't mean that you're offended, it's a general remark). I used to be an art critic. You wouldn't believe the hate mail I got.

People usually take offense because the art critic tneds to project his own POV on the art with qualities that were perhaps were never intended by the artist. So his sentiment comes out of the gate as irrelevant. But you can also throw in that the one's who are contrary to the critic and just that because his opinion collides with that of the critic. Funny.

And it's quite easy to be non-polarized or indifferent to what your viewing. That doesn't mean having no thoughts, ....you simply witness the level of expression being exhibited with absolutely no attachments to the concepts of good or bad. It's called appreciation and recognition of the process.

But you see, .. humans always want to divide and separate everything. To prop up this as good, this as bad, ..this as desirable and so on .... This is ridiculous and un-evolved -- for all of the efforts that are deemed less than, bad or undesirable are undermined which is not an accurate assesment of the whole picture. This doesn't recognize the idea that there's always merit in a creative expression, .. even if it's a weak attempt, ..because the creative process is an ever-unfolding one.