"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
09/05/2015 at 22:51 • Filed to: Bob Ross
7
13|
"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
09/05/2015 at 22:51 • Filed to: Bob Ross | 7
| 13 |
then why do Bob Ross videos leave me speechless?
“Let’s start on our beautiful green meadow now.” *immediately dips into the red paint*
djmt1
> Wobbles the Mind
09/05/2015 at 22:56 |
|
|
Wobbles the Mind
> djmt1
09/05/2015 at 23:12 |
|
I forgot ERB, I was around when the first Hitler vs Vader dropped and fell out with age. This reminded me; I think Bob Ross and Fred Rodgers will end up gaining word of mouth military stories that rival any season of Walker Texas Rangers.
Nibby
> Wobbles the Mind
09/05/2015 at 23:27 |
|
Tonight... are paintings pictures?
|
Wobbles the Mind
> Nibby
09/05/2015 at 23:45 |
|
Well you paint with paint, and you can paint a picture. You can also picture a painting, and picture a picture. Therefore, you can infer that one may picture a paint before painting a painting of a painting of a picture being taken of someone painting a picture.
|
Nibby
> Wobbles the Mind
09/05/2015 at 23:48 |
|
“Modernist painting in its latest phase has not abandoned the representation of recognizable objects in principle. What it has abandoned in principle is the representation of the kind of space that recognizable objects can inhabit. Abstractness, or the non-figurative, has in itself still not proved to be an altogether necessary moment in the self-criticism of pictorial art, even though artists as eminent as Kandinsky and Mondrian have thought so. As such, representation, or illustration, does not attain the uniqueness of pictorial art; what does do so is the associations of things represented. All recognizable entities (including pictures themselves) exist in three-dimensional space, and the barest suggestion of a recognizable entity sufffices to call up associations of that kind of space. The fragmentary silhouette of a human figure, or of a teacup, will do so, and by doing so alienate pictorial space from the literal two-dimensionality which is the guarantee of painting’s independence as an art. For, as has already been said, three-dimensionality is the province of sculpture. To achieve autonomy, painting has had above all to divest itself of everything it might share with sculpture, and it is in its effort to do this, and not so much — I repeat — to exclude the representational or literary, that painting has made itself abstract.” - Clement Greenberg
415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
> Wobbles the Mind
09/05/2015 at 23:51 |
|
|
Wobbles the Mind
> Nibby
09/05/2015 at 23:57 |
|
Huh, that was far more interesting than I was expecting over Labor Day weekend. Something similar happened with art music but moved in the opposite direction than what this Clement excerpt implies of the counterpoint between painting and sculpture. Granted only composers see music as two dimensional against sound holding three dimensions and music needing to match that through abstraction. Ill have to crack back open my college binders tomorrow. You got me thinking, dammit!
|
Wobbles the Mind
> 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
09/05/2015 at 23:59 |
|
No such thing as a mistake, only happy little arsony.
|
Nibby
> Wobbles the Mind
09/06/2015 at 00:01 |
|
Keep in mind this was written in the 50s and 60s.
|
Wobbles the Mind
> Nibby
09/06/2015 at 00:21 |
|
Thats still relevant, all the arts ran pretty similar once the 1900s hit. Not sure what made them mesh so closely starting then though. Maybe everyone was just better informed with what others were doing. Thanks again.
|
Nibby
> Wobbles the Mind
09/06/2015 at 00:22 |
|
My point was moreso that even though it was written 50-60 years ago, it’s still largely relevant. Sure thing, have a good night o/
user314
> Wobbles the Mind
09/06/2015 at 03:44 |
|
deekster_caddy
> Wobbles the Mind
09/06/2015 at 08:17 |
|
The man was a genius. Totally deserved his own show!