In a message dated 30/05/00 18:07:03 GMT Standard Time, QueeneMUSE@aol.com
> Personally, I don't like either very much, but I have a differing opinion
> about skill level.
> Picasso began as a perfect realist, and he was a master painter at 16 --
> then he got bored with that and he branched off into all those different
> styles and periods, while Van Gogh struggled all his life with the
> aspects of painting, lacking in motor skills, but having much passion for
> work and being more consistant in his improvements.
I wasn't aware that Picasso started this way, do you know of web sites
showing his earlier realist work ?.
> But why would we want to talk abotu such old dea art? Whats happening
> year 2000??
Well, thats a good question. There is a lot of surrealist digital art
around. I do like the "magic eye 3-D" type of pictures, but its difficult to
judge there artistic value (same old story). The fastest moving from of art
as always is music. It is still keeping a steady pace with technology. I
wonder what the top ten of 2050 will soundlike ?. Perhaps the link between
visual art and sound will become even closer. I would imagine so.
It's not so hard to imagine that art in the future, art will be more
interactive and relative to the viewer. Pictures and music that change
according to mood etc. A bit like people today changing there computer
desktop to suite there mood.
What are your views on art today ?.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:11 MDT