MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

06 August 2010

I like how the article is like "Famed mural Guernica is just 11ft by 26ft"--I've seen that painting and it's amazingly huge. Which I just shows that this one is like, SUPER amazingly huge.
posted by leesh 06 August | 07:32
leesh, I was thinking the exact same thing. Guernica also has a TON of stuff going on with it that I don't see in this one. Pretty awesome nonetheless.

Is it typical that an artist will have someone else do the actual painting and then sign the work? That seemed odd to me about this one.
posted by Stewriffic 06 August | 07:38
He did do the design and painted a smaller version, so the ideas are still his. He was famous, yo! Famous people don't have time to paint a picture the size of a building.

I thought it was a little weird too though.
posted by leesh 06 August | 08:26
Neat!
posted by Joe Beese 06 August | 09:39
I was also going to comment on the caption: "Dwarfed: Famed mural Guernica is just 11ft by 26ft"

Nyah! Take that, stupid Guernica!
posted by Atom Eyes 06 August | 10:23
Whoa, that's a big, chunky, pair of        dancers. Will definitely check out that exhibition.
posted by TheophileEscargot 06 August | 13:01
Really? Bigger than Guernica? That's enormous -- my husband and I shared the room with it and its enormous emotional power a couple of months ago.
posted by bearwife 06 August | 13:57
Guernica is obviously the WAY more important work. This one is cool and I'd go see it if it was in my city, but seeing Guernica is one of those things on my life's wish list.
posted by BoringPostcards 06 August | 20:36
It looks to be in terrible shape, but maybe it was meant to be that way? I think it's kind of going too far to call it Picasso's biggest work, since it is just an enlargement, painted by someone else.
posted by DarkForest 07 August | 07:37
Is it typical that an artist will have someone else do the actual painting

There's some famous japanese artist who just designs all his paintings, but leaves all the actual painting to his helpers. I forget the name though. I think this is just more of a modern trend.
posted by DarkForest 07 August | 07:40
Takashi Murakami, darkforest? My friend works for him.
posted by gaspode 07 August | 08:37
There's some famous japanese artist who just designs all his paintings, but leaves all the actual painting to his helpers. [...] I think this is just more of a modern trend.

I've always been really fascinate by this question: who is the artist? It's a bigger and more tangled question that it seems at first blush.

We know that the works of many Renaissance masters were actually outlined or blocked in by their apprentices; Andy Warhol made an Industrial Age version of this artist's workshop; conceptual artists are still artists, even if they use entirely pre-manufactured goods (hi there, Marcel DuChamp!) or if the exhibit of an installation is constructed by other people. So who is the artist, and by what criteria have we decided that? That's one of the most interesting questions to ask in an art history classroom, because different people have such wildly varying answers and reasons and gut reactions.
posted by Elsa 07 August | 09:19
Photo Friday: Abstractions || Anyone up for a little MP3 Shuffle-a-gogo?

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN