1. All art is contrived.
2. Why don't you like it?
3. This has nothing to do with noise.
..........and Hall & Oates is better than most music. ( noise is not music. )
How about this one? A real Basquiat.
Unbleached Titanium - circa 1983
Moderator: Modulators
1. All art is contrived.
1..I mean contrived in the corporate negative derogatory sense not the literal sense dont get all Jliat broIndeterminacy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:08 pm1. All art is contrived.
2. Why don't you like it?
3. This has nothing to do with noise.
..........and Hall & Oates is better than most music. ( noise is not music. )
How about this one? A real Basquiat.
Unbleached Titanium - circa 1983
I think that seems like calling me out - I thought that was not in the rules?
Typical!However, the Homeric Question led to his name becoming a byword for harsh and malignant criticism: in antiquity he gained the name "Homeromastix," "scourge of Homer"; in the modern period, Cervantes calls Zoilus a "slanderer" in the preface to Don Quixote and there is also a (now disused) proverb, "Every poet has his Zoilus." Since his writings do not survive, it is impossible to know whether this caricature is justified.
A tree killed Jackson Pollack
Many of his peers speculated that his heroin use was a means of coping with the demands of his newfound fame, the exploitative nature of the art industry, and the pressures of being a black man in the white-dominated art world.[
JLIAT wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:36 amA tree killed Jackson Pollack
A shotgun killed Kurt Cobain
et al.
Many of his peers speculated that his heroin use was a means of coping with the demands of his newfound fame, the exploitative nature of the art industry, and the pressures of being a black man in the white-dominated art world.[
Shortly before his death, Rothko and his financial advisor, Bernard Reis, had created a foundation, intended to fund "research and education", that would receive the bulk of Rothko's work following his death. Reis later sold the paintings to the Marlborough Gallery, at substantially reduced values, and then split the profits from sales with Gallery representatives. In 1971, Rothko's children filed a lawsuit against Reis, Morton Levine, and Theodore Stamos, the executors of his estate, over the sham sales. The lawsuit continued for more than 10 years, and became known as the Rothko Case. In 1975, the defendants were found liable for negligence and conflict of interest, were removed as executors of the Rothko estate by court order, and, along with Marlborough Gallery, were required to pay a $9.2 million damages judgment to the estate. This amount represents only a small fraction of the eventual vast financial value, since achieved, by numerous Rothko works produced in his lifetime.[