RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH!

RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

marieToo -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 1:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveMastery quote: ORIGINAL: mgdartist Gotta love this forum and it's arrogant, presumptive, labeling, condescending core membership. As an artist I know our ideal role in society is that of the visionary who seeks to speak in the conversation which has been going on for centuries which is in its essence, the avant-garde. All my career I've had to nonetheless deal with the stigma's and stereotypes that very society seeks to impose on visial artists, nor do I villify you for doing so madame, as you are by far not the first. Granted, historically, many artists were known to be self-indulgent, compulsive and self-destructive, and I've learned that their personal predilictions and percieved character flaws were less than irrelevant to the legacy of their genius, which society usually vindictively refuses to recognize till they've passed. So it's always been, and their "pain, anguish and rage" simply called angst, can invariably be traced back to others like yourself, who see them as a threat or pariah, or who perhaps find their vision distasteful, or them personally, and justify judging them by identifying their character flaws and imperfections, and then reach their goal of being superior to them. It's an easy rationale. But this is all academic, being a time honored tradition, so thanks for playing. I have no need to defend myself, nor admit my personal imperfections here, knowing it would not make a dent in your preconceptions either way, of me or those like me, in the slightest. You said my words reminded you of someone I doubt you fully approve of, and if not, you've shown your true colors, since it isnt your place to approve of him or me. And what any of this has to do with men's confessions on breasts, I have failed miserably to see. Sorry, I just get back from trashing my studio and am too stoned and drunk to read your post...can you repost it with bigger letters and smaller words? [grin] Don't make me have to lower your A+.

marieToo -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 1:27:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I also wanna say that there are situations where it can be too much of a good thing, if you got 5 or 7 or something, you might wanna mention that. Ron Why does the term "sucking hind tit" come to mind?

slaveMastery -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 1:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Don't make me have to lower your A+. [gulp] OH NO!! Not my A+!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 2:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mgdartist Gotta love this forum and it's arrogant, presumptive, labeling, condescending core membership. As an artist I know our ideal role in society is that of the visionary who seeks to speak in the conversation which has been going on for centuries which is in its essence, the avant-garde. All my career I've had to nonetheless deal with the stigma's and stereotypes that very society seeks to impose on visial artists, nor do I villify you for doing so madame, as you are by far not the first. Granted, historically, many artists were known to be self-indulgent, compulsive and self-destructive, and I've learned that their personal predilictions and percieved character flaws were less than irrelevant to the legacy of their genius, which society usually vindictively refuses to recognize till they've passed. So it's always been, and their "pain, anguish and rage" simply called angst, can invariably be traced back to others like yourself, who see them as a threat or pariah, or who perhaps find their vision distasteful, or them personally, and justify judging them by identifying their character flaws and imperfections, and then reach their goal of being superior to them. It's an easy rationale. But this is all academic, being a time honored tradition, so thanks for playing. I have no need to defend myself, nor admit my personal imperfections here, knowing it would not make a dent in your preconceptions either way, of me or those like me, in the slightest. You said my words reminded you of someone I doubt you fully approve of, and if not, you've shown your true colors, since it isnt your place to approve of him or me. And what any of this has to do with men's confessions on breasts, I have failed miserably to see. Tell me of one supposed great artist that wasn't recognized in his/her life time? It seems to me if you don't get a name in your own life time, you simply stay in obscurity and probably deservedly so but who knows. I know there is the odd one or two whose names were promoted after their death but they are very much the exception that proves the rule. There really isn't anything wrong with a vice or two to help the creative juices flow. I would have thought posting on CM indicated the odd predeliction to a vice or two.

slaveMastery -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 2:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Tell me of one supposed great artist that wasn't recognized in his/her life time? It seems to me if you don't get a name in your own life time, you simply stay in obscurity and probably deservedly so but who knows. Franz Schubert died in poverty and with lacking appreciation of his music. It wasn't until after his death that he achieved national (Austrian) and then international acclaim.

meatcleaver -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 2:47:38 PM)
I did say 'I know there is the odd one or two whose names were promoted after their death but they are very much the exception that proves the rule.' The most often stated one is van Gogh but he was well connected in the art world and if he hadn't killed himself at the tender age of 37, he would have died a hugely famous and influential artist.

slaveMastery -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 2:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I did say 'I know there is the odd one or two whose names were promoted after their death but they are very much the exception that proves the rule.' The most often stated one is van Gogh but he was well connected in the art world and if he hadn't killed himself at the tender age of 37, he would have died a hugely famous and influential artist. Point well taken. It would appear that Schubert, unlike van Gogh, was deprived of the privilege of suicide by means of syphilis beating him to the punch.

NYMaster101 -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 4:02:16 PM)
I like all sizes and shapes as long as they are real. However, I am very much into breast bondage and breast play, so I guess you'd say they have to be big enough to properly tie and bind . That being said, I would not make breast size the first thing I consider when selecting a partner.

Lordandmaster -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 4:06:41 PM)
That's a good one. Johann Sebastian Bach is another. He wasn't exactly OBSCURE, and he certainly enjoyed a pleasant life, but he wasn't widely acknowledged as a great master until the 19th century. Then there's Emily Dickinson, who wasn't known as a poet in her lifetime because she never published her work. So I guess that one doesn't count. Generally, though, I have to say that meatcleaver's principle holds. Most great artists were recognized as great artists during their lifetime. Sometimes contemporaries think an artist is great and posterity eventually comes to disagree (oh, like Carl Maria von Weber, I guess), but rarely does posterity discover a great artist who was wholly disregarded in his lifetime. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveMastery quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Tell me of one supposed great artist that wasn't recognized in his/her life time? It seems to me if you don't get a name in your own life time, you simply stay in obscurity and probably deservedly so but who knows. Franz Schubert died in poverty and with lacking appreciation of his music. It wasn't until after his death that he achieved national (Austrian) and then international acclaim.

marieToo -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 4:42:18 PM)
General reply to the artist schtuff: I would imagine there are thousands of artists who go their entire lives and never become well-known. Just as there are singers and people with a multitude of various talents (great and small) who never seize, create or otherwise receive the opportunity to become famous or appreciated in their lifetime. Maybe Im missing something here, but I don't see this as being some kind of "its the world against artists" thing. I stereotype artists. Not as alkies or druggies...though Im sure they are no more or less immune than others, But as a people who are in general 'different'; each in their own way...but definately different than "non-artists". The ones I have known, seen, or been acquainted with on some level, clearly march to the beat of a different drummer. They seem to each have their own unique freakishness going on. I find it appealing and interesting and I appreciate the bent of artists like VanGogh. It's not a bad thing, I don't think. On Edit: Im not refering to suicide here.

mnottertail -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 4:45:53 PM)
What exactly the fuck does this all have to do with women's tits? Button Gwinnett

marieToo -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 4:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What exactly the fuck does this all have to do with women's tits? Button Gwinnett Dont you see? The CM men are far too sophisticated to make much adoo about something so trifle!

mnottertail -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 4:58:20 PM)
ado, trifling............. OK, I smell what you're cookin'.............. Vincent Price

ScooterTrash -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 6:08:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl Well i like breasts too....... and honestly i dont really care what they look like so long as they're breasts. I'm with Riot...size isn't a big deal, I just like tits (and other parts too)...lol.

mgdartist -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 7:01:26 PM)
Well god forbid I should ever again make a sweeping generalization where I am waxing vociferous about insinuations that I and my colleagues and proteges are likely a violent, drunken, doper artists, in a thread about male breast preferences no less. godforfuckingbid. LOL. I changed my mind..I only like very large D-cups with rings in both nipples. Anything less just won't do.

marieToo -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 7:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mgdartist Well god forbid I should ever again make a sweeping generalization where I am waxing vociferous about insinuations that I and my colleagues and proteges are likely a violent, drunken, doper artists, in a thread about male breast preferences no less. godforfuckingbid. LOL. I changed my mind..I only like very large D-cups with rings in both nipples. Anything less just won't do. Oh dear..Can I offer you a fine Thalo Blue to calm your nerves?

mgdartist -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 9:03:14 PM)
whatever marie it's your thread that got hijacked by all this artist stuff. if you dont care, i sure as hell don't.

marieToo -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 9:28:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mgdartist whatever marie it's your thread that got hijacked by all this artist stuff. if you dont care, i sure as hell don't. Like I can control this lot? lmaoo I think the consensus is in on the tit thing anyway: Men don't care about tits. Men don't think about tits. Men dont concern themselves with tits. And not only are men aroused by personality, but they barely even notice the tits of the broad they're stickin it to. lol So...yeah..I mean why beat a dead horse. I was diggin the artist chat myself---Interesting turn of events. I actually was inspired to go off and listen to DonMclean's, Vincent.

mgdartist -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 10:05:28 PM)
Oh well, in that case marie I'll share a couple of my favorite anecdotes about 2 famous artists. Picasso-known for his abstraction and cubism, was in his early years at the academy, one incredible draftsman, some say the best who'd ever lived. Rendering with such realism and flair, he'd already gained quite a following of patrons and collectors. Just before he left acadamia, he turned his back on realism forever, much to the chagrin of his then patrons, who set upon him one day on campus, fearing their investment in his work now valueless. The ensueing conversation is now legend, and one every artist and housewife collecting pretty pictures should understand: Patrons: "Picasso! Why have you forsaken representational art??!" Loathing them, and likely knowing them the true reason for the change, Picasso's reply was so profoundly correct: "Because it is the lie that tells the truth." Andy Warhol- A much misunderstood figure in american art, and his renowned "pop art" movement, is to be credited with changing the world of art as we, the artists know it. Because of him, we are now free to trace, use xerox and photography, and use our signatures based on originating the concept, no matter who painted or constructed the actual work. Indeed, after his famed portraits of Mao tse Tung and Marilyn Monroe etc. his later career was largely financed by the great demand for his portraits, which could be ordered by anyone. Having done so, Warhol protege's were sent to shoot polaroids of the intended subjects, and then they were used to make photo-silkscreens on prepainted canvas backgrounds(done by other warhol underlings), and after several canvasses were made, Andy himself would then spend a few minutes making his little "touches" usually in his typical "off-register" brightly colored way, and would invariably complete his contributions, including the main neccessity-his signature, in 15 minutes or less. The paintings were then remanded to the patron after they'd paid the standard Warhol portrait fee- $66,000

meatcleaver -> RE: OK MEN, I WANT THE TRUTH! (11/30/2006 11:27:03 PM)
Many of the old Masters barely touched much of their own work, merely drawing the cartoon, then having their students paint it and then adding the final touches before signing it off as an acceptable standard or to use the term, a masterpiece. This is why 'experts' have to look at the back of the painting for construction, materials and other aspects of the work to authenticate it rather than the quality of the painting itself. Many Rembrandts have swapped back and forth over the years between being accepted as being done by his hand or his students. Yet his later works done in his own style rather than the acceptable style of the day were so obviously his because a painter has yet to live that could have handled paint in such a way. Rembrandt really illustrates the difference in quality in art between studio masterpieces and artworks carried out entirely in his own hand. In a recent exhibition in Amsterdam where for some reason they showed Rembrandt along side Caravaggio, hanging similar themed paintings together. Rembrandt made Caravaggio look like a sleek painter of theatre designs who wasn't capable of capturing human emotion so had to resort to melodrama. What came out of Rembrandt's factory was above and beyond what any other painter as achieved (for my money) and sadly shows the impoverishment of todays art. Though on the up side, you can make your own modern masterpieces for the most part because you just copy the pre-copied imagery and use mechanical processes. You can see this with Rodin's stone carvings. His assistants used a a pointer to copy clay sculptures into stone, such as the kiss. You can see around the base of the kiss that the chisel marks are there for effect and are notgenuine marks from the cutting process. Rodins clay modelling is second to none, he made it look so easy but you can dump all his stone carvings in the Seine as second rate and that is what we have with mechanical processes, the second rate. Getting back to breasts. In Rembrandt's paintings of Saskia you can see lumps in her breasts that many believe to be breast cancer. Rembrandt if not turned on by breasts, studied them intensely.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875