FREE - High Resolution Art Museum

Creative Forums Art, Music, and Entertainment
1

* Post a link to one of your favorite works, and maybe say what you like about it.*

WELCOME. You are about to enter one of the largest on-line museums on the
internet. A work in progress that features tens of thousands of high quality images
of the greatest painters and sculptors in human history.

2

Nice stuff.

However, I think it’s not complete. I mean, it’s like they’ve made tabula rasa of the entire 20th century. There are more than a few important names that aren’t on the list. I personally found no results on my search of Matisse, Chagall, Utrillo, Dufy, Kandinsky, Andre Derain. I presume they’re still working on it.

Here’s another useful site:

artcyclopedia.com/

I personally find that the grouping of artists under different categories, like movement, or nationality, is particularly useful.

3

Hi Mucius,

You seem to know much more about art/art-history than me.

I wonder if you could help me find the name of the artist who created this, or the name of the piece :

I have zero information on it I’m afraid… Can you help…?

4

I’m sorry to say, but I’m completely oblivious. Is it even on canvass ?

5

Great sites guys. Thanks.

6

~Kiss kiss~

très gentil.

7

mucius scevola is right. however, in theory ARC could do for art what ILP does for philosophy (although philosophy is more in need of it) - can’t be a bad thing. :wink:

8

I don’t know. Although I’d be - very surprised - if it wasn’t, given the amount of detail. Look at all the faces.

One clue might be the - crazy cloud face - in the top right corner - looks out of place, like a signature…?

Also, it could have been created as little as a year ago. I only found it last year, sitting in someones online Flickr album.

Here’s the link to the image if you - [size=117]or anybody[/size] - wants to email it around :

uk.geocities.com/sirebrum1/mystery_picture.jpg

9

You can’t do that on a PC ?

Hey, check out the name of the link:

You made the picture, man.

10

Hey, I was browsing through the catalogue of paintings in the ARC Museum that Ebrum, um, Sir Ebrum, recommended. I signalled before how a lot of 20th century artists are missing, but, magnanimous as you know me, I presumed the site is still under construction. Then I noticed that this hasn’t stopped other artists, infinitely less known, some of which are contemporary, to figure among the names listed. One constant characteristic that these “Living Masters” (as the ARC Museum likes to boast) share, is that their works are deeply mediocre. With no exception, their paintings are traditional realist art, mainly portraits of people performing utterly insignificant and useless trifles.

So I sought an explanation in the site’s pages that explain its philosophy, and I found one. As I had presumed, their policy is, in simple terms, to promote “academic” style art while denying the merits of modern artists.

Along 6 pages of mainly yawning propaganda, some guy tries to explain how modern art is cancerous and perverts real art through its nihilism, etc. :

“Modernism endeavours to outrage, insult and defile human feelings (i.e., sentiment) and to belittle and dismiss any expression of our sense of passion and beauty as just no more than mere sentiment, and in the next breath want us to think their work is passionate and beautiful.”

“Modern art theory has a completely different and as we shall see an entirely flawed way of viewing art.”

“Our 20th century has marked a period that celebrated the bizarre, the novel and the outrageous for its own sake. The defining parameter of greatness to Modernism is “has it ever been done before,” “Is it totally original where there is no derivation from any former schools of art,” “does it outrage,” “does it expand the definition of what can be called art?” I propose to you today that if everything is art then nothing is art. If I call a table a chair have I expanded the definition of the word table? Would this make me brilliant? If I call a hat a shirt have I expanded the definition of hat? If I call a nail a hammer, have I expanded the definition of the word nail? Am I now a genius? If I call screeching car wheels great music have I expanded the definition of music?

Or in reality have I perpetrated a fraud on the people who wanted to buy tables, hat, nails and music and instead got chairs, shirts, hammers and a headache.

Modernists have not expanded the definition of art at all. What they have done is attempted to destroy art, created icons that represent this destruction, and then called these icons the thing that they have destroyed i.e. works of art. A urinal* or an empty canvas, hung on the wall of a museum, are especially pure examples of this. They are not works of art but symbols of the victory of the Huns, who have sacked the bastions and forums of our culture. It would be like saying that the Roman Forum today is far greater architecture than it was when all the buildings and streets were intact.”

Etc etc ad nauseaum

*he’s probably thinking of Duchamp’s urinal

11

Good old [color=dark red]I don’t understand some of this, so I’ll lump it all together and dismiss the lot. Where would reactionary know-nothing cretins be without such flagrantly poor excuses for arguments? It’s basically the same attitude that fuels racism and similarly marginalising attitudes, but masquerading as high culture criticism.

An amusing find, Mucius. I’d tear the whole thing apart but I’m not in the mood and the England highlights are on in 20 minutes. :smiley: