Looks like the Frauenkirche (Church of Our Lady) in Dresden, Germany .
Thank you, I've updated the title
I don’t get the arrangement art thing. It’s satisfying to see things laid out neatly, but it’s also satisfying to power wash crud off my patio, and I wouldn’t call either one art.
But different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I think intention is a key element when it comes to defining what is and isn't art. From the very little I understand about the field, all something needs to be qualified as art is the existence of a canvas (patio) and an artist (you) and the intention—on your end—to leave an impression of your desire on the canvas.
If you one day decided —for shits and giggles— to power-wash the crud off your patio such that the end-result resembled Monalisa, would that be art? I'd say so, whether people around you say your patio-lisa bears a striking resemblance to the real thing or not depends entirely on how good you are with the power-washer; i.e, whether its good art or bad art is up to interpretation, but it will forever be qualified as art, to the extent that you wanted to make Patio-Lisa in the first place.
Which is what makes this type of art—alongside all abstract art—somewhat exhausting to interpret. You never know if the artist actually meant anything with these squares and lines and blocks of colors or if they're simply yanking your chain and you're risking the prospect of being scammed for believing there is meaning where there is none.
It's like running into a group of friends who's only ever listened to Eminem their entire lives telling you mumble rap is utter garbage before running into a gang of suit wearing rap aficionados telling you it has its place in modern day Hip-hop and you're put in this tough spot where you don't know who to believe...
or at least that's my take on it.
It reminds me of that one person who painted self portraits while progressing through dementia.
Picasso?
Ah, I mixed up 'looky' and 'look-see'
I'm gonna use this one comment to react to everyone else here.
I don't know if I should feel amused by the controversy this post has raked up, or feel happy finding out that the community is active after all (I was genuinely starting to believe we were dying out)
So I kind of feel both??
This artist is a self-proclaimed 'object arranger' so I think his works fall under 'arrangement art.' pretentious or not, I do believe in celebrating experimental forms of art rather than alienating them for not conforming to what is 'traditionally' accepted.
speaking of, to the people who feel confused by the name of the community, feel free to give the side-bar a little look-see for clarification. It's the best I could do under the circumstances and I positively believe more are in favor of it than against it. (I certainly think it's better than vague but misleading alternatives like "ArtPorn" or any kind of "Thing-Porn" for non-pornographic stuff, which is terminology that's somehow commonly accepted by people who grew up with reddit)
As far as my personal interpretation goes: I find myself reacting to the work the way I'd react to a sandcastle made by a little child, or ancient cave paintings or sculptures (like waaaay back, thousands and thousands of years ago where finding an odd shaped rock made you the coolest caveman in the tribe, for a month)
I think the only thought It has provoked in me thus far is: when does a pile of things cease being a pile of things and turn into a reflection of the time and place where it's from? would people react the same way if they saw an unexplored cave with specific arrangements of rock?
But yeah that's about all the attachment I have to this particular post. His works are in a folder among other folders which I shall empty 5-6 files a day so no, i will not stop posting this person's work until I've emptied out all the folders. feel free to upvote/downvote accordingly
And yes, to the extent that no-one other than me posts to this community, all the posts in here will be heavily flavored by the preferences of the ones posting. Don't like what you see? stop being grumpy about it and POST THINGS which you do like!
If this is shallow, show me what you think is DEEP!
peace
That is not thread!
I wouldn't believe this was oil paint even if you told me! that's how stunning it looks
The Codex Seraphinianus is an illustrated encyclopedia of an imaginary world, created by Italian artist, architect and industrial designer Luigi Serafini between 1976 and 1978. It is approximately 360 pages (depending on edition) and written in an imaginary language.
The Codex is an encyclopedia in manuscript with copious hand-drawn, colored-pencil illustrations of bizarre and fantastical flora, fauna, anatomies, fashions, and foods. The illustrations are often surreal parodies of things in the real world, such as a bleeding fruit, a plant that grows into roughly the shape of a chair and is subsequently made into one, and a copulating couple who metamorphose into an alligator.
From Wikipedia
this
so much this
Is this racist? It looks like it might be racist. Black hunched over and big nose, could easily be pretty problematic.
Let's see, here's what M.C Escher himself had to say about it:
"Out from the grey surface of a back wall there develops a complicated pattern of white and black figures of little men. And since men who desire to live need at least a floor to walk on, a floor has been designed for them, with a circular gap in the middle so that as much as possible can still be seen of the back wall. In this way they are forced not only to walk in a ring, but also meet each other in the foreground: a white optimist and a black pessimist shaking hands with one another. The optimist has his hand open, as a gesture of friendship. The pessimist has his finger raised, as a warning. Yet they shake hands, which lends the print a touch of the encouraging in these times of war."
Source : https://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl/escher-today/encounter/?lang=en
Reduces the printing cost I imagine.
you can make this a post if you want