![]() I'm not musical myself, but people who are say that Sir Richard Starkey basically reinvented the Rock n' Roll style of drumming, creating a number of techniques now mainstream in the genre, and many drummers cite him as an influence. Second, if you're one of those walrus's anal hairs who goes around saying that Ringo is "everyone's fifth favorite Beatle," or was a hack who "just got lucky," then go educate yourself. Note: That is NOT one of Ringo's drawings in the middle he's just being cute with his animated alter ego from "Yellow Submarine"-a movie I highly recommend to anyone who loves surreal fantasy or animation. Conductor on "Thomas the Tank Engine " and now wanders the realm as the Last of the Hippies spreading "Peace and Love" (his catch phrase). Ergo, most people who are geniuses at one thing, or even multiple things, will still have something else that just isn't quite their forte.Ĭase in point, Ringo Starr's MS Paint "art."įirst off, for those who don't follow pop culture too closely and don't know who I'm talking about, Ringo Starr (real name Richard Starkey) was drummer for the Beatles the first Mr. But most of us fall somewhere in between. And every once in a while there comes a Tommy Wiseau, who.isn't. But if he does, he's free to make fun of my appallingly tone-deaf singing voice.if he can dig the recordings out from behind the Lost Ark, and doesn't melt into a puddle of dust from listening to it.)Įvery once in a while, there comes a Leonardo Da Vinci, who is just amazing at everything they try. But if you think all modern art on that page would be found uninteresting by anyone without an art education I’d encourage you to do your experiment and I think you’d be surprised.(I'm hoping that Sir Richard Starkey never sees this. If you’re just saying in the end modern and classical art don’t exist as defined concepts except by showing individual pieces to people without art educations who are then qualified to sort them into modern or classical categories based on whether they find them interesting or wtf then fine, I don’t really agree but now I see what you’re saying. I would be surprised if you could really show a Van Gogh to someone without an art education, and without explaining the context, and they wouldn’t say it was interesting. This still seems to me like you have redefined modern and classical as interesting and not interesting art you like. So, show a piece to someone without an art education, and if they think it is interesting it’s classical art, and if they think it is wtf then it’s modern art, nothing to do with when it was made or the definitions of those terms today? ![]() I'm sorry, because I'm sure you didn't realize this, but your taxonomy breaks down to "pieces I like, for which the metadata is old," and "pieces I dislike, for which the metadata is recent."Įdit - or, at best, "pieces I like, with a continuous aesthetic tradition, which made quality easy to evaluate, for which the metadata is old," vs "pieces I dislike, created after that continuity disintegrated, which made quality very subjective, for which the metadata is recent." because there was a massive break in that continuity, and there is a real distinction between modern and "classical" art (at least in the European/Western tradition), but it just doesn't have anything to do with the metadata. and indeed even today two pieces of equivalent beauty and craftsmanship will not sell for the same price if one is a Michaelangelo and the other comes from a less famous artist. ![]() ![]() ![]() Except anyone with the slightest background in art history can tell you that those metadata mattered immensely for "classical art" pieces at the time that those pieces were made. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |