Animal Farm

Title has been updated. Thanks!

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

I saw this and now you have to.

this

so much this

I created !traditional_art@lemmy.world for this exact reason

the real question should be: does it count as "art" in the first place, which is a question the art community has been trying to find the answer to since the last 107 years since it's been published.

I know next to nothing about art history and art movements but what i find really interesting is how its able to divide the community in half (as evidenced by the ratio of upvotes to downvotes on this very post)

It's a piece of art that makes you ask what is art in the first place.Now I agree one could probably poop on a plate or tape a banana to an exhibit wall to raise the same question, but Duchamp's works are iconic enough in the realm of modernism to warrant a discussion in the least.

As for it being traditional art or not, This community was created to promote any and all art that is "non-digital" in nature, so at least fountain falls under that umbrella.

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

Diogenes was a Greek philosopher who was known for living in a ceramic jar, disrupting Plato's lessons by eating loudly, urinating on people who insulted him, and pointing his middle finger at random people. He was also noted for having mocked Alexander the Great, both in public and to his face when he visited Corinth in 336 BC.

Reduces the printing cost I imagine.