Cornell

Muffin, why do you have testimonials from people in the 1400s reacting that way to a painting of poverty and/or elderly people? Anyway, thanks, at least you gave me 2! ;)))) That’s not exactly what I mean; it’s not the subject that interests me. I see we’re not on the same page. If someone paints a "senior" person (more respectful to call them that) and they do it "well," to me it’s "beautiful." Another example: "Il Quarto Stato," 1901, Pellizza da Volpedo. Some would say it’s contemporary; for me, contemporary has another time frame – I’ve said it before, so I’ll revise and push for "current" (does that work better?). Isn’t it a painting that depicts peasants or the working class? It seems to me to be a splendid painting, beyond the subject matter, don’t you think? Art is absolutely not based on what is represented but on "how" it is represented. Nes mentioned street art; well, I’ve seen, among many things, a painting with parked cars, a boulevard, and rain, so real, thanks to the painting technique and colors used, that I was pleasantly surprised. So at least there’s something to appreciate from these recent times, as far as I can see. My comment was a simple reflection; one can easily change their mind. Opinions are not unquestionable and non-negotiable (that would be a sort of mental dictatorship, wouldn’t it?). A bit of flexibility is needed, so if I say to you, "Damn, I hate everything about the artistic side of the last 30 years," and you reply, "But have you considered this, that, and the other?", if it’s really worth it, I can well change my mind and admit I said something foolish. Anyway, I appreciate a well-argued constructive critique (PANAPP) more than one-sided judgments without discussions.

I'm already sending it to print, dear.. Besides the cosmic legs, does he also want my legs in double poster format? (there's no comparison, right... I'm telling him, let him decide..) :PPP

Equal treatment.....

If someone had noticed that on the right of the om peig (Gimmi of course), there's a small box that says DEFIKATE and below it Denotizie, they would have read not one, but two news items about Slayer, the new album and the new single available for a preview.. UH! I've read better from them, I can't give it top marks this time, I hope they don't take offense.. But Sleier (precisely) who?

@PANAPP: thanks to you, I’ll gladly take a look.. Don’t worry about the vote, I told you.. Bye and thanks again..

Hi eze, what are you doing? Are you coming too or taking the next one? Anyway, you’ve demonstrated in your response all the theory I stated in my comment.. CVD. Bye dear, take care. p.s.: it's a blessing not to know you personally.

"They should not be discriminated against but helped because homosexuality is a psychological problem." But no. This is the biggest nonsense I've ever read, sorry, no offense. First: it is absolutely not a problem. Second: the psyche has nothing to do with it. It's just sexual orientation. Third: why are they TO BE HELPED? To do what?

@Ezechiele: I think you've taken too many punches... You're a bully, you have no idea what a constructive discussion is, you struggle to accept others' thoughts, you completely lack irony, your belief is to hit harder than the person in front of you, your reasoning is of a right-winger, and you're painfully sad, don't take it personally, broaden your horizons a bit and try to avoid insults and respond politely. I guess you have few friends, in the true sense of the word, and as for women, well, poor them... Open a blog, call it: "cool man: I'll kick your ass all!" I salute you. 175 comments and three votes, take that!

@PANAPP: Thank you.. I wrote the review precisely to have viewpoints opposite to mine. Still better to have 50 literate people bringing up things like this than too many thinking and presumptuous minds today who don't have a damn thing to say and only open their mouths to let the air in (culture can be a double-edged sword, and the true "culture," that is, when combined with an adequate brain, is possessed by very few, believe me, it's not enough to just recite what you've read in a book). I'm not talking about value, Warhol’s works have global value for example, they are highly sought after and masterpieces for most people, not for me; I’m talking about the taste for "beauty" that is inexorably fading away, and not beauty as an "artistic" calendar with two breasts and a butt or a steroid-enhanced physique and a pretty face. Even though there is much more culture today, I don't know how many can perfectly appreciate these works and treasure the immense legacy that has been left to us. David is from the 1500s, so that's 500 years ago, let's not get hung up on definitions like modern to establish it ranges from ... to ... or else you’ve just said something stupid. Modern should be understood as the last 30-40 years in my case. Next time I'll specify to avoid misunderstandings. Ah, thanks for the one to both of us (not that I care much about it, just that there are other reviews deserving a "1," definitely not this one, at least written in correct Italian with logically sound sentences, at least a "2" was warranted! :PP) @NES: "Street art" is interesting, I confess I was pleasantly struck by some works that look more like real photographs than paintings.

Look, I talked about contemporary art, not about the last few centuries. I didn't say that Monet, Manet, Van Gogh, Picasso, De Chirico, Dalì are crap.. I talked about contemporary painting, sculpture, and architecture. Contemporary means of our days, not of the last century... And today I see only things that are honestly unwatchable. If you give me an example of something I should be able to appreciate from a current sculptor or painter... Maybe I'll change my mind. A masterpiece maybe comparable to this or others from the past.