ITT we talk about unsolved mystories.
Who's the young man with Raphael ?
Is there any art of those coward vikings getting BTFO
![pb-120805-viking-cannonphotoblog900_zps9dd52988[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gsMwA31.jpg "pb-120805-viking-cannonphotoblog900_zps9dd52988[1].jpg")
here's a better unsolved mystery: why were the vikings literally unstoppable?
Who's the girl in the middle ?
>>466099
Because they were plebs. And there are plebs everywhere.
>>466090
Looks like a guy from the Vikings TV series.
>>466101
Mary Mother of Christ.
What did Rothko mean by this
>>466099
fug the trolls are here.. the literal Vikings of /his/
>>467746
Oh god!
>>467746
Orange and Yellow reflects Mark Rothko’s mature style, in which two or three rectangles are set within a background that surrounds them all, but divides them gently from one another. The edges of the rectangles are never distinct, avoiding an optical break and allowing viewers’ eyes to move quietly from other area to another in a contemplative way.
Rothko did not want us to think about him when looking at his paintings, so he tried to remove all evidence of the creation process. To accomplish this, he applied numerous layers of thin paint with a brush or rag to unprepared canvas, which absorbed the colors into its fabric. The many thin washes help to give his paintings a lightness and brightness, as if they glow from within.
Orange and Yellow was considered quite large in the 1950s, and Rothko asked viewers to stand close in order to be visually surrounded by the colors. His goal was for color to, in his words, “express . . . basic human emotions—tragedy, ecstasy, doom. . . . The people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them. And if you, as you say, are moved only by their color relationships, then you miss the point.”
>>469588
tl;dr: it's bullshit and shouldn't be considered art
>>469593
Thank god Rafael existed.
>>467698
I meant behind Mary.
>>469588
Tl;dr: the meaning of the work is to make intellectuals proud for their ability to say "its orange" in the most obscure and inaccesible way to sane human beings
>>469612
Not really, after reading moreabout Rothko and him talking about his art, I think he was being genuine in his mystical enjoyment of abstraction.
If anything his art echews intellectualism and art historical critique altogether and is all ablut 'getting it' on a personal/emotional level.
I for one don't get it and don't appreciate it, but I think Rothko himself did, and I've met others aho like his stuff without being able to articulate why, and I think that's fine. Once you try to explain why it impresses you so much it falls apart.
>>469791
I'm the one above you. I've seen them in real life and maintain my position. Yes seeing a bunch of them in a dimly lit room is more of an experience than thumbnails on 4chan, but it's no guarantee of 'getting it'.
I'd posit that if you put 10 big rocks in a dimly lit room you could have the same ritualistic experience.
>>469776
>>469791
You're retarded for liking this bullshit.
Have some *good* modern art.
>inb4 impressionism isn't modern art
>>470166
It is modern art but Monet is perhaps the most uninteresting of the lot if you wanna talk about 'deep' stuff.
Of just that period you have:
- Degas capturing he idea of motion in space
- Manet focusing on the flat picture plane
- Whistler's proto-abstract compositions
- Sargent for a melding of American and European sensibilities.
I'll give you late period Monet when he was going blind though
>>470166
>squiggles and smears of paint daubed into vague shapes
>good
>>469593
>and shouldn't be considered art
Based on what?
>>467746
I like to think that's sunset over sea.
>>470619
Mh.
>>470335
>I only appreciate landscape paintings
>>466090
Who is the young the man in the picture?
>>466090
his boyfriend, duh
>>470915
Write a thesis !
>>469889
I don't disagree with your comment about rocks. Anything that has the appearance of deliberate placement can be an object of contemplation, even if it is actually 'random', as in natural artifacts.
I am not always prepared to enjoy or appreciate art. It often does nothing for me. I find I can 'vibe' better after I've smoked a bowl.
>>470166
It's not like I'm a chauvinist for Rothko. I just like his paintings, unlike others here, and I wrote as much. Weirdly enough, one's taste can range pretty widely.
>>466090
It's Christ.
>>471808
It's not.
Was Jan van Eyck really Hand G?
>>467746
Literally Piss
>>471808
>It's Christ.
If it is Christ then he's been hitten the fucken cones too hard, also looks like he got ciggie butt brain.
>>474197
Bumping for this.
why did oswald shot kennedy
>>474992
Because
