I loved the one with the spotty dog in a red collar on the train with red seats. Fashion shot! In a similar art vein I liked the vintage dressed chap in brown against the blue building. Lovely feeling of time in motion.
However, try as I might, I couldn’t locate the stuffed dog supposedly peeking out in the Jubilee Gardens Dog Show. I think the caption writer made it up!
I have not used this picture restorer’s services but did get in touch for a quote once and she is really friendly and helpful.
You would need to post to Germany.
https://instagram.com/starkrestauriert?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==
The beginnings of art, among others?
Featured, I think, rather sadly in the winderful (!) wonderful film ‘The English Patient’, with a mesmerising soundtrack
Is theft art, or is art theft?
Emperors new suit of clothes, personally I like the minimilist look, they resemble my acoustic panels,
I don’t analyse why I’m drawn towards particular examples of art or music. I just feel an immediate attraction, an emotional response.
However, I’m reading (1) that what I look at, or hear, that which attracts me in art, music (and faces), is due to an increase in dopamine as a result.
But also (2) that such attraction is due to “simplicity, pattern, rhythm, symmetry, certain juxtapositions of colour, specific combinations of musical notes and physical elements arranged in certain ratios and geometries”.
I’d like to know why I was immediately attracted to Canaletto as a teenager on 1st visit to the National Gallery in London. And later on, to Kandinsky.
Do I follow the dopamine route or the fractals, golden ratio & symmetry route?
I prefer the dopamine rote!
Seems to me it’s not theft, but first and foremost a breach of contract.
The artist was contracted and paid in advance to re-produce some of his earlier work (dubious curatorial decision in my book). Instead he failed to honour the contract and claimed the gesture as a radical work of art. As I posted before on SF, placing something or some action in the category of ‘art’ is a separate issue to any judgement of quality. In this case it may also be ultimately counter-productive. I regard this joke as an expensive one liner (nothing to do with ‘Charlie’!) - just adolescent stuff…
I’m reasonably sure the artist considers it art, and I agree that identifying something as a piece of art makes no statements about the quality of the piece.
