yes hello i am called luka and i live in australia

gender neutral pronouns please

c2oh:

kaia has the originals.

I hope she frames these. Especially the first one.

pikeys:

Conrad Jon Godly - Sol (2013)

kaiami:

Tears of the Moon; 16x20 acrylic on canvas
Original will be at Qpop's Magical Girl Heroines: Sailor Moon and Sailor Senshi show in Little Tokyo on April 5th.

theremina:

Nova Express by Paul Komoda, 2014

Holy fucking shit, Paul.

So… full disclosure, Paul’s my buddy and my guinea pig baby daddy. (He adopted Ingy when B & I moved to NZ and he was the most doting caregiver imaginable.) He also did a ton of incredible illustration work for Coilhouse Magazine on the ultra-cheap, just because he believed in the project. I’ve been regularly looking his pieces and yelling “HOLY FUCKING SHIT, PAUL” since about 2007 or so, when Nadya first introduced us. His sketchbook alone… it’s… he’s… just… holyfuckingshit.

But this recent sculpey piece, commissioned by Artist Proof Studios, represents a whole new level of HOLYFUCKINGSHITPAUL HOLY FUCK HOLY FUCK FUCKING FUCKSAUCE SHIT GODDAMN WHAT THE FUCK in his career. “Nova Express” is currently blowing everyone’s minds at Monsterpalooza in LA. Facsimiles of it will eventually be available as a kit.

I do not know of any other visual artist whose work bridges the Lovecraftian/Burroughsian/Ballardian/Cronenbergian intersection quite so beautifully. I just really, really need to share this piece and encourage everyone who sees it to say HOLY FUCKING SHIT, PAUL. Because the dude works so hard, and he deserves to hear it more often.

Paul’s on Twitter, Facebook, Etsy. Go yell some love at him. Better yet, buy something. 

arvidaportfolio:

Wifi or Wife, shotby Arvida Byström 2014 for Bon Magazine

Mungo Thomson - Negative Space (2006)

yummytomatoes:

Undrowned

yummytomatoes:

Undrowned

shounen-shoujos:

not exactly new art but..

rhymeswithrad:

Paul Fryer

Lucifer (Morning star), 2008

Anodized aluminum, silicon rubber cord,

wax work figure, feathers, concrete

this is the single most painfully beautiful thing I’ve ever seen in my entire life.

april-liu:

i actually 

do not support nice sketchbooks 

I think they take too much time and effort and pull out the perfectionism and insecurity in every artist and you would improve much faster sketching through a big stack of copy paper on a clipboard

and yet…

aspidelaps:

randomweas:

Theo Jansen’s Strandbeest

wind babies

deerdashingdashing:

Tapes are interesting( *`ω´)

myampgoesto11:

Sculptures by Francesco Albano

Francesco Albano was born in Oppido Mamertina, Italy on November 19, 1976.  He lives and works in Istanbul and graduated from the sculpture department of Accademia di Belle Arti di Carrara in 2000. In 2005 he won the National Prize of Arts-MIUR for sculpture. In 2008 he had his first solo exhibition “Everyday Bestiary” curated by Flavio Arensi and Stefano Castelli at the Castle of San Giorgio di Legnano(MI). Dovevaccadere-SALe (space art legnano). The same year, Turkish director Cansin Sağesen made a short movie inspired by his works. In September 2009, he had his second solo exhibition “Five Easy Pieces” at Ex- Marmi Gallery in Pietrasanta. In June 2011 he had two sculptures in in the 54th International Art Exhibition in Venice Biennale at the Arsenale in the exhibition”Lo Stato dell’ Arte”. In December 2011 his sculptures series P.I.E.T.A.S. were exhibited at the gallery Studio 9 in Istanbul.

shredsandpatches:

halfhardtorock:

isozyme:

stunt-muppet:

sueting:

inappropriateresponses:

A much more accurate “now” image for direct comparison would be a photograph. Abstract art came about as a direct result of the invention of photography, as paintings no longer need to be representative, as photographs are inherently better at that task. Accurately representative paintings were just the photography of the pre-photography era. Portraits of nobility have been replaced by Sears Portrait Studio. Self portraits have been replaced by Instagram selfies. Paintings of historical events have been replaced by photojournalism. Photography is the democratization of art and abstract paintings and sculpture are the most evolved form of art possible. These are not things to complain about.

THANK YOU

#stunt muppet #muppet look #i believe this is a thing you like to talk about?
YES YES IT IS okay i have a whole lot of feelings about abstract and non-representational art
because yeah, once photography became more common and widely available, people who painted started to question what they painted for. They started to wonder what made something art, what distinguished a painting from a photograph - if photographs could depict “objective” reality (insofar as such a thing even exists), then maybe the strength of painting lay in what photography, in that day and age, couldn’t capture, like feelings or impressions or the tricks the eye plays when seeing an object.
and so they asked, well, why does this portrait feel so comfortable and warm and this one feel threatening and stiff? what elements of the picture suggest that? is it the lighting? the way people are posed? can you play up those elements, exaggerate them, make the figures express the feeling instead of the other way around? what would happen if you did?
and for that matter, people continued to ask, why do we find a certain change of lighting comforting? why do we respond to someone wearing a red shirt or a blue dress differently to someone wearing a white one? what is it about red? or black? or green? why does the shape that people are standing in, the way the figures are placed in a frame, change how we feel about it?
art in a way started to become about psychology - it became about thinking and about why we think and how. because photographs (again, at the time) weren’t engaging with that nearly as much, art started to move towards a “why” of photographs. why that pose? why that color?
that’s when you start to get art like the one under “art now”, right, because look at it. REALLY LOOK, okay, don’t just shrug and walk away because “anyone could do it”. look at that exact shade of orange. do you ever see just a big swath of one color in nature? no, you see hints of it. where have you seen it? what does it remind you of? for that matter, what about the little stripes on it? does that make you feel like there’s depth to the painting - something inside it? why? after all, the painting is a flat plane*, so if you do get a sense of depth from it that’s your brain interpreting signals its familiar with. isn’t that incredible, that all it takes is a few little lines on a single color? isn’t it strange how one person will see depth and another won’t?
*and for that matter it ISN’T a flat plane, there are variations in the height of the paint on the canvas and how much it’s built up, and it protrudes slightly from the wall instead of being recessed into it - does that do anything to the sensation of depth? while we’re on that note, do you ever look at a representational painting and think about how you, the viewer, are looking into it and see it as having space and depth when it really doesn’t - only it does, but not the same space and depth as is represented in the picture?
and that’s without even getting into larger cultural shifts like the World Wars - and it’s hard to overestimate the effect that WWI and WWII had on even the “mainstream” art world - and the greater voice of underrepresented and oppressed groups like women, POC, and LGBT artists and the increasing technological sophistication of photography and the advent of video and widely-available audio recording and the increasing use of galleries to display art rather than private residences and it is still art, okay, representative art is art too but that doesn’t mean this isn’t it’s just focusing on something different and if you dismiss non-representational art as lazy or a con i will sit your ass down in the nearest chair and yell at you about marcel duchamp for an hour

I have a lot of feelings about this, so I’m gonna just spew them everywhere.
Most critically!  The red piece isn’t art now.  It’s art 60 years ago — 1950, they great heyday of abstract expressionism in the USA!  All that abstract shit you hate, all that stuff that’s just splatters and giant dots?  1950-1960.  The United States.  A small, elitist movement shaped by maybe a dozen artists and two or three very influential critics.  In a decade abstract expressionism had pretty much said all there was to say about the action of painting and the canvas as an object rather than a representation, and it got stuck in the museum for people to be bewildered at.
The Rembrandt piece above it?  Also a snapshot of a very particular time and place.  Our view of art 400 years ago is blinkered by what we’ve bothered to preserve and focus on.  When people think “old-timey art” they think of bright white marble statues with no limbs and Da Vinci and Dutch still life.   Which is such a tiny fraction of things that have happened in art history, you know?  That’s like, three things!  Most of them done for rich dudes in Western Europe!
Bullshit!
I call such bullshit on someone trying to knock down all of contemporary art by comparing something made for the cultural elite in 1650 to something made for the cultural elite in 1950.
Art is huge, poorly defined, and it has always been that way, has always had elements that are democratic and has always had a thick vein of nasty elitism.  The carvings on the doors into Notre Dame tell the stories of the saints so that everyone could understand them, whether they had access to books or not.  Comic books and photorealism and murals in urban areas and fashion spreads — all this stuff is made to wow everyone, independent of how much time they’ve spent studying the deep philosophical circle-jerk of art criticism.
I love art criticism, I love Frank Stella and Ad Reinhardt and Eva Hesse, and I am still incandescently furious when people try to reduce the evolution of art to simply justifying or condemning their work.  Because that means we’ve fallen head-first into the trap of omission and framing that keeps art defined as only for the museum-attending.  There’s museum art — cerebral and obtuse and annoying and demanding of effort and education and money to appreciate — and then there’s literally a whole world of more art.  It is an appalling disservice to all the other artists making it out there (corporate designers and media hubs and scrappy little collectives and crafters and professional illustrators) to sweep them under the rug in favor of arguing about museum art as if it is the most important art, or, worse, the only art.
Don’t like Barnett Newman?  Fuck Barnett Newman.  Fuck his arrogance and his inaccessibility and his ego and his concept of the primitive.
But fuck you if you call him “Art now” while you do it.  Don’t make one man the measuring stick for a century of modern creative works.  That’s a bullshit premise and you know it.

While Abstract art (with a capital A) is obviously a movement of modern art, abstraction in art has existed since forever.
Cycladic marble sculpture from 2500 BCE resemble modern cubist abstract forms (they could be Alexander Archipenko pieces), because abstraction wasn’t always an artform in response to photography, it was first used as an expression of the divine. With recognizable features and expression wiped clean, the human form was abstracted to represent the different deities and figures of worship. 
So it’s a misconception to think of abstraction as a modern, linear development in the canon when it existed long before Rembrandt’s Night Watch above. 

reblogging for commentary

shredsandpatches:

halfhardtorock:

isozyme:

stunt-muppet:

sueting:

inappropriateresponses:

A much more accurate “now” image for direct comparison would be a photograph. Abstract art came about as a direct result of the invention of photography, as paintings no longer need to be representative, as photographs are inherently better at that task. Accurately representative paintings were just the photography of the pre-photography era. Portraits of nobility have been replaced by Sears Portrait Studio. Self portraits have been replaced by Instagram selfies. Paintings of historical events have been replaced by photojournalism. Photography is the democratization of art and abstract paintings and sculpture are the most evolved form of art possible. These are not things to complain about.

THANK YOU

  

YES YES IT IS okay i have a whole lot of feelings about abstract and non-representational art

because yeah, once photography became more common and widely available, people who painted started to question what they painted for. They started to wonder what made something art, what distinguished a painting from a photograph - if photographs could depict “objective” reality (insofar as such a thing even exists), then maybe the strength of painting lay in what photography, in that day and age, couldn’t capture, like feelings or impressions or the tricks the eye plays when seeing an object.

and so they asked, well, why does this portrait feel so comfortable and warm and this one feel threatening and stiff? what elements of the picture suggest that? is it the lighting? the way people are posed? can you play up those elements, exaggerate them, make the figures express the feeling instead of the other way around? what would happen if you did?

and for that matter, people continued to ask, why do we find a certain change of lighting comforting? why do we respond to someone wearing a red shirt or a blue dress differently to someone wearing a white one? what is it about red? or black? or green? why does the shape that people are standing in, the way the figures are placed in a frame, change how we feel about it?

art in a way started to become about psychology - it became about thinking and about why we think and how. because photographs (again, at the time) weren’t engaging with that nearly as much, art started to move towards a “why” of photographs. why that pose? why that color?

that’s when you start to get art like the one under “art now”, right, because look at it. REALLY LOOK, okay, don’t just shrug and walk away because “anyone could do it”. look at that exact shade of orange. do you ever see just a big swath of one color in nature? no, you see hints of it. where have you seen it? what does it remind you of? for that matter, what about the little stripes on it? does that make you feel like there’s depth to the painting - something inside it? why? after all, the painting is a flat plane*, so if you do get a sense of depth from it that’s your brain interpreting signals its familiar with. isn’t that incredible, that all it takes is a few little lines on a single color? isn’t it strange how one person will see depth and another won’t?

*and for that matter it ISN’T a flat plane, there are variations in the height of the paint on the canvas and how much it’s built up, and it protrudes slightly from the wall instead of being recessed into it - does that do anything to the sensation of depth? while we’re on that note, do you ever look at a representational painting and think about how you, the viewer, are looking into it and see it as having space and depth when it really doesn’t - only it does, but not the same space and depth as is represented in the picture?

and that’s without even getting into larger cultural shifts like the World Wars - and it’s hard to overestimate the effect that WWI and WWII had on even the “mainstream” art world - and the greater voice of underrepresented and oppressed groups like women, POC, and LGBT artists and the increasing technological sophistication of photography and the advent of video and widely-available audio recording and the increasing use of galleries to display art rather than private residences and it is still art, okay, representative art is art too but that doesn’t mean this isn’t it’s just focusing on something different and if you dismiss non-representational art as lazy or a con i will sit your ass down in the nearest chair and yell at you about marcel duchamp for an hour

I have a lot of feelings about this, so I’m gonna just spew them everywhere.

Most critically!  The red piece isn’t art now.  It’s art 60 years ago — 1950, they great heyday of abstract expressionism in the USA!  All that abstract shit you hate, all that stuff that’s just splatters and giant dots?  1950-1960.  The United States.  A small, elitist movement shaped by maybe a dozen artists and two or three very influential critics.  In a decade abstract expressionism had pretty much said all there was to say about the action of painting and the canvas as an object rather than a representation, and it got stuck in the museum for people to be bewildered at.

The Rembrandt piece above it?  Also a snapshot of a very particular time and place.  Our view of art 400 years ago is blinkered by what we’ve bothered to preserve and focus on.  When people think “old-timey art” they think of bright white marble statues with no limbs and Da Vinci and Dutch still life.   Which is such a tiny fraction of things that have happened in art history, you know?  That’s like, three things!  Most of them done for rich dudes in Western Europe!

Bullshit!

I call such bullshit on someone trying to knock down all of contemporary art by comparing something made for the cultural elite in 1650 to something made for the cultural elite in 1950.

Art is huge, poorly defined, and it has always been that way, has always had elements that are democratic and has always had a thick vein of nasty elitism.  The carvings on the doors into Notre Dame tell the stories of the saints so that everyone could understand them, whether they had access to books or not.  Comic books and photorealism and murals in urban areas and fashion spreads — all this stuff is made to wow everyone, independent of how much time they’ve spent studying the deep philosophical circle-jerk of art criticism.

love art criticism, I love Frank Stella and Ad Reinhardt and Eva Hesse, and I am still incandescently furious when people try to reduce the evolution of art to simply justifying or condemning their work.  Because that means we’ve fallen head-first into the trap of omission and framing that keeps art defined as only for the museum-attending.  There’s museum art — cerebral and obtuse and annoying and demanding of effort and education and money to appreciate — and then there’s literally a whole world of more art.  It is an appalling disservice to all the other artists making it out there (corporate designers and media hubs and scrappy little collectives and crafters and professional illustrators) to sweep them under the rug in favor of arguing about museum art as if it is the most important art, or, worse, the only art.

Don’t like Barnett Newman?  Fuck Barnett Newman.  Fuck his arrogance and his inaccessibility and his ego and his concept of the primitive.

But fuck you if you call him “Art now” while you do it.  Don’t make one man the measuring stick for a century of modern creative works.  That’s a bullshit premise and you know it.

While Abstract art (with a capital A) is obviously a movement of modern art, abstraction in art has existed since forever.

Cycladic marble sculpture from 2500 BCE resemble modern cubist abstract forms (they could be Alexander Archipenko pieces), because abstraction wasn’t always an artform in response to photography, it was first used as an expression of the divine. With recognizable features and expression wiped clean, the human form was abstracted to represent the different deities and figures of worship. 

So it’s a misconception to think of abstraction as a modern, linear development in the canon when it existed long before Rembrandt’s Night Watch above. 

reblogging for commentary