Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[Kismet]

It's not necessary for me to give my opinion because you demand it - the link I posted was a look on how the art world views art and I thought it was applicable to the discussion in this thread that the definition is widely held to be different depending on where one exists in the world.
ILLUSTRATORS vs ARTISTS has been a discussion in the art world before you and I were born. Get over it (and yourself while you're at it)

[tech37]

It's not necessary for me to give my opinion because you demand it - the link I posted was a look on how the art world views art and I thought it was applicable to the discussion in this thread that the definition is widely held to be different depending on where one exists in the world. ILLUSTRATORS vs ARTISTS has been a discussion in the art world before you and I were born. Get over it (and yourself while you're at it)

Fine. You came up with the gem "true artist" (gave you a chance to explain) and denigrated a brilliant man (Glaser) in the process. Nice work!

While you're at it, what's your opinion of the Wyeths?

[Kismet]

It's not necessary for me to give my opinion because you demand it - the link I posted was a look on how the art world views art and I thought it was applicable to the discussion in this thread that the definition is widely held to be different depending on where one exists in the world. ILLUSTRATORS vs ARTISTS has been a discussion in the art world before you and I were born. Get over it (and yourself while you're at it)

Fine. You came up with the gem "true artist" (gave you a chance to explain) and denigrated a brilliant man (Glaser) in the process. Nice work!

Having worked directly with Milton Glaser I certainly likely may have more experience with him than you. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Many in the fine art world do not consider illustrators and designers as true artists (whatever that means). I have experience in media and publishing and saw it all up close - never said I agreed with the premise.

The Norman Rockwell Museum has some material on the topic

https://www.nrm.org/

"Norman Rockwell was a renowned illustrator and chronicler of American life for more than half a century, documenting the pulse of his times during pivotal moments in twentieth century history. During his career, he navigated many complex business relationships with publishers and advertisers, taking direction from his clients while solving visual problems and asserting his artistry and individualistic perceptions."

Note artistry vs artist references.

[tech37]

It's not necessary for me to give my opinion because you demand it - the link I posted was a look on how the art world views art and I thought it was applicable to the discussion in this thread that the definition is widely held to be different depending on where one exists in the world. ILLUSTRATORS vs ARTISTS has been a discussion in the art world before you and I were born. Get over it (and yourself while you're at it)

Fine. You came up with the gem "true artist" (gave you a chance to explain) and denigrated a brilliant man (Glaser) in the process. Nice work!

Having worked directly with Milton Glaser I certainly likely may have more experience with him than you. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Many in the fine art world do not consider illustrators and designers as true artists (whatever that means). I have experience in media and publishing and saw it all up close - never said I agreed with the premise.

The Norman Rockwell Museum has some material on the topic

https://www.nrm.org/

{i]"Norman Rockwell was a renowned illustrator and chronicler of American life for more than half a century, documenting the pulse of his times during pivotal moments in twentieth century history. During his career, he navigated many complex business relationships with publishers and advertisers, taking direction from his clients while solving visual problems and asserting his artistry and individualistic perceptions."[/i]

Note artistry vs artist references.

At least there's that admission (highlighted above).

Shouldn't delete...The Wyeths are much more relevant to the point you're trying to make than Rockwell is.

Anything new re Biden corruption to get this thread back on course?

[a fan]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

Having met and worked with Glaser, not the most pleasant person to deal with. on ANY subject

read the link I posted earlier - you apparently aren't paying attention either

He probably didn't like YOU.

You're out of your league here. You ought to stick to reciting history.

Glaser didn't like ANYBODY Except maybe himself.

Thx for the advice so I can ignore it. Like you have some idea of what my league is in the first place.

Just for you Kismet... and here I thought MOMA only recognizes "true artists."

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/8108

You thought MOMA only recognizes artists?

Nope.

The 28th Annual Exhibition
of Advertising and
Editorial Art of the New
York Art Directors Club

https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3249

Here we go again a fan. Follow the thread and try to understand before butting in?

Boilerplate Tech: make condescending and rude comments about other posters, while bemoaning the lack of civility here.

I understand the discussion better than you do. You clearly don't have a handle on the difference between art and commercial design. It's why no one would call me an artist, even though I make things by hand.

And why anyone paying attention and knows the history of this commissioned piece understands that Michaelangelo's David is the work of an artisan, not an artist. Because if David is art? There are very few man made things that cannot be viewed as art.

Do I need to explain why? Or are you just bickering for fun?

[a fan]

Anything new re Biden corruption to get this thread back on course?

You're supposed to be telling us. You're the one who's insisting there's corruption, with zero evidence.

Have you caught your Deep State yet?

[Farfromgeneva]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

So would Michaelangelo. I believe he is considered a true artist.

Thankfully no one is requesting your definition of art.

[Farfromgeneva]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

Having met and worked with Glaser, not the most pleasant person to deal with. on ANY subject

read the link I posted earlier - you apparently aren't paying attention either

He probably didn't like YOU.

You're out of your league here. You ought to stick to reciting history.

Glaser didn't like ANYBODY Except maybe himself.

Thx for the advice so I can ignore it. Like you have some idea of what my league is in the first place.

Just for you Kismet... and here I thought MOMA only recognizes "true artists."

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/8108

You thought MOMA only recognizes artists?

Nope.

The 28th Annual Exhibition
of Advertising and
Editorial Art of the New
York Art Directors Club

https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3249

Here we go again a fan. Follow the thread and try to understand before butting in?

Maybe he understands just fine, tech.

You are talking to the person who believes he is Zarathustra here.

[tech37]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

Having met and worked with Glaser, not the most pleasant person to deal with. on ANY subject

read the link I posted earlier - you apparently aren't paying attention either

He probably didn't like YOU.

You're out of your league here. You ought to stick to reciting history.

Glaser didn't like ANYBODY Except maybe himself.

Thx for the advice so I can ignore it. Like you have some idea of what my league is in the first place.

Just for you Kismet... and here I thought MOMA only recognizes "true artists."

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/8108

You thought MOMA only recognizes artists?

Nope.

The 28th Annual Exhibition
of Advertising and
Editorial Art of the New
York Art Directors Club

https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3249

Here we go again a fan. Follow the thread and try to understand before butting in?

Boilerplate Tech: make condescending and rude comments about other posters, while bemoaning the lack of civility here.
"FFS" a fan... projection much?

I understand the discussion better than you do. You clearly don't have a handle on the difference between art and commercial design. It's why no one would call me an artist, even though I make things by hand.

And why anyone paying attention and knows the history of this commissioned piece understands that Michaelangelo's David is the work of an artisan, not an artist. Because if David is art? There are very few man made things that cannot be viewed as art.

Do I need to explain why? Or are you just bickering for fun?
You've been stating the obvious a fan (no sh!t) and missed the sarcasm throughout the thread you barged in on.

[Farfromgeneva]

It's not necessary for me to give my opinion because you demand it - the link I posted was a look on how the art world views art and I thought it was applicable to the discussion in this thread that the definition is widely held to be different depending on where one exists in the world. ILLUSTRATORS vs ARTISTS has been a discussion in the art world before you and I were born. Get over it (and yourself while you're at it)

Fine. You came up with the gem "true artist" (gave you a chance to explain) and denigrated a brilliant man (Glaser) in the process. Nice work!

Having worked directly with Milton Glaser I certainly likely may have more experience with him than you. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Many in the fine art world do not consider illustrators and designers as true artists (whatever that means). I have experience in media and publishing and saw it all up close - never said I agreed with the premise.

The Norman Rockwell Museum has some material on the topic

https://www.nrm.org/

"Norman Rockwell was a renowned illustrator and chronicler of American life for more than half a century, documenting the pulse of his times during pivotal moments in twentieth century history. During his career, he navigated many complex business relationships with publishers and advertisers, taking direction from his clients while solving visual problems and asserting his artistry and individualistic perceptions."

Note artistry vs artist references.

You’re just just out of your league here. Should bow down to such a sophisticated person instead of sharing that you have direct experience and he’s full of ahit as usual.

[cradleandshoot]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

So would Michaelangelo. I believe he is considered a true artist.

Thankfully no one is requesting your definition of art.

You can not walk into the Sistine chapel and not walk out without a sense of awe at the mans talent. Seven years lying on his back, mixing his own paint and was almost blind by the time he finished. You don't agree that Michaelangelo was an artist? Your a tough person to please.

[a fan]

You've been stating the obvious a fan (no sh!t) and missed the sarcasm throughout the thread you barged in on.[/color][/b]

Right. We misinterpreted what you meant when you called a poster "out of his league".

GTFO. Your nonstop "that's not what I meant" is just tiring.

Try this: I think you're out of your league here. Lets play your stupid, pointless game: am I serious? Am I kidding? Am I being "sarcastic"?

"That's not what I meant". Right. Sure it isn't.

[cradleandshoot]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

Having met and worked with Glaser, not the most pleasant person to deal with. on ANY subject

read the link I posted earlier - you apparently aren't paying attention either

He probably didn't like YOU.

You're out of your league here. You ought to stick to reciting history.

Glaser didn't like ANYBODY Except maybe himself.

Thx for the advice so I can ignore it. Like you have some idea of what my league is in the first place.

Just for you Kismet... and here I thought MOMA only recognizes "true artists."

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/8108

You thought MOMA only recognizes artists?

Nope.

The 28th Annual Exhibition
of Advertising and
Editorial Art of the New
York Art Directors Club

https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3249

Here we go again a fan. Follow the thread and try to understand before butting in?

Boilerplate Tech: make condescending and rude comments about other posters, while bemoaning the lack of civility here.

I understand the discussion better than you do. You clearly don't have a handle on the difference between art and commercial design. It's why no one would call me an artist, even though I make things by hand.

And why anyone paying attention and knows the history of this commissioned piece understands that Michaelangelo's David is the work of an artisan, not an artist. Because if David is art? There are very few man made things that cannot be viewed as art.

Do I need to explain why? Or are you just bickering for fun?

Give yourself credit here my man. A glass of excellent world class bourbon is the mark of an artist. I hope your product winds up in NYS someday. I'm sure your familiar with the company. Black Button Distillery in Rochester makes a very fine Bourbon so I hear. I haven't tried it yet but it has shelf space in all the local liquor stores.

[Farfromgeneva]

Hunter's laptop will end up in the Smithsonian.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter ... department

...along with his "art".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics ... index.html

Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Rockwells in your home are prints and some may question whether that is “art”.

Rockwell was an ILLUSTRATOR not an artist. Even his originals might not be considered true art.

Basically different - some background here

https://navinachhabria.medium.com/under ... 73e841742b

The late, great Milton Glaser referred to Rockwell as the "great American surrealist."

The graphic designer?

Glaser was a graphic designer - doing logos, layout for magazines and the like - not a true artist either. His opinion of Rockwell out of left field - surrealist? really?

Haha... it's a shame you're not smart enough to understand the irony in Glaser's statement.

BTW when you're not busy being creative , please explain what a "true artist" is. I'd love to hear that one.

So would Michaelangelo. I believe he is considered a true artist.

Thankfully no one is requesting your definition of art.

You can not walk into the Sistine chapel and not walk out without a sense of awe at the mans talent. Seven years lying on his back, mixing his own paint and was almost blind by the time he finished. You don't agree that Michaelangelo was an artist? Your a tough person to please.

A. I have walked into the sistene chapel. It was fine but perhaps the least impressive part of the museum compared with the ancient history inside that bldg. I was quite unimpressed with the Taj Mahal as well. The mokey tower in Khatmandu over the border in Nepal is far more impressive IMO. Nobody talks about that.
B. Where did I say I didn't think Michaelangelo is an artist. At least youre saying that from experience rather than relying on someone else you bless as correct to tell you, which I've observed frequently here as your position lifted from others as experts while questioning other experts. Further where did anyone else claim MIchaelangelo is not an artist? You introduced that out of left field as if it meant anything in this context.
C. All this aside I think the position remains that most would expect you to either blather or regurgitate some reductive nonsense as to your definition of art hence I suspect no one is pining to hear it.

[Farfromgeneva]

You've been stating the obvious a fan (no sh!t) and missed the sarcasm throughout the thread you barged in on.[/color][/b]

Right. We misinterpreted what you meant when you called a poster "out of his league".

GTFO. Your nonstop "that's not what I meant" is just tiring.

Try this: I think you're out of your league here. Lets play your stupid, pointless game: am I serious? Am I kidding? Am I being "sarcastic"?

"That's not what I meant". Right. Sure it isn't.

The fake disgust and pretense of being superior is jsut a facade for a deficiency. THere's plenty to choose from and probably multiple here but I'll let you fill in that blank.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Anything new re Biden corruption to get this thread back on course?

You're supposed to be telling us. You're the one who's insisting there's corruption, with zero evidence.

Have you caught your Deep State yet?

People want to buy his art. He’s not an “artist”. That’s his corruption in this case.

[tech37]

You've been stating the obvious a fan (no sh!t) and missed the sarcasm throughout the thread you barged in on.[/color][/b]

Right. We misinterpreted what you meant when you called a poster "out of his league".

GTFO. Your nonstop "that's not what I meant" is just tiring.

Try this: I think you're out of your league here. Lets play your stupid, pointless game: am I serious? Am I kidding? Am I being "sarcastic"?

"That's not what I meant". Right. Sure it isn't.

Man, you are Fing ridiculous at times. Who is "We" as in "We misinterpreted"? I was conversing with Kismet, why on earth get involved? Kismet was doing fine without your weird oversight.

And why read my posts if you don't like them, think they're pointless, or can't follow? Make some sense a fan.

[Kismet]

You've been stating the obvious a fan (no sh!t) and missed the sarcasm throughout the thread you barged in on.[/color][/b]

Right. We misinterpreted what you meant when you called a poster "out of his league".

GTFO. Your nonstop "that's not what I meant" is just tiring.

Try this: I think you're out of your league here. Lets play your stupid, pointless game: am I serious? Am I kidding? Am I being "sarcastic"?

"That's not what I meant". Right. Sure it isn't.

Man, you are Fing ridiculous at times. Who is "We" as in "We misinterpreted"? I was conversing with Kismet, why on earth get involved? Kismet was doing fine without your weird oversight.

And why read my posts if you don't like them, think they're pointless, or can't follow? Make some sense a fan.

Actually, I don't find his oversight weird at all.
As for Hunter Biden, I have never seen any of his work and have no idea if he's an artist at all.

As long as we are on MOMA and fine art - next time you are in NYC check out Van Gogh's The Starry Night - after seeing it I was blown away what the man captured on canvas a painting. At first, thought the visual effect was the lighting but the more I looked the more transformational it appeared to be. Now THAT'S Fine Art to me. Apologies to Milton Glaser and the I love NY logo. No argument from me on Michelangelo and The Sistine Chapel especially after they cleaned it. It, too, was a commissioned work like David.

BTW - for the record my comment initially regarding ILLUSTRATION vs FINE ART was - "Even his originals MIGHT be considered true art." which isn't how you subsequently characterized it IMHO. An example why I HATE this format for meaningful discussion.

[Farfromgeneva]

Open your mind to other voices, no wait don’t pay attention or listen in a community. Oh wait, I don’t know what I’m saying I’ll just be a rude d*ck and fake some arrogance to cover up the massive holes in me.

[Farfromgeneva]

You've been stating the obvious a fan (no sh!t) and missed the sarcasm throughout the thread you barged in on.[/color][/b]

Right. We misinterpreted what you meant when you called a poster "out of his league".

GTFO. Your nonstop "that's not what I meant" is just tiring.

Try this: I think you're out of your league here. Lets play your stupid, pointless game: am I serious? Am I kidding? Am I being "sarcastic"?

"That's not what I meant". Right. Sure it isn't.

Man, you are Fing ridiculous at times. Who is "We" as in "We misinterpreted"? I was conversing with Kismet, why on earth get involved? Kismet was doing fine without your weird oversight.

And why read my posts if you don't like them, think they're pointless, or can't follow? Make some sense a fan.

Actually, I don't find his oversight weird at all.
As for Hunter Biden, I have never seen any of his work and have no idea if he's an artist at all.

As long as we are on MOMA and fine art - next time you are in NYC check out Van Gogh's The Starry Night - after seeing it I was blown away what the man captured on canvas a painting. At first, thought the visual effect was the lighting but the more I looked the more transformational it appeared to be. Now THAT'S Fine Art to me. Apologies to Milton Glaser and the I love NY logo.

BTW - for the record my comment initially regarding ILLUSTRATION vs FINE ART was - "Even his originals MIGHT be considered true art." which isn't how you subsequently characterized IMHO.

I still prefer the Met over Moma though being a massive fan of Rene Magritte I obviously have to hit MOMA occasionally. Debating as I’m bringing my sister for the first time next month for 4-5 days. Whereas I lived there I have to managed her tastes and preferences along with her desire to see how I/we lived in NYC*. Moma may be more accessible than the Met for a kid but man the Met has so much fainting stuff in it. Too bad I can’t show her the old graffiti art by the dude who died of aids in the 80s. Hard rock lifted his work for designs way back. Want to say his name was Keith Harding but forgot since seeing an exhibit at the museum in Golden Gate Park SF a few years back. That would be cool. If it were my son we’d do the subway run from the Warriors but I don’t think my fighter would appreciate that other than she’d be perfect in the bad a** sneaky killer chick gang downtown (or around flatiron? Been about 7-9yrs since I last watched that classic)

Gets tiring and redundant after a while but to see classics there’s nothing like a multi month backpacking trip around Europe. I still found that macabre religious art from the Belgians and west Germans you could find in some Benelux country museums to be cool.


* (NYC trip -though she doesn’t like steak or rice pudding so I’m f**ked with regard to taking her to Lugers and Rice to riches as I’d hoped. She just blew up an expensive dinner at a joint here run by this tv chef Kevin Rathbun because I insisted she try some cranes spinach which turned into a screaming match in public between my wife and 9yr old daughter as my son and I were trying to enjoy our surprisingly fatty dry aged porterhouse for two)