Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh.

Understanding Art for Geeks 213

Posted by CmdrTaco
HeadMounted found a great little flickr collection of art for geeks where helpful designers have provided you with useful hints to help you better comprehend the confusing art world. Or not. Some of them are very clever.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Understanding Art for Geeks More

Understanding Art for Geeks

Comments Filter:

  • Who let this crap in? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:46AM (#22154566) Homepage

    This is lame. It's neither insightful nor funny.

  • peanut butter jelly time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 192939495969798999 ( 58312 ) <info AT devinmoore DOT com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:49AM (#22154598) Homepage Journal
    A tremendous amount of work clearly went into it, so credit must be given to the creator for the effort. However, for me it's reminiscent of PBJT, in that for me it's kinda funny for 2-3 times, and then I'm all, "eh, cool i guess" and on to the next site.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )
      All that work, and not a single Banksy [wikipedia.org]? What a shame.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you kidding? They're pathetic. The average Photoshop Phriday at somethingawful is far better than any of those.

  • NSFW. (Score:5, Informative)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:49AM (#22154604)
    Unless looking at breasts is ok where you work, that is.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by PinkyDead ( 862370 )
      I'll just use my usual excuse: It's not porn, it's art.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by RobBebop ( 947356 )

      But they are *artistic* breasts.

      Plus a vagina being covered up by a Power button. I wonder what *that* is trying to imply.

      • It's either push it to turn it on...or women have pussy power.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by RobBebop ( 947356 )

          Thanks for clarifying that for everybody reading this who didn't understand the initial but of sarcasm for the Power Button Art. :)

      • It's officially an artistic vagina, too; the work is in the Musee d'Orsay, a perfectly legitimate museum. Though I admit it's more than a bit jarring walking through the museum and suddenly coming upon _L'Origine du Monde_.

    • Re:NSFW. (Score:5, Funny)

      by ContractualObligatio ( 850987 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:23PM (#22155078)
      If you're working somewhere where a collection of art paintings like this is NSFW (and you're not paranoid), quit as soon as possible...
    • You're supposed to have the monitor facing *away* from the doorway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anne Honime ( 828246 )

      Unless looking at breasts is ok where you work, that is.

      Because a decapitated guy is perectly OK, of course. I'd really like to have an explanation about that : half of the humanity have a vagina an breasts, which is perfectly natural, why is it less acceptable to display than a mutilated body (which is not obviously un-ntural) ? I really can't get it.

      At least, if you had rated this NSFW because self-entertainement isn't of the essence of working, I might have agreed, but all this BS about the human body is really the product of sick minds.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RandoX ( 828285 )
        That just happened to be the first image I saw (maybe that says a lot about me). If there were an image of a decapitated body as well, that might me NSFW in addition.

  • Art is subjective (Score:3, Interesting)

    by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:50AM (#22154632) Journal
    Even if it's segregated "art for geeks" it may not really be art. Of course, some critics may say that it was never art to begin with. Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc. Part of it is the creative process that made the art that makes that art worth taking in and thinking about.
    To someone in the art world, Giger [giger.com] may be seen as a genius but to someone like your average slashdot reader a mother board or the latest Linix kernel may be more of a piece of art than something Giger could ever produce.

    Then again, IANAA and M.C. Escher is my favorite M.C...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) *
      Some of the images draw delightfully crass connections.
      The instantly recongnizable image of "The Thinker", with an annoying, screw-you, bugs-in-my-code hourglass icon in the upper-left corner is quite well done.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      Further, understanding art for geeks isn't necessarily going to help a geek understand art in general. I happen to hate fiction. It just seems to be an utter waste of time, and I'm especially confused by those who spend time arguing about the meaning of a work of literature. It's all made up anyway! If the author really wanted to communicate a point he'd write an essay.

      Yet I love Lewis Carrol. The Alice stories are wonderful examples of art for geeks. Perhaps what I like is that everything can be take

      • The Mona Lisa is just a painting of some chick, I just don't see the big deal.
        Leonardo did some stunning works and his notebooks are far more interesting than the Mona Lisa IMHO. The thing I hate is that his works that really where are art at the time (at least to him (I hope)) are being lost to time and fading in memory and what we're left with are his commissioned works of a portrait of some woman and a mural of John 13:21...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by imgod2u ( 812837 )

        I happen to hate fiction. It just seems to be an utter waste of time, and I'm especially confused by those who spend time arguing about the meaning of a work of literature. It's all made up anyway! If the author really wanted to communicate a point he'd write an essay.

        I'm curious as to your thoughts on South Park, Schindler's list, anything John Lennon and just about every other form of "made up" stuff that was a vehicle for political and social commentary.

        To quote John Lennon, time you enjoy wasting is not wasted.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hatta ( 162192 )
          If the argument is made in a clear straight-forward way, merely using fictional settings to illustrate a point, that's fine. If the author hides their point behind multiple levels of symbolism such that it's impossible to tell what the author really meant, and people can spend entire careers arguing over what the work really means, then that's not ok.

          As far as I can tell with most great literature, the whole point is to argue about what the point in fact is, which is nothing more than pointless intellectua

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by imgod2u ( 812837 )

            If the author hides their point behind multiple levels of symbolism such that it's impossible to tell what the author really meant, and people can spend entire careers arguing over what the work really means, then that's not ok.

            Why not? I suppose you think the ending to Pan's Labyrinth wasn't "ok" because the director intentionally left the choice of whether the whole thing was a fantasy or reality open and up for interpretation by the audience. Arts are, first and foremost, supposed to be entertaining. And literary analysis, even if there wasn't a point and/or the point is hidden, is very entertaining to some.

            As far as I can tell with most great literature, the whole point is to argue about what the point in fact is, which is nothing more than pointless intellectual masturbation.

            GASP! You mean to tell me that they, somehow, serve some purpose of pleasure with no utilitarian benefit?! ZOMG the

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Hatta ( 162192 )
              If it's all pointless fun, then why do they teach it in school? Why do we give people PhDs for mental masturbation? If there is no right or wrong, why did I pull straight Ds through HS and college english? How is it possible to make plausible coherent arguments about a completely arbitrary imaginary universe?

              Literature as fluff entertainment is fine, I said as much already. But we don't watch Seinfeld in High School. Some people see it as a scholarly pursuit and want to force it down the throat of every
      • "The Mona Lisa is just a painting of some chick, I just don't see the big deal."

        Au contraire. Look closely at the background. Doesn't it look kind of other-worldly and SciFiesque? Makes me wonder what Leonardo was thinking...or smoking.

    • Re:Art is subjective (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:48PM (#22155460)
      "Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."

      Yeah, actually it is. That is exactly why so many people that are into "Art" sound like such pompous asses. It is also why people have such a hard time defining what is "Art". They are obsessed with trying to make it more than it is. They want the stuff THEY like to look at to be art, and the stuff that they don't like to look at to not be art.

      They only thing I would add to your definition is that it is something that someone intentionally made.

      • "Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."
        Yeah, actually it is.

        I find it hard to believe that people like Britney Spears are truly artists in anything but the loosest use of the word and not just media pawns or Marla Olmstead [cbsnews.com] is an actual "artist" as we like to think of them and not just a child who like to paint whose parents are trying to score some coin from said snobs and media buzz.

        It's not the product that is art, it's the process and the producer

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Belial6 ( 794905 )
          Your response is exactly what I am talking about. You WANT art to be something more, but even in your post, you contradict yourself. Why? because you don't want to accept that people you don't like have produced art. You say that Britney Spears and Marla Olmstead are not an "artist" because they are like a child who likes to paint, but in your next sentence, you say that art is a process. Well, there is no doubt that the child that likes to paint IS going through a creative process.

          What has happened

          • They are like a kid sitting in a grade school class who raise their hand in response to a poll by the teacher because they assume that if everyone else is raising their hands, that must be the right answer.

            But, this goes back to the title of the thread. It's all subjective. If you feel that it is art when someone craps in a can and sells it to snobs, then by all means, that is art. I feel there is more merit in the piece made by the girl winging paints at a canvas out of anger over being dumped than a four

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by imgod2u ( 812837 )
              I always thought that it was all in the eyes of the painter/creator. If he/she makes something he/she likes and finds pretty/witty/pleasurable then that's really all there is to it now isn't it?

              If he/she created it to sell regardless of whether he/she admires it, then it's utilitarian.

      • Re:Art is subjective (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater.gmail@com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:08PM (#22156696) Homepage

        "Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."

        Yeah, actually it is.

        No, actually it isn't. And never has been.
         
         

        That is exactly why so many people that are into "Art" sound like such pompous asses.

        No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some.
         
         

        It is also why people have such a hard time defining what is "Art". They are obsessed with trying to make it more than it is.

        No, they are having such a hard time - because they were raised without a solid definition and understanding, see "loss of widely shared culture and iconography".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by imgod2u ( 812837 )
          "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless."

          If you're doing it for the hell of it because it makes you happy, it's art.

        • Re:Art is subjective (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kattspya ( 994189 ) on Thursday January 24, 2008 @09:27AM (#22166428)

          No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some.
          Please elaborate because this strikes me as patently false unless you think shared culture means 200 people looking at the same stained windows in a church. There has never been a more widely shared culture and "iconography" than there is now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by spinkham ( 56603 )
        Here's best instructable ever I've ever seen, happens to be on the subject of "How to Make Art".
        My wife is a painter and loved it. Be sure to read the alt tags...
        http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-art./ [instructables.com]
        Excerpt:

        A breif history: Western art has a rich history, arguably dating back to ancient Greece. Of course, since visual artists historically have toiled with their hands, Greeks viewed painters and sculptors as we would today view cabinet makers; skilled laborers. In an attempt to get laid more, eat better and party with the Popes, artists in the renaissance reinterpreted the role of visual artists in antiquity to elevate their position in society. From here, western visual art was kind of like a snowball rolling down a hill of loosely packed snow. In short, it started an avalanch of rationalism that eventually landed upon abstract expressionism (think of a canvas painted white with a slash in it). Three hours later, when we finally dug Jackson Pollock out from under ten feet of packed snow, he was somehow still alive, but very pale and slightly braindead. We now called him Andy Warhol. He, along with a number of other avalanch survivors, created postmodern art. This lead Marshal McLuhan to proclaim: "Art is anything that you can get away with." This will be our working definition of art.

    • art of it is the creative process that made the art that makes that art worth taking in and thinking about.
      This one phrase gave us Artist's shit [wikipedia.org]

    • Even if it's segregated "art for geeks" it may not really be art. Of course, some critics may say that it was never art to begin with. Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc. Part of it is the creative process that made the art that makes that art worth taking in and thinking about.

      art: n. something made by an artist.

      artist: n. someone who makes art.

      I'm only half joking.

      You're definitely on the right track when you say that art is neither "out there" (a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      I think the most important point to realize about art is that art isn't a property of the object itself. A picture of the sunset is only a picture, if you say that picture is a symbol of the great cycle of life and death, the beauty of nature, a coming darkness or whatever then it is a piece of art. The same goes for a lot of modern art and photography, it's not the content but the reason you chose to frame it. To take a geekier example, if you look at code it's just code. If you single it out as an symbol

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by euxneks ( 516538 )
      I doubt anyone on /. would have an issue with H.R. Giger's art being recognized as such, he's the guy who designed the Alien!
  • Oh, that's awesome! I love the map best, I think.. though Napoleon is definately up there. Thanks for finding me something to look at while scanning papers for work.

  • Disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:57AM (#22154710) Homepage
    I'm a little disappointed. Yeah, I got a few chuckles out of it.

    But I was hoping for more of something like "This work is important because it was the first use of x" where x is a technique that is then explained in mathematical detail. Or "this looks good because of the use of negative space which happens to be expressable as the function y".

    • Re:Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beadfulthings ( 975812 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:54PM (#22155556) Journal
      Ah. That's because you were looking for some actual art appreciation rather than this lame bigotry. (Or I found it to be lame bigotry. The message seems to be that geeks are buffoons and clods who can't appreciate anything past the next release of Software X or Hardware Y. It's OK for me to make fun of them.) Head out to your nearest art museum some free afternoon, pick up a couple of brochures, maybe follow a tour around. You'll begin to find works that appeal to you, and you'll certainly be able to explore why that might be so. You'll probably also find that everybody is welcomed and treated with respect. The idea of a survey that looks at particular works of art in light of math or color theory or proportion or other geekly perspectives is a surprisingly good one. Too bad the site's creator took the low road instead.

      • Well... I wouldn't call it lame bigotry. LOLart, maybe. That would make the "I can has cheezburger" art [flickr.com] a meta-LOL. A LOL(LOLcat), if you will. Of course, it would have helped if they spelled cheezburger without an h.

        --Rob

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jesus_666 ( 702802 )
        And this, ladies and gentlemen, is someone you never ever want to involve in a joke, for he has no humor.

        Those images are strictly tongue-in-cheek. They were made by a geek for geeks and by no means do they intend to convey that all geeks are completely incompetent when it comes to understanding art. It's the same kind of joke that we make when we revoke someone's geek licence because he said he has a girlfriend.

        Those images are just varyingly clever approaches at looking at art from a new angle. If you

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by raisin ( 30710 )
      For that sort of thing, try the book "Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science" by Martin Kemp. It's a collection of short articles by Kemp written for the journal Nature, discussing art and how it relates to science.
      • I'm going to hunt it down this evening. Hopefully somebody with points will come along and mod your interesting suggestion up.

  • Some say 'lame', but as a former Studio Art major- (Score:4, Interesting)

    by capnkr ( 1153623 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:57AM (#22154716)
    I think that the creator of this series has done an *excellent* job, in a very funny and original way, of explaining why these particular works are regarded so highly in the art community (not by everyone, of course, but in general).

    Kudos to the author of the series!

  • More like (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @11:57AM (#22154718) Homepage
    More like art for people who waste enough time on the internet to know the current memes and cliches.

  • Art for geeks? I can think of one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nemilar ( 173603 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:01PM (#22154788) Homepage
    xkcd [xkcd.com] is true art for geeks. And yes, comics are an art. There's drawing involved.

    • Re:Art for geeks? I can think of one... (Score:5, Funny)

      by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:29PM (#22155166)

      Fan: So do you like draw this or something?
      Banky: I ink it and I'm also the colorist. The guy next to me draws it, but we both came up with the characters. Next...
      Fan: (snidely) What does that mean, you ink it?
      Banky: Well, it means that Holden draws the pictures in pencil, and he gives it to me to go over in ink. Next...
      Fan: So basically you just trace.
      Banky: It's eh...it's not tracing, alright? I add depth and shading to give the image more definition. Only then does the drawing truely take shape.
      Fan: No-no-no-no, you go over what he draws with a pen. That's tracing.
      Banky: Not really. Next...
      Fan: (To next guy in the line) Hey man, let me ask you something. If somebody draws something, and you draw the exact same thing like, right on top of it, without going outside the original designated art, what do you call it?
      Other Fan: I dunno man, tracing?
      Fan: (Laughing, to Banky) See?!
      Banky: (Losing patience, to Other Fan) You want your book signed or what?
      Fan: Hey-hey-hey-hey-hey, don't get all testy with him just because you got a problem with your station in life!
      Banky: Oh, I'm secure with what I do.
      Fan: Then just say it...you're a tracer!
      Banky: (To Other Fan) How should I sign this?
      Other Fan: I don't want you to sign it man, I want the guy who draws Bluntman & Chronic to sign it. You're just a tracer.
      Fan: Tell him, little shaver.Collector: You're mucking with a G, you fuckin' tracer.
      Banky: I'll trace a chalk line around your dead fucking body, you fuck!
      Holden: [to Security Guards] Will you get him out of here!
      Collector: [as he's being dragged away by Security Guard] Hey wait a second! He jumped me, you fucking tracer!
      Banky: YOUR MOTHER'S A TRACER!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ari_j ( 90255 )
      The true art in xkcd rarely has much to do with drawing. :)

  • appreciation of art is similar to literature .. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wakim1618 ( 579135 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:05PM (#22154842)
    Several friends of mine teach art history at a large university and in my conversations with them, I came to appreciate that the study and appreciation of art is similar to that of the study of literature or film. For example, throughout history, there are innovations in story telling, eg Shakespear introduced the device of a character speaking aloud to himself exploring his own inner thoughts and conflicts or eg Griffith's camera work in Birth of a Nation and shooting in 'natural' not studio settings. At another level, looking at works of art as a reflection of social structure and myths and understanding how innovations in aesthetics and story telling accompanies social changes and transformations. For example, prior to the Renaissance, much of art was iconography (the representation of icons of religion and pivotal moments in the story of Christianity) whence the Renaisannce introduced the human subject into art. More recently, cubism and modernism movements in art and architecture reflects the rise of industrial society and the capture of the imagination of the cultural elites by marxist ideologies. Hence the change in materials in housing and furniture and crafts from arnate woods to then modern materials such as glass, concrete and steel and the mass production of quality housing and furniture.

    Another strand of the study revolves about the construction of a social canon (the 'great' works of genius and orginality) and how it reflects the social shifts in power. One way of understanding this is the common complaint amongst film afficiandos that the academy awards are a popularity contest and that, over and above the wonderful movies, Speilberg has been a brand and is a socio-economic construction.

    In short, the appreciation of art is much more than aesthetics and more than meets the eye. In fact, it engages the intellect and a deep appreciation involves a broad understanding of the social historical context.

    • You're talking to art historians. They care about historical context, but I don't. What about the study of art without the history?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wakim1618 ( 579135 )
        The study of art does not take place in a vacuum. So to appreciate/study a work, you end up comparing it to something else, perhaps other mediums of art or other works in the same medium that preceded it. Or you examine how it speaks about a comtemporary situation in an innovative way... why it captures a moment or vision better than other works. This inevitably means situating the work in a socio-historical context. Even if you believe that it is all a matter of taste and preferences, studying art and un

    • Several friends of mine teach art history at a large university and in my conversations with them, I came to appreciate that the study and appreciation of art is similar to that of the study of literature or film.

      For example, prior to the Renaissance, much of art was iconography (the representation of icons of religion and pivotal moments in the story of Christianity) whence the Renaisannce introduced the human subject into art.

      I'd be very suspicious of someone who claims to teach art history - but doesn'

  • Better than the originals... (Score:5, Funny)

    by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:12PM (#22154950)
    ...in many cases at least. These seem to me to valid art - or at least as valid as Duchamp or Warhol. Certainly, they are considerably more entertaining, exhibit more social commentary, and are more thought provoking than many of the originals do today -- although they were once thought provoking themselves.

    The wikipedia one is masterful. It's occurred to me for a few years that Gallileo is the perfect example of why wikipedia is flawed. (among many other potential examples of free individual thought)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

      It's occurred to me for a few years that Gallileo is the perfect example of why wikipedia is flawed.

      I disagree. In Galileo's time, there was no scientific consensus in favour of his theories. Therefore, if Wikipedia had existed by then, he could have gotten a few paragraphs or even a few articles regarding his work while acknowledging it as controversial work. With this respect I don't see how Wikipedia is flawed, unless we assume that Galileo would solely have tried to publish his work by vandalising Wik

      • This is what makes it such a great example of art. After all, most art that does have a social or political message, has a message that's poorly thought out and superficial (i.e. Marxism).
    • I won't go as far as saying "better than originals", but there's something inside that work that desserves a good mention. Like you, I found the wikipedia one extremely to the point. Most have a "punch line" quality. The /. summary is misleading ; it's not art for the geeks, but it's definitely a work from an arty geek.

  • Meh (Score:2)

    by glwtta ( 532858 )
    Most are exceptionally lame, plus, they really missed the point of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".
  • If it has a frame around it, it must be art.

  • Puzzled ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:02PM (#22155640) Homepage Journal
    That "very clever" Annunciation image is baffling. It's covered with white rectangles, each of which has a little icon in the upper left that looks like a "broken link" icon. But there's nothing active associated with the rectangles or the little icon. Clicking on various things gets nothing except the usual image menu, and that gets me another copy of the Annunciation.

    It's not the browser, because I tried it on a number of different browsers from different sources, including Firefox, Opera, Safari, iCab and SeaMonkey. They all show the same thing, so presumably that's what's supposed to be on my screen.

    But it doesn't seem at all clever; it's just baffling. And there's nothing resembling an explanation or other clue that I can find. What am I so non-geeky as to be missing here?

    • But it doesn't seem at all clever; it's just baffling. And there's nothing resembling an explanation or other clue that I can find. What am I so non-geeky as to be missing here?

      Notice that the painting is damaged in those areas. Then note how incredibly dense you were not to notice this before commenting and then laugh uproariously like we all did at your post.

    • I really, really hope you're looking for Funny moderation with this post. Otherwise, humanity is doomed.

  • Quick guide (Score:3, Interesting)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:06PM (#22155690) Homepage Journal
    ln -s /dev/random Jackson.Pollock

  • Understanding Art (Score:2, Insightful)

    by arigram ( 1202657 )
    Being an artist myself, understanding Art is simple:
    You either like it or you don't.
    You shouldn't -try- to like it if you don't and you shouldn't -try- to understand it if you think you don't. Art has to be appreciated by the instinct, knowledge, aesthetics, etc one has at the moment, otherwise any further analysis will detract from the appreciation and real meaning and push you further away. One can't understand why a flower is beautiful by chopping it to pieces and measuring its parts.
    When you don't li
    • In my opinion, the above sums up the relationship of art to an individual. I've posted before that I can't abide most abstract art of any sort (music, paintings, sculture, etc.), since demonstrated skill is what counts with me. But there are exceptions, but as a rule, and unfortunately, I tend to forget them as I walk away.

      Art's importance to a person is instinctive and perhaps more importantly, transient.
  • I prefer Calvin's [s-anand.net] perspective [s-anand.net] on [s-anand.net] art [s-anand.net].
  • Underneath it all, Geeks are Romantics, which explains their basic conservatism and penchant for order. In that light, it's surprising that the Geek Art Guide doesn't emphasize the paintings of Renaissance artist Sandro Botticelli. Botticelli nearly single-handedly created the modern (that is post-Renaissance; one must think long term when considering the social impact of the fine arts) ideal of a beautiful woman with his stylized paintings of Simonetta Vespucci (1453-1476), the first Italian super-model.

  • Some of my favorite artists (Score:5, Interesting)

    by troyboy ( 9890 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @01:46PM (#22156296)
    Here are some of my favorite artists, with works that other slashdotters might enjoy:

    1. Brian Dettmer [wikipedia.org]: Dettmer reshapes and reforms older media like old textbooks, technical manuals, cassette tapes, and dictionaries, to make really fascinating derivative works. My favorites are his carved books, many of which are viewable here [centripetalnotion.com].

    2. Jason Salavon [wikipedia.org]: Salavon uses software to make art out of preexisting information, with some diverse and surprising work. His work is all displayed on his website [salavon.com].

    3. Ai Kijima [wikipedia.org]: Kijima recycles original bed sheets, table cloths, kimonos, and other fabrics to make colorful quilted collages, many of which use pop culture icons. Her work is viewable on her website [aikijima.com].

    Enjoy.

Slashdot Top Deals

It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.

Close