You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Painting With What's Left
The person who wrote that article is perhaps one of the few critical journalists left. Because that's exactly what the army uses you for.
The story is sad, but I think many veterans end up worse off due to a lack of support, or a lifeline that can be art, as in my story.
I zoomed in on the photo, and I was amazed by the level of detail in his work. I have no idea what style he works in, but his pieces are undoubtedly beautiful. I'm so glad you were able to buy one of him pieces.
I met him in the city park. There was an art market, and there was also a walking route with artworks on display; I didn’t see everything, just what was along my route. I think it’s part of the September event in Arnhem. Of course, it’s all about war again, in this case, the Second World War. It’s just crazy, the attention paid to it with the words: ‘never again’, whilst at the same time drones and bombs are flying all around us.
In any case, I’m going to write about it…
What I liked was how completely absorbed in his world he was whilst drawing.
It's always good to collaborate with living local artists; too much money is spent on works by dead painters when there are interesting works by living people who are content with just a few dollars.
The war makes me sick. There are recruiters even in my own country recruiting mercenaries to fight in Ukraine. Then, when they die in combat, their families demand repatriation of their bodies.
The military embarrasses me, but mercenaries make me nauseous. They don't deserve taxpayer money spent recovering the body of someone who's going to kill for money on the other side of the world.
But getting back to more pleasant topics, it's great to see someone who enjoys what they do so much, and who also does it well.
Mercenaries are a breed apart and certainly count amongst the hired killers. One moment they’re working for A, the next for B. To what extent can you trust such people, and another question is: how much do they get paid?
I find it a bit difficult to say that we shouldn’t invest in old art or, at the very least, keep it alive. Let’s face it, this is a part of history and culture, and there are very few people left who can paint in this way – and they don’t even use commercial paints; often these are their own recipes. I find it appalling when such old paintings are defaced and destroyed, and to be honest, I don’t see the point of it either; at the very least, it says a great deal about the perpetrators. A thin veneer of intellectualism, as we call it. You can’t expect much from the rabble. Hopefully, that isn’t the youth who are always said to be the future.
As for modern artists, to be honest, I don’t actually consider everything to be art either, and here too, at least in our country, quite a lot of money is being poured into it, much to the annoyance of many. It’s not the artists who paint from the heart who are helped or receive a grant or support; rather, it’s those who learn to work according to the often modern rules and have had the proper training – and that’s quite a separate circuit. Over the years – or rather, over the centuries – there have been many movements in which modern painters have criticised the Old Guard, or vice versa. I’ll just assume that every artist has an admirer, or at least a customer, just as people say about books and writers. Whether you can earn a living from it, let alone get rich, is another matter.
Perhaps the most important thing is simply the pleasure derived from creating something, from playing with materials, colours and even words.
Perhaps anything bound by rules isn’t even art, because rules stifle creativity and the spirit of inquiry.
Exactly, if I were a soldier and had mercenaries under my command, I would be more nervous about them than about the enemy.
With art, it's like with football players; they can be excellent, but in my opinion, you pay too much for both.
I mean, preserving works of art is fine by me, but for museums. Those who spend millions of dollars at art auctions seem to me, to a certain extent, like pirates. Trying to hoard everything that might be valuable.
In my country, art is also heavily subsidized. Of course, the selection criteria leave much to be desired, and friends or children of friends are always preferred.
Why, for example, doesn't the government organize exhibitions for people like the man in the photo? The value of his work would automatically increase by at least one zero.
I think art is ultimately something very subjective. Or maybe I just have a lack of artistic sensibility, haha.
I believe most of us know what art is if we see it, if energy, feeling is put into it, or if it is more a big nothing where the story around it should make it art and therefore valuable, although no one likes it.
The government prefers to invest that is also why rich organisations, big musea, banks, aid organisations receive the most even if they use it for nonsense and party with it. Same for football players. What they do is no art, there's too much aggression. Nothing sportive and investing such high amounts in one player triggers corruption.
Absolutely agree! The recent World Cup was a blatant display of corruption and madness! Inventing a FIFA Peace Prize just to give it to Trump was disgusting!
Not to mention all the aggression.
That peace prize is as ridiculous as the other one Trump wanted. We live in the age of clowns.
I don't understand how we allow crazy, elderly, paranoid, and thieving people in government; some have all of those flaws combined!