For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
That is what you call an ad hominem. To cover your mistake, you try to imply that there is something wrong with me.Pluto wrote:Your spending too much time online and on here.
If you followed the whole thread you will see I was complimentary to some of his work.Greta wrote:Picasso's work is beautiful to my eye and he had great talent, his lines always having exceptional rhythm, be they in his paintings, sketches or cartoons. My favourite pieces of his are probably Girl Before a Mirror and Guernica.
I usually find realism in painting to be less interesting than abstractions. I like abstract music too.
So the subjectivity of art appreciation is lost on you? Simple minded threads, by one that name drops an auto manufacturer, as if it's necessarily definitive of his worth.Hobbes' Choice wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:Wow, we actually have something else in common.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I've always thought how ugly was Picasso's work. Not all of it, and not even all the late stuff, of which the second pic below is an example. But this example epitomises what I can only think of as taking the piss: pushing the boundaries of taste in deformation to see just what he could get away with. Some works of this period are beautifully balanced and have a rare aesthetic. But this example - is it anything more than a result of his prodigious drug taking? Does it have any merit beyond is obscene price?
By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity.
I hate Picasso, I see that in cubism he returned to his childhood.
I prefer realism and idealism.
But then in truth, art is subjective, one persons poison, is another's cure.
It was never a priority or direct function of nature so the answer - at least mine - is NO.Pluto wrote:Does objective beauty exist?
It's as close to a contradiction is terms as it is possible to get.Pluto wrote:Does objective beauty exist?
