Electric
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (6 years, 8 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0

I WAS LOOKING THROUGH A MAGAZINE

that had both words and pictures. There was a picture that showed people standing in a gallery looking at various paintings and I saw people standing in a gallery looking at various paintings.
This caused me to wonder what other people saw in the same magazine with the same picture....

This closed post was written |
Views: 65, Subscribers: 7 |
Leave a reply | Report Post

⇩ Zoom to bottom
Reciprocity (0)
Reciprocity
Since writing this post BA1 may have helped people, but has not within the last four (4) days.
Post Tags (5)
people, picture, paintings, gallery, standing
Replies (12)
BA1 edited this post .

I WAS LOOKING THROUGH A MAGAZINEยฌ ยฌ that had both words and pictures. There was a picture that showed people standing in a gallery looking at various paintings andIand I saw people standing in a gallery looking at various paintings.ยฌ This caused me to wonder what other people saw in the same magazine with the same picture....

Yorick
(10 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

care to elaborate on this cuz it makes no sense to.. im pretty sure .. everyone besides yourself.. :D

Electric
Original Poster
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (6 years, 8 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(14 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

NaCtHoMaN wrote:
care to elaborate on this cuz it makes no sense to.. im pretty sure .. everyone besides yourself.. :D

Sure. I will be glad to elaborate.

The art in a gallery is subject to different criticisms and different views. The more people who view it, the more varying opinions there will be. In general, no one can come to terms and hardly agree on anything.
So, the underlying question is, what's the difference between looking at a work of art (such as a painting), and a photo in a magazine of people standing in a gallery looking at art?

It's strange when the social guards are down. People who look at the magazine would generally agree as to what they're looking at -
- BUT -

As people in life walk and talk about anything, there seems to be nothing that anyone agrees with anymore. No longer do any two people see what was once an ordinary common picture.

No longer can you call a duck for what it is.

Dr. ralph club zps9ornptsl
(22 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

Well a lot of art isn't much more than splotches of paint that look like they were thrown at a canvas, and so the art itself begs the question "what do you see". I mean nobody looks at Michelangelo's statue of David and wonders what the artist was trying to say or even what it is. What it is is a perfect image of man carved out of marble 17 feet tall. What it says is look what I can do, and it was hand chiseled over 500 years ago. Now we have art like this example which is titled Princess X. Uh huh, looks more like Phallus X. But maybe that's what he was trying to say about princesses.

http://www.artinsociety.com/uploads/9/7/8/7/978...

Dr. ralph club zps9ornptsl
(22 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

And I think social media makes it look like we are more divided than we really are. People just get on a computer anonymously ahem and argue about anything. It's become a way of life.

Anonymous
#
(1 day after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

No we don't.

Dr. ralph club zps9ornptsl
(2 days after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Electric
Original Poster
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (6 years, 8 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(2 days after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

DocteurRalph wrote:
Nobody looks at Michelangelo's statue of David and wonders what the artist was trying to say or even what it is. - and it was hand chiseled over 500 years ago.

You're making an absolute statement, speaking on behalf of everyone with the assumption that the source artist is always referenced. Don't misunderstand, I agree with you, but it's still art and therefore subject to arbitrary opinion of the viewer AND times have changed....for example; this country too was chiseled out about 500 years ago and now more than ever, people living in it can't seem to agree with it's most elementary terms even when it's been defined in the legal sense (in black and white) of the things that "are."
Remember back in the good 'ol days when stupidity reserved enough common sense to know when it had its a$$ handed to it. Nowadays you can serve it up on a gold platter and barely get any vital signs.
A world that can't see what "illegal" immigration is but totally gets the meaning of 54 (and growing) "fluid genders."
It's like no two people riding the train are sharing the same experience when it comes to riding the train.
Everyone's their own walking talking island.

Pup
(3 days after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

You still have not said what help you need.

It is by definition that two people will not see the same thing. Even your two eyes don't see the same thing. That is how you get understanding about what you are looking at.

Yorick
(3 days after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

Error wrote:

DocteurRalph wrote:
Nobody looks at Michelangelo's statue of David and wonders what the artist was trying to say or even what it is. - and it was hand chiseled over 500 years ago.

You're making an absolute statement, speaking on behalf of everyone with the assumption that the source artist is always referenced. Don't misunderstand, I agree with you, but it's still art and therefore subject to arbitrary opinion of the viewer AND times have changed....for example; this country too was chiseled out about 500 years ago and now more than ever, people living in it can't seem to agree with it's most elementary terms even when it's been defined in the legal sense (in black and white) of the things that "are."
Remember back in the good 'ol days when stupidity reserved enough common sense to know when it had its a$$ handed to it. Nowadays you can serve it up on a gold platter and barely get any vital signs.
A world that can't see what "illegal" immigration is but totally gets the meaning of 54 (and growing) "fluid genders."
It's like no two people riding the train are sharing the same experience when it comes to riding the train.
Everyone's their own walking talking island.

perhaps people admired the fine artwork and not the meaning of it

Electric
Original Poster
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (6 years, 8 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(3 days after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

SmartAZ wrote:
You still have not said what help you need.

I was not reaching out for help, I was stating an observation.

SmartAZ wrote:
It is by definition that two people will not see the same thing. Even your two eyes don't see the same thing. That is how you get understanding about what you are looking at.

I would say you make a singular determination based on the fact that each of your eyes have seen the same thing - they both agree at what they're looking at.
....It's not as if one eye sees a frog at the same time the other is looking at a chicken (a bad example but it works). You wouldn't be able to arrive to a final conclusion (and if you did 50% of that conclusion would remain in doubt).

Now, if you're saying each eye has a different perspective of the same object - hey - that's how vision works and people interact in the same way; there is harmony.
.....at least there was once harmony, to a point.

Hayao
(6 days after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

There's a famous painting of a pipe called "The Treachery of Images," by Rene Magritte. It's very popular for it's context. It's a surrealist work that highlights the idea that words and objects are not the same thing. A representation of something and the thing that it is are not the same thing, which is really really interesting, especially because meanings can be interpreted so differently. It makes me think that the genuine significance behind you actually being present in the gallery is because you are living in the moment for yourself, you're writing the story, you're seeing things for how they truly are. Everything in front of you is fact. And an image is just a shadow of that moment that can be interpreted a thousand, million ways but the moment has passed.

I don't know, that's kind of where my mind went. It's a very interesting thing to think about.

9109252
(1 week after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

People looking at a picture of people looking at pictures, this sounds like putting two mirrors in front of each other to see infinite dimensions

This post has been closed. Thanks for stopping by!
⇧ Zoom to top

Help-QA supports basic Markdown, emoji ๐Ÿ˜, and tagging friends with @username!