Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 16:52:16 GMT 1, I think we should always be a sceptical of art that gives that instant aesthetic "sugar kick". The "cool" factor. The merging of a pretty face with vacant eyes and comic books was always going to look great as a jpeg or 800px image on a screen. "Like" button art if you like.
My initial reaction was the same as some of the people critiquing it on here, to dismiss it for it's lack of intellectual or technical rigour as well as not trust my own instant liking of it. Then I had another look and saw the sadness in the eyes, these characters had a depth that went way beyond cool and I felt myself empathising with certain "eyes", the eyes being windows to the characters souls, a clichรฉ I know, but these were the ones I initially bought. I felt a strong affinity to them, as you would in a strong figurative portrait. There's a certain melancholy about them. This is usually emphasised by the the encroaching comic imagery. It doesn't always work for me, but then the ones that don't, usually do for others. You either connect, or you don't, but when I did, it went deep, and for me that's quite rare in this field.
I think Sandra is building a strong reputation because she's managed to unite the "cool" aesthetic of "urban contemporary art" which exists outside of traditional "fine art" with the tradition of strong empathic portraiture and the self taught ethos of outsider art. In essense, she has it all, which is why it's going to have longevity. She's becoming technically better and better as a painter, as painters who love to paint do.
Again, I'd say you only get out of something what you're prepared to put in, and to dismiss this as "sugar kick" art "designed" soley for this market is just a reflection of your own lack of effort. It's a lazy critique, (as is calling someone out on facebook and expecting them to engage with you).
On the flip side, those who critique it for it's lack of academic or art historical referencing or whether it's relevant to the big picture of "art history" or "contemporary art" are missing the point of what this culture is about. A dynamic alternative to the traditional hegemony of "fine art"....or whatever.
A really interesting and for me "right" critique of Sandra's work can be found here.
jonnyburtart.blogspot.no/2013/06/cages-of-expectation-sandra-chevrier.html
I think we should always be a sceptical of art that gives that instant aesthetic "sugar kick". The "cool" factor. The merging of a pretty face with vacant eyes and comic books was always going to look great as a jpeg or 800px image on a screen. "Like" button art if you like. My initial reaction was the same as some of the people critiquing it on here, to dismiss it for it's lack of intellectual or technical rigour as well as not trust my own instant liking of it. Then I had another look and saw the sadness in the eyes, these characters had a depth that went way beyond cool and I felt myself empathising with certain "eyes", the eyes being windows to the characters souls, a clichรฉ I know, but these were the ones I initially bought. I felt a strong affinity to them, as you would in a strong figurative portrait. There's a certain melancholy about them. This is usually emphasised by the the encroaching comic imagery. It doesn't always work for me, but then the ones that don't, usually do for others. You either connect, or you don't, but when I did, it went deep, and for me that's quite rare in this field. I think Sandra is building a strong reputation because she's managed to unite the "cool" aesthetic of "urban contemporary art" which exists outside of traditional "fine art" with the tradition of strong empathic portraiture and the self taught ethos of outsider art. In essense, she has it all, which is why it's going to have longevity. She's becoming technically better and better as a painter, as painters who love to paint do. Again, I'd say you only get out of something what you're prepared to put in, and to dismiss this as "sugar kick" art "designed" soley for this market is just a reflection of your own lack of effort. It's a lazy critique, (as is calling someone out on facebook and expecting them to engage with you). On the flip side, those who critique it for it's lack of academic or art historical referencing or whether it's relevant to the big picture of "art history" or "contemporary art" are missing the point of what this culture is about. A dynamic alternative to the traditional hegemony of "fine art"....or whatever. A really interesting and for me "right" critique of Sandra's work can be found here. jonnyburtart.blogspot.no/2013/06/cages-of-expectation-sandra-chevrier.html |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 18:16:00 GMT 1, That review I mentioned
I love art that makes me hate myself.
Art that, in the hunt and hysteria of discovering something new, magnetises the lustful viewer and numbs him to the artistโs hidden message imbued within. If you arenโt already numbed by the pretentiousness of that introduction, let me explain what I mean. Art works when art makes you fall in love with it for the wrong reasons. Not because its subject matter is evil, but because you โ the mortal civilian โ you fell for the trick of appearance. In an age saturated by image, the enchanting magic of what we see all too often leads us astray from the harsh reality of what is.
Whilst absent-mindedly wading through Juxtapoz in an attempt to track down my next artist for review, Montreal-based painter Sandra Chevrier caught my attention like sheโd physically climbed through my MacBook monitor, wrenched out my eyeballs and escaped back into the vortex of the internet forever. If youโre aware of my own work which has veered more recently into the realm of mixed media collaged faces, you might understand why. Consumed in the moment by the enduring beauty of Chevrierโs work I was anaesthetised to what the work was actually trying to say. I was reminded of my own ability to fall for the trick of superficial illusions to which we all fall victim in todayโs society. It was only after closer inspection, having thoroughly unpicked the meaning of Chevrierโs paintings, that I realised I had reacted purely at the sight of an artist whose work I thought might be deemed โcoolโ โ shoot me.
Now, I stick by that โ Chevrierโs work is fucking cool. But her work is so aesthetically striking that itโs difficult to drag yourself away from the lure of the outer and get you hands dirty with the grit of the inner. Reminiscent of the arresting superhero aesthetic employed in previously covered artist, Lora Zombie, this is what makes this great art: Chevrierโs work demands to be dissected.
Chevrierโs collaged portraits are torn, quite literally, between the superimposed cuttings of fantastical comic book humour and the harsh, underlying tragedy of oppressed female identity. Chevrier imagines her female figures inside societyโs incarcerating โCagesโ of expectation that forces them to live up to a superheroic image. The comic-book collage, at once bold and alluring echo rather entertaining pop-art references, yet upon closer scrutiny we realise the bitter irony that these plastered female faces are silenced, blinded and smothered by the very images that seduce us into their existence.
Itโs a brilliant, deceptively simple device that speaks to our cyber-induced, brainwashed inability to view women through nothing but pornographic eyes; an agonising, paradoxical truth that both denies and validates female identity. Thereโs a sense of torturous struggle as the images encroach on the figure's ability to see. If the women arenโt blinded entirely by Chevrier's collage, their jailed stares are vacant โ weak โ defeatist; a quiet and tragic resigned acceptance perhaps, that their gendered identity goes no deeper than the image of societyโs superficial, fetishized mask strapped to their faces.
The collage, which often features epic and dramatic battle scenes taken from real comic book magazines, is applied rather haphazardly, yet this somewhat incongruous style of application, with fictional characters that reaches an almost theatrical level, only enhances the message of the chaotic and farcical pressures placed upon women to perform superheroic deeds in society. It's a very astute angle from Chevrier, because in a cultureless society bent on teaching our young to aspire to the lie of celebrity, the artist perfectly satirises the ludicrousness of unrealistic expectations and unattainable dreams.
That review I mentioned
I love art that makes me hate myself.
Art that, in the hunt and hysteria of discovering something new, magnetises the lustful viewer and numbs him to the artistโs hidden message imbued within. If you arenโt already numbed by the pretentiousness of that introduction, let me explain what I mean. Art works when art makes you fall in love with it for the wrong reasons. Not because its subject matter is evil, but because you โ the mortal civilian โ you fell for the trick of appearance. In an age saturated by image, the enchanting magic of what we see all too often leads us astray from the harsh reality of what is.
Whilst absent-mindedly wading through Juxtapoz in an attempt to track down my next artist for review, Montreal-based painter Sandra Chevrier caught my attention like sheโd physically climbed through my MacBook monitor, wrenched out my eyeballs and escaped back into the vortex of the internet forever. If youโre aware of my own work which has veered more recently into the realm of mixed media collaged faces, you might understand why. Consumed in the moment by the enduring beauty of Chevrierโs work I was anaesthetised to what the work was actually trying to say. I was reminded of my own ability to fall for the trick of superficial illusions to which we all fall victim in todayโs society. It was only after closer inspection, having thoroughly unpicked the meaning of Chevrierโs paintings, that I realised I had reacted purely at the sight of an artist whose work I thought might be deemed โcoolโ โ shoot me.
Now, I stick by that โ Chevrierโs work is fucking cool. But her work is so aesthetically striking that itโs difficult to drag yourself away from the lure of the outer and get you hands dirty with the grit of the inner. Reminiscent of the arresting superhero aesthetic employed in previously covered artist, Lora Zombie, this is what makes this great art: Chevrierโs work demands to be dissected.
Chevrierโs collaged portraits are torn, quite literally, between the superimposed cuttings of fantastical comic book humour and the harsh, underlying tragedy of oppressed female identity. Chevrier imagines her female figures inside societyโs incarcerating โCagesโ of expectation that forces them to live up to a superheroic image. The comic-book collage, at once bold and alluring echo rather entertaining pop-art references, yet upon closer scrutiny we realise the bitter irony that these plastered female faces are silenced, blinded and smothered by the very images that seduce us into their existence.
Itโs a brilliant, deceptively simple device that speaks to our cyber-induced, brainwashed inability to view women through nothing but pornographic eyes; an agonising, paradoxical truth that both denies and validates female identity. Thereโs a sense of torturous struggle as the images encroach on the figure's ability to see. If the women arenโt blinded entirely by Chevrier's collage, their jailed stares are vacant โ weak โ defeatist; a quiet and tragic resigned acceptance perhaps, that their gendered identity goes no deeper than the image of societyโs superficial, fetishized mask strapped to their faces.
The collage, which often features epic and dramatic battle scenes taken from real comic book magazines, is applied rather haphazardly, yet this somewhat incongruous style of application, with fictional characters that reaches an almost theatrical level, only enhances the message of the chaotic and farcical pressures placed upon women to perform superheroic deeds in society. It's a very astute angle from Chevrier, because in a cultureless society bent on teaching our young to aspire to the lie of celebrity, the artist perfectly satirises the ludicrousness of unrealistic expectations and unattainable dreams.
|
|
sin
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 614
๐๐ป 737
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by sin on Feb 2, 2015 18:26:16 GMT 1, I think we should always be a sceptical of art that gives that instant aesthetic "sugar kick". The "cool" factor. The merging of a pretty face with vacant eyes and comic books was always going to look great as a jpeg or 800px image on a screen. "Like" button art if you like. My initial reaction was the same as some of the people critiquing it on here, to dismiss it for it's lack of intellectual or technical rigour as well as not trust my own instant liking of it. Then I had another look and saw the sadness in the eyes, these characters had a depth that went way beyond cool and I felt myself empathising with certain "eyes", the eyes being windows to the characters souls, a clichรฉ I know, but these were the ones I initially bought. I felt a strong affinity to them, as you would in a strong figurative portrait. There's a certain melancholy about them. This is usually emphasised by the the encroaching comic imagery. It doesn't always work for me, but then the ones that don't usually do for others. You either connect, or you don't, but when I did, it went deep, and for me that's quite rare in this field. I think Sandra is building a strong reputation because she's managed to unite the "cool" aesthetic of "urban contemporary art" which exists outside of traditional "fine art" with the tradition of strong empathic portraiture and the self taught ethos of outsider art. In essense, she has it all, which is why it's going to have longevity. She's becoming technically better and better as a painter, as painters who love to paint do. Again, I'd say you only get out of something what you're prepared to put in, and to dismiss this as "sugar kick" art "designed" soley for this market is just a reflection of your own lack of effort. It's a lazy critique, (as is calling someone out on facebook and expecting them to engage with you). On the flip side, those who critique it for it's lack of academic or art historical referencing or whether it's relevant to the big picture of "art history" or "contemporary art" are missing the point of what this culture is about. A dynamic alternative to the traditional hegemony of "fine art"....or whatever. A really interesting and for me "right" critique of Sandra's work can be found here. jonnyburtart.blogspot.no/2013/06/cages-of-expectation-sandra-chevrier.html
While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little.
This ending piece particularly got stuck in my craw.
"only enhances the message of the chaotic and farcical pressures placed upon women to perform superheroic deeds in society. It's a very astute angle from Chevrier, because in a cultureless society bent on teaching our young to aspire to the lie of celebrity, the artist perfectly satirises the ludicrousness of unrealistic expectations and unattainable dreams."
Someone please break out the violins. How does painting idealized forms of women do anything to challenge this? Some people can find deeper meaning in a crappy cup of coffee. Seriously. As a father of a 12 year old daughter growing up in this society that applies unreasonable pressures TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF GENDER. I fail to see what this body of work says about it that is meaningful or novel.
The biggest problem with the work (other than its excessive self indulgence of self exploration) is that she is painting symbols. Not what eyes look like, but idealized symbols of eyes. Not what the honest lines of a the connection of a women's leg to her back look like, but an idealized sweeping line. Paint a picture of a fat girl, a black girl, a awkward rail thin girl who gets overlooked. Show me wonderwomen with glasses and a skin condition. Challenge my expectations of beauty and strength, dont feed me a bunch of pretty pictures of girls with symetrical boobs and made up symbols of eyes and feed it to me like its a revolution.
We seek to justify our choices by creating reasons for it. We create pillars in our own thoughts that make it hard if not impossible to tear down. This is graphic art. She found something that worked by accident and either on her own or thought some additional support sought to paint a deeper narrative around it, and frankly that narrative of women empowerment is nauseating in its falsehood.
Seriously, that blog post, reread, is possibly the most painful over intellectualized quest for meaning I have ever read. With this work, the vision is weak, the translation is weak, and the execution isn't honest. We've shown in other threads the real lack of ability to render hands, in most of these images we see symbols vs real rendering. Let people buy it, hype it, but as much as you compliment it the emperor is still buck naked.
As a last piece of input
The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic.
I think we should always be a sceptical of art that gives that instant aesthetic "sugar kick". The "cool" factor. The merging of a pretty face with vacant eyes and comic books was always going to look great as a jpeg or 800px image on a screen. "Like" button art if you like. My initial reaction was the same as some of the people critiquing it on here, to dismiss it for it's lack of intellectual or technical rigour as well as not trust my own instant liking of it. Then I had another look and saw the sadness in the eyes, these characters had a depth that went way beyond cool and I felt myself empathising with certain "eyes", the eyes being windows to the characters souls, a clichรฉ I know, but these were the ones I initially bought. I felt a strong affinity to them, as you would in a strong figurative portrait. There's a certain melancholy about them. This is usually emphasised by the the encroaching comic imagery. It doesn't always work for me, but then the ones that don't usually do for others. You either connect, or you don't, but when I did, it went deep, and for me that's quite rare in this field. I think Sandra is building a strong reputation because she's managed to unite the "cool" aesthetic of "urban contemporary art" which exists outside of traditional "fine art" with the tradition of strong empathic portraiture and the self taught ethos of outsider art. In essense, she has it all, which is why it's going to have longevity. She's becoming technically better and better as a painter, as painters who love to paint do. Again, I'd say you only get out of something what you're prepared to put in, and to dismiss this as "sugar kick" art "designed" soley for this market is just a reflection of your own lack of effort. It's a lazy critique, (as is calling someone out on facebook and expecting them to engage with you). On the flip side, those who critique it for it's lack of academic or art historical referencing or whether it's relevant to the big picture of "art history" or "contemporary art" are missing the point of what this culture is about. A dynamic alternative to the traditional hegemony of "fine art"....or whatever. A really interesting and for me "right" critique of Sandra's work can be found here. jonnyburtart.blogspot.no/2013/06/cages-of-expectation-sandra-chevrier.htmlWhile I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. This ending piece particularly got stuck in my craw. "only enhances the message of the chaotic and farcical pressures placed upon women to perform superheroic deeds in society. It's a very astute angle from Chevrier, because in a cultureless society bent on teaching our young to aspire to the lie of celebrity, the artist perfectly satirises the ludicrousness of unrealistic expectations and unattainable dreams." Someone please break out the violins. How does painting idealized forms of women do anything to challenge this? Some people can find deeper meaning in a crappy cup of coffee. Seriously. As a father of a 12 year old daughter growing up in this society that applies unreasonable pressures TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF GENDER. I fail to see what this body of work says about it that is meaningful or novel. The biggest problem with the work (other than its excessive self indulgence of self exploration) is that she is painting symbols. Not what eyes look like, but idealized symbols of eyes. Not what the honest lines of a the connection of a women's leg to her back look like, but an idealized sweeping line. Paint a picture of a fat girl, a black girl, a awkward rail thin girl who gets overlooked. Show me wonderwomen with glasses and a skin condition. Challenge my expectations of beauty and strength, dont feed me a bunch of pretty pictures of girls with symetrical boobs and made up symbols of eyes and feed it to me like its a revolution. We seek to justify our choices by creating reasons for it. We create pillars in our own thoughts that make it hard if not impossible to tear down. This is graphic art. She found something that worked by accident and either on her own or thought some additional support sought to paint a deeper narrative around it, and frankly that narrative of women empowerment is nauseating in its falsehood. Seriously, that blog post, reread, is possibly the most painful over intellectualized quest for meaning I have ever read. With this work, the vision is weak, the translation is weak, and the execution isn't honest. We've shown in other threads the real lack of ability to render hands, in most of these images we see symbols vs real rendering. Let people buy it, hype it, but as much as you compliment it the emperor is still buck naked. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 20:14:57 GMT 1,
Alright, that's some damn good positioning. Is that your place, FR? Where's Bae?
Alright, that's some damn good positioning. Is that your place, FR? Where's Bae? |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 21:01:03 GMT 1, While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic.
While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic. You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,962
๐๐ป 1,810
June 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by randomname on Feb 2, 2015 21:30:03 GMT 1, While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic. You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
What's with the personal attacks? He has an opinion that he supported. Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the argument doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I think you'll find the opposite to be true.
While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic. You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
What's with the personal attacks? He has an opinion that he supported. Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the argument doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I think you'll find the opposite to be true. |
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 22:00:06 GMT 1, You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
What's with the personal attacks? He has an opinion that he supported. Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the argument doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I think you'll find the opposite to be true.
But never mind, I'm sure you had your reasons.
Let's get back on track hey, what's the best Sandra Chevrier image you guys have ? Anyone have any pre "Cages" pieces ?
You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
What's with the personal attacks? He has an opinion that he supported. Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the argument doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I think you'll find the opposite to be true. Attack ?, a bit thin skinned aren't we. Anyway, didn't you just post something about stalking Sandra on facebook to "critique" her work ? Very odd behaviour IMO. But never mind, I'm sure you had your reasons. Let's get back on track hey, what's the best Sandra Chevrier image you guys have ? Anyone have any pre "Cages" pieces ? |
|
sin
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 614
๐๐ป 737
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by sin on Feb 2, 2015 22:09:56 GMT 1, While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic. You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
Oh, right, this is where you try to insult me through passive aggressive challenges of authority.
Clean off your chin there sweetheart, you've got some of my intellect on you.
1. That "critique" was the worst sort of fan boy pseudo intellectual drivel. Seeking to paint meaning around decorative art. I mean both of them, yours and hers. Trying to say you can see the emotions in the eyes of a work, where the eyes are symbols is just laughable. Go look for the deeper meaning in a precious moments postcard and spare me.
2. While it hasn't been mentioned in a while. Let's take away the work product of other artists from these cage pieces and see how they stand. 'Cause there is "sampling" and then there is singing vocals over the same track and that shit is stealing. This will bring up the point of appropriation, blah blah blah, but as I have said on that same topic before, the difference between appropriation and stealing is hard to describe but easy to spot. Remove other artists work from this work and where does it stand? Some idealized, symbolized paintings of women where the anatomy isn't always right, the lines arent always true and an exploration of the unreasonable expectations of women's beauty is explored by duplicating those same lies.
Like you man, I invest more than a reasonable amount of time and resources into this thing of ours and if you cant reply to critique with a well thought out response then why waste the time with some half ass retort that only shows that you've given up on your point and have settled for making personal attacks.
While I'll make an effort to expand upon the thought it a more meaningful way, this post and that "critique" just made me throw up in my mouth a little. As a last piece of input The supposed narrative would possibly work if the women were honestly painted, the subjects were real people not idealized objects and maybe the comics actually were taken from something other than Marvel Universe. Personally I think using classic comic book art collage as major portions of the work pushes pretty close to stealing, but that's another topic. You sound angry again Sin ;-), though it's always interesting to hear armchair critics telling artists how their work can be improved.
Oh, right, this is where you try to insult me through passive aggressive challenges of authority. Clean off your chin there sweetheart, you've got some of my intellect on you. 1. That "critique" was the worst sort of fan boy pseudo intellectual drivel. Seeking to paint meaning around decorative art. I mean both of them, yours and hers. Trying to say you can see the emotions in the eyes of a work, where the eyes are symbols is just laughable. Go look for the deeper meaning in a precious moments postcard and spare me. 2. While it hasn't been mentioned in a while. Let's take away the work product of other artists from these cage pieces and see how they stand. 'Cause there is "sampling" and then there is singing vocals over the same track and that shit is stealing. This will bring up the point of appropriation, blah blah blah, but as I have said on that same topic before, the difference between appropriation and stealing is hard to describe but easy to spot. Remove other artists work from this work and where does it stand? Some idealized, symbolized paintings of women where the anatomy isn't always right, the lines arent always true and an exploration of the unreasonable expectations of women's beauty is explored by duplicating those same lies. Like you man, I invest more than a reasonable amount of time and resources into this thing of ours and if you cant reply to critique with a well thought out response then why waste the time with some half ass retort that only shows that you've given up on your point and have settled for making personal attacks. |
|
randomname
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,962
๐๐ป 1,810
June 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by randomname on Feb 2, 2015 22:12:55 GMT 1, What's with the personal attacks? He has an opinion that he supported. Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the argument doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I think you'll find the opposite to be true. Attack ?, a bit thin skinned aren't we. Anyway, didn't you just post something about stalking Sandra on facebook ? Never mind. Let's get back on track, what's the best Sandra Chevrier image you guys have ? Anyone have any pre "Cages" pieces ?
I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago.
What's with the personal attacks? He has an opinion that he supported. Attacking the messenger when you can't attack the argument doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I think you'll find the opposite to be true. Attack ?, a bit thin skinned aren't we. Anyway, didn't you just post something about stalking Sandra on facebook ? Never mind. Let's get back on track, what's the best Sandra Chevrier image you guys have ? Anyone have any pre "Cages" pieces ? I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago. |
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Fะฏ on Feb 2, 2015 22:30:51 GMT 1, Attack ?, a bit thin skinned aren't we. Anyway, didn't you just post something about stalking Sandra on facebook ? Never mind. Let's get back on track, what's the best Sandra Chevrier image you guys have ? Anyone have any pre "Cages" pieces ? I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago.
you have done both, so this is for you...
Attack ?, a bit thin skinned aren't we. Anyway, didn't you just post something about stalking Sandra on facebook ? Never mind. Let's get back on track, what's the best Sandra Chevrier image you guys have ? Anyone have any pre "Cages" pieces ? I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago. Insulting is just as bad as misquoting people on purpose. you have done both, so this is for you... |
|
randomname
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,962
๐๐ป 1,810
June 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by randomname on Feb 2, 2015 22:34:04 GMT 1, I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago. Insulting is just as bad as misquoting people on purpose. you have done both, so this is for you... media.giphy.com/media/jDr2VgOtOKkWk/giphy.gif
I quoted you verbatim. It's not my fault your words convey your intelligence. Or the lack thereof.
I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago. Insulting is just as bad as misquoting people on purpose. you have done both, so this is for you... media.giphy.com/media/jDr2VgOtOKkWk/giphy.gifI quoted you verbatim. It's not my fault your words convey your intelligence. Or the lack thereof. |
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Fะฏ on Feb 2, 2015 23:15:59 GMT 1, New 30 colour screen print by Graffiti Prints on its way.
that just made all the giclee hating crew look like mugs.
New 30 colour screen print by Graffiti Prints on its way. that just made all the giclee hating crew look like mugs. |
|
jayTown
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,738
๐๐ป 1,213
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by jayTown on Feb 2, 2015 23:45:51 GMT 1, C'mon. Who just pipped me to the OG that just finished on eBay???
C'mon. Who just pipped me to the OG that just finished on eBay???
|
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Fะฏ on Feb 2, 2015 23:46:19 GMT 1, Which one
Which one
|
|
|
|
jayTown
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,738
๐๐ป 1,213
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by jayTown on Feb 2, 2015 23:47:47 GMT 1, One with the skeleton on it.
One with the skeleton on it.
|
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,946
๐๐ป 2,740
November 2010
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Hairbland on Feb 2, 2015 23:48:22 GMT 1, Classic comic book images placed strikingly on beautifully photoshopped sexy women - what's not for a boy 17-25 to love? Or for those with the 17-25 year old boy eternally alive in themselves? For me, the various artists using anonymous hot women as a base for their work is tiresome, has been since day one, and over time will have little shelf life. For now, just a great marketing concept if done correctly. Will have to disagree on the using beautiful hot women as something with little shelf life.. 
In fact with your second pic we can compare a timeless piece and a piece of the moment.
Classic comic book images placed strikingly on beautifully photoshopped sexy women - what's not for a boy 17-25 to love? Or for those with the 17-25 year old boy eternally alive in themselves? For me, the various artists using anonymous hot women as a base for their work is tiresome, has been since day one, and over time will have little shelf life. For now, just a great marketing concept if done correctly. Will have to disagree on the using beautiful hot women as something with little shelf life.. Apples and oranges to me. In fact with your second pic we can compare a timeless piece and a piece of the moment. |
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
|
|
jayTown
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,738
๐๐ป 1,213
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by jayTown on Feb 2, 2015 23:51:10 GMT 1, Not far off.
Not far off.
|
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Fะฏ on Feb 2, 2015 23:51:46 GMT 1, Nice pickup for someone
Nice pickup for someone
|
|
jayTown
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,738
๐๐ป 1,213
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by jayTown on Feb 2, 2015 23:52:35 GMT 1, Too right. Very annoyed/ jealous. Lovely piece that.
Too right. Very annoyed/ jealous. Lovely piece that.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 8:14:08 GMT 1, I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago. Insulting is just as bad as misquoting people on purpose. you have done both, so this is for you...
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/dc/25/d1dc25ed4ee58702c0013076744ebacc.jpg
I don't think anyone has ever referred to me as thin skinned. I'm just of the opinion that insulting people simply because they disagree with you is a little childish. If you have to rely on name calling and insults, there's a good chance you lost your argument a long time ago. Insulting is just as bad as misquoting people on purpose. you have done both, so this is for you... That one is cool too, from B-movie A.P.E s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/dc/25/d1dc25ed4ee58702c0013076744ebacc.jpg |
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Fะฏ on Feb 3, 2015 8:39:10 GMT 1, Right hook clyde.
Right hook clyde.
|
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 18:06:13 GMT 1, Id say art directing photo shoots is a clear evolution already... Im excited to see whats next.
Id say art directing photo shoots is a clear evolution already... Im excited to see whats next. |
|
sin
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 614
๐๐ป 737
February 2013
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by sin on Feb 3, 2015 18:19:19 GMT 1, Will have to disagree on the using beautiful hot women as something with little shelf life.. Apples and oranges to me. In fact with your second pic we can compare a timeless piece and a piece of the moment.
Munch sexualized a piece of religious iconography in the late 1800's. That is challenging the viewer, society as a whole. The lines are honest, look at the break in the waist, the irregular curves in the breasts. The piece is at once sacred and profane. That, is art. Munch was painting a women he idealized, for certain, but he painted her honestly. He made her the mother of god, in the throws of passion. Fuck man, the rest of this thread doesnt even deserve to be close to something that good.
Will have to disagree on the using beautiful hot women as something with little shelf life.. Apples and oranges to me. In fact with your second pic we can compare a timeless piece and a piece of the moment. I'm sorry, comparing Munch's Madonna to this is hilarious. Munch sexualized a piece of religious iconography in the late 1800's. That is challenging the viewer, society as a whole. The lines are honest, look at the break in the waist, the irregular curves in the breasts. The piece is at once sacred and profane. That, is art. Munch was painting a women he idealized, for certain, but he painted her honestly. He made her the mother of god, in the throws of passion. Fuck man, the rest of this thread doesnt even deserve to be close to something that good. |
|
sake
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 317
๐๐ป 104
January 2014
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by sake on Feb 3, 2015 19:47:23 GMT 1, Let me be clear, I was only stating that beauty sells and have allways done so. There is a reason Munch chose a good looking modell and not some beat up, disease overweight 50 year old wreck. I'm not comparing SC to Munch and I'm not comparing surrealism to pop art.
That is apples and oranges.
Just stating: beauty sells, allways have. I can find lots of legendary artists view on beauty and show that beauty's shelf life holds for centuries. I think that looking down on art because the artist uses a beautiful object is ridiculous.
"For me, the various artists using anonymous hot women as a base for their work is tiresome, has been since day one, and over time will have little shelf life.
For now, just a great marketing concept if done correctly.
"
Just trying to explain how I think this is way off.
Apples and oranges to me. In fact with your second pic we can compare a timeless piece and a piece of the moment. I'm sorry, comparing Munch's Madonna to this is hilarious. Munch sexualized a piece of religious iconography in the late 1800's. That is challenging the viewer, society as a whole. The lines are honest, look at the break in the waist, the irregular curves in the breasts. The piece is at once sacred and profane. That, is art. Munch was painting a women he idealized, for certain, but he painted her honestly. He made her the mother of god, in the throws of passion. f**k man, the rest of this thread doesnt even deserve to be close to something that good.
Let me be clear, I was only stating that beauty sells and have allways done so. There is a reason Munch chose a good looking modell and not some beat up, disease overweight 50 year old wreck. I'm not comparing SC to Munch and I'm not comparing surrealism to pop art. That is apples and oranges. Just stating: beauty sells, allways have. I can find lots of legendary artists view on beauty and show that beauty's shelf life holds for centuries. I think that looking down on art because the artist uses a beautiful object is ridiculous. "For me, the various artists using anonymous hot women as a base for their work is tiresome, has been since day one, and over time will have little shelf life. For now, just a great marketing concept if done correctly. " Just trying to explain how I think this is way off. Apples and oranges to me. In fact with your second pic we can compare a timeless piece and a piece of the moment. I'm sorry, comparing Munch's Madonna to this is hilarious. Munch sexualized a piece of religious iconography in the late 1800's. That is challenging the viewer, society as a whole. The lines are honest, look at the break in the waist, the irregular curves in the breasts. The piece is at once sacred and profane. That, is art. Munch was painting a women he idealized, for certain, but he painted her honestly. He made her the mother of god, in the throws of passion. f**k man, the rest of this thread doesnt even deserve to be close to something that good. |
|
Prescription Art
Art Gallery
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 3,146
๐๐ป 1,215
November 2007
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Prescription Art on Feb 3, 2015 20:39:31 GMT 1, Let me be clear, I was only stating that beauty sells and have allways done so. There is a reason Munch chose a good looking modell and not some beat up, disease overweight 50 year old wreck. I'm not comparing SC to Munch and I'm not comparing surrealism to pop art. That is apples and oranges. Just stating: beauty sells, allways have. I can find lots of legendary artists view on beauty and show that beauty's shelf life holds for centuries. I think that looking down on art because the artist uses a beautiful object is ridiculous.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7398949.stm
Let me be clear, I was only stating that beauty sells and have allways done so. There is a reason Munch chose a good looking modell and not some beat up, disease overweight 50 year old wreck. I'm not comparing SC to Munch and I'm not comparing surrealism to pop art. That is apples and oranges. Just stating: beauty sells, allways have. I can find lots of legendary artists view on beauty and show that beauty's shelf life holds for centuries. I think that looking down on art because the artist uses a beautiful object is ridiculous. |
|
sake
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 317
๐๐ป 104
January 2014
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by sake on Feb 3, 2015 21:08:59 GMT 1, Just stating that it does not have to be beauty to sell?
Does not make a good defence for beautiful works having a short shelf life or disprove the arguments made.
Only states that art also can be "ugly". If you want to I can find some links to Da Vinci, monet, michelangelo, banksy+++
Let me be clear, I was only stating that beauty sells and have allways done so. There is a reason Munch chose a good looking modell and not some beat up, disease overweight 50 year old wreck. I'm not comparing SC to Munch and I'm not comparing surrealism to pop art. That is apples and oranges. Just stating: beauty sells, allways have. I can find lots of legendary artists view on beauty and show that beauty's shelf life holds for centuries. I think that looking down on art because the artist uses a beautiful object is ridiculous.
Just stating that it does not have to be beauty to sell? Does not make a good defence for beautiful works having a short shelf life or disprove the arguments made. Only states that art also can be "ugly". If you want to I can find some links to Da Vinci, monet, michelangelo, banksy+++ Let me be clear, I was only stating that beauty sells and have allways done so. There is a reason Munch chose a good looking modell and not some beat up, disease overweight 50 year old wreck. I'm not comparing SC to Munch and I'm not comparing surrealism to pop art. That is apples and oranges. Just stating: beauty sells, allways have. I can find lots of legendary artists view on beauty and show that beauty's shelf life holds for centuries. I think that looking down on art because the artist uses a beautiful object is ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 21:09:06 GMT 1, ^ thats a great painting. And makes a great, yet different statement of beauty.
Sandra chooses to paint good looking women (To me, anyways, im sure others may differ), shes also choosing to paint pictures of women that look much like herself. Thin, white women. The difference and challenge is, the expectations these women are faced with as people, children, mothers, professionals, etc. Its crazy to think how barbaric we were to women not so long ago... I feel the cages represents that well. My personal opinion.
^ thats a great painting. And makes a great, yet different statement of beauty.
Sandra chooses to paint good looking women (To me, anyways, im sure others may differ), shes also choosing to paint pictures of women that look much like herself. Thin, white women. The difference and challenge is, the expectations these women are faced with as people, children, mothers, professionals, etc. Its crazy to think how barbaric we were to women not so long ago... I feel the cages represents that well. My personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
Best Sandra Chevrier Image, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Feb 3, 2015 23:11:27 GMT 1, ^ thats a great painting. And makes a great, yet different statement of beauty. Sandra chooses to paint good looking women (To me, anyways, im sure others may differ), shes also choosing to paint pictures of women that look much like herself. Thin, white women. The difference and challenge is, the expectations these women are faced with as people, children, mothers, professionals, etc. Its crazy to think how barbaric we were to women not so long ago... I feel the cages represents that well. My personal opinion.
Or let her speak for herself arrestedmotion.com/2015/02/studio-visit-interviews-sandra-chevrier/
^ thats a great painting. And makes a great, yet different statement of beauty. Sandra chooses to paint good looking women (To me, anyways, im sure others may differ), shes also choosing to paint pictures of women that look much like herself. Thin, white women. The difference and challenge is, the expectations these women are faced with as people, children, mothers, professionals, etc. Its crazy to think how barbaric we were to women not so long ago... I feel the cages represents that well. My personal opinion. So Thin white women are faced with great diversity and challenges? I dont know if that is true or makes any sense. I would guess that that demographic might have it easier than many other demographics. Again defending her with these type of comments just makes it worse, please just let her art speak for itself and appreciate it for what it is. Or let her speak for herself arrestedmotion.com/2015/02/studio-visit-interviews-sandra-chevrier/ |
|
|
|
