Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Mel Gibson's next jesus movie
- This topic has 19 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 30, 2017 at 8:19 pm #68197
wvParticipantMay 1, 2017 at 5:22 pm #68252
ZooeyModeratorI’m sorry. I know it’s petty and silly and ridiculous of me, but Mel Gibson is dead to me.
May 1, 2017 at 6:06 pm #68255
znModeratorI’m sorry. I know it’s petty and silly and ridiculous of me, but Mel Gibson is dead to me.
To quote Bladerunner, he’s done…questionable things.
But he can be a very good director.
May 1, 2017 at 8:11 pm #68260ZooeyModeratorI’m sorry. I know it’s petty and silly and ridiculous of me, but Mel Gibson is dead to me.
To quote Bladerunner, he’s done…questionable things.
But he can be a very good director.
And George Bush has developed into an artist of some skill.
I’m not buying one of his paintings, though.
May 1, 2017 at 8:22 pm #68261znModeratorI’m sorry. I know it’s petty and silly and ridiculous of me, but Mel Gibson is dead to me.
To quote Bladerunner, he’s done…questionable things.
But he can be a very good director.
And George Bush has developed into an artist of some skill.
I’m not buying one of his paintings, though.
Okay. I liked Apocalypto though. And, I have no plans to buy any Bush paintings.
May 1, 2017 at 8:49 pm #68262ZooeyModeratorOkay. I liked Apocalypto though. And, I have no plans to buy any Bush paintings.
I never heard of Apocalypto. Was he a Spanish Surrealist?
May 1, 2017 at 9:09 pm #68263znModeratorOkay. I liked Apocalypto though. And, I have no plans to buy any Bush paintings.
I never heard of Apocalypto. Was he a Spanish Surrealist?
In a way.
May 1, 2017 at 9:25 pm #68266
nittany ramModeratorWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
May 1, 2017 at 9:27 pm #68267ZooeyModeratorHmm. Looks interesting.
But I’m still not buying one of Bush’s paintings.
May 1, 2017 at 9:34 pm #68268ZooeyModeratorWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
Is that true?
Because that’s what flashed through my mind when I watched the clip with Gibson in mind.
May 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm #68269nittany ramModeratorWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
Is that true?
Because that’s what flashed through my mind when I watched the clip with Gibson in mind.
Some of the historians and others critical of the film said that appeared to be the underlying message.
May 1, 2017 at 9:45 pm #68270ZooeyModeratorWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
Is that true?
Because that’s what flashed through my mind when I watched the clip with Gibson in mind.
Some of the historians and others critical of the film said that appeared to be the underlying message.
What do you think George Bush’s place in the history of art will be? Or do you just do science stuff.
May 1, 2017 at 9:58 pm #68271nittany ramModeratorWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
Is that true?
Because that’s what flashed through my mind when I watched the clip with Gibson in mind.
Some of the historians and others critical of the film said that appeared to be the underlying message.
What do you think George Bush’s place in the history of art will be? Or do you just do science stuff.
I have many skills.
Bush will take his rightful place in the Pantheon of great artists along with the elephant that paints and the visionary who first applied Elvis’ visage to velvet.
May 1, 2017 at 10:58 pm #68273ZooeyModeratorI have many skills.
Bush will take his rightful place in the Pantheon of great artists along with the elephant that paints and the visionary who first applied Elvis’ visage to velvet.
High praise, indeed.
I have him rated just a bit lower than that, myself. But we can agree to disagree, I hope.
May 2, 2017 at 12:04 am #68274znModeratorWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
I didn’t see it that way, myself.
May 2, 2017 at 8:47 am #68280
Billy_TParticipantWasn’t Apocalypto the film that showed why the brutal and corrupt Mayans needed to be saved from themselves by the Christian Conquistadors?
Is that true?
Because that’s what flashed through my mind when I watched the clip with Gibson in mind.
Some of the historians and others critical of the film said that appeared to be the underlying message.
What do you think George Bush’s place in the history of art will be? Or do you just do science stuff.
Well, if you ask me . . . and, yeah, I know you didn’t . . .
I’m an artist. A painter. Though haven’t done much in recent times due to severe arthritis. But when I was painting, or, better yet, when I was in art school, and entered juried shows, and watched others being judged, or attending openings and such . . . I think the basic consensus on Bush’s paintings would be this:
“He’s a Sunday painter. Decent skills. Nothing special. Not much in the way of originality. But decent.”
Of course, when I got my degree in Art Studio, with a minor in Art History, Abstract painting was the thing. So most of us would probably have been merciless about his sticking to “realism” of sorts. Our teachers, with few exceptions, tended to dismiss realism as mere “copying,” and they tried to inculcate that in us.
I came to Maryland convinced that the only real art was realism. Primarily from the Renaissance and the Baroque periods. But then I expanded my view, and then expanded it a ton, and I started painting and sculpting “abstractly” too and was converted. Basically, doing it made it all click for me. But before that, as an 18 year old, not so much.
So, that Bush is even trying to paint . . . I have to give him kudos for that.
May 2, 2017 at 8:55 am #68281Billy_TParticipantOh, and another biggie for us back then? This was in the 1970s . . . you should never sell your paintings to a bank. Seeing it there, well, that was a sure sign you had sold out. No banks. Not ever. Never. And not just for the obvious reasons of it being a bank and all, and the apotheosis of capitalist power. Really, it was more a “taste” thing. As in, people who owned and ran banks had no taste, no aesthetic sense to speak of . . . and were barely above someone with a black velvet painting of Elvis in their basement. And they didn’t have the “class” thing going against them, etc.
I miss those days of such certainty and intellectualized scorn, that Us against the World camaraderie, in a context of heightened aesthetic awareness.
Then again, we may, um, well, have been a bit full of ourselves.
;>)
May 2, 2017 at 9:15 am #68283znModeratorOh, and another biggie for us back then? This was in the 1970s . . . you should never sell your paintings to a bank. Seeing it there, well, that was a sure sign you had sold out. No banks. Not ever. Never. And not just for the obvious reasons of it being a bank and all, and the apotheosis of capitalist power. Really, it was more a “taste” thing. As in, people who owned and ran banks had no taste, no aesthetic sense to speak of . . . and were barely above someone with a black velvet painting of Elvis in their basement. And they didn’t have the “class” thing going against them, etc.
I miss those days of such certainty and intellectualized scorn, that Us against the World camaraderie, in a context of heightened aesthetic awareness.
Then again, we may, um, well, have been a bit full of ourselves.
;>)
Have you ever seen Simon Schama’s The Power of Art?
It’s a great documentary. Several episodes, an hour each, on a different painting. That is they do the artist but the episode revolves around a particular painting and its place in that artist’s history.
The episode on Rothko centers around his decision whether or not to accept a commission from a trendy, upscale NY establishment restaurant (Seagrams).
Here’s part of it.
May 2, 2017 at 10:03 am #68286wvParticipantBush paintings:
May 2, 2017 at 12:36 pm #68292Billy_TParticipantOh, and another biggie for us back then? This was in the 1970s . . . you should never sell your paintings to a bank. Seeing it there, well, that was a sure sign you had sold out. No banks. Not ever. Never. And not just for the obvious reasons of it being a bank and all, and the apotheosis of capitalist power. Really, it was more a “taste” thing. As in, people who owned and ran banks had no taste, no aesthetic sense to speak of . . . and were barely above someone with a black velvet painting of Elvis in their basement. And they didn’t have the “class” thing going against them, etc.
I miss those days of such certainty and intellectualized scorn, that Us against the World camaraderie, in a context of heightened aesthetic awareness.
Then again, we may, um, well, have been a bit full of ourselves.
;>)
Have you ever seen Simon Schama’s The Power of Art?
It’s a great documentary. Several episodes, an hour each, on a different painting. That is they do the artist but the episode revolves around a particular painting and its place in that artist’s history.
The episode on Rothko centers around his decision whether or not to accept a commission from a trendy, upscale NY establishment restaurant (Seagrams).
Here’s part of it.
Thanks, ZN. Will take a look at that series and see if it’s on Netflix.
I love Rothko’s work. Did a coupla essays on that for my own website.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
