Comments: 190
Mr-Goblin In reply to ??? [2017-09-19 00:23:58 +0000 UTC]
thanks mate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
krath19 [2016-01-15 10:23:17 +0000 UTC]
this is completely and utterly brilliant
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
m-farhadi [2015-05-09 13:36:49 +0000 UTC]
Help me to find Mr. Jasper Schuringa and send him this message that I am intended to buy one of his used underpants at the price of 1000$ and complete my installation art.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEeKU7…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Subaqueous [2015-02-01 03:53:27 +0000 UTC]
I think this work is quite dark, and also elegant. I would love to see this in person
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Parker-Weston [2014-01-11 01:40:04 +0000 UTC]
ugly history mankind damned do or don't
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
OMEGANEO1995 [2013-03-05 15:35:55 +0000 UTC]
Dude the is truly amazing i have to say i was begining to believe all of the great artisits where gone from the world you have inspired me beyond belief this is just beautiful
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aiecan [2013-02-15 16:07:11 +0000 UTC]
Absolument magnifique, autant dans l'apparence que le concept.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Grashaelmchen [2013-01-04 19:23:05 +0000 UTC]
I study history and in my field of study the deate you mention is an ongoing problem never to be fully solved and I find your project very interesting and at the same time it looks beautifull.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
QuatricaL [2013-01-04 04:00:17 +0000 UTC]
Fantastic concept you got there sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hardyoli [2013-01-03 23:46:05 +0000 UTC]
I wish I could see each of the images you had mentioned
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mr-Goblin In reply to hardyoli [2013-01-07 15:30:58 +0000 UTC]
still haven't found a way to upload it D:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheAlmightyPillock [2013-01-02 18:32:37 +0000 UTC]
For once this is a peaice of Fine Art that I actuly like. Normaly you have to read the description of fine art to apreciate it. But this is actuly visualy interesting long before you get to reading anything about it. And once I read the decription I dont think your a pompus fool, I instead understand your art and apreciate what you are doing.
You restore my faith in fine art, congratulations, this is a very hard thing to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mechanenko [2013-01-02 02:21:28 +0000 UTC]
really amazing concept
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
eabhaciar [2013-01-02 00:27:33 +0000 UTC]
Very creative i like it alot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FLADDERmask [2013-01-01 17:44:03 +0000 UTC]
Level up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
eschlehahn [2013-01-01 11:44:05 +0000 UTC]
This is one of the most sophisticated art concepts I've seen recently. Very good work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
joeltonongkh [2013-01-01 07:33:11 +0000 UTC]
Blow me away...completely...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
spetskhran [2013-01-01 07:14:42 +0000 UTC]
The concept of this is intellectually stimulating! Just my kind of work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jellygay [2013-01-01 06:22:54 +0000 UTC]
Such a unique idea. Love it. ♥
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sausage-of-joy [2013-01-01 04:23:20 +0000 UTC]
Well this won't be a popular comment but, if you have to explain your work of art (the way all artschools train you to) then you've completely failed to incorporate that purpose & intention in the piece. Infact, alot of the serious subject matter of the world is dealt in mediums that are often referred to as "mainstream" or "commercialist", like comic books, animation & films, & they do it without consciously obscuring the point as well.
These questions are very serious & because there is a clear way to deal with them properly instead of artworks that don't really say anything about it without a note of paper beside it. It's like they say about any other creative work "If I could say it in words I wouldn't have had to make a book, painting, film etc.", but in the "artworld" or what you might call it, having to explain it seems like standard & STILL they aren't the revolutionary when it comes to subject matter or even points getting across or well... anything that their written down explanations of the work claim to say.
In other words, there is nothing profound by consciously obscuring & over glorifying a purpose which isn't really there in the work. & How do I know it isn't really there? Because it had to be explained separately from the work itself.
& Please don't take offense by this, it's a rational argument & you're free to read into it, but if art wants to be taken seriously then it should be ready to take on serious arguments & critique, it's as simple as that. If you make claims at meaning behind a work then get ready to dissect or defend it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
Mr-Goblin In reply to sausage-of-joy [2013-01-01 18:40:52 +0000 UTC]
thanks for taking the time to comment, and I agree with you. And personally, if I had to redo it, I would remove the 225 tiny pictures, so it would simply be a metaphorical destroyed city. But overall, this whole art-piece was created visually to follow the idea: the repetitions, the linearity, the reflections of the glass, the flow of the sand that comes and breaks the visual constant, the horizontal lines against the vertical lines, etc.
Above all, I'm not following my fine-art studies...but If I had, your critic would have been usefull<3 Now, I'm much more involved in the visual art industry for movies and video-games. Wish me luck!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Recklessfire00 In reply to sausage-of-joy [2013-01-01 05:48:46 +0000 UTC]
I agree with you in some respects--if you have to describe it, its not really there. Its not profound if you have to say its profound. I get it. However, sometimes (and I'm not saying that it applies to this piece) the description is part of the art. Sometimes, the point isn't to have someone stare a piece and interpret it themselves. Sometimes, its not to silently get a message across. Sometimes, you NEED people to understand it--especially if it is a piece that they can participate in, like this one. So to explain it isnt really taking away from the art. Its adding to it. Its creating its purpose. But again, I do agree. Claiming its a moral debate and things like that, while true, do take away from it.
Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SuperCoolFondo In reply to sausage-of-joy [2013-01-01 05:47:02 +0000 UTC]
In looking at it in that manner you separate the artist for the artwork. Artworks are human creations and thus the intention of the creator are and intrinsic part of the artwork. your applying an antiquated critique method to modern art this particular piece isn't just a painting or a sculpture that is meant to be admired and thought about it's about the interaction between the viewer or "experiencer" of the the artwork. The work of art isn't just the structure this guy built, it's the entirety of the viewing, interaction, and organic growth of the piece as the "viewing" progresses to its end.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
woodgolem72 [2013-01-01 03:45:52 +0000 UTC]
excellent
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cocobirb [2013-01-01 03:31:06 +0000 UTC]
Holy hell! Lookitchu! Gettin' Daily Deviations!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>