Saturday, October 19, 2024

this is pretty amazing... an art history major over at Autopian realized how the abstract painter Mark Rothko had painted a bunch of taillights.

 



How stupid is that? just like his stupid paintings... useless snob bullshit colors erudite rich people can stare at and pretend to understand more in depth than each other

4 comments:

  1. Agree, the impressionists add little. The taillight is actually worth an exhibition in its own right (Packard, De Soto, Cadillac, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Maserati et al).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the abstract artists are useless. Contrary to what you said about impressionists, I love the paintings of Monet, Renoir, Pisarro and I have even posted a Renoir https://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2023/08/a-paris-bridge-and-traffic-renoir.html
      Did you make a mistake and say impressionists when you meant abstract artists?

      Delete
  2. Well, you're right; I shouldn't have said "impressionist" because, like "abstract", that has a defined meaning in painting. I was thinking of the original sense of "impressionism" as "a degree of abstraction from reality". The lecturers in art class would give you a pass and me a fail LOL. I don't object to abstract takes on machines like those of the Futurists, the Vorticists, the Orphists, the Novecento movement or in Pop Art (Warhol's Mercedes-Benz prints were memorable) but these "taillights" seem to add nothing of note.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Abstract art is fart

    ReplyDelete