pdk42
Moderator
I went to the Oslo National Art Museum yesterday. It's an amazing place and well worth the admission price if you're in Oslo. There is an outstanding collection of Munch's work, including the original version of The Scream (Skrik):
Although my personal favourite of his is "Madonna":
I was also reminded of the work of Johan Christian Dahl, who is a master of landscapes. I think this in particular is a masterpiece, something for me to aspire to:
There are also works by Thomas Fearnley, August Cappelen, Harald Sohberg and many others - all of which are superb.
But then you get to the modern art. It really is universally crap (IMHO). As some tasters...
How about this contraption of four pulleys and a wire by the "artist" Viggo Andersen:
and whose description includes:
Why would anyone want to "reduce the subjective or emotive aspect of art"?; or worse to "liberate it from craftmanship and personal expression"? Who are these people?
Then there was a room full of polished metal spheres scattered seemingly at random (no idea why, but we were encouraged to touch them - I guess part of making it "art"?). This is not my image (I really didn't want to waste my memory card write cycles on it):
And then this little effort by Snorre Ytterstad, entitled "Study of the Red Square - Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in Two Dimensions". If you can spot a woman of any social class, let me know ! (although I guess we can agree that it's almost a red square - even if the artist clearly lacked a true 90 degree angle to use as a reference):
Is this really all as crap as I think it is? Is there any lasting value in any of it?
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- 0.3
- ISO 3200
Although my personal favourite of his is "Madonna":
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- 0.3
- ISO 3200
I was also reminded of the work of Johan Christian Dahl, who is a master of landscapes. I think this in particular is a masterpiece, something for me to aspire to:
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 1600
There are also works by Thomas Fearnley, August Cappelen, Harald Sohberg and many others - all of which are superb.
But then you get to the modern art. It really is universally crap (IMHO). As some tasters...
How about this contraption of four pulleys and a wire by the "artist" Viggo Andersen:
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 200
and whose description includes:
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 250
Why would anyone want to "reduce the subjective or emotive aspect of art"?; or worse to "liberate it from craftmanship and personal expression"? Who are these people?
Then there was a room full of polished metal spheres scattered seemingly at random (no idea why, but we were encouraged to touch them - I guess part of making it "art"?). This is not my image (I really didn't want to waste my memory card write cycles on it):
And then this little effort by Snorre Ytterstad, entitled "Study of the Red Square - Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in Two Dimensions". If you can spot a woman of any social class, let me know ! (although I guess we can agree that it's almost a red square - even if the artist clearly lacked a true 90 degree angle to use as a reference):
- Panasonic - DC-S5
- 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
- 35.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 320
Is this really all as crap as I think it is? Is there any lasting value in any of it?
Last edited: