Is this one that you did? I like the color you chose.
Purple's a good color. Here's one I did a few days ago. Gave her a giraffe neck, but way too lazy to fix.
This one is real nice. I would save it, but i am the person who posted it. So that would be pointless.
All you people lurking better start contributing. ya fucking /b/tard fucks.
I love the blue. I wish the image size was a bit bigger.
I don't know.
Tha't s lame. I want to save that one.
The image isze is not as bad as i thought.
Blue is such a good color. Saved.
I dont know art but some pictures I love. Thanks for this thread
Yup, blue paintings look amazing, especially if done well.
Thanks for contributing guy. saved
Sometimes even /b/ has a cool thread, unexpected but pleasantly surprised.
Yeah. i'm happy with how it is turning out.
Thanks for contributing guys. i've saved lot of things.
Here's a good one OP:
Sterbender Hirsch (Dying Deer) by Karl Wilhelm Diefenbach
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders
Every still from this film is a masterpiece.
good stuff guys time for me to dump some shit for once
I know none of their names. Stop asking.
I should learn.
Don't post all this old shit.
We have modern art now which surpasses this garbage in every possible way.
>child hood trauma
i shit my pants when i see this image because i had a night mare where i was in that white house just running and running for unknown reason until i went mad in the dream, and i kept running more
>child hood trauma
i shit my pants when i see this image because i had a nightmare where i was in that white house just running and running for unknown reason until i went mad in the dream, and i kept running more, the worst part was it that i felt and heard as my body was giving up but i just had to run
Some of these paintings make me feel uncomfy like gore threads to normies, not like "tumblr uncomfy" as they(characters) are so soulless that it's way beyond uncanny valley
It's disgusting, not because they are badly written but because my brains do not understand them
>this art is well known and therefore not good.
>Famous for having no talent whatsoever
poor b8 fag8
>I have no idea who the artist is
his name was David Hamilton, a true god!
no one can even make anything close to his masterpieces because you would get locked up.
This is a big reason why I neer tried to be an artist. You could take stunning shots of the sky, the seas, catch the passion of a man at work in a picture, and some fucking gallery will take amateur porn pics shot on a fucking polaroid and declare it more artistically viable.
Misused and overused term.
On the contrary, shouldn't he symbolize knowledge and balance? I do not see how sexual acts fit in. Perhaps it is because ''adultery'' is forbidden? Seems like a far fetch, though.
'Terry always did his own thing,' says Stephen Male, recalling those early days. 'I remember when the contact sheets came in for the Levi's shoot we did, every single one would feature a photograph of the model with her top off. I remember thinking, "How did he do that?" I mean, it wasn't really what was required for the shoot. Then it became Terry's thing. It seems almost quaint and old-fashioned now that we'd find it questionable. But that's fashion for you. Once somebody pushes the envelope, it doesn't take long for taboo images to become acceptable. Plus, fashion needs people like Terry; it needs to feel it has an edge all the time.' Terry, unsurprisingly, concurs. 'Hell, somebody's gotta come up once in a while and say bollocks to all that mainstream, glamour stuff.'
"Soon, the shoots got wilder, and often Terry's assistants, Seth and Keiji, had to be on hand to take the actual pictures. 'I always say I make pictures rather than take pictures,' explains Terry."
“The goal is to get the best image possible, and if that means that somebody standing off to the side gets a more candid shot than me, then I’m all for it,” Richardson laughs. “Which doesn’t always make my clients happy if I’m working on a job, but the way I see it, it really doesn’t matter who is actually pressing the shutter, because they’re my images. It’s a picture that I’ve created. I don’t work off lights and angles; I work off emotions. A mood that I create.”
True galleries that would actually be worth your time wouldn't accept that garbage. Don't let some perverted twat who managed to jew his way into fame exploiting people's most primitive instincts fool you.
-A Conversation Between Two Worlds-
by Gavin Mclnnes and Olivier Zahm
No art book would be complete without an analysis of the work by an erudite art critic. Since Terry Richardson is unique in his ability to take high art to jaded teenagers while simultaneously forcing the fashion and art elite to appreciate the dirtiest shit you’ve ever seen, we selected critics to represent both sides of the Richardson enigma.
In this corner we have the irreverent and retarded Gavin Mclnnes of New York’s Vice Magazine. His cultural opponent is the sophisticated Parisian editor of Purple Magazine, Olivier Zahm. Can a conversation between these two learned academics help us understand the genius that is Terry Richardson? Read and decide.
Gavin: One of my favorite things about Terry’s photos is the imperfections. I like seeing a zit on a girl’s ass. I think everyone does. It reminds me of that Thomas Jefferson quote, “There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would want unknown to the whole world.”
Olivier: Because Terry is shooting in an instinctive, immediate, almost physical way, he catches the smallest detail as a force, as a proof that you cannot control life. His pictures demonstrate how life and desire and sex are stronger than the typical visual construction the fashion industry insists on. The fact that he is working for this very industry adds another crucial layer. The imperfections in his photographs help take down the standard of glamour and high fashion. But more than imperfections, to me, one of my favorite things in his photos is the perfection of the frame: he is cutting the reality in a sharp, definitive, brilliant line, extracting the moment and movement of life from its vital flux. This is brilliant and unique. No other photographer is sharper in this sense.
I'm nowhere close to an expert, but what I see here is a man who was good with women took pictures of the ones he fucked. He used some artsy pretenses and made a lot of money out of it because ''art''. After that, he paid whores and mentally scarred people to produce more mone- I mean art.
Smart, yet not exactly talented.
Gavin: I never thought of the framing thing. The way he’ll zoom in on a pair of tits so close you can see there’s kind of some hairs on them. I was interviewed about him for one of these corny liberal modern sex shows and they were implying that Terry was a feminist because he was making “ugly” beautiful. l had to clarify that most of these women are still total fucking knockouts.
This isn’t some lesbian anarchist collective. They’re still the same supermodels that are on every other page of Vogue, only here, they’re making coffee with rubber boots on, or putting a tit on a watermelon. ln a way thats more subversive because you never see people like this portrayed so honestly. So yeah, you get Dennis Hopper with no blemishes removed, and then, on top of that, he has this weird close up that drives home how unusual the shot is even more. lt’s a double whammy…
Olivier: Let’s be honest. Terry’s pictures are definitely not feminist. They are as politically “incorrect” as pictures get. He is not glamorizing women’s power, beauty or strength. He is more portraying female beauty from a male perspective. Instead of trying to celebrate femininity they are focusing on the use of masculinity (his own subjective view of women) within fashion iconography.
Gavin: Most of the critics that hate him (I’m picturing sexless, lonely, thirty-something women with sandals) say hes just fucking girls, but with a camera in his hand.
Olivier: I have heard women say Terry’s work is just an expression of the typical male obsession for sex and a celebration of the camera as an extension of his phallus, but this is a very reductive definition of his work.
First, his pictures are a form of visual humor. Second, he is always sharing real emotion with his model. They are not objects or sexual props. The photos aren’t even about that. They are an experiment, an examination of the interaction between a photographer and his models in this age of media, fashion, self-obsession and narcissistic paranoia. He keeps pushing these dialectic structures (man/woman, photographer/model,
phallic/non-phallic) as far as he can until the difference between “art” and “fashion” becomes totally blurred.
You don’t know what is real and what is constructed. When the critics make it a competition and become obsessed with choosing the winner (the photographer or the model) they make it so ideological it becomes uninteresting. Terry’s experimentation is about subverting this dual structure and documenting an intimate relationship with the model. Where can he take it? Where can he take it today? What are the limits of the game? What will the viewers call fashion and what will they call art? Will they reject the images entirely and censor him? That is the experiment.
Gavin: It’s also reductive to assume it’s all about shock value. I remember when the Sex Pistols were on Bill Grundy (host of Thames Today, a London television show of the 1970s) and he accused them of swearing just to shock people. They pointed out that this is the way they talk every day. There’s no premeditation about it. They were just being honest.
Olivier: That is a crucial element of this whole thing. His pictures are totally honest. They don’t hide anything. They don’t pretend to be what they are not. In this sense they are a political statement too. It’s not pornographic because it reveals how the rest of photography today is pornographic. By having these images in a commercial context they act as a Trojan horse that transcends the original format. They sneak the viewer a moment of truth.
Gavin: When I look at art I don’t give a shit about the artist’s lifestyle but Terry is an exception to that. The whole dichotomy of lowbrow and high art comes from the ups and downs of his fucked up past.
Half his life is wealthy snobberdom. Hes the son of a fashion photographer and was born in New York but moved to Paris at an early age. It was all celebrities and travel and art until his parents’ marriage exploded after his father had an affair with a 17-year-old Anjelica Huston.
The other half of his life was about being dirt poor and playing in esoteric punk bands, getting addicted to drugs with no family around to care. It’s a weird combination of homeless orphan and uptown rich kid that you rarely see in an artist. Is he where he is today because of luck or was it his destiny?
Olivier: It’s a hard question to answer. Sometimes the images are light and have no purpose other than to amuse. Sometimes they are profound and portray love as a fissure of pain and murder. He is at once a careless street kid and a misanthropic Lacanien. They float in the limbo of rapport and are essentially a documentation of the gap between person and portrait. ls it hatred or an irrepressible jouissance? I don’t know.
Gavin: I just like laughing at poo and fantasizing about fucking the hot girls. It’s the only kind of porn I can enjoy these days.
Olivier: But Terry’s pictures are never pornographic.
Olivier: Pornography is the way sex is commercialized by a repressive machine in an isolated ghetto of pictures (on the net, in magazines, films, etc.). Pornography is an industry of repression, a collective enterprise of profit. It’s a visual industry which kidnaps sex as a product for frustrated men.
Terry is actually working against pornography because he is reintroducing desire, seduction and playful sexuality, in real life, in real time, in the studio. He is photographing sex as a real interaction between him and his model. He is not playing the scenario of sexual pornographic control and alienation. He is part of the game. We can see one arm of Terry with his watch, one hand, sometimes his body, sometimes his penis, etc. He refuses the stereotypical function of the porn picture. By placing himself in the picture he is suppressing the illusion of domination and joining the frame. It should be noted however that Terry is not trying to demystify sexuality. He’s just lightening up the whole subject and creating a more equal rapport between photographer and model. A photographer going in front of the camera is not enough, just like the factory owner from the Pasolini film ‘Theorem’ deciding to join the workers is not enough. What is required is a sacrifice like in every film of Pasolini. A sacrifice of the artist who knows that he must sacrifice himself to the system, the fashion system, the pornographic system. The artist must face it with no fear.
Pornography is not only fake, stupid and dangerous, it does not exist. It’s a pure construction, an illusion. Terry’s pictures are the opposite of that. They are deconstructing this faux veneer. That is why it’s so infuriating to hear the press call his work “porn chic” or “porn glamour”.