Have You Seen the Paintings of Who the Art World Considers the Top Painters In 2022 ?

[protectionist]

I have.. And most of these laughingstocks look like they could have been done by a 4 year kid, just throwing paints at a canvas. Unknown to most people however, there are some REAL artists out there, producing REAL art.

Bert Emanuel

Art gallery of Bert Emanuel. Buy Paintings & Prints, Drawings & Illustration.

www.artpal.com

 

[toobfreak]

I have.. And most of these laughingstocks look like they could have been done by a 4 year kid, just throwing paints at a canvas.

Bert's stuff all looks to be a lot of crap.

 

[protectionist]

Bert's stuff all looks to be a lot of crap.

When it comes to art appreciation, and people who are clueless, there are 2 types of people Those who are smart enough to keep quiet, and those who insist on displaying their ignorance.

 

[toobfreak]

When it comes to art appreciation, and people who are clueless, there are 2 types of people Those who are smart enough to keep quiet, and those who insist on displaying their ignorance.

Which of those categories do you fit into? For I'm an artist, I've gone to school for and have studied art, have a house full of art, and have other artists in the family.

 

[protectionist]

Which of those categories do you fit into? For I'm an artist, I've gone to school for and have studied art, have a house full of art, and have other artists in the family.

I am an artist (Bert Emanuel) and the paintings and drawings in artpal.com are all mine. (my gallery). I also am the guy in the mandolin painting video, explaining the double stops and notes of the mandolin fingerboard painting.

My next painting to be posted in the gallery will be of a violin fingerboard, also with an accompanying video, explaining the notes and double stops.

My art is music and visual art both. No reason to not combine them. Those who are artistic minded and have a basic understanding of music, will have plenty to contemplate in these paintings/videos. Subsequently, I will post a guitar painting-video.

Eventually, I will paint actual pieces of music represented on the violin & mandolin necks, starting with 9th Symphony (Beethoven), and Minuet # 3 in G Major (Petzold/Bach). A challenge, but I invent as I go along.

 

[protectionist]

The fishing pier drawings and paintings need to be Zoomed in, to recognize the wood grains.

 

[toobfreak]

I am an artist (Bert Emanuel) and the paintings and drawings in artpal.com are all mine.

I KNEW IT! I figured as much. Sorry of I had to trick you into being more honest with us.

(my gallery). I also am the guy in the mandolin painting video

Obviously. I watched a little of it, time constraints, that is when I made the connection. Look, to be fair, the page you linked us to does not do a very good job in presenting your work, left it looking flat, I think it is the photography and lighting, and based on that, I had to convey my honest visceral impressions, but I do appreciate artistic effort and ability.

 

[protectionist]

I KNEW IT! I figured as much. Sorry of I had to trick you into being more honest with us.


Obviously. I watched a little of it, time constraints, that is when I made the connection. Look, to be fair, the page you linked us to does not do a very good job in presenting your work, left it looking flat, I think it is the photography and lighting, and based on that, I had to convey my honest visceral impressions, but I do appreciate artistic effort and ability.

"More" honest. ? I didnt know I wasn't being fully honest. Last thing I'd want to be less than honest about, is my art and my music.

As for the presentation in artpal, I think they do a decent job, and the paintings are presented fine, as long as you use the website's techie tools>>>

1. Scroll cursor over each picture -title of it shows up at bottom of picture.
2. Click on each picture - new page appears, picture larger. Links (in blue) show up with description & other information. Especially important for the Mandolin painting.
3. Click right arrow (upper right to another page with more information.
4. From that page, click left arrow to return to the main info page, and click Zoom to enlarge further. This is especially relevant for the fishing pier pictures, to adequately see the wood grain detail.

 

[protectionist]

I should apologize for the 1 little video mistake I made. I said the F#/D double stop was the same as what ended the Bach piece (Minuet # 3). Actually, it was the ending note(s) to the Bluegrass song, Dark Hollow.

Probably nobody noticed, but I like to keep records straight.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I have.. And most of these laughingstocks look like they could have been done by a 4 year kid, just throwing paints at a canvas. Unknown to most people however, there are some REAL artists out there, producing REAL art.

Bert Emanuel

Art gallery of Bert Emanuel. Buy Paintings & Prints, Drawings & Illustration.

www.artpal.com

Lemme' see if I've got this straight:

You're an artist, right? Now, I'm no art critic, but your stuff looks pretty good, I suppose.

You then talk of those who've been called the ten best artists in the world at the moment, who are producing, in your opinion, works that look like a four year old could've done it. Mind you, you don't bother to identify them or provide links to those works. You just demean the artists.

You're pathetic.

You will never make yourself great by tearing others down. That's just not how it works.

All I see here is a textbook example of jealousy...

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

To me, art is something that one can do that others cannot........or at least is very difficult for others to do.

Most "art" today is something that any 3 year old can do in art class in kindergarten.

Those pics by Bert Emanuel look like something he did in high school art class.

Now, if someone can draw/paint human faces and figures in the likeness of looking real, then my hats off to them. I can draw/paint buildings and animals, but have never been able to do the human figure.

 

[toobfreak]

Most "art" today is something that any 3 year old can do in art class in kindergarten. Now, if someone can draw/paint human faces and figures in the likeness of looking real, then my hats off to them. I can draw/paint buildings and animals, but have never been able to do the human figure.

Yes. A good example is this fine art sold by Hunter Biden recently for an undisclosed $500,000. I'm trying to locate the buyer to see if he would be willing to resell for $700.000!

 

[protectionist]

Lemme' see if I've got this straight:

You're an artist, right? Now, I'm no art critic, but your stuff looks pretty good, I suppose.

You then talk of those who've been called the ten best artists in the world at the moment, who are producing, in your opinion, works that look like a four year old could've done it. Mind you, you don't bother to identify them or provide links to those works. You just demean the artists.

You're pathetic.

You will never make yourself great by tearing others down. That's just not how it works.

All I see here is a textbook example of jealousy...

I judge objectively, and am talking about pure abstract paintings that require no skill, don't show any real objects, only contain shapes and colors, and some have only one color, and one shapes of "something".

Here is one of the so-called "Top 20 Most Expensive Paintings in the world, "valued" at $ 75.1 Million. I wouldn't pay a dime for it >>

20. $75.1 million. No 1 (Royal Red and Blue) by Mark Rothko, 2012​

Top 20 Most Expensive Paintings in the World

A review of the 20 most expensive pictures of all time, at auction or private sale. Price paid and year of purchase are included.

themindcircle.com

If I would have known somebody was going to get bent out of shape over this, I would have included the link to the website I saw, the day before I posted this OP.
Almost all the paintings of what they called the top artists were abstracts, and some were nothing more than a single, large blob of paint, one color.

I'm not jealous, because I regard my art as far better than the "art" of the so-called "best artists". Mine is REAL art (semi-abstract), with real things showing in the paintings, and my latest one (Mandolin - Double Stops) even has a video/audio with mandolin playing in it (by me), to more fully express what is in the painting (it's in the OP).

And it isn't just me. There are thousands of excellent artists who, like me, sell their paintings for a few hundred or a few thousand $$, rather than the millions$$$ that
some "artists" get, who are probably related to the so-called art "critics".

 

[protectionist]

To me, art is something that one can do that others cannot........or at least is very difficult for others to do.

Most "art" today is something that any 3 year old can do in art class in kindergarten.

Those pics by Bert Emanuel look like something he did in high school art class.

Now, if someone can draw/paint human faces and figures in the likeness of looking real, then my hats off to them. I can draw/paint buildings and animals, but have never been able to do the human figure.

What, in your estimation, would/should a painting need to have to be more than >> "look like something he did in high school art class." ?

Note: semi-abstract art is not about making things to be "looking real". It is about expressing ideas and feelings. Photography makes things look real. That isn't what semi-abstract art is.

My mandolin painting (Mandolin - Double Stops) shows trees in the same blending colors as the double stop notes. That is to add to the color blending overall scheme. In the painting I'm doing now (Violin - Double Stops) the fingerboard is exaggerated in width, much wider than any violin, to allow for the double stops to be inserted and be large enough to show their musical identities. This is the point, not what a violin looks like.

In the mandolin painting, the body is shown not as a mandolin body, but rather a series of blended colors, because that (blended notes) is what mandolin bodies produce. - and is related to the double stops on the fingerboard.

Here's a few paintings by Picasso, unconcerned with making things look real >>

 

[Canon Shooter]

I judge objectively, and am talking about pure abstract paintings that require no skill, don't show any real objects, only contain shapes and colors, and some have only one color, and one shapes of "something".

Here is one of the so-called "Top 20 Most Expensive Paintings in the world, "valued" at $ 75.1 Million. I wouldn't pay a dime for it >>

View attachment 643409

20. $75.1 million. No 1 (Royal Red and Blue) by Mark Rothko, 2012​

Top 20 Most Expensive Paintings in the World

A review of the 20 most expensive pictures of all time, at auction or private sale. Price paid and year of purchase are included.

themindcircle.com

If I would have known somebody was going to get bent out of shape over this, I would have included the link to the website I saw, the day before I posted this OP.
Almost all the paintings of what they called the top artists were abstracts, and some were nothing more than a single, large blob of paint, one color.

I'm not jealous, because I regard my art as far better than the "art" of the so-called "best artists". Mine is REAL art (semi-abstract), with real things showing in the paintings, and my latest one (Mandolin - Double Stops) even has a video/audio with mandolin playing in it (by me), to more fully express what is in the painting (it's in the OP).

And it isn't just me. There are thousands of excellent artists who, like me, sell their paintings for a few hundred or a few thousand $$, rather than the millions$$$ that
some "artists" get, who are probably related to the so-called art "critics".

First, I'm not "bent out of shape" over anything. Your OP, and this one I'm responding to, both smack heavily of jealousy. I'm merely pointing that out.

There are few things in this world more subjective than art. You know what you like and someone else knows what they like. Maybe you agree or maybe you don't. Neither of you is right, neither of you is wrong.

Your problem is that you're trying to insist that, because you're an artist, that you have some sort of magical insight into what is art and what isn't. You're sitting at your computer trying to declare what is and isn't art.

Do you remember Robert Mapplethorpe? He was the guy who would photograph a bullwhip shoved up his ass or two gays fisting. Some people loved this work, while others absolutely hated it. Interestingly enough, neither side ever convinced the other to change their opinion

That's all you're trying to do and, because you think a painting of a mandolin is more worthwhile than a canvas with some red and blue bars on it that everyone should think that. Well, I hate to piss in your Wheaties, but that's just not how the appreciation of art works. You like what you like. That's as far as your influence goes.

I don't make my living as an artist, but I've had moderate success over the years selling photographs I've taken. Not everyone who's seen my work would buy it, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I see the work of some other photographers and wonder how they can earn a living. But, hey, they do exactly that, and it's hardly my place to say they shouldn't be able to because their photos look like the works of children.

I don't make myself a better photographer by being critical of other photographers. Instead, I applaud them for being able to do it and make a living at it..

I just think it's pretty sad that you're unable to do the same...

 

[protectionist]

First, I'm not "bent out of shape" over anything. Your OP, and this one I'm responding to, both smack heavily of jealousy. I'm merely pointing that out.

There are few things in this world more subjective than art. You know what you like and someone else knows what they like. Maybe you agree or maybe you don't. Neither of you is right, neither of you is wrong.

Your problem is that you're trying to insist that, because you're an artist, that you have some sort of magical insight into what is art and what isn't. You're sitting at your computer trying to declare what is and isn't art.

Do you remember Robert Mapplethorpe? He was the guy who would photograph a bullwhip shoved up his ass or two gays fisting. Some people loved this work, while others absolutely hated it. Interestingly enough, neither side ever convinced the other to change their opinion

That's all you're trying to do and, because you think a painting of a mandolin is more worthwhile than a canvas with some red and blue bars on it that everyone should think that. Well, I hate to piss in your Wheaties, but that's just not how the appreciation of art works. You like what you like. That's as far as your influence goes.

I don't make my living as an artist, but I've had moderate success over the years selling photographs I've taken. Not everyone who's seen my work would buy it, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I see the work of some other photographers and wonder how they can earn a living. But, hey, they do exactly that, and it's hardly my place to say they shouldn't be able to because their photos look like the works of children.

I don't make myself a better photographer by being critical of other photographers. Instead, I applaud them for being able to do it and make a living at it..

I just think it's pretty sad that you're unable to do the same...

The "jealousy" is in YOUR head, not mine. I'm just talking about how things are in the art world. Nothing more, nothing less. Ho hum.

I dont at all agree with your assessment of "how the appreciation of art works", and frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. What I said in the OP, isnt anything profound or deep enough to warrant even 1/10 of what you have bothered to rag on about here.

I think it's rather sad that you are NOT able to be critical of other photographers. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, and at least in the USA, we are all entitled to voice that point of view. Anybody is welcome to criticize my art, and I am just as free to criticize the art of others. I will do that, and do it MY WAY, without your unneeded coaching.

Lastly, I didn't say that other artists "shouldn't be able to earn a living", in fact my point was that if/whenever artists paint paintings, they SHOULD EARN their pay. And that would come from doing much more than just throwing a blob of paint at a canvas.

Examples >>

I dont know how many thousand$ or Million$ these paintings sell for, but if they're any more than a dime, they're overpriced. (and they're calling this guy # 5 in world). Sheeeesh!

I don't think you are making much of any points here, so let's discontinue the discussion. Frankly I'm bored with it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The "jealousy" is in YOUR head, not mine. I'm just talking about how things are in the art world. Nothing more, nothing less. Ho hum.

And, because the success that many see in the art world doesn't include you, you feel you need to criticize them.

What makes you right and them wrong?

I dont at all agree with your assessment of "how the appreciation of art works", and frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I don't care what you believe.

Truly, I don't...

What I said o the OP isnt anything profound or deep enough to warrant even 1/10 of what you have bothered to rag on about here.

Again, that's nothing but your opinion.

I find it fascinating, if not extremely hypocritical, that you take issue with me expressing my opinion when, in fact, that's exactly what you're doing...

I think it's rather sad that you are NOT able to be critical of other photographers.

I never said I'm not able to be critical of other photographers. I'll appreciate you not putting words in my mouth...

Everyone is entitled to their point of view, and at least in the USA, we are all entitled to voice that point of view.

This is very true. Which, again, makes me wonder why you're taking umbrage with me expressing an opinion...

Anybody is welcome to criticize my art, and I am just as free to criticize the art of others. I will do that, and do it MY WAY, without your unneeded coaching.

I've never said you shouldn't do it or that you can't. I've merely stated my opinion that the manner in which you've chosen to do it makes you look jealous and bitter...

Lastly, I didn't say that other artists "shouldn't be able to earn a living", in fact my point was that if/whenever artists paint paintings, they SHOULD EARN their pay. And that would come from doing much more than just throwing a blob of paint at a canvas.

So, someone shouldn't be able to sell their paintings if it's a blob of color on a white canvas? What if someone wants a blob of color on a white canvas to hang in their home?

I don't think you are making much of any points here, so let's discontinue the discussion. Frankly I'm bored with it.

You can't possibly be more bored than a person who watches a 35 minute video of an artist explaining a painting on You Tube...

 

[protectionist]

And, because the success that many see in the art world doesn't include you, you feel you need to criticize them.

What makes you right and them wrong?



I don't care what you believe.

Truly, I don't...



Again, that's nothing but your opinion.

I find it fascinating, if not extremely hypocritical, that you take issue with me expressing my opinion when, in fact, that's exactly what you're doing...



I never said I'm not able to be critical of other photographers. I'll appreciate you not putting words in my mouth...



This is very true. Which, again, makes me wonder why you're taking umbrage with me expressing an opinion...



I've never said you shouldn't do it or that you can't. I've merely stated my opinion that the manner in which you've chosen to do it makes you look jealous and bitter...



So, someone shouldn't be able to sell their paintings if it's a blob of color on a white canvas? What if someone wants a blob of color on a white canvas to hang in their home?




You can't possibly be more bored than a person who watches a 35 minute video of an artist explaining a painting on You Tube...

I don't "need" to do anything. I have been criticizing art (positively and/or negatively) for 70 years, ever since my first grade teacher instilled that as a thing to do, for the kids in the class. It's called art appreciation, which goes both ways. Weren't you taught that ?

What makes me right, is that my art shows things, and from those things > ideas wheras the paintings (if one could even call them that) shown in Post # 16 show NOTHING. And for the art world to highly rank "art" like this is WRONG.

OK so you don't care what I believe. Well, my heart is truly broken, but I guess I''ll get through it somehow.

"take issue" ? - I never thought I was taking issue with anything.

You said >> "
"it's hardly my place to say they shouldn't be able to because their photos look like the works of children.

I don't make myself a better photographer by being critical of other photographers."

Yeah, that is pretty much saying being unable to being critical of other photographers. I stick with what I said. You spoke the original words, not me.

"taking umbrage" - dont know I was doing anything of the kind. You're entitled to politely say anything you choose, and I'm entitled to do the same including disagreeing with you. But "umbrage" ? Not hardly. I'd say that's in YOUR head, not mine.

Let's get something straight here, OK ? You've got a lot of gall talking to me about umbrage. If anybody should be offended, it is ME, not you. In post # 10,you came at me like a pitbull. Here's some of what you said (in what is supposed to be a civil exchange of ideas) >>
You said >> "You're pathetic."
Then you insulted me with labeling me as >> a textbook example of jealousy... (which is as ridiculous as it is shortsighted) Again, YOUR head, not mine,
Then you attacked me with >> "You just demean the artists."
Then you said >> You can't possibly be more bored than a person who watches a 35 minute video of an artist explaining a painting on You Tube... More insults
Also, note that people who play the mandolin (or violin) would find both the painting and explanation very interesting. Those who are ignorant of those instruments, would find it boring.

Actually, if you read the title it doesn't say Have you seen the artists ? It says have you seen the PAINTINGS ? So if anyTHING was demeaned, it was the paintings and the art "World" (as the title says) which admires these laughingstocks. And the reason why I demean the paintings (like the ones in Post # 16) is because, in my opinion, they DESERVE to be demeaned, along with the art world that boosts them.

I disagree that what I've said make me look jealous and bitter. Maybe you think along those lines, so you think others do too. I don't. I just make a point that should be made, and nobody else has made the kind of negative suggestions that you have. Generally the responses are positive.

If someone wants a blob of paint on a canvas, and nothing more than that, fine, let them have it. But that's not the question here. The point is the art world boosting "art" which is frankly nothing at all, and at this point you are doing nothing more than coming up with things to argue about. I get the feeling that you argue just for the sake of arguing, and you are f-cking up a really nice thread, and I wish you would go away. You're just a nuisance. You have said what you wanted to say. It's in print. I read it. Message received. Now GO AWAY, or I will report you for thread derailing, which is quite what you're doing.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What makes me right, is that my art shows things, and from those things > ideas wheras the paintings (if one could even call them that) shown in Post # 16 show NOTHING. And for the art world to highly rank "art" like this is WRONG.

Well, that's your opinion. Yet, despite your opinion, someone got paid bank for a canvas with three bars of color.

It's pretty clear that it's driving you nuts...

LOL!!

You said >> "
"it's hardly my place to say they shouldn't be able to because their photos look like the works of children.

I don't make myself a better photographer by being critical of other photographers."

Yeah, that is pretty much saying being unable to being critical of other photographers. I stick with what I said. You spoke the original words, not me.

That's right, I did.

But I never said I couldn't criticize them, because I certainly could. I'm saying I don't criticize them. I choose not to, simply because it would make me look petty and sad, much as it's making you look petty and sad.

I'm very active in our local music community. Every so often someone will get up on stage and they're just, in my opinion absolutely horrible. Certainly I could criticize them, but what would be the net benefit of that? They might be a horrible singer but, hey, they're up there gettin' paid, so good for them!

The bottom line is that being critical of someone or their work isn't going to make yours any better or more well received. Literally the only reason to do it is borne from jealousy...

"taking umbrage" - dont know I was doing anything of the kind. You're entitled to politely say anything you choose, and I'm entitled to do the same including disagreeing with you. But "umbrage" ? Not hardly. I'd say that's in YOUR head, not mine.

Let's get something straight here, OK ? You've got a lot of gall talking to me about umbrage. If anybody should be offended, it is ME, not you.

Um, do you know what the word "umbrage" means?

It means to take offense, which is exactly what you've done...

In post # 10,you came at me like a pitbull. Here's some of what you said (in what is supposed to be a civil exchange of ideas) >>

You think that's acting like a pitbull?

Wow, I had no idea you were so delicate...

You said >> "You're pathetic."

In my opinion, you are, simply because you feel, for whatever reason, qualified to rip apart someone else's art. I think that's pathetic...

Then you insulted me with labeling me as >> a textbook example of jealousy... (which is as ridiculous as it is shortsighted) Again, YOUR head, not mine,

Your OP oozes jealousy. That's not an insult, that's a statement based on what I see from you. If you don't like it, change your approach...

Then you attacked me with >> "You just demean the artists."

But that's exactly what you did. Again, if you don't want to be called out for being a petty little simp, maybe try not being a petty little simp...

Then you said >> You can't possibly be more bored than a person who watches a 35 minute video of an artist explaining a painting on You Tube... More insults
Also, note that people who play the mandolin (or violin) would find both the painting and explanation very interesting. Those who are ignorant of those instruments, would find it boring.

Well, as someone who plays guitar, bass, mandolin, uke and banjo, I find it boring. Don't assume you know how every musician is going to react to your video...

Actually, if you read the title it doesn't say Have you seen the artists ? It says have you seen the PAINTINGS ? So if anyTHING was demeaned, it was the paintings and the art "World" (as the title says) which admires these laughingstocks. And the reason why I demean the paintings (like the ones in Post # 16) is because, in my opinion, they DESERVE to be demeaned, along with the art world that boosts them.

Semantics.

But I'll play your silly little game: You say the paintings aren't art. Are the people who created them artists?

I disagree that what I've said make me look jealous and bitter.

I know you do.

But your opinion on the matter is of no consequence, and people rarely recognize their own poor behavior...

Maybe you think along those lines, so you think others do too. I don't. I just make a point that should be made, and nobody else has made the kind of negative suggestions that you have. Generally the responses are positive.

And, yet, you attacked those who said your work looked like crap or was done when you were in a high school...

If someone wants a blob of paint on a canvas, and nothing more than that, fine, let them have it. But that's not the question here. The point is the art world boosting "art" which is frankly nothing at all, and at this point you are doing nothing more than coming up with things to argue about.

One man's art is another man's garbage. You need to get that through your pointed little head. The art world apparently disagrees with you...

I get the feeling that you argue just for the sake of arguing, and you are f-cking up a really nice thread, and I wish you would go away. You're just a nuisance. You have said what you wanted to say. It's in print. I read it. Message received. Now GO AWAY, or I will report you for thread derailing, which is quite what you're doing.

First off, dummy, don't pretend that you're in any position to tell me what to do, because you're not. I'm going to remain on this thread, and I will comment on the contents of this thread as I see fit, so you should probably get used to that idea.

As far as me derailing the thread, I've been discussing the thread and what you've posted in it. How is that derailing anything? Derailing would be if I commented on that really bad hairpiece you're wearing in that video and then talked about other bad wigs I've seen. But I've not done that.

So, yeah, feel free to report me. There's nothing I've posted in this thread which is discussing something other than what's in this thread...

 

[protectionist]

Well, that's your opinion. Yet, despite your opinion, someone got paid bank for a canvas with three bars of color.

It's pretty clear that it's driving you nuts...

LOL!!



That's right, I did.

But I never said I couldn't criticize them, because I certainly could. I'm saying I don't criticize them. I choose not to, simply because it would make me look petty and sad, much as it's making you look petty and sad.

I'm very active in our local music community. Every so often someone will get up on stage and they're just, in my opinion absolutely horrible. Certainly I could criticize them, but what would be the net benefit of that? They might be a horrible singer but, hey, they're up there gettin' paid, so good for them!

The bottom line is that being critical of someone or their work isn't going to make yours any better or more well received. Literally the only reason to do it is borne from jealousy...



Um, do you know what the word "umbrage" means?

It means to take offense, which is exactly what you've done...



You think that's acting like a pitbull?

Wow, I had no idea you were so delicate...



In my opinion, you are, simply because you feel, for whatever reason, qualified to rip apart someone else's art. I think that's pathetic...



Your OP oozes jealousy. That's not an insult, that's a statement based on what I see from you. If you don't like it, change your approach...



But that's exactly what you did. Again, if you don't want to be called out for being a petty little simp, maybe try not being a petty little simp...



Well, as someone who plays guitar, bass, mandolin, uke and banjo, I find it boring. Don't assume you know how every musician is going to react to your video...


Semantics.

But I'll play your silly little game: You say the paintings aren't art. Are the people who created them artists?



I know you do.

But your opinion on the matter is of no consequence, and people rarely recognize their own poor behavior...



And, yet, you attacked those who said your work looked like crap or was done when you were in a high school...



One man's art is another man's garbage. You need to get that through your pointed little head. The art world apparently disagrees with you...




First off, dummy, don't pretend that you're in any position to tell me what to do, because you're not. I'm going to remain on this thread, and I will comment on the contents of this thread as I see fit, so you should probably get used to that idea.

As far as me derailing the thread, I've been discussing the thread and what you've posted in it. How is that derailing anything? Derailing would be if I commented on that really bad hairpiece you're wearing in that video and then talked about other bad wigs I've seen. But I've not done that.

So, yeah, feel free to report me. There's nothing I've posted in this thread which is discussing something other than what's in this thread...

Reported..... Did not read post # 19 -