monstahunta said
I am a total novice at breaking down composition, (I've never even taken a color theory lesson, let alone tried to break down another artist's composition), but I'd like to give this a shot. The Mona Lisa's earthy tones are all it needs on the color front. This piece shows how using a limited palette is pleasing on the eyes, and the soft colors of the skin are offset nicely by the lighting on the material of her sleeves, and the embroidery of her undershirt. The next piece, although a replica was hanging in front of my face every day as I went into my middle school, I couldn't tell you the name of it. I don't really see why this painting is even interesting, and it certainly doesn't catch my eye in a good way. The piece thereafter I find to be done very well. The ever present curves in the painting give a soft feeling to a painting that could otherwise seem cluttered. I also enjoyed the use of shadows in this one.This last piece is my personal favorite. The drab colors of the marshy looking area around her really set off the bright center of the painting. The details are great, and the cloth draping over the side of the watercraft really catches the eye. White clothing was a perfect choice for the female, and I love how the one candle that is lit is being blown in the breeze.

Halo said
I'd actually be interested to see you do this. I'm clueless about this sort of thing; I'm just lucky that I'm verbose enough to make it look like I know what I'm talking about to the uninformed. Anyway, educate us!

Nice! I'm glad to see some people want to discuss art! I don't have time at the moment, but I may do a break down of at least one of the paintings later today. ^_^

Goldmarble said
This is the reason I'm not an "artist".I cannot intellectually deduce the compositional elements of emotion and thought....IE: I can't make up enough flowery bullshit to describe some stupid ass painting to convince someone to pay a ridiculous amount for it.How the fuck does that sell for $43 MILLION? Seriously, how the fuck can anyone feel that is worth that much money? How much of a con artist was the painter, or whoever started this piece's rise to ridiculous expense? Fuck painting. Fuck art. I'm going into the forest to take pretty pictures.

I generally don't go in for modern art too much -- I feel like a lot of it is nonsense, too. (It's not that they don't have compositional elements or that color theory etc. doesn't apply, it's just not to my taste.)

Goldmarble said
This is the reason I'm not an "artist".I cannot intellectually deduce the compositional elements of emotion and thought....IE: I can't make up enough flowery bullshit to describe some stupid ass painting to convince someone to pay a ridiculous amount for it.How the fuck does that sell for $43 MILLION? Seriously, how the fuck can anyone feel that is worth that much money? How much of a con artist was the painter, or whoever started this piece's rise to ridiculous expense? Fuck painting. Fuck art. I'm going into the forest to take pretty pictures.

Well, it's not the artists fault that you are tooo stupid to grasp the true beauty of this piece. See, the rusty pigmentation represents the passage of time, corrupting all it touches as the hand of the clock keeps turning. The impression of a box, so slightly darker than the rest of the picture, is mankinds poor attempt at caging time and putting it in a box, but the very act is impossible, and so it flows past the boundaries set by man. The subtle change between the two halves of the painting represent the murkiness of the past, and the clarity of the unseeable future, smoothness like porcelain contrasting with hairiness like that of a gorilla. The discontinuity in the center represents the gap of vision we all experience when trying to see past the unpierceable veil of time, though each time we get closer and closer to penetrating its sweet. lascivous, interior, and delighting in the sweet juices of foresight, removing time of it's well-guarded virginity. But time is not bound to such concerns, and it will never bend over to the will of any person, and so it remains on a pedestal, forever out of reach, teasing all like a cheap stripper dancing for quarters.

But yeah, it's pretty bullshit, and I don't really do the whole art appreciation thing.

BrobyDDark said
So, all I have to do to make money is paint something extremely bland and then channel my inner hippie to write descriptive shit about it?

That's the way to make anything seem like the best thing ever.

I feel like you guys think I didn't paint those. XD No, it would be cool to know what Holmes was actually talking about.