Post: #1

http://www.cordair.com

Quote:"...the kind of technically challenging and representational art that evokes in the viewer an appreciation for achievement, science, engineering, architecture, the beauty of the human figure and the unlimited potential for human creativity and imagination."

http://www.cordair.com/larsen/

Art where men are men, women are women, and tired cynicism is replaced with potential.
As an old cynic, these works actually energize me and remind me in the face of whiners and naysayers: Aspiration is a virtue, not a vice.


   
   
   

Post: #2

Amazing. I like the combination of technical skill with aesthetic consideration.

This kind of art is 'real.' Not like modern art.

I'm tired of modern art, which I see as being the triumph of bullshitting. When an artists plasters a wall with diapers (Actual exhibit I've seen) and presents it to an audience as a serious statement, and the audience nods in agreement, there must be something wrong.

Modern art is this blue pill veil pulled over people's eyes. It's the collective of artists refusing to put serious effort into their work and then screaming at people that despite the lack of effort, this is 'real' art.

Post: #3

Modern artist, is just like any job title that begins with the word Freelance. It is just something that someone calls themselves when they don't want to use the word Failure.

Post: #4

I like a lot of the stuff on that site, but the prices are ridiculous. Hundreds to thousands of dollars for...Prints? Come on.

Post: #5

Nice find, thanks for sharing.

"modern" art, "modernist" art, "postmodern" art, "postpostmodern" art. It never ends. There's always going to be that push-pull between tradition and experimentation, progression and regression. "Romantic" art was the beginning of art as personal expression. The modernists fragmented the self, the postmodernists questioned the existence of the self. So romantic realism admits we have selves? /navel gazing (hipsters explode)

These are pretty cool:

Post: #6

They are reminiscent of socialist realism in their style, but with rich folks drinking wine and holding stock charts in high-rise fantasies instead of workers.

What's the guy in the steel mill doing? He's not dressed for work. The blurb for the painting says it was "inspired by Atlas Shrugged." So he's the owner.

Capitalist realism? Just shows how a style can be appropriated.

Post: #7

Wow, Sp5 makes a SOLID point. I hadn't even considered the similarities.

Now I'm turned off :/

Post: #8

(02-28-2014 06:47 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Capitalist realism? Just shows how a style can be appropriated.

True enough, but socialist realism itself was essentially an appropriation of 19th Century realism...Courbet being the most prominent precursor. Realism as a general artistic approach predates that by a long way, you can see the philosophy applied in the work of Caravaggio or Ingres or Vermeer or plenty of other artists.

The point is that realism shouldn't be associated with socialism, certainly no more than abstract expressionism (Malevich and Kandinsky both doing work in the early USSR). It's far broader and far older than that...and independent of any political connotations, I'd say a return to realism after decades of wannabe-Dada garbage is absolutely welcome from an aesthetic point of view.

Post: #9

Saga Wrote:wannabe-Dada garbage

Couldn't have explained it any better!

Post: #10

(02-28-2014 03:50 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-28-2014 06:47 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Capitalist realism? Just shows how a style can be appropriated.

True enough, but socialist realism itself was essentially an appropriation of 19th Century realism...Courbet being the most prominent precursor. Realism as a general artistic approach predates that by a long way, you can see the philosophy applied in the work of Caravaggio or Ingres or Vermeer or plenty of other artists.

The point is that realism shouldn't be associated with socialism, certainly no more than abstract expressionism (Malevich and Kandinsky both doing work in the early USSR). It's far broader and far older than that...and independent of any political connotations, I'd say a return to realism after decades of wannabe-Dada garbage is absolutely welcome from an aesthetic point of view.

There's nothing wrong with straight realism, but are these "realist?" Except for the nice simple female studies - the guy can draw a nice boob - the paintings precisely mirror socialist realism in their unrealistic bombastic politics. The worker in the socialist paintings becomes the capitalist in these ones. Chick drinking wine and holding a stock chart? Give me a break. It's kitschy.

The star-filled sky among the fantasy skyscrapers is hardly realist, either: you don't see those stars in big cities.

Post: #11

Corporate Realism:



Capitalist Idealism:

Post: #12

I'm not a huge art fan period. BUt nice prints, thanks for sharing.

Post: #13

Ramón Lombarte:
http://www.ramonlombarte.com/?page_id=2076

Post: #14

How much do you think it costs to commission one of these artists? I'd much rather have a painting of me and a hot girl than a random guy and his lover...

Post: #15

I like this, a lot. Realistic, optimistic, identifiable.
Modern/postmodern visual art, poetry & literature, and to a certain extent music all seem to have become a contest as to who can create the most abstract, cynical, and unrelatable works.

I always just picture some uninspired hack artist devoid of true skill meainglessly smearing a canvas with random colors, then winning the lottery when the upper crust of puerile cork-sniffers selects his random paint smearings as somehow being better than anyone else's.

Post: #16

I have no problem with nonrepresentational art. But real art isn't made for museums. There are a lot of hungry artists out there making really awesome stuff that isn't designed to piss you off but rather enrich your life. The awful stuff is a tiny sliver that's only raised up because the international elite needs to feel superior.