Aman619

Ray Palmer character already referenced the dwarf star and an "Atom" suit in a recent episode when he dated Felicity. They are slow playing the Aom origin.... But they have a lot going on so it's all part of the plan.

Haha, I'm tempted to ask if you believe in global warming, cause you totally blew off my "scientific" explanation earlier....

Finally notice that the yellows are least affected because they were already at full yellow plate strength.

You can't judge by scans on Comiclink, or anywhere else... Too many variables from scanners, to their settings, to the amount of Photoshop cleaning they get. The difference between the 7.5 and the 8.0 here is the huge amount of yellow throughout the 8.0 scan. The light blue sky is made of cyan and magenta dots. And smaller yellow dots. When the yellow plate is too strong, they get bigger and affect the blue appearance. The result is grayish because when C M and Y are equally printed the result is grey. Therefore the extra yellow pushed toward a grey appearance in the sky, and elsewhere. Look at the restof the cover. See how the ground goes from orange/ peach to golden yellow? And Starro goes from bluish grey to green.

Meeting someone but not catching their name is an awesome analogy! Too bad it won't change anything Though.b hearts and minds are made up.

Heck, I vote for 54 but given what I just said I'm tempted to take a run on a 9.0 plus copy of 60 thinking its a safe bet that may pay off big time. But it's a bet and doesn't mean I think it's first appearance. Just that it has a better than even chance to be a moneymaker down the road, and as scarce as it is in HG I'm safe that the census won't suddenly flood. Like GL 76 in 9.4!!! Oops, bad example. We thought that was scarce in HG too...

More valuable in grade. You glossed over that detail. Black cover, lower cwnsus, many people betting 60 will win out equals higher sales prices. But if the census were even for both books, we'd get the true comparable value ranking.

Crisis is coming!

Truly Astounding!

Im laughing here at the idea of a serious discussion when the "evidence" shown is some crude drawings of a "separated Man": a floating mouth eye and hand!! what a weird hobby we love!

haha. and you think this will end the argument? good luck.

and Michonnes sword wouldn't be that effective against cops with guns and rifles. Better to fight off zombie attacks.

That's more than the 9.0 sold for many years ago!

He says that in the second panel of the comic. are we supposed to read all the words AND look at the pictures? : )

Hers a twist I don't think was mentioned. In this article, Russ Heath is quoted as having been invited to the original gallery opening back in 1963... He declined. So it's hard to say RL ignored or ran from the comic artists in question. http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2014/11/russ-heaths-lichtenstein-comic-an-overnight-sensation-two-years-in-the-making/

Haha. That too! It's the RISD arrogance so many succumb to.

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all. BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous. I don't agree with you here. Photographers have their rights to their work too. For years painters treated their work as scrap to be copied at will. If the final product elites heavily on a particular photographic image I believe the photograph is within his rights to seek compensation. But Faireys final piece involved a lot more tha copiying a photo. Breaking it down into color areas isn't pushing a button, even in Photoshop. As I wrote yesterday, his mistake IMO was denying that he used that photo. He would have been far better to say yes he STARTED with it, but look how much I changed it!

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science. I was dumb enough. I just couldn't take it. My teachers were such condescending too. One guy said at least once every class period 'none of you will ever be able to draw as good as me' Bragged constantly about his crappy drawings.... At school teachers tend to be that way, they are frustrated (stereotypically) failures who must teach because the world won't pay them to create. S they find themselves surrounded by younger and weaker artists, human nature leads them to be condescending. But, oftentimes, art school students have no chance of success so early discouragement like this is beneficial. Weeds out those lacking confidence, and feeds the desire of the rest to succeed even more. Also, funny story as even then, you were faced with advice that drawing skill isn't the be all end all of art, and didn't Agree even back then.

All these artists can draw. Except maybe the can pooper. You went to art school. Every other kid could draw. Drawing skill is just one aspect of being an artists, and poor drawing skills don't disqualify artistic achievements. All of the artists we have discussed traveled on a journey from drawing.... Look at Mondrian. We haven't discussed him, but I'm sure there are many folks who say "big deal, colored rectangles!!" But look up HOW he got there, to see and paint those shapes. It wasn't in Freshman Design 101. He got there over many years, dis tilling what he liked about what his eyes were seeing in the world, the intersection of lines everywhere. He slowly and methodically eliminated them, focussing on the if relationship to the adjacent lines. And it all started with drawing landscapes. He drew like 1000s of other people, but where he TOOK his drawing was unique. And memorable.

Philip Guston?? my KID could paint like that! : )

I have great appreciation for aesthetically pleasing art. That said, nobody needs to still be painting Bible scenes, still-lifes of iPhones and computers, portraits of aristocracy, etc. in this day and age, at least not unless they're bringing something new to the table. As I mentioned in another thread, I saw the "Macbeth"-inspired play "Sleep No More" a year or two ago. It was a deconstructed, more modern version of the play where you physically went to different rooms and experienced different parts of the story. Frankly, I didn't care that much for it, but I did admire that they tried to do something different with it, something that challenged the viewer and didn't just present it or spoon-feed it to them. Similarly, a lot of Modern/Contemporary art is really, really bad. If people weren't pushing the boundaries, though, taking risks to create new, innovative and challenging art, we wouldn't get the truly inspired art that we've gotten either. I think it's terrible that there are people like yourself - trained in the arts, no less! - who seem to be dismissing decades of artistic achievement with one broad stroke. Of course not everything is going to appeal to everyone, but there is still a lot of interesting art out there to like that isn't just chocolate box art or other uninspired retreads of what has come before. I'm only dismissing the urine christs and the paint spatterers-there's lots of great modern artists otherwise. But like I said there's lots of great artists all over the place doing unique works you'll never hear about. There's never been a lack of great artists. I think we ALL agree about the crucifixes and urine extremes that have ben foisted on us. Lichtenstein is NOT working in urine and found objects to make his point.

Yep. It's easy to recognize the shape and form in Monet's painting - it's evolutionary to what came before. Pollock, on the other hand, broke completely new ground in so many areas. No one painted like him before then, and it understandably shocked and confused a lot of peoples' sensibilities, as it still does today. Now that is truly great art. I disagree Every artist had such paint spattered canvasas strewn about. oh god. there are splatters and then theres carefully intricately and PURPOSEFULLY applied WALL of splattered paint. I suppose we should Lichtenstein Pollock too, since he clearly just took other people splatter paintings and cashed in on it without giving credit!

That is silly. There is something challenging about all of it. Everyone of the art movements you speak of was radically different then whatever came before. As such they were challenging to their times. I think Gene omitted the word "anymore" at the end of the sentence. Im pretty sure Gene knows that Impressionism was laughed at in it early days too. And, for all those who still vehemently resist all that has come after it, should be considered a gateway drug for them. In time, much of this "other modern " that bugs people will be grandfathered in and palatable to them.

And in answer to your question...no, not easy to understand, and beautiful. I like this painting too. Whats surprising to me that if one can stare at it for hours on repeated viewings and gain deeper appreciation for all that is going on there when it looks at first like a fuzzy, faded painting of a church, then WHY is a Pollock, which repeated and longer viewings ALSO rewards with greater insight and appreciation of its deceptive complexity of shapes and relationships… WHY is Pollocks work just splatters and this is capable of such deeper thought? I can take a guess: its because it has a recognizable shape and a form at first glance, so its more like a "fun game" in which you get to see so much more going on in the execution that you saw at first. Theres a payoff to digging deeper into it. But Pollock looks like just a kids painting at first, so theres no comparison. No payoff cause my kid could do it etc etc .

here we go…..