Comments for depicted http://cschmidtart.com/depicted Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:38:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by Drew http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-27 Drew Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:55:06 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-27 Change the color of the previous posts links, dammit! =P Change the color of the previous posts links, dammit! =P

]]> Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by Anonymous http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-26 Anonymous Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:08:27 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-26 i definitely like the new version better. More distinguished, arty, less teenager-like. BTW, you need to change the redirect on your "under construction" site cschmidtart. i definitely like the new version better. More distinguished, arty, less teenager-like. BTW, you need to change the redirect on your "under construction" site cschmidtart.

]]> Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by Mollyfassler http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-25 Mollyfassler Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:24:25 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-25 I don't speak french. I like depicted better. I don't speak french. I like depicted better.

]]> Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by LN http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-24 LN Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:09:28 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-24 i agree completely with funnyscruffs. i really like the banner and the background you have going right now, and the french is gross. oh but one thing, i think you should spell it like "d3p1cT3d" and maybe add a "zorz" or something at the end. i agree completely with funnyscruffs. i really like the banner and the background you have going right now, and the french is gross. oh but one thing, i think you should spell it like "d3p1cT3d" and maybe add a "zorz" or something at the end.

]]> Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by J http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-23 J Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:20:31 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-23 Nope. bad. Lowercase makes the page look unofficial. And have your name somewhere in the title, dammit! Its your blog, so own it! Don't have some title that's some name anybody could of come up with! Nope. bad. Lowercase makes the page look unofficial. And have your name somewhere in the title, dammit! Its your blog, so own it! Don't have some title that's some name anybody could of come up with!

]]> Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by Ishani http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-22 Ishani Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:14:58 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-22 Oh, leave it the way it is now. I second the classy mcclassface comment. Banner and name get a thumbs up from me. Oh, leave it the way it is now. I second the classy mcclassface comment. Banner and name get a thumbs up from me.

]]> Comment on From Chez Schmidt to Depicted by Funnyscruffs http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-21 Funnyscruffs Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:15:43 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=46#comment-21 like the name, like the banner. It's classy mcclassface. Well done. The french would be annoying - I have to admit. And I have begun to think of you more as catherine than as schmidt. So I guess that seems pretty normal to me. It must be a mark of the maturation of us. :) <3 like the name, like the banner. It's classy mcclassface. Well done. The french would be annoying – I have to admit. And I have begun to think of you more as catherine than as schmidt. So I guess that seems pretty normal to me. It must be a mark of the maturation of us. :) <3

]]> Comment on Research and Raphael by F-scruffs http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=45&cpage=1#comment-20 F-scruffs Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:45:15 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=45#comment-20 Ok, that DaVinci sketch is kind of the most epic thing ever. I saw it and was like, "WHOAH EM GEE." And then, I took a second, realized what I had said, and epic-old-school slapped myself across the face. How is it that I can look at a piece of art so ineffably gorgeous, so masterly crafted, and think like such an art heathen? I then thought, It is time to think seriously about this stuff, because it is super easy to pull a 21st-century-mask on and say, "well, like, what I love bout Da-vin-vin is his hella sketchy face-stuff, ya know?" But no. DaVinci was truly incredible at capturing something about a person that might not even be possible in a direct photograph (I know, I know, I am saying this). The whole reason to paint is not to make something that looks exactly like life, but to make things that resemble life while truly expressing the subject's invisible nature. I'm not saying this as well as I hoped, but basically, I think that art can be anything that captures a mood, an expression, an idea. Even photographs do not show the whole picture (i know, oxymoron) because, though they might show a building, they do not show what is behind, inside, under, or above that building -- It could be anything! BUT, that picture itself implies a mood - any kind of mood - and makes you feel as though it is real. However, if you apply this definition to all "art," you could say that a lot of things are beautiful when most people would say that they are not. For example, if someone does a terrible sketch of someone that resembles them and shows that they are angry (let's say), it can still be a terrible sketch. What art has to do is express that...mood (terrible word) in a way that is also aesthetically pleasing. I know that this is horribly ramble-y but it comes down to this: aesthetically pleasing things are not always "beautiful art," and un-aesthetically-pleasing things that evoke an emotion are not always "beautiful art." Beautiful art takes place (most of the time - there are always exceptions) wen the two are combined.<br /><br />Ew, that is the worst explanation ever. I would delete it but then this would have been an even less productive use of my time. Sorry! <3 <3 <3 Ok, that DaVinci sketch is kind of the most epic thing ever. I saw it and was like, "WHOAH EM GEE." And then, I took a second, realized what I had said, and epic-old-school slapped myself across the face. How is it that I can look at a piece of art so ineffably gorgeous, so masterly crafted, and think like such an art heathen? I then thought, It is time to think seriously about this stuff, because it is super easy to pull a 21st-century-mask on and say, "well, like, what I love bout Da-vin-vin is his hella sketchy face-stuff, ya know?" But no. DaVinci was truly incredible at capturing something about a person that might not even be possible in a direct photograph (I know, I know, I am saying this). The whole reason to paint is not to make something that looks exactly like life, but to make things that resemble life while truly expressing the subject's invisible nature. I'm not saying this as well as I hoped, but basically, I think that art can be anything that captures a mood, an expression, an idea. Even photographs do not show the whole picture (i know, oxymoron) because, though they might show a building, they do not show what is behind, inside, under, or above that building — It could be anything! BUT, that picture itself implies a mood – any kind of mood – and makes you feel as though it is real. However, if you apply this definition to all "art," you could say that a lot of things are beautiful when most people would say that they are not. For example, if someone does a terrible sketch of someone that resembles them and shows that they are angry (let's say), it can still be a terrible sketch. What art has to do is express that…mood (terrible word) in a way that is also aesthetically pleasing. I know that this is horribly ramble-y but it comes down to this: aesthetically pleasing things are not always "beautiful art," and un-aesthetically-pleasing things that evoke an emotion are not always "beautiful art." Beautiful art takes place (most of the time – there are always exceptions) wen the two are combined.

Ew, that is the worst explanation ever. I would delete it but then this would have been an even less productive use of my time. Sorry! <3 <3 <3

]]> Comment on Research and Raphael by Ishani http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=45&cpage=1#comment-19 Ishani Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:22:15 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=45#comment-19 p.s. I really like reading your posts about famous artists and your opinions on art. They make me feel smarter about something awesome and cultural. p.s. I really like reading your posts about famous artists and your opinions on art. They make me feel smarter about something awesome and cultural.

]]> Comment on Research and Raphael by Ishani http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=45&cpage=1#comment-18 Ishani Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:21:13 +0000 http://cschmidtart.com/depicted/?p=45#comment-18 Well, okay. So regarding art I'm not exactly counted as an "intelligent person". But. I'm going to comment anyways, because I have Opinions. I feel like beauty means not just that the colors go nicely and the shapes are pleasing--I'd call that "pretty". I think if we call a piece "beautiful" it tends to mean that there's some deeper merit there, even if we can't actually recognize it. For example, I've no doubt told you about this this huge white canvas at Stanford's museum, and it had very pale trees painted on it--so pale you actually couldn't see them at first glance. But I'd definitely call it beautiful, and very relevant. Probably rambling, but pretty much I think you can't have "beautiful art" and have it not have merit. Fatty comment for a kind of lame point, I know. Well, okay. So regarding art I'm not exactly counted as an "intelligent person". But. I'm going to comment anyways, because I have Opinions. I feel like beauty means not just that the colors go nicely and the shapes are pleasing–I'd call that "pretty". I think if we call a piece "beautiful" it tends to mean that there's some deeper merit there, even if we can't actually recognize it. For example, I've no doubt told you about this this huge white canvas at Stanford's museum, and it had very pale trees painted on it–so pale you actually couldn't see them at first glance. But I'd definitely call it beautiful, and very relevant. Probably rambling, but pretty much I think you can't have "beautiful art" and have it not have merit. Fatty comment for a kind of lame point, I know.

]]>