Fuck yea Jarrett! >_>

Lets go Jarrett!!! >_<

yeah its similar for me. i've started downloading povs of random high players where i watch initially in the first person to see how their aim styles are, estimate what kind of sens they're using, then the third person to see their movement. i've been doing this pretty much everyday for about 2 weeks. i just really want to get out of mid but its consuming all my time. just a few days ago my friends asked if we could go on a night out but i was too busy watching Muze POV

Vari

dope crewneck fire fvshion

nice

Science has gone too far.

.

who is it by? usually small pieces like that are in a series, the same way that singles fit into albums, and they lead to a dominant and central emotion/thought and sometimes 1 piece is too ambigious to analyse

but think what is a napkin in the first place. its something to clean yourself or how i'm using one right now, as a coaster for this drink i just made, a layer of protection. but the napkin is hung up on a wall, alone, not doing any of those thingd and is therefore stripped of its purpose. not only that, but this is also utlizing the convention that when you enter a gallery, it is the norm that you can't touch, which is illustrated by the way it's hung, with those harsh straight lines. a napkin is something soft and gentle, but because of the way it was hung, if you rubbed your hand over this it would be coarse and bumpy, the exact opposite. the napkin therefore symbolises disorder, uncleanliness and unobtainable needs. the colour is this dark, moody blue that represents the depression caused by all the things i previously described, segregated from the border by the white, blank nothingness of the perfect straight lines, which even they fall victim for the way that the napkin was hung and have become warped and distorted. the napkin is a symbol of chaos, a glimpse into a dystopian world, where nothing is clean and although what would remedy this is in our grasp, we dare not reach for it because its a in a museum and we'd get told off for something like that. the scenario is kind of like a depressed person being told to make friends and go outside, and the doors right there and they could do it, but they don't.

but if you could write all that for just a fucking napkin on a wall, couldn't you just do that about literally anything? yeah, and that's why for my GCSE creative writing coursework, i did what i just did to the napkin to my friend's facebook selfies, a poster for a children's play called 'the dinosaur that pooped a planet', some paintings that i did when i was 1 years old and the cheap blue chairs we sat on during english class. this is the kind of thinking that modern art embraces, the idea that literally anything is art. i'll post some of that shit if u wanna see it although the chair one is 100 percent still at school some of these are my old facebook posts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI i HIGHLY recommend anyone who sees this watch this. even if u think the shit i just typed out was the most retarded thing you've ever witnessed on the forums, and it might as well be, i even think so actually which is why i was laughing so hard writing it, but it exists, and has to exist and most importantly its existence is 100 percent valid as the idea that its just a fucking napkin.

the video is a speech by david foster wallace that i think is genius, even if you aren't into art or literature, this would help you just live. gonna write this in caps because i want people to see it but srsly watch it for at least ONE MINUTE before turning it off its really interesting.

the votes don't matter at all. when i went to bed it had like 4, but when certain europeans who don't like me woke up they just all down voted. one of my posts when posted had -6 and then the next day like +10 its so funny hahaha i dont care about them at all though. and i'm sure there are people who just don't fuck with my ideas but -5 to +15 seems a little extreme

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg

and look at all the people that paid money and gave their time for this too

no on the train i overheard a group of people go to a restaurant for exactly that, in a dark room where you can't see anything and with loud noises in the background or something like that and they paid. if you went into a restaurant like that, would you not be curious why they're selling that? it costs money to keep a restaurant open, it costs money to have gallery space that tonnes of other artists are competing for.

one of the pieces in the tate (i think) is quite literally just a mirror. just a mirror. a bunch of people who are older than you, smarter than you and richer than you, spent their whole lives dedicated to art, went to the top universities for it, decided that this mirror was worth more of their time, money, matienance than then something realistic and impressive, so i don't really understand the whole notion of just dismissing it as shit and not delving as deep as they do if people are so confused as to why people give a shit about it

imagine being blind and then seeing yellow for the first time. im pretty sure there are insects that can apparently see more colours than our eyes can process, so if thats the case then more colours exist than we've ever seen before. even if there aren't, the idea rests on the concept that everything and anything is possible and that yellow is a beautiul thing

a stroke of yellow by who (what have they done before) when? how opaque is the stroke? which direction was the stroke painted in? what are the dimensions of the canvas? how bright is the yellow?

all that aside, i really do think you could see the genius in this hypothetical piece. its a lot easier to understand because you wrote it in text too. imagine seeing that in a poem, 'a single stroke of yellow on a blank canvas' and you'd immediately undetstand that this is a metaphor for going against the grain, standing out in the banal, the quite literal blankness. yellow is a fitting colour for this too. you'd only need a nursery education to be able to associate things with yellow, happiness, celebration, success, the sun, etc. its a very powerful colour, and only that one singular colour too which is also important, because all of those things i just said yellow represents stands out in the blankness, and thats it.

now whats genius about that is the simplicity. i've been watching some cooking documentaries and something that marco pierre white said that stuck out for me was 'you have to realize that mother nature is the true master and you are just the chef' in the context of making complex food. the best chefs are those that make good food in the most simple way possible. now if we apply that to art, the best artists are those that say what they want to say simply, and what better than one simple stroke of yellow, charged with emotion and imagery against a blank canvas. colours, especially yellow being a primary colour, are the most simple tools that an artist has, the same way a chef uses a potato and a writer uses language, and to say something while respecting these things, in its most purist form, is genius.

and if you don't feel that cooking is translatable, how about this quote from charles butowski 'genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way'. its all connected, food, writing, sculptures, even science 'the definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple'. - albert einstein

thousands of artists have used yellow to say something, mixing it with other colours, forming it into objects, etc but it neglects the feeling of yellow itself, just simple, pure yellow. a raw colour is amazing. imagine if tomorrow they invent a new colour. that would be life changing. its simple, its genius.

if we had everything that i mentioned above and taking into account what i wrote, this is how you see genius in a single stroke on a blank white canvas. with all this information you could probably write an entire article, essay or even documentary about such simple, effortless art. its all about perspective.

why is a matter of being impressed? if an author just strung together the most abstract longest words they could find and string it into a coherent sentence, that alone doesn't make them a great author.

there is no reason to make paintings and sculptures as realistically as possible for the sake of impressing people today. with the 3D modelling technology available or just plain simple cameras, which is probably what motivated this shift to what we see today. why spend months and years painting some bridge for the sake of it when you could take a picture of it, have it look as realistic as possible going beyond what any human could achieve in a second?

which is why this is worth shit and no one cares about it

https://ibb.co/fVcL4Q]

and this worth millions and in the tate

https://ibb.co/fKNbdk

when i show rothko's work to anyone or bring them into the tates rothko room, which is a room soley dedicated to a collection of these paintings and is a pretty huge deal, in fact i think in rothko's prime he was considered one of the best american artists, they usually say shit like 'anyone could do that' or that its just dog shit for rich people and never understand why someone would spend literally millions on these, one of which was #10 on this documentary i watched yesterday where they were showing the most expensive paintings ever sold to date (this being after 2009 i think) and they usually hate it so much they never ask themselves the questions that would lead to the answers.

could you imagine painting that set? why would a grown adult painter, someone who makes their living off of it grab a paint brush and just start painting 'like a 3 year old' in the first place? he didnt just shit these out either they're huge and there's like 11 of them. the motivation behind them was also a comission for a fancy restaurant so a lot is on the line here. now taking that all in mind, this specific piece is a lot more important than the random decisons and lack of control of a 3 year old and now opens the question thats central to appreciating modern art, which is what is this person trying to tell me?

by the way, this is an early rothko, before he started with those formless pieces which dominated his work and that he is more known for

https://ibb.co/kpcjEQ]

so its not that he just cant paint either. hes painting like that on purpose. why? he credits the change in his style after the red studio by matisse. i cant find the documentary i saw on this, but it would be really interesting to show you where they said his favourite part was and why he liked it so much, which was just the blank space which is also kinda funny the way they zoom into the nothingness

https://ibb.co/gHP6uQ

rothko said if a person understood his work, that they would cry. now theres no real use explaining why i personally think it merits its prestige, because you could google and find heaps and heaps of essays on this thing which is what seperates this from the daft punk picture (first thing that came to my mind when thinking 'impressive' and modern) is there any more to it other than it looks cool? no, you see it, you've taken it all in and its shit. its cool the person had the ability to replicate what they see, but it says nothing, its lifeless.

so what does that mean for paintings before the modern movement like turner and william adolphe? the difference between their works and the daft punk is that the old guy's paintings have that same emotion, that same depth as the rothko, maybe even more, which is why they are remembered today. they're the shakespeares of painting basically. its got much less to do with how realistic and impressive their work is, it always comes back to the question of what is this person trying to tell me. people who paint now are influenced by the old masters the same way today's playwrights and poets are influenced by shakespeare and aristotle even though their shit looks nothing alike.

watch this what do you think about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxR8aT2Ob0 they show this at the tate and i dont even think you need to think to understand the emotion, not even because of how aggressive he is, but to look at the painting after watching him fucking pound the canvas, the music, the colours, the shape, how it became all come together to make this feeling, extremely similar to how the old masters make a 'feeling' but it looks nothing alike, which just goes to show the old masters influence and spirit are still much so alive in art, just doesn't look the same.

i highly recommend you listen to these 2 even if u still dont buy the whole modern art thing. i had no idea who they were but was searching for their music for years cause i heard them in films, the first hunger games film where they start running for the cornucopia was my favourite part of the film because of the music, and i found it was steve reich like 2 years ago. listen to six pianos by steve reich and floe by philip glass.