Posted by David on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 6:00 AM.
But I'm not sure what he'd have thought of the subject.
Savannah, on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 2:01 PM:
Are you kidding? He would have loved it. Dirty the guy up, fuzzy his edges, put him in one of those Northern Renaissance jackets, and you've got a perfect tavern eccentric or circus clown or street madman.
I never took art history, and am probably illustrating almost complete ignorance with this comment, but for some reason this one makes me think "Picasso". Not the cubism stuff, but definitely something Picasso-esque.
heather, on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 8:00 PM:
Interesting. I never took art history either, although have always had an interest in it. And when I saw this picture I immediately thought of a harlequin.
When I read Sarah's comment above, I decided to do an image search on the internet for "Picasso Harlequin". Little did I realize he did a number of harlequin paintings. Or maybe I did know that, but had forgotten it was Picasso :-)
Nonetheless, there is some likeness in the above picture to some of these. If not in actual physical resemblence, definitely in the feeling conveyed. At least for me :-)
Ah yes, but the art historian and I are speaking specifically of the light, which has nothing to do with Pablo. I can't seem to find one of the tavern eccentrics online, although I can see them in my head, but here's a self-portrait of the man himself that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about:
You could possibly make an argument for this one of Pablo's, but the light doesn't have the enveloping, blanketing quality that I was going for with the photo:
Savannah, on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 2:01 PM:
Are you kidding? He would have loved it. Dirty the guy up, fuzzy his edges, put him in one of those Northern Renaissance jackets, and you've got a perfect tavern eccentric or circus clown or street madman.
Sarah, on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 2:32 PM:
I never took art history, and am probably illustrating almost complete ignorance with this comment, but for some reason this one makes me think "Picasso". Not the cubism stuff, but definitely something Picasso-esque.
heather, on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 8:00 PM:
Interesting. I never took art history either, although have always had an interest in it. And when I saw this picture I immediately thought of a harlequin.
When I read Sarah's comment above, I decided to do an image search on the internet for "Picasso Harlequin". Little did I realize he did a number of harlequin paintings. Or maybe I did know that, but had forgotten it was Picasso :-)
Nonetheless, there is some likeness in the above picture to some of these. If not in actual physical resemblence, definitely in the feeling conveyed. At least for me :-)
http://search.msn.com/images/results.aspx?q=Picasso+Harlequin&FORM=MSNH&mkt=en-US
Perhaps the one I find most similar are these two:
http://www.chess-theory.com/images1/01611_pablo_picasso.jpg
http://search.msn.com/images/results.aspx?q=Picasso+Harlequin&FORM=MSNH&mkt=en-US
David Adam Edelstein, on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 10:39 AM:
Ah yes, but the art historian and I are speaking specifically of the light, which has nothing to do with Pablo. I can't seem to find one of the tavern eccentrics online, although I can see them in my head, but here's a self-portrait of the man himself that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/self/rembrandt.1669.jpg
You could possibly make an argument for this one of Pablo's, but the light doesn't have the enveloping, blanketing quality that I was going for with the photo:
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/-Posters_i143051_.htm
ejuana, on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 10:47 AM:
For me, this picture primarily represents the classic Edelstein family value of dumbassness.
David Adam Edelstein, on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 10:53 AM:
Ah yes, and the poet comes in, as usual, with perfectly chosen words, that raise the discourse to an entirely new level. Thbtttt.
heather, on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 1:01 PM:
I was referring purely to the subject. I leave the light discussion to the experts.