Pro tip for whoever wrote this

I don't know doodly about art but you may be right.

BUT who the fark cares if his art is all graphite drawings? You need paint or something else to "make it in the art world"?

Face it, the art world has always been farked. A lot of "great" artists died penniless without hardly selling a single work and now they're worth zillions.

Let's take Andy Warhol as an example of someone who was revered during his lifetime. WTF did he actually do? Well, he painted a Campbell's soup can. And he colourized a picture of Marilyn Monroe. And then he was involved in a couple of really bad horror film remakes.

I have no idea how much money he made, but people think he's great because other people told them that he is great. He's even on a postage stamp now.

And what exactly is so great about Andy Warhol? Well, nobody can really say because he's not that great. The same can be said about just about every other artist that is considered an icon in the art world. Sure, they could draw and paint well, but so what?

A lot of people can do that.

A friend of mine who is not employed as an artist has drawn really impressive pictures in my opinion and yet he only has 1 or 2 hanging in his house. The rest are lost or stored somewhere.

It would take a lot of effort and more importantly the right connections if he wanted to make a living off of it. When he dies, nobody will appreciate his art outside of his family and friends and yet in my opinion it surpasses some of the great "masterpieces" that some famous artists have created.

You "art students" are idiots and extremely pretentious and no your art isn't great because you employed some super-technique that has been duplicated for centuries. Your art sucks and I'm sure your response will be that "I just don't get it".

Well here's a news flash. I do "get" your art and it sucks.

What made his sketches noticeable was the aspect of the beauty of stillness that he captured in his sketches. If you notice in the art gallery, the sketches were modified with another medium besides graphite. Presumably paint. If you are a connoisseur of art as you seem to boast, then you should realize that what makes art relevant isn't in the medium of which the piece is made but rather the appeal the piece makes on the viewer.

wow...

Really? I wonder why nobody ever mentioned that to M.C. Escher? Or maybe someone did but he just didn't pay attention to them.

This poster has been deleted by the message

I am fairly certain he was using charcoal pencil.But regardless. I have seen many medias used in galleries, including graphite.

This movie touches on every boy's fantasy. To freeze time and see all the beautiful girls in their naked form.


I have to say it was very hard (pun intended) to keep modest.

Lot of people seem to have not WATCHED the movie. With your eyes.

The gallery has only a couple of even approximately monochromatic works on the walls. All are painted (I think mostly watercolors? Hard to tell since they didn't get up close but he was dipping something in water while drawing at work earlier so that's my guess) and in color and while not precisely my style, mostly deconstructed a bit to be at least marginally interesting.

To the gallery owner and show attendees, it doesn't look creepy stalker but about exploring a single subject absurdly. It works for the point in his career. In school I spent two years doing nothing but chairs. Focus is on form, composition, technique instead.

We also didn't see all that he showed off in the portfolio. If I was going to be annoyed at this, it would be that he brought a pile of drawings, not a neat, well-arranged portfolio of matted pieces to demonstrate his range. But most people wouldn't necessarily know what was going on so: movies. It's fine.