Akira Kurosawa Drawings

[vir-jin]

Mori Museum Roppongi Hills until 10th of January

DON'T MISS THAT ONE

hurry to your last chance to see all paintings Kurosawa did for Ran, Kagemusha, Dreams and other movies. It's incredible. Might be the last chance for the rest of your life.
Never seen that lot of money spent for a small exhibition like this one. They made some enormous prints of some works. You get to see expressed what movies can't express. Didn't know he was a painter.

[Captain Japan]

Here's a link with info:
http://www.kurosawa-drawings.com/index_en.html

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

To tell you the truth they look pretty crapy and unoriginal.

[Charles]

To tell you the truth they look pretty crapy and unoriginal.

Yeah, and you think you could do better? I bet Kurosawa would have thought YOU were pretty crappy and unoriginal.

Philistines like you remind me of an old controversy at my local art museum. They purchased an aggressively modern work from an unknown sculptor for $35,000 and placed it prominently outside the entrance to the museum. The work was just 3 steel beams bolted together, with part of a plow blade hanging from huge chains, it was entitled "Snowplow." It was painted fire-engine red and bright yellow. It's a terribly dangerous piece of sculpture, you can swing around the blade and it could easily crush you to death.

Immediately a public outcry ensued over the purchase, particularly in the Letters To The Editor column in the state newspaper. Conservative idiots denounced the sculpture as ugly and not worth a dime, let alone $35,000. One farmer wrote a letter that he could duplicate the sculpture himself for only a few hundred bucks. My sculpture professor wrote back, he said that if Mr. Farmer could duplicate the sculpture sufficiently accurately that he could not tell the difference between the original and a duplicate without a close inspection, he would personally purchase it for the price of $35,000. That was pretty much the end of that controversy.

Now it's about 35 years later, and this work is known as the first piece ever sold by the internationally renown artist Mark di Suvero, it's probably worth close to a million bucks. People come from around the world to get a look at it.

It's a good thing nobody listens to philistines.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

Yeah, and you think you could do better? I bet Kurosawa would have thought YOU were pretty crappy and unoriginal.

Yes I am open for crititism but my field is not painting its photography(I have even had exhibitions). Even if I couldnt paint its not the arguement as there are so many better painters in my opinion than him.

Philistines

Sorry I dont preach or am not a jew so this term cant really be applied to me.

They purchased an aggressively modern work from an unknown sculptor for $35,000 and placed it prominently outside the entrance to the museum. The work was just 3 steel beams bolted together, with part of a plow blade hanging from huge chains, it was entitled "Snowplow." It was painted fire-engine red and bright yellow. It's a terribly dangerous piece of sculpture, you can swing around the blade and it could easily crush you to death.

Immediately a public outcry ensued over the purchase, particularly in the Letters To The Editor column in the state newspaper. Conservative idiots denounced the sculpture as ugly and not worth a dime, let alone $35,000. One farmer wrote a letter that he could duplicate the sculpture himself for only a few hundred bucks. My sculpture professor wrote back, he said that if Mr. Farmer could duplicate the sculpture sufficiently accurately that he could not tell the difference between the original and a duplicate without a close inspection, he would personally purchase it for the price of $35,000. That was pretty much the end of that controversy.

Now it's about 35 years later, and this work is known as the first piece ever sold by the internationally renown artist Mark di Suvero, it's probably worth close to a million bucks. People come from around the world to get a look at it.

Yawn!

Anyway if there was not controversy then it may not of become phamous. You need like me.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

I forgot charlie here is one of the pictures:


Its not that I am agianst modern art and even consider artists as far back as Monet being modern. I just think this is crap.

[Charles]

I forgot charlie here is one of the pictures:


Its not that I am agianst modern art and even consider artists as far back as Monet being modern. I just think this is crap.

You're a little out of touch, The Modern Era in art is generally considered to have started around 1790 with neoclassicists like Jean-Louis David. But then, you probably haven't studied art history.

The difference between a guy who can push a button and take a pritty picher and an artist is that an artist is connected to the mainstream of art history, he draws influences from it, and influences the artists that follows him. Kurosawa was classically trained as a painter before he ever took up moviemaking. I can look at Kurosawa's painting and immediately see the influence of Marc Chagall. I can look at his portrait of Lady Kaede, and see the influence of traditional ukiyo-e painters. That connection to other artists is the reason why Kurosawa's works are studied in art schools across the world, and yours are not.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of Chagall, but I challenge you to do a work that anyone would look at and notice his influence (or the influence of ANY other artist, for that matter). It's a lot harder than it looks. Watercolor (like that painting) is exceptionally difficult, much harder than photography. And remember, that work isn't intended as a finished, polished artwork, it's just a storyboard to show his cinematographers what he wanted to shoot. It is just polished enough. Sure there are better painters strictly on the technical merits, but painting is not always about technique, it's about expressing ideas.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

IN short charles you are comparing art to something you esentialy know fuck all about.

You missed the issue to in that the initial arguements was whether I could have the opinion in that I belive that "art" is crap.

[Charles]

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

Yeah, people shouldn't really drop names like Monet when they don't know what they're talking about.

Sorry for the confusion I ment Monet.

You really don't know anything about the history of your own medium. Ever seen a Talbotype? I have. They were the first photo prints ever made, they're so unstable, you're only allowed to lift the drape and look at it for 15 seconds.

Did you snap a shot of it for keeps sakes?

The recent assertions that early painters used lenses is an interesting speculation by David Hockney, but it's still unproven. Maybe if you'd take some art history, you'd know about Brunelleschi and the origin of perspective, it didn't involve lenses.

So David Hockney is an art historian, and he has that assertation. So where was I wrong exactly in bringing it up. You arguements lack logic.

Bah, I recently did a full color print in an antique process, it had 18 layers, it took me over 2 weeks, full time.

Yeah, I only have a BFA degree in photography and painting.

So tell me again what is your logical arguement. If Photography is not art then why do you have a BFA in it. You are a sorry Dumb Fuck. (before I get modded for namecalling the dumb fuck called me a Philistine)



I guess with that BFA you became an English teacher. Fitting!

[Charles]

You really don't know anything about the history of your own medium. Ever seen a Talbotype? I have. They were the first photo prints ever made, they're so unstable, you're only allowed to lift the drape and look at it for 15 seconds.

Did you snap a shot of it for keeps sakes?

Of course not, there are good reproductions in almost every book on the history of photography. You might benefit from reading one sometime.

The recent assertions that early painters used lenses is an interesting speculation by David Hockney, but it's still unproven. Maybe if you'd take some art history, you'd know about Brunelleschi and the origin of perspective, it didn't involve lenses.

So David Hockney is an art historian, and he has that assertation. So where was I wrong exactly in bringing it up. You arguements lack logic.

No, Hockney's a painter and not an art historian, his speculation isn't accepted by art historians, it's the opposite of everything that is definitively known to art history.
I don't have time to educate you on your own medium, or on perspective. Suffice to say that Brunelleschi didn't use anything more than a ruler and compass, no camera obscura or anything like that.

Bah, I recently did a full color print in an antique process, it had 18 layers, it took me over 2 weeks, full time.

Yeah, I only have a BFA degree in photography and painting.

So tellme me again what is your logical arguement. If Photography is not art then why do you have a BFA in it. You are a sorry Dumb Fuck. (before I get modded for namecalling the dumb fuck called me a Philistine)

I didn't say photography wasn't art. I just said that what YOU do isn't art.

I used to have this same argument with graffiti taggers when I painted out the back wall at my job. Once in a while I'd start painting over some huge garish mural while the latino gang members were still painting it. They'd have a fit and accuse me of suppressing their art. I would always challenge them to name just ONE artist that influenced them, and show me something in their spray painted mural that was influenced by that artist, and if they could, I'd leave their mural up forever. None of them could name even one artist, except one kid who remembered Michelangelo's name. I asked him how Michelangelo influenced his big tag of block letters, he stood there with his mouth open for a minute, and then turned and stomped off. His mural got painted over.

I guess with that BFA you became an English teacher. Fitting!

No, I became a highly paid digital photo retoucher and prepress geek. You can only WISH you knew a hundredth of what I know about photography. Maybe you should give up on this argument while you're behind.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

I don't have time to educate you on your own medium,

For all you know my medium could be laying great long shit cables and taking pictures of them and posting them on http://www.ratemypoo.com I need some education and direction in that department. Would you like to meet up some day so we could compare techniques?

or on perspective.

Its impossible to educate somebody on their own perspective as they are the only true observer. Wrap you brain around that.

Suffice to say that Brunelleschi didn't use anything more than a ruler and compass, no camera obscura or anything like that.

I didn't say photography wasn't art. I just said that what YOU do isn't art.

Have you actualy seen what I have done? Do you have a position to comment. Even educated can YOU actualy prove what is art and what is not.

If you want to know who inspires me, David Bailey(Photographer), Bridget Riley (artist,op) hosts of others.

I used to have this same argument with graffiti taggers when I painted out the back wall at my job. Once in a while I'd start painting over some huge garish mural while the latino gang members were still painting it. They'd have a fit and accuse me of suppressing their art. I would always challenge them to name just ONE artist that influenced them, and show me something in their spray painted mural that was influenced by that artist, and if they could, I'd leave their mural up forever. None of them could name even one artist, except one kid who remembered Michelangelo's name. I asked him how Michelangelo influenced his big tag of block letters, he stood there with his mouth open for a minute, and then turned and stomped off. His mural got painted over.

You really sound like a prick and an egomaniac. Even being an expert is some area, does not mean that people who are not experts can make a valid contribution. How about children, there have been inspiring works that have recieved Internationl aclaim. Yet children are not indoctronated with "Art History" "trained classicaly". I think the real source of Art is imagination which you clearly lack.

For all your talk, post some of your work. Ill post some of mine, lets bring it down to a vote on what is art or not. Do you have the balls?

[GuyJean]

For all your talk, post some of your work. Ill post some of mine, lets bring it down to a vote on what is art or not. Do you have the balls?

I became a highly paid digital photo retoucher and prepress geek.

I bet he could 'retouch' some of your art to make it perfect..

GJ

[Charles]

[paraphrased] "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I hate."

Sorry, this pissing match is over. I get paid to teach people about art, cough up some dough and I'll continue your education. If you want to see my work, I'll sell you a print for $3500.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

[vir-jin]

I liked the drawings, cause I saw his films. the cool thing was how he expressed scenes one after another in his drawings where we have no period of time to tell a story. though the expression came out all the same to me. and the huge prints- if you compare the small original with the print, I thought it was like the difference between small and large screen- the cinema's absorb you just because of the big screen I thought. quite intersting exhibition technique.

I think the new concepts of museology are really great in this museum. all exhibitions are theme orientated and connect the visitor with contemporary art scene as far as it is established. It might not be a forward-looking point of view but that's not really the function of a museum.

[FG Lurker]

I used to have this same argument with graffiti taggers when [...blah blah blah...]

You really sound like a prick and an egomaniac.

There's a reason he sounds that way Neo.... It's because he *IS* a prick and an egomaniac.

Sometimes there is logic in the world... Even if the result is still fucked.

[Charles]

I liked the drawings, cause I saw his films. the cool thing was how he expressed scenes one after another in his drawings where we have no period of time to tell a story. though the expression came out all the same to me. and the huge prints- if you compare the small original with the print, I thought it was like the difference between small and large screen- the cinema's absorb you just because of the big screen I thought. quite intersting exhibition technique.

That reminds me a lot of Stanley Kubrick, he was a photographer before he became a filmmaker. His films are also carefully storyboarded, almost every single frame is perfectly composed and could stand alone as a photograph.
I hope you've seen some of the documentaries on Kurosawa, I vividly remember one scene where he made his assistants go out and paint a field of grass with gold paint because it wasn't golden enough. Kurosawa really was a painter, he just worked on a monumental scale sometimes..

I think the new concepts of museology are really great in this museum. all exhibitions are theme orientated and connect the visitor with contemporary art scene as far as it is established. It might not be a forward-looking point of view but that's not really the function of a museum.

I was quite impressed with the Mori museum. The "What Is Modern" show was as good as some of the best permanent collections I've seen. I stopped by Mori Tower on Green Day and there was a huge art fair with some Tokyo artists I'd even heard of in the US, like the "Hello Kitschy" group. They couldn't believe a gaijin had ever heard of them.

[vir-jin]

I hope you've seen some of the documentaries on Kurosawa, I vividly remember one scene where he made his assistants go out and paint a field of grass with gold paint because it wasn't golden enough. Kurosawa really was a painter, he just worked on a monumental scale sometimes..

never seen any. thanks for the info!

I like the permanent collection, too. Though, everything is made by the "good guys", nothing that could provoke nausea. besides the spider

[FG Lurker]

They couldn't believe a gaijin had ever heard of them.

That's cause you're the SUPER GAIJIN! You've seen EVERYTHING! You've done EVERYTHING! You know EVERYTHING! You're better at EVERYTHING than anyone else!

I bow down at your feet oh great Chuckie-boy!

[Charles]

I like the permanent collection, too. Though, everything is made by the "good guys", nothing that could provoke nausea. besides the spider

I dunno, I saw a couple of Kusamatrix flashing light/mirror things that made me kind of dizzy and nauseous.

I didn't know Mori had a permanent collection, I think they moved it all out for the "blockbuster" Modern show when I visited. But yes, even that show was rather conservative. I wonder what would happen if they would put up a show like the aggressive Leon Golub retrospective I saw at the Chicago MOCA. People would probably freak.

[vir-jin]

They couldn't believe a gaijin had ever heard of them.

That's cause you're the SUPER GAIJIN! You've seen EVERYTHING! You've done EVERYTHING! You know EVERYTHING! You're better at EVERYTHING than anyone else!

I bow down at your feet oh great Chuckie-boy!

why is everybody pissing at each other?

27 year young still student- without- any- degrees vir-jin doesn't get the point!

everybody could gain profit from each other if you just listen to each other and forget about who and what you are. self establishment makes you slow and stubborn. erecting monuments kills sympathy. you love people for their weakness not for their strength!

[FG Lurker]

why is everybody pissing at each other?

27 year young still student- without- any- degrees vir-jin doesn't get the point!

Pissing? Nooooo... Chuckie's like a God! He is all seeing, all knowing... And he's always happy to let everyone know it.

[FG Lurker]

why is everybody pissing at each other?

27 year young still student- without- any- degrees vir-jin doesn't get the point!

As a more serious answer to your fair and reasonable question... Have a look at Charles' posting history. His condescending tone and general "holier than thou" attitude do not endear him to people.

Personally I find him mildly annoying, but good for a laugh. I guess it's unkind to laugh at the socially inept, but...I just can't help it in this case.

[vir-jin]

why is everybody pissing at each other?

27 year young still student- without- any- degrees vir-jin doesn't get the point!

Pissing? Nooooo... Chuckie's like a God! He is all seeing, all knowing... And he's always happy to let everyone know it.

that's fine with me. Should be fine with you too, since this is not your life. do it better if his style get's you aggressive and let others do what they want. you are free to not listen to him. You shouldn't believe in anybody being god. god is dead get some fresh air, some sports and watch the exhibition.

[FG Lurker]

that's fine with me. Should be fine with you too, since this is not your life. do it better if his style get's you aggressive and let others do what they want. you are free to not listen to him. You shouldn't believe in anybody being god. god is dead get some fresh air, some sports and watch the exhibition.

You do realise that the message you just wrote is telling me not to do exactly what you are doing...right?

[vir-jin]

why is everybody pissing at each other?

27 year young still student- without- any- degrees vir-jin doesn't get the point!

As a more serious answer to your fair and reasonable question... Have a look at Charles' posting history. His condescending tone and general "holier than thou" attitude do not endear him to people.

Personally I find him mildly annoying, but good for a laugh. I guess it's unkind to laugh at the socially inept, but...I just can't help it in this case.

why should I? I believe that everybody is able to change his life. I find it boring to watch curriculum vitae, why should I search the net for his posting history. if he is good for a laugh, that's why you would miss him if he didn't turn up anymore. c'mon, be generous, that's cool. pretty as cool as fucking around the net and trying to change people. :P

[vir-jin]

[FG Lurker]