Stank Mania Articles

It is my belief that Gustav Klimt's 'Idylle', painted in 1884, is the greatest painting in the world. It is my favorite piece. It tells such a mysterious and gorgeous story. The composition is symmetrical but in the center is another composition. Outside of that composition sits two naked men, they both prop up a circular frame. Inside that circle is the composition of a woman and two children. Presumably the woman is their mother, and the two children are the two men outside the circle, brothers.

The mother is seen giving one of the children a necklace, she has her back turned to his older self. That same man has his face turned away from the circle in scorn, as if he resents her for something. He's also not properly holding the circle the way his brother does. Both of the brothers are wearing a sheet, similar to what the mother wears.

The composition inside the circle is more saturated and colorful than the outside. The circle is flourished in a natural lush while the outside is decorated in plucked flowers and engraved leaves, like a dull imitation of the past. In terms of draftsmanship this piece is excellent, no detail is spared. Klimt exudes all of his knowledge in Idylle and it is certainly more 'realistic' when compared to his other, more well known, works.

https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-klimt/idylle-idylls-1884

I believe that anything created (manipulated would be a better word since nothing is "created" if you think about it) by man can be considered 'art'. What you find aesthetically pleasing is slave to your own subjectivity.

If you were to take a piece of paper, rip it, and call it art; I would have no reason to disagree with you. If you took that same paper and drew a line and called it art, I would have no reason to disagree with you. If you took that piece of paper and drew a portrait and called it art, I would have no reason to disagree with you. In each scenario, you hold a piece of paper in your hand, a piece of paper that has been manipulated by you. This is what creates art.

What separates that single line from the portrait is draftsmanship. Draftsmanship is often confused for artistry. I see draftsmanship as a perfectly put together table that never wobbles or shifts, and artistry as a painted table with beautiful men holding up each leg with engraved flowers and wings, though it may be subject to light wiggles and turns. Each is a piece of art, but they exist at different points on a spectrum. On one end is pure abstractionism on the other end is pure realism. Whether you are more receptive to one end or the other is up to you, but I urge you not to dismiss the other as "not art".

Creativity is toward the 'abstract' end of the spectrum. Invention is the near opposite to adaptation. As an aside, creativity is not truly "creativity", for ideas are simply remixed memories in imagination; how could I paint a story of a knight and princess if I have never heard of such things? There is no true originality, there are only masks of originality.

The first objective of art is to exist, the second objective is up to the artist. You as the viewer do not have to subjugate yourself to the second objective, but as a human, you must honor the first objective. Notice how neither objective is to be pretty or beautiful, or to capture a likeness; these are up to the artist.

Art is human, and with the rise of AI "generated" (in a similar way to humans, AI doesn't generate anything, it merely remixes) "art", I feel the need to clarify this. Art is the thumbprint of the soul, art cannot be the thumbprint of a machine, for machines will never have a soul. Isn't it funny how we used the term CGI when CGI doesn't literally mean CGI, but we are now in the age of literal CGI?

Art should not be a complimentary word. Anytime I hear "this is art" said as a compliment, I roll my eyes. Of course the work is art! What ought to be said is "This art is great because".

Art may be owned physically, but spiritually there is no ownership of art (this is why I despise the idea of "intellectual property").

I am strong in these beliefs, so strong that I get angry whenever I read or hear someone claim what art is when they are clearly coming from a place of ignorance. It seems as if people want to be up in arms about what art is "meant to be" when they are offended by some abstract work, rather than searching the meaning in their own inquisition. I plead, I beg, and I urge you to discover and seek art.

Review of 'Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion' by Francis Bacon

Francis Bacon's 'Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion' is a figurative piece made in 1944. This work is actually three separate paintings that are simply grouped together in one arrangement. Bacon actually repainted this piece and the figures in it a few times.

Three pale, phallic beasts: one without a mouth, the other with one closed, and the third with its mouth agape, yelling or singing upwards into the air. The left figure is perched like a bird, sitting atop a chair dressed in a dull pink cloth. The creature's face is covered by its hair, hiding any potential ominous intent as it looms its face downward. The middle figure is wearing what looks to be a blindfold, maybe it's a towel. It sports a strange grimace, as many figures in Bacon's work do, as it stands above a stool. Before analyzing this piece, I assumed that the bird-like beast was sitting on top of a sort of tripod, for lack of a better word. Looking at this piece extensively, it looks as if those elongated needles are actually the creature's legs. The stool itself also has a sort of confusing nature in its shape, as the right of it can be seen as the shadow or as an extension of its legs.

The figure on the right is my favorite of the three, sporting the most unique lighting and composition. It also has an amazingly rendered face. The bottom portion of its body is shaded in such an oblique way that it makes the creature seem like an inanimate object of some kind; its strange needle leg also gives this impression. Its leg is staking a patch of grass, which has no surrounding shadow, giving it the vibe of a bad Photoshop job. I mean this as a compliment because that aspect gives the piece the aesthetic of an ethereal, liminal dream.

What also gives the piece that aesthetic is the use of color, the background is a harsh and saturated orange, which contrasts well with the pale creatures. Also in the background are these strange lines, probably used to thumbnail a background of some kind (the artwork is titled as 'a study'). The direction in which the beasts are facing is interesting, with the left and right figures facing the middle and the middle creature looking at the viewer. I'm not too sure what these figures are meant to be, symbolically speaking. The two figures to the left have a bird-like quality to them; the middle figure even looks like it has a wing. Unlike the creature on the rightmost side, they are atop a table or stool, elevated above the right beast as it yells upward. I'm not too sure what this could mean, especially in relation to the title. Despite this, I will forever be entranced by this and many other pieces from Francis Bacon.

https://www.francis-bacon.com/artworks/paintings/three-studies-figures-base-crucifixion

Return of the Sun is a neo-barqoue painting created by Odd Nerdrum in 1985. This piece features a beautifully desaturated warm color palette as well as excellent composition. This piece's composition leads your eyes into almost a left facing 'C' shape. It's perfectly lit, depth is conveyed well through the lighting and perspective of the subjects and the background. As with most of Nerdrum's work, everything is rendered with clarity to a precise quality.

There are quite a few things that 'Return of the Sun' could mean. Please keep in mind that with my reviews I make no attempt to explain any piece, I'm merely presenting you my own interpretation. The three women, presumably sisters, are standing atop some sort of tower as they greet a returning sun, as the title suggests. The sister on the right seems to be impaired in some way, perhaps blinded by the sun that she and her sisters delightfully adore. Something to note is how all three women flex their pinkie finger in a certain way, the two sisters on the left pose their hand with their left while the leaning girl on the right poses her hand with her right hand.

This may be completely meaningless, but something I've noticed is how the two curved clouds are almost like the rings that accompany a mushroom cloud. Their is a sort of sadness in the right sister's face that isn't present in the other two. I believe that she is at the heart of the artwork. To me, this piece could be a symbol of today's joy being tomorrows pain, how something as beautiful as the sun can delight but also harm and destroy. Maybe that is too obvious of a meaning to draw from this piece.

Perhaps you could also see it as an allegory for 'seeing' God. How when you're younger you welcome it, but as you're older you begin to stumble and maybe aren't as quick to welcome it. Or this image is a more simple symbol of the older and impaired feeling the same sensations that 'normal' and younger people do, but simply can't express their joy as coherently. One last idea, maybe this piece is about a never ending chase of beauty or purity, with the three different aged sisters reaching for something they can't have but desperately desire. Even the eldest still succumbing to the same instinct when she barely has the strength to reach for it.

'Return of the Sun' is one of those paintings I could stare at for days on end as I question everything it presents. Odd Nerdrum is a master of this, drawing your eyes into a complex or simple story depending on what you see in the image. Art is the ultimate Rorschach test, even when it isn't abstract. Nerdrum understood this, whether consciously or unconsciously.

https://www.wikiart.org/en/odd-nerdrum/return-of-the-sun