So often I look at renowned artworks and think nothing less than; what a load of rubbish!

But this is something else. Amazing to behold.

REAL art. Superb… and prolific…. in many countries.

The chalk guy; Julian Beever:

http://www.joevautour.com/funandgames/inbox/chalk.html/

Your comments…….

Ludwig,
Now THIS is art! Definitely yes. But don't underestimate the power of a blank page.

certainly a lot more skillful than taking photographs of naked young girls and calling it art like some in the 'profression'.

Luddy, the guy is a major talent.
Consider the viewers mind, it grapples with a 1D object and projects it into 3D, how easily fooled are our perceptions of depth and field.

Compare graffiti artists in contract to this chalk art; I know which one earns my kudos. It also reminds me to be aware of amazing youtube video’s that show our eyes amazing things, we are easily fooled.

Holograph projections will be the next thing, then we will have to touch everything we see to be sure it is real.

It's certainly clever and it's imaginative but I think the actual execution would be done with the aid of some sort of preliminary technology, not just done freehand and spontaneously.

It's like the corporate advertising sprayed onto sports playing fields for the benefit of the TV cameras.

But is it really "art"?

Yes, Ludwig,
Absolutely amazing.

If artists were paid on ability, he should be worth a fortune.

We are blessed to be able to see his work.

Dear runner,

Why not enjoy it rather than using it as a way to put something else you don't like or approve of down?

Try to just enjoy. The fellow's work is imaginative. It is something to appreciate in itself.

david f

'Try to just enjoy'

If it was your 13 year old daughter I doubt whether you would be saying that or then again..

Absolutely amazing !

There was a doco on SBS the other night about the universe and one
conclusion of reality is that the whole of the universe is a holograph.

A study of single particles being in two places at the same time led to that conclusion.
That was true, only if you do not look at it !

Dear runner,

You really can't just enjoy! Gloom, doom and perdition. Lighten up! We only go around once. Enjoy it. I can see a world of beauty outside of the window and am happy to be alive. I wish that you also were.

I had a thirteen year old daughter once. Now she is a wonderful 51 year old daughter.

david f,

'You really can't just enjoy! Gloom, doom and perdition. Lighten up! We only go around once. Enjoy it. '

The art posted here very much so, child porn no thanks.

Amazing stuff.

As for the side discussion, clearly some people spend far too much time thinking about naked children in a context other than art. Thankfully for most not a topic that occupies a lot of our thoughts. Oh well at least its not naked dogs (that dammed slippery slope thing).

R0bert

Dear runner,

Taking a picture of a nude thirteen year old girl in an artistic manner is not child porn. The human body at any age can be a subject for art.

Wowsers may label art porn. Such attitudes are the product of their evil and perverted minds that see ugliness where others see beauty.

Dear Ludwig,

Thank You for the link. Art, like other things in life,
may be interpreted in very different ways. We all tend to
see things from a viewpoint of subjectivity. What's Art to
one - may be "rubbish," to someone else. It's all a question
of some measure of bias - our tendency often unconscious,
to interpret things according to our values, background,
training, prior experiences et cetera.

The young artist certainly is talented and is presenting us
with a unique experience - it's entertaining - no question
about that - it's fairly easy to understand and appreciation
takes very little effort. Does it involve our emotions as
a deeper level? - does it give us a spiritually enriching
experience? Again that's a question of subjectivity.

I have to agree with you Ludwig, I loved the pictures! I am impressed. Its funny how art can grab us at times. Last night I was watching Q&A and at the end of it, Karie Noonan sang. By the end of the song, I was just blown away by the voice and by the emotion that she could express with that voice. It was the first time that I'd heard her sing.

Runner, you are a worry, you really are. The mind works by neural connections and it seems that in yours, everything leads back to porn! You really have this thing about porn...

davidf

'Such attitudes are the product of their evil and perverted minds that see ugliness where others see beauty.'

Yea I am sure artist never lust.

david f,

Some people choose to literally worship the image of a man being tortured to death yet see the image of a naked child as obscene by attaching their own connotations and prejudices to both.

Some also see themselves as a hammer and so everything else must be a nail.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder but they need to be looking for it with eyes and minds that are open before they can see it.

Dear runner,

If an artist is normal he sometimes lusts. There is nothing wrong in lust. It's a normal human reaction to an appropriate stimulus.

However, I have seen Henson's pictures in the Brisbane Gallery of Modern Art, and they were beautiful.

I repeat. It takes a perverted and evil mind to equate those pictures with porn.

I don't know that you have done so. You may just be uncritically repeating some wowser's judgment. Look at the pictures yourself.

Here you go, runner...

http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo33.html

http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/Birth-of-Venus.html

s'only naked bodies, after all. (Smut and sordidness being in the mind of the beholder, n'all that)...lighten up a bit : )

Thanks, Ludwig, great talent!

Thanks folks for your comments.

There is pretty universal approval of Beever’s works.

Julian Beever’s references to Picasso and Rembrandt:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=julian+beever+picasso&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbnid=6-20KPc7z9xmIM:&imgrefurl=http://www.prakrity.net/cgi-bin/ewf/prakrity_com/scripts/ewf_page_loader_prakrity_com.cgi%3Fpage%3Dgood_junk_julian_beever_01.src&docid=CLvy4QTbKirVqM&imgurl=http://www.prakrity.net/ewf/prakrity_com/resources//images/julian_beever/julian_beever_07.jpg&w=450&h=300&ei=bxAhUNrtNYeziQfF34DoDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=291&vpy=285&dur=1249&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=132&ty=80&sig=104114398348957169127&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=171&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:94

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=julian+beever+rembrandt&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=599&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=3w1XbFvJj_9dVM:&imgrefurl=http://www.incrediblespictures.com/incredibles/incredible-pavement-art/&docid=AMGtyWII6QsnCM&imgurl=http://www.incrediblespictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/image01414.jpg&w=428&h=300&ei=yxAhUN6JIKSwiQfSjoDYDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=274&vpy=145&dur=1325&hovh=188&hovw=268&tx=162&ty=110&sig=104114398348957169127&page=1&tbnh=124&tbnw=165&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:78

Picasso? No thanks. I do not have any admiration for his works at all:

http://www.google.com/search?q=picasso&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=QBEhUMGxN4mPiAfYnIDYCg&ved=0CE4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=599

Rembrandt, three centuries earlier than Picasso – absolutely brilliant!

http://www.google.com/search?q=picasso&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=QBEhUMGxN4mPiAfYnIDYCg&ved=0CE4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=599#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=rembrandt&oq=rembrandt&gs_l=img.12..0l10.53143.55291.0.57407.9.6.0.3.3.1.330.825.2j3j0j1.6.0...0.0...1c.fkw3Gu8UmLA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=a73488794b7706ae&biw=1280&bih=599

lefties always find a way to excuse the inexcusable. Not surprising.

I excuse you, runner.

Poirot,

'I excuse you, runner.'
Thanks Poirot but unfortunately you are not qualified to do so. Only Christ is.

Dear runner,

Only real live people can forgive. Poirot is a real live person. Christ is a legendary figure who, if he existed, exists no more.

Take forgiveness from real people. I forgive you, also.

Just because the subject doesn't get the point, Poirot doesn't mean the rest of us didn't – and enjoyed it.

Here’s a lovely artistic photo by Bill Henson (don’t look runner!):

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Bill+Henson&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=599&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=YXE4Zbv5-XkalM:&imgrefurl=http://iconolo.gy/archive/be-young-bill-henson/428&docid=NHaQPLWjlfuFEM&imgurl=http://iconolo.gy/sites/default/files/imagecache/h516/017.jpg&w=705&h=481&ei=bKQhULSqKdOgiQeosoCYDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=264&vpy=120&dur=23&hovh=185&hovw=272&tx=145&ty=121&sig=104114398348957169127&page=1&tbnh=104&tbnw=153&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:163

And here’s a long OLO discussion about whether this is art or pornography:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831

Good to know, WmTrevor : )

Not having a sister and somehow disregarding my mother's sex I hated all girls at one point in my life. One day in my early teens I walked into the classroom, and it had become a hotbed of eroticism. Wondrous creatures - the aroma, breasts, eyelashes, supple hands, the movements etc. I walked bent over with my hands clasped in front of me. One of these wondrous creatures even started to walk to school with me. I was consumed with lust. Of course I was too shy to do anything more than croak out a few words. She seemed to be equally socially inept, but it was glorious to walk to school together. I am now 86 and still under the spell of lust.

I owe my wonderful descendents to lust. Without lust my life would be empty. Lust is one of our better emotions - honest, straightforward and inspiring in the creative arts.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm

What's not to like?

That write up from Lexi's link is wrong, at least in 1997 when I went
to Florence. David was a full frontal view right along a passage way.
There he was seen from a distance as you walked towards him over about
50 to 60 metres.

Dear Bazz,

I didn't give a link on this thread.

I think Bazz was referring to my link on David, Lexi.

Anyhooo....I didn't read the article. I posted it merely for the photos of Michelangelo's superb artistry in depicting the male form.

Thanks Poirot. I hadn't read that previous page
and wondered what Bazz was referring to.
I'm an admirer of Michaelangelo's work. I was given
the book, "Michelangelo: Paintings, Sculptures,
Architecture by Ludwig Goldscheider for Christmas
a few decades ago - full of beautiful plates.
And the statue of David is a favourite. (Apollo's
not too bad either).

Lovely post, david f.

<< …I posted it merely for the photos of Michelangelo's superb artistry in depicting the male form. >>

Bububut, Poirot, David has got such a tiny willy!!

My mind boggles! Did Michelangelo actually feel some level of shame about depicting that part of the anatomy and deliberately made it smaller as a result? Or did he model it on himself? Or did men really have really tiny willies back then??

Been wondering about this all day!! ( :>/

Ludwig,

Your guess is as good as mine - perhaps Michelangelo ran out of marble?

: )

Option 1: Dr. Pietro Antonio Bernabei of the Careggi hospital in Florence and Prof. Massimo Gulisano, an anatomist at Florence University, recently announced that every detail of the sculpture "is consistent with the combined effects of fear, tension and aggression," The tension of the moment even accounts, according to Bernabei, for "a contraction of the reproductive organs,"

Option 2: They are realistic. It is the rest of the statue which at 5.17m is two and a half times normal scale.

Option 3: Poirot is correct and Michelangelo got his rocks off
an amateur purveyor.

It is said that males have a choice. Either the blood goes to the active brain which means there is not enough for the penis or the penis is in control and the brain shuts off. David was thinking in high gear.

This quote from the web:

"Michelangelo ... uses an ingenious technique -
giving authority to his sculptures through
lack of proportion for some parts ..."

In the case of the statue of David ... "The hands,
knotted and extremely beautiful, the face which
with the neck is bigger than half the chest. It is
in the hands and face that the virtues of universal
man are to be found, in other owrds, physical strength
and the intellectual reasoning of man. The entire work
represents, in this sense, a perfect synthesis of the
Florentine Renaissance."

Interesting Lexi.

Somewhat proportionally larger face and hands makes sense, in order to make a figure look more imposing. But to then put extremely tiny genitalia on it seems entirely counter-intuitive. Surely by the same reasoning, David should have a hooter of a dick and balls the size of melons!!

If one googles "david michelangelo pene piccolo" one will find a number of references in Italian to the tiny appurtenance attached to David.

Perhaps a poster conversant in Italian can tell us about the discussion. I tried the translate option, but it didn't seem to work.

Perhaps the following link may be useful:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090307220753AAwc5mz

Perhaps Michelangelo's aim was to represent the hero of
David - showing strength, courage, virtue, intelligence, and
not physical perfection. He may also have been restricted by
the papacy under whose direction he worked.

Apparently the statue was not a papal commission.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo).

... Originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral, the statue was instead placed in a public square, outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence, where it was unveiled on 8 September 1504. Because of the nature of the hero that it represented, it soon came to symbolize the defence of civil liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, an independent city-state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states and by the hegemony of the Medici family. The eyes of David, with a warning glare, were turned towards Rome.[3] The statue was moved to the Accademia Gallery in Florence in 1873, and later replaced at the original location by a replica.

History

The history of the statue begins before Michelangelo's work on it from 1501 to 1504.[4] Prior to Michelangelo's involvement, the Overseers of the Office of Works of the Duomo (Operai), consisting mostly of members of the influential woolen cloth guild, the Arte della Lana, had plans to commission a series of twelve large Old Testament sculptures for the buttresses of the cathedral of Santa Maria Del Fiore.[5]

...Rossellino's contract was terminated soon thereafter, and the block of marble remained neglected for twenty-five years, all the while exposed to the elements in the yard of the cathedral workshop. ... They ordered the block of stone, which they called The Giant, "raised on its feet" so that a master experienced in this kind of work might examine it and express an opinion. Though Leonardo da Vinci and others were consulted, it was Michelangelo, only twenty-six years old, who convinced the Operai that he deserved the commission. On August 16, 1501, Michelangelo was given the official contract to undertake this challenging new task.[8] He began carving the statue early in the morning on Monday, September 13, a month after he was awarded the contract. He would work on the massive biblical hero for more than two years.

<< He may also have been restricted by the papacy under whose direction he worked >>

Yes Lexi, or something similar.

I can envisage him having to be very careful about fully sculpting a young nude male figure. If he’d represented the penis at full size or even at any really believable size, he could possibly have been hounded into oblivion as a homosexual or pervert.

Michelangelo may have felt that he simply had to make those bits unnaturally tiny in order to make it undeniable that he was interested in representing the prowess of David and not at all concerned about the bits that a gay man would be interested in.

Just a thought.

Dear Ludwig,

On the other hand, here's another thought:

If Michelangelo had been a heterosexual,
the Sistine Chapel would have been painted
a basic white and with a roller. ;-)

Here's Michelangelo's "Dying Slave"....the same concentration on the muscular form of the male.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/4237378674

Donatello's David, which is a much more effeminate rendering - almost androgynous....something referred to as the "Beautiful Boy".

http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth213/donatello_david.html

Dear Ludwig,

One can discuss the statue of David at great length. There are many references to the statue - what it means - what it shows - what the artist intended - what it shows about the society of its time. One can do that with great art. It carries much meaning.

We can appreciate the technical virtuosity of the chalk artist and his ingenuity in producing optic tricks. There is no depth of meaning - no commentary on society - no evocation of feeling - nothing beyond the representation.

Perhaps the chalk artist may end up producing great art. So far as I can see he has just produced clever art.

I saw the David statue in Florence and the explanation I was given for the odd proportions of the head and hands what is was an illusion meant to make him look more realistic when viewed from below and from a distance.

The true marvel is how the figure remains balanced, considering the off-centre stance and the centre of gravity.

IMO his best work (and probably the best thing I have ever seen anywhere) was his Pieta statue in the Vatican. Not bad for a 24-year old and the only thing he ever signed (to his later regret).

There are some truly beautiful things man can do in spite of the ugliness he sometimes creates around himself.

another one claiming child porn his just art. Not famous enough though to fool the judge.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/child-porn-images-used-for-graphic-work-20120809-23wmh.html

runner wrote: "another one claiming child porn his just art. Not famous enough though to fool the judge."

Dear runner, I read the item. The man charged according to the story did not claim child porn was art. You apparently regard truth as so precious that you are hesitant about resorting to it.

david f,

I am sure graphic designers see their work as art. If you see 13 year old naked girls as art well surely they are entitled to see their work as art. Nothing at all untruthful about that.

Dear runner,

We've seen that people in different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it's a
house, a riot, a prime-minister's policies, a
religious doctrine, a military budget, or even art -
in very different ways. In other words, people tend
to see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and
experiences.

A fundamental preacher will tend to view pornography
in one way; the owner of a strip-tease establishment,
in another way. Each is inclined to perceive facts
selectively and to interpret them accordingly.
Inevitably, then like anyone else, they will be guilty
of some measure of bias - the tendency, often
unconscious, to interpret facts according to their own
values. This problem is particularly acute in the
social sciences, whose subject matter often involves
issues of deep human and moral concern.

For anyone to resolve this problem - one has to recognise that
subjectivity and objectivity are not two neat and
separate categories. They are really matters of degree.
Therefore if you were to exercise scrupulous caution and
attempt to be as objective as possible - that is if you were
to make a deliberate effort to be conscious of your own biases
so that they can be kept out of the process of interpretation -
you may achieve a more objective result in your interpretation
of things.

A self-conscious effort to be as objective as possilbe will
produce vastly less biased results than not making this attempt.
Of course you can add a subjective judgement provided that
you present the judgement merely as a matter of personal
opinion and not as fact.

Dear runner,

The fact is that nothing in the article supports your statement that he claimed child porn was art. You just lied.

david f,

'You just lied.'

assuming you are right which you aren't you have no basis to call lying wrong anyway. That is why you can call photgraphing young girls nude 'árt'

So runner, if your wife bought you a Fleshlight for your birthday,
would she be buying you porn or art or neither :)

runner,

What must we make of these masterpieces?

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jacopo-tintoretto-the-origin-of-the-milky-way

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/raphael/the-alba-madonna-1

Nudity in art need not mean smut and debauchery - although some people seem to be programmed to draw such conclusions.

I agree, Poirot... and though I'm not an art expert, if you zoom in sufficiently on the Tintoretto you'll see that it is expressionist.

I've always admired Van Eyck's famous Ghent alterpiece, even if the panels had to be opened to see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ghent_Altarpiece_A_-_Eve.jpg

Dear runner,

Apparently you did not read my post. I wrote nothing about lying being wrong. I wrote that you lied which is a fact. Whether lying is right or wrong depends on the circumstances. It is legitimate to lie to spare another human being suffering if we do no other damamge by the lie. I need no mumbojumbo or belief in biblical fairy tales to justify my morality. However, I think your lie was wrong because you lied to make a point. I think it is wrong to lie to justify an argument. You may feel your lie was justified, but the fact is that you lied.

WmTrevor,

Here's pic I drew for a friend - nudey man and all!

But, of course, it's the meaning behind the imagery that's all important - don't you agree?

http://s1072.photobucket.com/albums/w375/Poirot4/?action=view&current=fc6e26aa.jpg

davidf

'I think your lie was wrong because you lied to make a point.' Your moral relativity really leaves you confused.

btw david f your insitence that I lied says more about you than me. You obviously ignored the article where I quote

'In sentencing Mr Lin, the judge accepted that some of the images had been downloaded for reference in Mr Lin's graphic design work. '

what part don't u understand. I suspect you are being deliberatley ignorant.

But, of course, it's the meaning behind the imagery that's all important - don't you agree?
Poirot,
that is a very good painting, one I have no reservation whatsoever calling Art. I'm having difficulty though in agreeing with your above comment. Yes meaning is important but no less important than imagery. Without recognisable imagery no meaning means anything.
Much modern imagery is pointless to the point of not meaning anything.

Thank you, Poirot… I've already admitted I'm not an art expert – even of 'nudey man' ones – but from my perspective and that of the picture's I can just about see all the way up the apse.

Dear runner,

There is still nothing in the story that has the defendent claiming that child porn was art. Regardless of how you try to wiggle out of it that is what you claimed. I am not confused by the fact you lied. The one whose morals are in question is yours. You lied, and there wwas no justification for it.

Dear Poirot,

Loved the sketch.

Reminds me of the old adage:

To acquire knowledge one must study
but to acquire wisdom, one must observe.

Thanks Ludwig,

Fantastic images and a great way to pass a wet and windy day.

Some of the comments (and other images) are also uplifting.

Have to say though, hard to beat this clash of minds ...

runner

>> lefties always find a way to excuse the inexcusable. Not surprising. <<

Poirot

>> I excuse you, runner. <<

runner

>> Thanks Poirot but unfortunately you are not qualified to do so. Only Christ is. <<

Well, there you have it, straight from one who should know ... Christ is a "leftie".

And I always thought runner was down on lefties, perhaps he's really a closet leftie after all :)

bonmot
'And I always thought runner was down on lefties, perhaps he's really a closet leftie after all :) '

actually bonmot both those on the left and right and everywhere in between desperatley need a Saviour.

<< But don't underestimate the power of a blank page. >>

Indi, I’ve been thinking about this for several days. I might know what you mean, but as with quite a few of your one-liners over the last few years, I’ve struggled to be sure of what you are getting at.

Could do the Pauline Hanson bit: please explain.

Thanks

*desperatley need a Saviour*

Ther real worry here, Runner, is the implications of what you are claiming. You seem to be saying that people do kiddie porn or become violent, because they don't have a "saviour".

So is that your worldview? ie, that you would be doing kiddie porn and be violent, if you did not have your "saviour"?

To me, the very notion that you only don't do these things because
of your religious belief, is itself something to be concerned about.

don't worry Yabby moral relativist are far more likely to justify child porn and every other abomination as you probably know. Just read some of the above post and you might get it.

Oh I clearly get it, Runner. Your saviour stops you from doing kiddie porn and stops you from being violent.

'Oh I clearly get it, Runner. Your saviour stops you from doing kiddie porn and stops you from being violent.' and your moral relativism allows you to perve at young naked girls and call it art. Thats more to the point.

Well no Runner, because I am not making any claims, unlike yourself.
I am highlighting the problem with your claims and the implications about your own character.Your perception of the world, is what your claims are all about. Now we know that without a saviour in his life, runner could be into kiddie porn and could be violent.
Speak for yourself here. I don't share your perspective and
I certainly disagree with your opinion.

Ludwig,
Do you remember that crisps commercial a few years ago where the limp-wristed gallery ding explained the power of the diagonal to some "Art" gawkers ? Until the artist himself came along & put the painting right way up ?
That's what I meant by a blank page. People are overawed yet don't even know what they're looking at.

I confess to being totally unmoved by art, as in pictures, paintings, sculptures and so on. Particularly so with "modern" art - I went to the recent Picasso exhibition in Sydney, and was unable to relate to any of the work there - and this is one of the twentieth century's most revered artists. Colour me philistine.

So this quote from the recently departed Robert Hughes, discussing in 1987 his reaction to surrealism, fascinated me.

"I thought, God, that can't be art! Can it be art? Well maybe it is! You know... and gradually your eye gets hooked by an image and then you pursue it..."

My own eye has yet to be "hooked", and I doubt it ever will. But I have determined to feel more kindly in future to those who can see something that I cannot.

Instead of thinking of them as up-themselves fruitloops, which I did until yesterday.

Instead of thinking of them as up-themselves fruitloops,
Pericles,
They are fruit loops alright but those who pay them are even bigger fruit loops especially those bureaucrats who authorise the taxpayer funding.

Yes Indi, I do just very vaguely remember that… I think.

<< People are overawed yet don't even know what they're looking at >>

Or they act as though they are overawed because they think that the art they are looking at is in vogue, is championed by the upper class, is the thing of the moment for the nouveau artiste elite.

In other words, the art they are looking at doesn’t matter a brass razoo! It’s what other people have said about it, and who those people are that matters!

Talk about fruit loops!

Speaking of tax-payer funding; I wonder which is better, Blue Poles.. or a blank canvas?? ( :>/
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jacksonpollock.com/images/bluepoles.jpe&imgrefurl=http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock/bluepoles.html&h=144&w=351&sz=21&tbnid=Tlx5LPDG6f0vSM&tbnh=0&tbnw=0&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBlue%2Bpoles%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Blue+poles&usg=__n_EDawX7bFk_b9mbW9Quk7zZCes=&docid=nwvU4JSn84MtzM&sa=X&ei=g-AoUP-fLNGviQf9x4CIDA&ved=0CHMQ1Rc

<< I confess to being totally unmoved by art, as in pictures, paintings, sculptures and so on. >>

Very interesting Pericles, given that you are so into the variety of entertainment that is offered in your city.

I would have thought that someone interested in all that cultural stuff – movies, plays, sport, etc, etc, would have been right into art. But there you go.

<< I went to the recent Picasso exhibition in Sydney, and was unable to relate to any of the work there >>

Well I’m with you there. Picasso leaves me cold.

So, what do you think of the chalk guy?:

http://www.joevautour.com/funandgames/inbox/chalk.html/

Ludwig,
Are you sure that Blue Poles is not big Goaf's cat scan ?

Indi, no I’m not. It does indeed look like it could be!!

As I write this, I look at a large print on the wall 2 metres in front of me, of gnarled old gum trees in early morning fog, with kangaroos. Absolutely wonderful artwork.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Hans+heisen&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_VQ7UK65AoeSiQeIj4CoBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=599