Poll: Monet >< Da Vinci
Poll Options
View poll results: Monet >< Da Vinci
Picture A (Monet)
63 77%
Picture B (Da Vinci)
12 15%
Who the hell is MAlmsteen?
7 9%
Voters: 82.
Page 1 of 2
#1
Ok, so i read Malmsteen talking in his interview that he hates impressionism. He says they paint shiity just to hide the fact that they can't paint. I ask you, members of UG:
Are you also a Malsteenian Purist?

EDIT: Ok, so I found out that that interview was a fake, so sue me. But that's beside the point. There are plenty of people who think only that which is technically perfect has value. SO:

Make thou choice, to which to YOU belong?:


A



B
Last edited by CoreysMonster at Sep 25, 2006,
#2
Malmsteen knows even less about art than he does about music.
Death to Ovation haters!
#4
Quote by PatchworkMan
Malmsteen knows even less about art than he does about music.



here, here.
#5
malmsteen hides his ability to express only the technicality and lack of emotion in his music behind elitism. and alot of people will actually for the DaVinci name because it's a household name. God Bless the brainwashed masses eh?
#6
i prefer Monet's painting to da Vinci's simply because his use of colour and expressive brushstrokes is lot more interesting to me. Both can paint exceptionally well in different ways. malmsteen knows nothing.
www.myspace.com/fuelfortiredminds

Fender USA Stratocaster
Marshall BluesBreaker

Vox V847
MXR MC401 Boost
Roger Mayer Octavia
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Maxon OD-9
Line 6 Tonecore Verbzilla
Boss Space Echo RE-20
Line 6 DL4
Boss TU-2
#7
Malmsteen sounds like an idiot and i know he looks like one.
Originally posted by charlie_geetar
my cousin (little girl) saw the herbal esscense commercial, and said "hey that stuff must really work, i heard my brother moaning in the shower"

http://www.clownpaint.com/
#8
Art means different things to different people, kinda along the lines of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sort of thing.
They've done studies, ya know. 60% of the time, it works, everytime
#9
I, for one, prefer Renaissance art to impressionism, but that doesn't mean Yngwie's not a complete idiot dickwad.
Death to Ovation haters!
#10
why do you guys care anyway? Malmsteen is an amazing guitarist, not an artist, or art critic. He obviously can't see the emotion and meaning behing paintings as well as real artists can.

To each their own talent.

Darned art elitist....

Generally, I don't like impressionism either, but I like it better than that particular Da Vinci one. I prefer his other stuff.
#11
It takes just as much skill to paint like Monet as it does to paint like Da Vince, but it requires more imagination to paint impressionism. I doubt Malmsteen can paint like that so he's in no position to comment, neither can i and most of the people on this forum probably can't.
Originally posted by charlie_geetar
my cousin (little girl) saw the herbal esscense commercial, and said "hey that stuff must really work, i heard my brother moaning in the shower"

http://www.clownpaint.com/
#13
i can, i studied art, got an A* for my GCSE's.
www.myspace.com/fuelfortiredminds

Fender USA Stratocaster
Marshall BluesBreaker

Vox V847
MXR MC401 Boost
Roger Mayer Octavia
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Maxon OD-9
Line 6 Tonecore Verbzilla
Boss Space Echo RE-20
Line 6 DL4
Boss TU-2
#15
I like picture A better, it's so alive and "fresh". I really don't listen to malmsteen, but in the interviews i've seen of him, he seems to not like other peoples work at all
#16
Quote by J3ZZA
It takes just as much skill to paint like Monet as it does to paint like Da Vince, but it requires more imagination to paint impressionism. I doubt Malmsteen can paint like that so he's in no position to comment, neither can i and most of the people on this forum probably can't.

I agree with part of what you are saying, but I can at least comment on it, or at least I should be able to...I'm an art history major and I study these kinds of things daily. (If that sounded sarcastic it was not intended that way).

First of all, I don't like comparing the two based on how much talent or skill they took to paint. You can't just look at two works from two totally different periods/social situations that were painted with different perspectives on the world around them and give a definite answer to who painted with more skill, or creativity. There are arguments for anything and everything you could say. For example, it may seem like the Madonna and Child theme from Leonardo is a typical theme that required little or no imagination. This could be challegened however, by the opinion that Leonardo put a lot of thought into how he wanted to present this familiar theme. It doesn't look much like a byzantine version Madonna and Child because Leonardo decided to take a different approach. Raphel did the same thing with this very theme and it is considered to be very innovative just because of how he chose to present it. Caravaggio is another great example of this...the Lamentation scene was not a new theme for art when he chose to do it, but his use of chiarascuro(spotlight lighting) and bringing the figures "out" of the picture plane into the space of the viewer is considered groundbreaking. I could go on, but the basic point is that art is very subjective and difficult to judge with definite opinions. Thats a big reason why I love it so much.

Considering the above, you could say that my opinion is that Yngwie is entitled to his view, despite the fact that I personally don't think he put much thought or research into his opinion. I don't agree with him, as I love both for so many different reaons, which I won't bore you guys with, but I think he is entitled to hate impressionism if he so desires.

Also, just so you guys know, refering to Leonardo as Da Vinci is pretty odd, considering Da Vinci is of Vinci, which is where leonardo originally hailed from. Not a big deal I guess, and I am aware that this is a popular way of identifying him, but I just thought I would point out how strange it is
#17
Quote by J3ZZA
Malmsteen sounds like an idiot and i know he looks like one.


He may looks like an idiot, and sounds like an idiot but don't ever i say EVER let that fool you....


HE'S AN IDIOT

My Spanish Hearts
#18
Quote by terrencemaddox
I agree with part of what you are saying, but I can at least comment on it, or at least I should be able to...I'm an art history major and I study these kinds of things daily. (If that sounded sarcastic it was not intended that way).

First of all, I don't like comparing the two based on how much talent or skill they took to paint. You can't just look at two works from two totally different periods/social situations that were painted with different perspectives on the world around them and give a definite answer to who painted with more skill, or creativity. There are arguments for anything and everything you could say. For example, it may seem like the Madonna and Child theme from Leonardo is a typical theme that required little or no imagination. This could be challegened however, by the opinion that Leonardo put a lot of thought into how he wanted to present this familiar theme. It doesn't look much like a byzantine version Madonna and Child because Leonardo decided to take a different approach. Raphel did the same thing with this very theme and it is considered to be very innovative just because of how he chose to present it. Caravaggio is another great example of this...the Lamentation scene was not a new theme for art when he chose to do it, but his use of chiarascuro(spotlight lighting) and bringing the figures "out" of the picture plane into the space of the viewer is considered groundbreaking. I could go on, but the basic point is that art is very subjective and difficult to judge with definite opinions. Thats a big reason why I love it so much.

Considering the above, you could say that my opinion is that Yngwie is entitled to his view, despite the fact that I personally don't think he put much thought or research into his opinion. I don't agree with him, as I love both for so many different reaons, which I won't bore you guys with, but I think he is entitled to hate impressionism if he so desires.

Also, just so you guys know, refering to Leonardo as Da Vinci is pretty odd, considering Da Vinci is of Vinci, which is where leonardo originally hailed from. Not a big deal I guess, and I am aware that this is a popular way of identifying him, but I just thought I would point out how strange it is



Someone who knows his stuff
I'm an art major too (in German highschool, which in a way is equivalent to american university, we take 2 majors), just started 4 weeks ago, and i just love art. I agree that you can't really compare the two as to which one is better, and as someone already said, it's a matter of opinion. I was just bothered by Malmsteen's comment that Impressionists or Picasso painted the way they did just to hide their inability to paint (he was comparing them to Slayer and Cobain playing noise just to hide their inability to play)
#19
Renaissance and impressionism aren't really my favorite art movements, but this example basically goes for any type of non-realistic art. And to say that something doesn't require skill because it's not realistic, is ridiculous. But wtf is Malmsteen doing talking about art anyway?
#20
I lurrrrvvv impressionism and i wish i was better at art.
Mex fender tele
fender frontman
morley wah
#21
Link to the interview? Because if it's that fake interview that was posted here a couple days ago...*shakes fist threateningly*

Picture A is much better.

EDIT: it is from that fake interview. You're an idiot.
I will show you something different from either
Your shadow in the morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you
I will show you fear in a handful of dust
#22
Quote by CoreysMonster
Someone who knows his stuff
I'm an art major too (in German highschool, which in a way is equivalent to american university, we take 2 majors), just started 4 weeks ago, and i just love art. I agree that you can't really compare the two as to which one is better, and as someone already said, it's a matter of opinion. I was just bothered by Malmsteen's comment that Impressionists or Picasso painted the way they did just to hide their inability to paint (he was comparing them to Slayer and Cobain playing noise just to hide their inability to play)

Wow, I'm glad to find someone else who loves art on here, other than the fellas from the guess who painted it thread. We should probably resurrect that...

Anyways, yeah I agree with you totally. His view on the subject does not seem to be informed at all. I was just pointing out that I can't claim that his opinion is "wrong" in the sense that art is open to all kinds of opinions and interpretations. That wasn't directed at you though, I just didn't want to claim one thing and then contradict it.
#23
Quote by invisible_man
Link to the interview? Because if it's that fake interview that was posted here a couple days ago...*shakes fist threateningly*

Picture A is much better.


How do you know it was fake?
#24
This is lowering the tone of what is a suprisingly interesting thread, but the figure on the left in picture A looks like it's taking a Johnny Riddle.
« »
#25
Quote by Burpin'Worm
This is lowering the tone of what is a suprisingly interesting thread, but the figure on the left in picture A looks like it's taking a Johnny Riddle.



True!

Now get the hell out
#26
You know Picasso could draw EXTREMELY realistic and accurate paintings, much like that Da Vinci painting, from a young age. He was extremely skilled. He started painting impressionism because he felt the stuff he was painting didn't have any feeling.
We're only strays.
#27
This thread is so brilliant because it enforces the idea that musicians should be judged for their personal preferences and lifestyles and not for their music, and besides, comparing two pieces of art from totally different artistic currents makes a lot of sense.
Dear God, do you actually answer prayers?

Yes, but only in a way indistinguishable from random luck or the result of your own efforts.
#28
whether or not malmsteen actually said that, i personally wouldnt trust the opinion of someone who looks like a frilly marshmallow on something visual like art anyways.

and as an art and art history student, and from an objective viewpoint, da vinci would probably have painted like monet if he'd been born a few hundred years later *shrug* it doesnt mean one is better than the other, it just means that different styles were popular at the time - also, different paints and materials were available, society demanded a new take on art, blah blah etc etc...could go on for hours...
MEMBER OF THE LAUGAM BRITISH HIT SQUAD! HONORARY MEMBER OF THE SWEDISH LAUGAM HIT SQUAD!
I'M JUST SEE THROUGH FADED, SUPER JADED, AND OUT OF MY MIND
<//////>~ dA
Esther is officially awesome and smart - Frenchy
#29
Quote by Mad Marius
This thread is so brilliant because it enforces the idea that musicians should be judged for their personal preferences and lifestyles and not for their music, and besides, comparing two pieces of art from totally different artistic currents makes a lot of sense.


Well, you know where the rating button is

And to invisible_man, how was I supposed to know it was fake? You're an idiot for acting like one. And I'm an idiot for answering one.
#30
Impressionism I can handle. Modern art however is total bollocks.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#31
Quote by Evans McGee
malmsteen hides his ability to express only the technicality and lack of emotion in his music behind elitism. and alot of people will actually for the DaVinci name because it's a household name. God Bless the brainwashed masses eh?


Or maybe because they like the picture more? God I seriously hate people like you with your holier-than-though attitude. Turns out you were wrong BTW dumb****. Almost no one has voted Davinci and that's fine but I like his picture more. Who cares about the artist anyway?

lol....brainwashed masses...you really sound like you have all the answers...starting with the fact that many people will recognize Davinci's name? Wow that's an amazing revelation. Die.
Dead soldier! Go now to Valhalla!
#32
Quote by Gman400
Or maybe because they like the picture more? God I seriously hate people like you with your holier-than-though attitude. Turns out you were wrong BTW dumb****. Almost no one has voted Davinci and that's fine but I like his picture more. Who cares about the artist anyway?

lol....brainwashed masses...you really sound like you have all the answers...starting with the fact that many people will recognize Davinci's name? Wow that's an amazing revelation. Die.


Now now... let's not get vulgar, it's only art, after all.

And to Meths, you don't like modern art? How about Dali? He is often considered Modern Art, but that's like counting Tool as Heavy Metal; if modern art is only about weird thoughts, then Heavy Metal is only about distorted guitars. Art is much more facetted than most people think. (Dali is a surrealist, by the way, and Tool is more Modern Rock than anything)
Take this piece of "modern art", for example,



And compare it to this:



See the difference?
#33
^Yes, but you say there that Dali is a surrealist. I prefer his painting to the second one. And I don't like imperssionism that much but it's better than modern art.

But that said I'm not really an art kind of guy so I guess you'd know more about it than me. . .
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#34
Quote by Meths
^Yes, but you say there that Dali is a surrealist. I prefer his painting to the second one. And I don't like imperssionism that much but it's better than modern art.

But that said I'm not really an art kind of guy so I guess you'd know more about it than me. . .


yeah, all I meant was that with "modern art" you can mean so many different things, because people tend to lable any kind of abstracted art (which can even include impressionism to some extent) as "modern art", when there is the biggest difference between them.

EDIT: This is kinda off-topic, but H.R. Giger, anyone?

Last edited by CoreysMonster at Sep 25, 2006,
#35
^ that's just ugly.

I like impressionism but the paintings i like the most are surrealism, magritte (sp) is just brilliant.
the heart is a risky fuel to burn
#36
Quote by sponj
^ that's just ugly.

I like impressionism but the paintings i like the most are surrealism, magritte (sp) is just brilliant.


you DO know that that painting is surrealistic?
#37
Quote by ezequiel89
i can, i studied art, got an A* for my GCSE's.


irony, yeah?
my name is matt. you can call me that if you like.
#40
well if the interview is not fake then hes a ****ing moron. It's like saying a jazz guitarist plays jazz guitar because he cant play classical guitar. I love both of those painting styles. Impressionism is really beautiful and makes you feel and see the nature. The lighting is just brilliant. Leonardo's **** is just great. There's few artists out there that even do leonardo's style. I'm a painter myself and I have been in love with leonardo and impressionism since I was a kid. Renoir is my favorite.
Page 1 of 2