SRXXXIV: .. -. -. .. - ..--..

Henry Plainview wrote: I'd rather have a micropenis than a 22 meter penis.

I'd rather go to bed than count the number of = in an ascii penis

'night shred,

Oh god now it's 5, I am the worst.

If we ever do tinychat again, remind me that there's a website I need to show you (it's not too explicit but I'm not really ok posting it on PA). 

Henry Plainview wrote: Oh god now it's 5, I am the worst. If we ever do tinychat again, remind me that there's a website I need to show you (it's not too explicit but I'm not really ok posting it on PA).

If it's about ponies, I don't want to know.

Vomps, gray sucks.

Dogsh*t > flu.

Pretty pissed considering the sh*t incident (possibly involving all three of our dogs), the piss poor weather and the fact that we came back from the dog walk to find some electoral propaganda stuffed in our mailbox, but getting better with coffee and breakfast  Listening to the new Mastodon live album, the playing is good but the clean vocals decent at best and horrendous at worst in the true Mastodon style.

Edited by Pekka - April 03 2011 at 04:25

 

Vompatti wrote: If it's about ponies, I don't want to know.

I do not post obscene things about ponies. :|

Caspar David Friedrich sucks too. Well in general Romanticism sucked at the visual arts (they had great litterature and philosophy tho; and their politics were pretty prog). 

Edited by harmonium.ro - April 03 2011 at 04:29

harmonium.ro wrote: Caspar David Friedrich sucks too. Well in general Romanticism sucked at the visual arts (they had great litterature and philosophy tho; and their politics were pretty prog).

Can you recommend some visual artworks that show the internal forces and the organic conception of nature more accurately than Romantic landscapes?

Vompatti wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Caspar David Friedrich sucks too. Well in general Romanticism sucked at the visual arts (they had great litterature and philosophy tho; and their politics were pretty prog).  Can you recommend some visual artworks that show the internal forces and the organic conception of nature more accurately than Romantic landscapes?

Rubens' landscapes do that much better than CDF. CDF is more about stillness and nothingness. He's great though, I was trolling you.

As for what you asked, funnily enough, I find 17th century classicists more "romantic" about nature (in the way you asked for) than the Romanticists themselves. I'm thinking of Poussin, Lorrain, Dughet, the Carracci  brothers, and all their followers. I'd add Watteau too (with a pink twist, though). And since I mentioned Rubens, Rembrandt's landcapes should get a mention too. Also, you should read Giulio Carlo Argan's essay about Brueghel if available, which he sees as a nihilist, naturalist romantic avant la lettre.

harmonium.ro wrote: Vompatti wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Caspar David Friedrich sucks too. Well in general Romanticism sucked at the visual arts (they had great litterature and philosophy tho; and their politics were pretty prog).  Can you recommend some visual artworks that show the internal forces and the organic conception of nature more accurately than Romantic landscapes? Rubens' landscapes do that much better than CDF. CDF is more about stillness and nothingness. He's great though, I was trolling you. As for what you asked, funnily enough, I find 17th century classicists more "romantic" about nature (in the way you asked for) than the Romanticists themselves. I'm thinking of Poussin, Lorrain, Dughet, the Carracci  brothers, and all their followers. I'd add Watteau too (with a pink twist, though). And since I mentioned Rubens, Rembrandt's landcapes should get a mention too. Also, you should read Giulio Carlo Argan's essay about Brueghel if available, which he sees as a nihilist, naturalist romantic avant la lettre.

Omg k