Thursday, June 24, 2010

The bird brained Duck is at it again

The Duck does not think a six year old can differentiate between still life paintings in dark colors
or paintings of people done in rich color. Any six year old I know can tell the difference between
a bowl of fruit and a gathering of people.

Moving onto the question of use of color. The beloved Sprite tends to use very bright colors for her own crafts and similarly can differentiate paintings in bright colors from those in drab colors.

As a parent, I must sometimes endure things I could care less about. I really do not bother looking at tapestry or crafts and would sooner go off looking at the the works of the ancients. However, as a loving parent there are things one does for family.

Is the Duck so removed from life that he thinks a six year old can not differentiate between images of fruit and people.

Family time is important to parents. The walks in zoos and museums are part of lasting memories that all of us carry.

Perhaps the comments of the Duck show how out of touch with family lives commies are.


The Pagan Temple said...

We shouldn't be too hard on the Duck. As a leftist, its only natural that he might prefer pictures of fruits.

Brooke said...

Ducky out of touch? Nooooo.... LOL!

My daughter is nine (yesterday) and knows the difference between still life, abstract, ect.

Kids aren't stupid and often have a fresh eye that adults do not.

Ducky's here said...

Nice one, Beak. Notice that you never answered the original question. Here you are on the strawman express.

1. I don't get your problem with still life but if you think Chardin was exclusively a still life painter then you may be as abjectly uninformed and stupid as Beamish.

2. It's a rare six year old that can look at a work and identify the artist. Yours can't.

3. All young children use bright colors. Stop digging the hole so deep.

4. You can't spend a little time with tapestry? The Unicorn tapestries are in NYC and you ignore them. Man, your taste is right there with Beamish's where the sun doesn't shine.

But my nieces did have a pretty good idea of Gothic vs. Romanesque by the time they were 10. It's not as if you're the only one who's spent time with children. Now go talk art with Beamish. Don't box outside yuor weight.

beakerkin said...

Duncy Mine doesnt have to all the paintings are grouped together she knows which room she prefers.

Not all children of that age pick out the loudest colors. She has a sense of what matches and what doesn't.

Tapestry is not a medium I enjoy.

Speedy G said...

Al Gore-o is such a bore-o no-more-o.

Always On Watch said...

I love seeing you pen the following words: As a parent. The rest of that paragraph also speaks volumes about your fine character.

Always On Watch said...

I know that Duck has a thing for still life paintings. Actually, I do as well -- though not to the exclusion of landscapes and portraits.

The still lifes I prefer include musical instruments along with the bowls of fruit. **wink**

Ducky's here said...

It isn't o much "a thing" in Chardin's case. He was instrumental in freeing art from the rococo shallowness of the time.

Part of that effort included expanding the subject matter of genre painting to include everyday subjects. He was like Courbet in this regard.

He was a superb still life painter who heavily influenced masers like Morandi, Cezanne and Matisse.

Renoir had no comparable influence.

beamish said...

Now go talk art with Beamish. Don't box outside yuor weight.

Teah, Beak. Stop picking on the spit bucket. Write "R. Mutt" on the side of a urinal and let Ducky tranfix upon it while we discuss art.