astronautdinosaur:

My name is Scott Listfield. I paint astronauts and, sometimes, dinosaurs.

astronautdinosaur:

My name is Scott Listfield. I paint astronauts and, sometimes, dinosaurs.

@1 year ago with 5399 notes


Salvador Dalí by George Platt Lynes 1939

Salvador Dalí by George Platt Lynes 1939

@1 year ago with 2 notes
#salvador dali 
Andy Warhol and Mick Jagger 1975

Andy Warhol and Mick Jagger 1975

@1 year ago with 6 notes
#Andy Warhol #Mick Jagger 
Egon Schiele sometime around 1910’s

Egon Schiele sometime around 1910’s

@1 year ago with 7 notes
#Egon Schiele #1910's #Klimt protégé 
Degas

Degas

@1 year ago with 10 notes
#Dancers #Degas 
Turkey Pond (1944) by Andrew Wyeth 

Turkey Pond (1944) by Andrew Wyeth 

@1 year ago with 12 notes
#Andrew Wyeth 
mohandasgandhi:

Ever-shameless Damien Hirst stands beside the 2006 piece “I Am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds”, made from butterflies and household gloss on canvas. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)
Damien Hirst Butterfly Fiasco: Artist Kills 9,000 In The Name Of Art

Damien Hirst has never been a fan favorite amongst animal rights activists. They didn’t love his formaldehyde-soaked shark and they weren’t so pleased with his severed cow’s head, so you can imagine how they reacted to the butterfly massacre that was his recent exhibit.
The  atrocity art installation, titled “In and Out of Love,” was shown at the Tate Modern earlier this year. It consisted of of just two white and windowless rooms filled with live butterflies whizzing about, and was part of a larger retrospective that involved other winged insect-inspired creations. But it’s entering headlines (and enraging the humane population of the world) this week because The Telegraph announced on Sunday that the absurd Tate show resulted in the total death toll of over 9,000 butterflies. Stepped on, violently swatted, or bored to death by contemporary art, the 23 week-retrospective reportedly led to approximately 400 winged deaths per week.
[…]
The Tate Modern defended Hirst’s exhibit, remarking to The Telegraph: “The butterflies used in this work were all…selected from varieties known to thrive in the conditions created. The butterflies lived out the final stage of their natural life cycle inside this room.”
Hirst himself stood up to defend his slaughter as well, saying in a statement to The Daily Mail that he employed a butterfly expert for his show at “considerable cost.” He added that the living conditions created at the museum were “perfect” and “resulted in many butterflies enjoying longer lifespans due to the high quality of the environment and food provided.”
As far as we know, butterflies do not thrive well in windowless museum halls, but we’re not a professional like Nabokov or anything. And the survival rate reported by The Telegraph — a couple of hours to several days — does not measure up well to the the particular species’ actual lifespan in the wild — several months. But again, we’re not “considerably costly” experts, are we?

As someone who’s spent a considerable amount of time in art school, I find Hirst’s exhibit to be deplorable. Then again, I’ve never been a fan of his “work.” I’ve talked about using live animals as art before and it is my contention that any work which harms the life of another either is not art at all or is incredibly bad art. Hirst does things which he knows to be controversial to gain notoriety as a so-called artist and while one may consider that some form of art in itself, I find the cheapness of it all to be embarrassingly bad and a new form of kitsch. True art should never require the suffering of another life. It’s selfish and disgusting.

mohandasgandhi:

Ever-shameless Damien Hirst stands beside the 2006 piece “I Am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds”, made from butterflies and household gloss on canvas. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

Damien Hirst Butterfly Fiasco: Artist Kills 9,000 In The Name Of Art

Damien Hirst has never been a fan favorite amongst animal rights activists. They didn’t love his formaldehyde-soaked shark and they weren’t so pleased with his severed cow’s head, so you can imagine how they reacted to the butterfly massacre that was his recent exhibit.

The atrocity art installation, titled “In and Out of Love,” was shown at the Tate Modern earlier this year. It consisted of of just two white and windowless rooms filled with live butterflies whizzing about, and was part of a larger retrospective that involved other winged insect-inspired creations. But it’s entering headlines (and enraging the humane population of the world) this week because The Telegraph announced on Sunday that the absurd Tate show resulted in the total death toll of over 9,000 butterflies. Stepped on, violently swatted, or bored to death by contemporary art, the 23 week-retrospective reportedly led to approximately 400 winged deaths per week.

[…]

The Tate Modern defended Hirst’s exhibit, remarking to The Telegraph: “The butterflies used in this work were all…selected from varieties known to thrive in the conditions created. The butterflies lived out the final stage of their natural life cycle inside this room.”

Hirst himself stood up to defend his slaughter as well, saying in a statement to The Daily Mail that he employed a butterfly expert for his show at “considerable cost.” He added that the living conditions created at the museum were “perfect” and “resulted in many butterflies enjoying longer lifespans due to the high quality of the environment and food provided.”

As far as we know, butterflies do not thrive well in windowless museum halls, but we’re not a professional like Nabokov or anything. And the survival rate reported by The Telegraph — a couple of hours to several days — does not measure up well to the the particular species’ actual lifespan in the wild — several months. But again, we’re not “considerably costly” experts, are we?

As someone who’s spent a considerable amount of time in art school, I find Hirst’s exhibit to be deplorable. Then again, I’ve never been a fan of his “work.” I’ve talked about using live animals as art before and it is my contention that any work which harms the life of another either is not art at all or is incredibly bad art. Hirst does things which he knows to be controversial to gain notoriety as a so-called artist and while one may consider that some form of art in itself, I find the cheapness of it all to be embarrassingly bad and a new form of kitsch. True art should never require the suffering of another life. It’s selfish and disgusting.

@1 year ago with 75 notes
Self Portrait (1912) by Egon Schiele

Self Portrait (1912) by Egon Schiele

@1 year ago with 33 notes
#Schiele 
Girl with Blue Veil (1902) by Gustav Klimt

Girl with Blue Veil (1902) by Gustav Klimt

@1 year ago with 6 notes
#Klimt 
Moraine (1908) by John Singer Sargent

Moraine (1908) by John Singer Sargent

@1 year ago with 6 notes
#Sargent