Edward Hopper has been mentioned on another thread. This is probably his best known work.

Nighthawks

Reworking of Hoppers painting by Gottfried Helnwein , entitled Boulevard of Broken Dreams, with James Dean, Humphrey Bogart and Marilyn Munroe as the customers, Elvis Presley behind the bar:

Deleted.

This is another from CWS:

Deleted.

Deleted.

Wanderer above a Sea of Fog by Caspar David Freidrich, gets the lockdown violation treatment:

Deleted.

It's just a new thread, Temp. The proper What is Art thread is still there.

Anyway

Banksy "my wife hates it when I work from home

I see.

Street artist Salvatore Benintende's, aka TVBoy, depiction of Mona Lisa with face mask and mobile phone in Barcelona:

Temp, I see you have deleted your post from yesterday, but I had read it before you did so.

In keeping with your own stated sentiment prior to deletion, it was in fact out of respect for ferval's original intention for her "What is Art?" thread that I moved these posts here. I am sure you agree that these particular images imitating famous artworks in order to make funny and politically relevant points represent a fertile theme in their own right which, if others contribute even a few of the many examples to be found out there on the internet, would have rather "taken over" the thread to the detriment of its actual subject.

I take your (now deleted) point that these humorous "homages" to popular artistic pieces can of course be considered as "art" in their own right, and in that sense are somewhat germane to the original topic under discussion. However they are being posted here not as an invitation to consider their aesthetic value but instead to appreciate their entertainment value, and I reckoned in that sense merited their own unique topic, to which even more people might be inclined to contribute examples in the knowledge that to do so would not further deflect from their original location's intended subject of discussion.

Sorry if you interpreted this as some form of criticism directed at yourself. Moving them here, I reckoned, might not only help maintain the integrity of the original thread but hopefully encourage others to contribute to developing the theme they more accurately represent in this new location.

nordmann wrote:

Sorry if you interpreted this as some form of criticism directed at yourself.

I am sorry that you are sorry that I took the new thread as some form of criticism directed at myself. (In our sorry states this morning we seem to be rivalling the contrition often shown by our redoubtable Preti Patel )

Actually, I didn't. I was just horribly embarrassed that Trike had to point out to me that you had pre-empted my gracious ( ) invitiation to you to start a new thread rather than, as I assumed you had done (without explanation), merely changing ferval's title. I sensed your disapproval  of the way the "What Is Art?" was going and I thought (as I put in my deleted post) that a new thread could be a very good idea. Just tell/ask us first next time, will you?

But I am genuinely glad you bothered to say sorry. You are not well; I am grumpy and bored; and most of us are no doubt going slowly bonkers as we contemplate the next few weeks. We need Res His (sans huffs) for our herd sanity.

PS My Cold War Steve stuff is better than your David. Pity I deleted it. Serves me right.

Oooooh deeeaaarh!  The end must be bloody nigh = all this Res Hist sorry stuff. I have not posted recently because I had nothing to say. No need to form a queue to point out that never stopped me before. There have been many interesting posts to read and pics to gawp at so a pleasure to see more members here. Daft art is always eye catching and often mind engaging which makes it an important aspect of the field, You know, I don't think we have ever had a thread on really good cartoonists and their work.

Deleted - copy of above

And another copy of the above..... Oh Gawd will it stop?

Temperance wrote:

PS My Cold War Steve stuff is better than your David. Pity I deleted it. Serves me right.

Please repost them Temp, they are ideal for this thread.

This is a cartoonist called Wondermark, who takes Victorian era drawings and gives them new meanings.

This one illustrates how Governments try to justify doing and discussing nothing:

Explained more succinctly by Sir Humphrey, the clip is about the Foreign Office but would relate to any Government department:

I'm all confused now: there are arty threads all over the place!

Here's Shitehawks II, Trike - just for you! You have posted Shitehawks I above.



And here's Cold War Steve's latest:





Thank you for the "Yes, Minister!" clip. Any medium allowed here, then? I absolutely loved that programme - will dig out my boxed set and watch the whole lot again during the coming weeks. Sir Humphrey was (is) such a joy.

This is one of my CWS favourites, posted during the floods that hit us before the virus did. Love the royal barge and crew. Cummings is a truly scary figure.

Nighthawks must be one of the most parodied artworks ever:

This would be equally at home in the cartoon thread. Based on Grant Wood's American Gothic

gettymuseumschallenge has been trending on twitter. People recreate art work in their own homes.

GettyMuseum Challenge


Henri Rousseau



Charlie the hamster

Vincent and the Girl with the Pearl Earing do Titanic:

Temperance wrote:

This is one of my CWS favourites, posted during the floods that hit us before the virus did. Love the royal barge and crew. Cummings is a truly scary figure.

Took me a couple of minutes to realise the shops point.

Won't try to post this here - just the link to it, because it's a touch large.

https://www.coldwarsteve.com/2020/04/19/bennys-babbies/

(As peripherally and perhaps originally a yam-yam, I don't know any of this mob)

Not as we see them - but I have a horrible feeling this might be how they see themselves ...

Green George wrote:

Took me a couple of minutes to realise the shops point.

Gil, I missed the shops reference entirely. Thanks.

From CWS yesterday:

The medical adviser on the front row is a touch of genius

Please note I was there first with that image, nordmann! See my post on the morning of Saturday October 26th 2019 on the "Saluting the Flag" thread!

https://reshistorica.forumotion.com/t1354p150-saluting-the-flag

I wrote:

Is Cummings the new Thomas Cromwell? I thought these were interesting articles:

Cummings, Cromwell and Marcus Agrippa?

They’re not called ‘mandarins’ for nothing – Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary highlights that the Portuguese word ‘mandador’, from which our word ‘mandarin’ might derive, means ‘one who commands’. Indeed, history is littered with these characters – part-political nerd, part-street brawler – who want to revolutionise the world in some way from the shadows (and often do so). Figures such as Cummings are just modern incarnations of the political henchmen of old – men like Thomas Cromwell and Marcus Agrippa.

Then I posted Cummings, after Holbein.

Temp wrote:

Please note I was there first with that image, nordmann! See my post on the morning of Saturday October 26th 2019 on the "Saluting the Flag" thread!

Noted. Do you want me to remove it from this thread, so? Can I leave Henry Johnson VIII there, or have you posted that somewhere also?

Calm down you two and listen to some Bee Gees (sort of)

nordmann wrote:

Temp wrote:

Please note I was there first with that image, nordmann!                                     See my post on the morning of Saturday October 26th 2019 on the "Saluting the Flag" thread!

Noted. Do you want me to remove it from this thread, so? Can I leave Henry Johnson VIII there, or have you posted that somewhere also?

Oh, don't be so silly, nordmann. I was just having a friendly (honest) gloat. That is allowed sometimes, isn't it?  I should have put a smiley. Have put a few now. Not often anyone beats you to anything, you know.
Gawd, talk about walking on eggshells. He's worse than me.

Not being silly, just considerate. And now, thanks to your remark, I have a mental image of you making it (that's me on the left looking appropriately impudent)  ...



Velasquez was ridiculed at the time and for quite a while longer by so-called "serious" art critics for choosing fried eggs as a subject (I have always loved this picture - you can almost smell 'em cooking). They thought he was taking the proverbial, probably because they struggled to remember the scene from the bible in question (not surprisingly - it was a scene from his family kitchen painted from memory). The painting along with Diego's own reputation were both rescued somewhat by Alessandro Maggiori later, who quite rightly hailed it as the earliest and one of the best "utilitarian" paintings of all time - or at least we assume he had to be right as he'd more or less invented the term, which of course then everyone else pretended to understand and promptly used all the time for pictures of mere plebs doing things. So, because it was at least considered a spoof in its own right for about two centuries, I'll give myself leave to post it on this thread instead of the other one ...

PS: You don't have too far to travel if you want to see the original. It's hanging in the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh.

I like eggy art. Here's one old Hieronymous prepared earlier. It is called, as I am sure you know, Concert in the Egg:



Why on earth is there a tortoise at the bottom?

Doesn't a tortoise usually, at least in renaissance symbolism, denote wisdom, or at least thinking about things slowly, before acting? In Hieronymous' painting the group of singers as a whole would seem to form the "yolk" of the egg, which I assume symbolises the "fool", as in "yokel" (it's quite a common theme of the time). The tortoise, small though he is, is the counter-point to all this general foolishness. At least that's how I see it.

Temp wrote:

Why on earth is there a tortoise at the bottom?

Honestly, no one knows, and in fact the painting almost certainly isn't even by Bosch anyway. Someone went to the trouble of actually identifying the music notation in the picture and found that it was by a composer called Thomas Crecquillon, who was active after Bosch had long gone to one of his hells. Bosch had done some sketches (sans turtle) of this subject but had never got around to painting it. Like some other of his sketches this was then used as the basis of a painting done by a later artist in "Bosch's style" (which happened quite a lot actually for a good while after the lad had snuffed it).

When Bosch did paint turtles they were normally shown as having something to carry, and if the theory that everything he painted had a direct theological symbolism is to be believed, then his turtles represented vain or pointless sacrifice, or sacrifice of our burdens in folly. This in itself is crappy symbolism anyway as it hinges on a mistranslation of Leviticus in the Vulgate version of the bible - the original word not indicating our little Testudinate friends at all, but apparently a pigeon (more "turtle dove" than "turtle").

Triceratops wrote:

This would be equally at home in the cartoon thread. Based on Grant Wood's American Gothic

Actually that's another one that has been widely parodied - see Gothick

I suspect it's just there because there's good eating on one of those,

Turtle = Turtur Dove, as in WS's poem.

Your comments, GG, are quite often obtuse, but that one has completely lost me ... care to explain?

Meles meles wrote:

Your comments, GG, are quite often obtuse, but that one has completely lost me ... care to explain?

Part one - "good eating". Discworld, "Small Gods" where the Great God Om has become trapped in the body of a tortoise, people keep saying this.

Part two - WS's poem "The Phoenix & The Turtle". The "Turtle" is a turtle dove, the original, Onomatopoeic name of which was "turtur dove"

In 2007 the Barcelona artist Luis Barba produced this wonderful reinterpretation of Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" - which is commonly (though now disputedly) taken to be the Flemish artist's take on the perils of temptation (the title of the original painting was assigned to it long after Bosch had died - who knows what the Count of Nassau and Bosch really intended when the former commissioned it?). Barba went with this simplistic interpretation however and simply updated the theme using more relevant motifs for the modern age. Not sure how Kate Moss feels about it ...



Another artist, Emily E. Erb, unaware that Barba was doing the same thing at the same time, took an almost identical approach and in 2009 produced this beautiful silkscreen work which also depicts contemporary society as hell.



And then a few years later Carla Gennis brought it even further up to date by replacing the humans with emojis. The emoji pig dressed as a nun caressing a nude "Yoiks!" emoji with his genitals obscured by a tabloid is probably taking symbolism a little too far ... but I like it!



The only difference between these and CSW, as far as I can see, is the asking price. Definitely candidates for the "What is Art?" discussion...

Green George wrote:

Meles meles wrote:

Your comments, GG, are quite often obtuse, but that one has completely lost me ... care to explain?

Part one - "good eating". Discworld, "Small Gods" where the Great God Om has become trapped in the body of a tortoise, people keep saying this.

Part two - WS's poem "The Phoenix & The Turtle". The "Turtle" is a turtle dove, the original, Onomatopoeic name of which was "turtur dove"

 
If MM doesn't understand it dear Gilgamesh, how would you expect that a poor little Belgian would have a grip on it...your enigmatic predecessor of Ur-Nungal...
https://historum.com/threads/ur-nungal-of-uruk.88038/

Kind regards from Paul.

Posted yesterday - makes you want to weep. Well, it does me - and that's without any alcohol! Dear old Captain Tom...




I don't get the big hand though - can anyone explain it?

Temperance,

I had to look for "to get the big hand". I didn't find it...
And looking for "big hand"...have a look to the meaning in the Urban Dictionary...from the context I suppose! it is not this meaning...
Are you meaning: it is not my cup of tea? But then I don't understand: "can anyone explain it?"

Kind regards from Paul.

"i don't get" simply means "I, Temperance, do not understand the significance of..."

I don't understand why CWS has put the large hand where it is; and I do not know the original picture he has "adapted" for this latest satire. If it is based on an original work, the explanation could be found therein - maybe.

I thought the hand (claw ??) was a reference to Cummings being not quite human.


From the newsdump website:
The reptilian community, who pose as normal, super-rich humans, has been well-known to inhabit Earth since former Coventry City goalkeeper, David Icke, revealed their existence on an episode of ‘Wogan’.
The book also reveals, slowly over the course of two weeks, like the publicity courted by a newspaper, that reptilians helped him with winning over Samantha, wooing Nick Clegg and getting access to a Panamanian bank account, but couldn’t help with the EU referendum, as Dominic Cummings belongs to a different extraterrestrial race that represses reptilia all over the universe.

Nice bit of Bruegel blended with Hopper today from CWS: