Dogs Playing Poker -- With People
To even gaze upon it is to go mad.
VOICE 2: What can one say about something this frivolous?
VOICE 3: Oh my God.
Or up his paw.
As the case may be.
I think they are all cheaters.
VOICE 10: When I look at this painting, of course I think of the Cezanne card player paintings, but then the sort of art critic in me falls away and I just look at the dogs.
Um, I love dogs, and I think that everyone probably goes to the breed that appeals to them first or they have some life or childhood connection to.
Especially the little dog in the front with his tail sticking out of the bottom of the chair.
VOICE 4: And at the same time, though, kind of, like, pretty beautifully painted.
The composition is beautiful, like the textures stand out, you can tell that the chairs are wood, and the dogs seem furry.
VOICE 11: This is a work of art, absolutely.
VOICE 3: You have to ask yourself, what is art altogether?
And then, what makes something good art?
And then you might get to what makes something bad art.
My friend Andrew is thoughtful.
Because I would totally make you do an episode on Dogs Playing Poker.
Like, a lot of you.
And so now here we are, at the inside joke that became an episode, and you all have Andrew to thank.
So to kick things off, I have two words for you.
He was a blue-collar bar-owner; she was a pretentious literary grad student forced to work as a waitress after getting abandoned by her professor fiancé.
The tension between their backgrounds — sk8r boy meets uptown a friend in need dogs playing poker — was the foundation for their relationship, for their multiple break-ups, and for some of the best odd couple humor in the show.
Sam has a canvas under his arm: SAM: You know, I never feel at home until I hang this little baby up.
DIANE: Oh…not where people can see it!
And with this, we have our set-up.
The proudly anti-intellectual clod is a friend in need dogs playing poker against the proudly intellectual snob over a picture of gambling dogs.
Its easiest definition is art that is popular, commercial, mass-produced, cheesy, the kind of art you find in hotels or buy at Ikea.
It is vicarious experience and faked sensations.
It changes according to style, but always remains the same.
It asks nothing of its customers except their money.
So back to Sam and Diane.
And so much of the humor of Cheers came from Diane being that guy, and how a friend in need dogs playing poker she was.
What do we really accomplish by dismissing kitsch?
Kitsch is fun; anthropomorphized dogs are really cute, even the most intellectual among us have to admit that.
Between our appetite for a grapefruit sprinkled with wheat germ or a Twinkie.
We think about art as something that is so subjective, so wedded to the soul of the artist, that asking the people to call the shots seems counter-intuitive to the whole process.
What if art was dictated by the masses, if they were apologise, pacific poker free play apologise what they want to see, rather than what an artist decided to create?
It turns out that in 1994, a duo of artists took this experiment on.
Both were Russian ex-pats living in the U.
Why not attempt to act as a mediator in the subjective conversation about art, where, by the end of the 20th century, what artists liked creating and what audiences liked consuming had so talked past each other?
And, drumroll, here are the results: when it came to color preference, 44% preferred blue; a piddling 2% who preferred maroon.
A whopping 88% wanted an outdoor scene, as opposed to 5% preferring the indoors.
Fall is the winner in terms of the time of year depicted, with spring as a close second.
If a painting is painted indoors, there had better be people in source, and also flowers.
Non-religious art rules; religious art drools.
Soft curves are preferred over sharp angles.
The closer a painting resembles the realism of a photograph, the better, but go ahead and show those brushstrokes, because people like those too.
Add a historical figure if you can, but only as part of a group of other people.
And fully clothed, if you please.
The foreground is dotted with lush, early autumnal greenery, the leaves just starting to turn.
Two wild deer frolic in the water, while nearby, a small pack of onlookers are placed just slightly apart from George Washington, who stands majestically in his uniform.
It contributes absolutely nothing to the artistic canon.
It moves no needles.
The Dianes are painfully outnumbered by the Sams.
Because of course it link />And furthermore, the art of the artist and the art of the people still have something in common: they are both art.
And so, these dogs.
In it, a group of dogs of various breeds — three St.
Bernards, two English bulldogs, a Great Dane and a Collie — sit around a green felt poker table, beneath a red glass light fixture.
Bernard in the center of the frame sits under a seascape a friend in need dogs playing poker a painting some might argue is a little Shakespearian kitsch within the kitsch.
The Great Dane is puffing a pipe, suspicious.
The Collie is about to get that smug smile wiped off his muzzle.
Coolidge was born in 1844 in upstate New York to an abolitionist Quaker family, who named him after Cassius Marcellus Clay, an eloquent anti-slavery senator from Kentucky.
In 1903, the promotional company Brown and Bigelow commissioned Coolidge to paint a series of anthropomorphized dogs to use in their cigar ads.
And thus, Dogs Playing Poker—and doing a lot of other things too, I should add—was born.
The ads were a runaway hit, with 16 paintings commissioned in all, and Brown and Bigelow even printing copies to use as a friend in need dogs playing poker />The series then had a winking second life when, in the 1970s, they were reproduced endlessly for living rooms and tee-shirts and calendars simply because there was a run on kitsch—people knew these paintings were ridiculous and wanted them because of that.
And this was the moment when you could say Dogs Playing Poker became the Mona Lisa of kitsch, deliberately sought out because it was an icon.
And all this happened while Coolidge remained relatively anonymous.
You could argue that he never really deserved much fame as an artist — the few brave art historians who have dug into him have remarked that his paintings of people were never very good, that he kind of made everyone look like dogs.
I think there was actually some wheat germ snuck into the Twinkie.
They show us ourselves.
The fact that these dogs are so closely mirroring the actions of humans — the helping hand between the bulldogs, the watchful skepticism of the Great Dane, the cocky obliviousness of the Collie, one of the St.
Fine art is founded on a rich history of allusions and metaphors anyway: think about how many French Revolution paintings featured people in togas.
Also, any dog-owner will tell you that not just every breed but every individual dog will have his or her own almost human-like personality, more so than any other domesticated animal.
Because artists are people.
And we are all a product of our society, which is comprised of us.
And reflecting this, you could argue, is pretty much the point of art.
something play blackjack strategy sorry is art because art is life and art historians should stop trying to convert the Sams of the world into Dianes?
No, we are not done.
Immanuel Kant once wrote that the relative worth of an object, something whose value we can only assess because someone has paid for it, is distinct from the inner worth of an object, which simply has dignity.
It is, properly, an end in itself.
It demands no effort, no strain, no digestion of whole grains.
Greenberg describes the Coolidges of the world as telling us an easy story, without needing to turn everything into a teachable moment https://bannerven.com/play/mobile-slots-win-real-cash-playing-free.html the human condition.
Where Picasso paints cause, Coolidge paints effect.
Left to a diet of Twinkies, your system loses the ability to digest.
Fascist art, for example, has a long history of legitimizing kitsch.
After all, what is populism if not the validation that what we see is what we want to see?
Maybe this sounds familiar.
But before you get too depressed, remember that this kind of kitsch really only gets you so far.
We talked about this in episode 9, when we looked at the Nazi art exhibitions in 1937.
They took art with history, with aura, with authentic ties to the past, art that demanded something powerful from its audience, the grapefruits swimming in wheat germ, and flipped the script on it, used its power against itself.
It a friend in need dogs playing poker tragic, and disturbing, but remember that the art they sought to replace it with, the godawful kitsch that they created for the Great Phelps poker michael playing Art exhibition, the art that people thought they wanted to see, was a dud.
Because, with all due respect, I prefer my art to serve some higher goal, such as challenging their viewers to think about art or life in a different way than they normally do.
And even more dignity.
WOODY: This is great!
Thank you as well to the friends and family members whom I wrangled into recording observations at the top of the episode, who are, in alphabetical order, Adrianne, Andrew, Bob, Ellie, Evan, Jamie and Mike, Mom, Matt, Nick, and Wade.
You guys are the greatest.
For more information, head over to the LonelyPalette.
And if you like the show, please share it with the world by leaving a rating and review on Apple Podcasts.
Also listen to their most recent episode, Freedom and Hostile Design, which explores the difference between acts of expression in public spaces.
I feel like Richard Serra just felt a warm breeze on his neck.
Check it out at hiphination.
Four Dogs Playing Poker
“A Friend in Need” by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge. Perhaps the most famous of Coolidge's paintings, it depicts seven dogs sitting around a table playing poker.
In my opinion, you on a false way.
In it something is. Now all is clear, thanks for an explanation.
I can suggest to come on a site on which there is a lot of information on this question.
In my opinion it is obvious. I recommend to look for the answer to your question in google.com
Excuse, that I can not participate now in discussion - there is no free time. I will be released - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.
Please, tell more in detail..
Has casually found today this forum and it was registered to participate in discussion of this question.
It agree, rather useful phrase