The history of art in graffiti

I’m particularly fond of the Monet and Picasso:

h/t: Evan

31 Comments

  1. Jeremy Pereira
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    The Leonardo is best. It captures both the enigmatic smile and the eyes that follow you.

    • teacupoftheapocalypse
      Posted August 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      Yes, but who is the cat?

      • JBlilie
        Posted August 3, 2012 at 4:54 am | Permalink

        And is she alive??

        • teacupoftheapocalypse
          Posted August 3, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

          This is art, not quantum theory!:)

  2. abrotherhoodofman
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Dali?

    Where are the long, knobby-kneed legs and stilts on that cat?

    • Posted August 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      I think it’s supposed to look like something else if you look at it just right – but I can’t quite see it. Maybe an artist’s palette?

  3. The Stolen Dormouse
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    The Pollock isn’t bad, either. (Oops, I sound like a waiter at a seafood restaurant!)

    But where are Chagall (a fiddling cat on a shtetl roof, perhaps) and Josef Albers (known for his series “Homage to the Square”)? [I only added Albers because his squares-within-squares might be hard to do as a cat.]

    • BillyJoe
      Posted August 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      Actually, it’s much too defined for a Pollock.

    • Occam
      Posted August 3, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink

      The “Pollock” suffers from the handicap of spray-can technique inadequately trying to simulate the aleatory results of drip-painting.

      Even though Pollock’s works have recently been shown by Katherine Jones-Smith, Harsh Mathur and Lawrence Krauss as not truly fractal ( doi:10.1038/nature05398; arXiv:0710.4917v2; arXiv:0803.0530v1; contra Micolich et al., <arXiv:0712.1652v1), Pollock's characteristic 2-3 orders of magnitude of aleatory scaling remain hard to replicate via stylus-control gestures. (Fig. 4 in the EPAPS Supplement of arXiv:0710.4917v2, drawn by K. Jones-Smith, exemplifies the difficulty.)

      The most interesting theoretical result of Jones-Smith et al., investigating the color separation layers of Pollock’s paintings: the union of Cantor dusts is not scale invariant over the same range as the constituent fractals, but a complex multifractal on the shortest length scales.

      The “Picasso” is rather good, though. The “Dali” is more of a “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Cat”.

      • BillyJoe
        Posted August 3, 2012 at 6:03 am | Permalink

        Actually, although there is obviously chance involved in where the individual drips land, the selection of paint, thre selection of the painting implement, and the movement of the painting implement through three dimensional space are deliberate in the sense that art can be deliberate whilst still being art.

    • Posted August 3, 2012 at 1:31 am | Permalink

      Or Mondrian?

  4. msobel
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    I am pretty sure I saw that on a T shirt. Certainly the idea if not the Kitteh

    • msobel
      Posted August 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      forgot to say, but it seems to have evolved. Although some would say that plagiarism is intelligent design.

  5. saguhh00
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    And it’s from Brazil! yay! Love me my country.

  6. efogoto
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    The Monet looks far more like Seurat to me.

    • Posted August 2, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      Beat me to it…

      • JBlilie
        Posted August 3, 2012 at 4:55 am | Permalink

        +1 ha!

  7. Krishan Bhattacharya
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    It irritates me more than it should that pop culture has settled on ‘DaVinci’as Leonardo’s name. A combination of bad pop history books, Dan Brown, and general laziness have changed the great mans name for no good reason whatsoever. Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian. We don’t call Michelangelo “Buonarotti”, do we?

    It is true that he would sign his name as “Leonardo da Vinci”, but his friends, patrons, and earliest biographers consistently refer to him as Leonardo. Look up the real art historians on him, you will see his drawings and paintings cited as “Leonardo, ca 1504″ etc.

    Now you open a magazine and its ‘DaVinci DaVinci DaVinci…” Yuk.

    • teacupoftheapocalypse
      Posted August 2, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps to avoid confusion with Leonardo Nascimento de Araújo, known as Leonardo, the Brazilian former football (soccer, to our septic friends:)) player? Or even Leonardo DiCoprolite, the actor.

      • BillyJoe
        Posted August 3, 2012 at 6:09 am | Permalink

        Well, with Leonardo in the player list, you can almost guarantee you’ll be watching a good movie

    • the Siliconopolitan
      Posted August 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

      I can assure that I knew of him as “da Vinci” for decades before I ever heard of Dan Brown.

      Are you upset about Fibonacci as well?

      • Krishan Bhattacharya
        Posted August 2, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

        Its the discrepancy between serious, scholarly work on Leonardo, and the popular name. Its as if popular writing on Einstein referred to him as Albert. As I said above, why not call Michelangelo “Buonarotti” or “Simoni”

  8. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    That is an amazingly erudite piece of graffiti! And remarkably well executed. I’d say it’s a credit to the public taste of whichever city it’s in.

    • Posted August 3, 2012 at 1:29 am | Permalink

      I’d say it’s a credit to the artist. The Monet (or yes, Seurat*) would be particularly hard to do with a spraycan.

      *Maybe s/he attributed it to Monet to avoid a name with “rat” in it.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted August 11, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

        A credit to the artist, yes, certainly. But also a credit (maybe I should say ‘compliment’) to the city that the artist thought people would ‘get’ it.

  9. Katten
    Posted August 3, 2012 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    I miss the scream version by Edvard Munch! Nice picture.


%d bloggers like this: