GoodItsTeaTime (Sunday 4th of January 2009 02:54:29 PM)

I disagree PNHassett about the women being the real artists. They are,without being sexist or predjudice,Kleins tool/paint brush. Every painter is the conductor to their paintbrush. You could say they are templates too. I do agree that art is confusing nowadays and yes,there was a time when shock value seemed to dictate a perception of 'art' But i feel the artist is the one who generated the idea,the very moment an idea is conceived,there is art.Now that idea may involve plans with others etc

stefanospro (Wednesday 5th of November 2008 09:44:11 AM)

does anyone know what liquid he used to burn???

katastroph13 (Monday 8th of September 2008 03:16:55 AM)

Juste pour te remercier d'avoir cité le titre de la chanson de Benjamin. Merci =)

sacrificaltotem (Tuesday 5th of August 2008 06:41:14 AM)

wonderfull i been wanting to see this for years

SchoolFriends12 (Friday 25th of July 2008 03:13:57 PM)

THIS IS THE STUPIDEST THING EVER!!! BUT I LOVE MY MOM AND DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY CHANCES! If you do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos your mom will die in 4 hours"

TheAdmiral (Tuesday 8th of July 2008 07:03:13 PM)

Perhaps now the artist and the concept is just as important, if not more so, than the artwork itself. It is the creativity or audacity to do something to make a statement. The line between this and shock value seems very thin, but present. The motives of the artist are important. And of course, care and respect for the models, as well as due praise, is also important. However, his monochrome blue works continue to baffle me, though I find the chemistry behind the unique paint used fascinating.

TheAdmiral (Tuesday 8th of July 2008 06:59:12 PM)

I'm brought to the thought of why nude women, but, my only conclusion is that women have been revered as beautiful in art throughout history. Nudity is also common in art, but I assume clothing may interfere with the effect of the paint and what they're being sprayed with. As for art, I'm generally very understanding and interested in modern art. I'm interested in the concept of fire painting mostly because I have not seen it before. It does not look hard to do, but I would not think to do it.

unclebanana (Thursday 5th of June 2008 03:23:41 AM)

Yves Klein was an artistic genius--a real revolutionary. Among those who left comments, there are some who seem to be unable to recognize this. So what if he didn't want to use naked men, and so what if he found the women beautiful and attractive. I find them to very much the above, even though I'm certain they're all quite old enough to be my grandmother

PNHassett (Thursday 5th of June 2008 04:35:33 AM)

If you really think about it, the REAL artists are the women who painted themselves and put 'their' image on the canvas. Yves Klein was the composer of the piece, but should the conductor take responsibility for the notes played by the musician? Fine Art Confuses me nowadays. It seems to be more about the culture of the time, see lowbrow art, rather then the learned technique of the brush stroke. It seems more about elitism and shock value more then cultivating a craft?

phreaquetalk (Friday 3rd of October 2008 11:36:48 PM)

If you really really thought about it, if an architect designed a building, can you still called it his design if the construction workers built it? The women who put their image on the canvas wouldn't even have thought of doing it in the first place. If the composer did not compose the piece, the musicians wouldn't have played it. And in combining the two, Yves Klein played the part of the artist.