>Poorly mixed colours, quite 'muddy' looking in parts.
>Plain face, but still somehow overworked compared to the rest of the painting.
>The swallows are a very poor attempt at symbolism..
>Shapeless dress.
>Shapeless girl.
>Awkward pose.
>Artist has clearly spent most of their career learning to draw daisies, but this is the clear limit of their talent at this time.
>Isn't modelled on Lizzie, Effie or Jane, which would have at least given it some Pre-Raph cred.
>His later Ophelias are much better, but the models are ugly as sin.

>>2
its the seductive yet innocent look on her face that betters all of his later paintings.

The treatment of the wild flowers in the meadow reminds me somewhat of the astonishing effect achieved in a night shot by Roberto Rossellini in this sequence from his "Francesco, Giullare di Dio"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gTu_wA4uok&feature=related

It was only in this film, in my opinion - and particularly in this astonishing sequence of the possibly merely hallucinated encounter with a leper - that it became indisputably evident that Rossellini really had lost nothing, but on the contrary gained very much, in turning away from the overtly political concerns of the "neo-realist" films that made him famous toward the religious concerns that dominated his work of the 1950's.

I would point out that the leper, who is certainly also Jesus Christ, could very plausibly be argued to be Cracky-Chan as well - were it not for the fact that the only reason I'm making this post is to emphasize how much more classy and "recherché" MY cultural references and allusions are than any that YOU are likely to come up with, you shower of quarter-educated, child-molesting degenerates.

>>4
nice try, but the real Grand Douche would be smart enough to refrain from calling others "child-molesting degenerates."

now hop along, you sad little bunny

>>4

Newsflash: you are a pretentious idiot.

>>2 this guy makes lots of good points but >>3 makes a better one. while I dont think its waterhouse's best its still a great painting of ophelia.

>>4
Actually, your artificial exposition of your "cultural references" do only what they ever done: showing your erudition by bringing up something so unrelated that one wonder if you understood ANYTHING AT ALL of the vast amounts of knowledge you have come across in your life or if you were just learning it by rote to eventually impress people by blurting it out at strategic moments.

>>8
you're wrong

the story of Saint Francis of Assisis is intimately related with sticking it to your enemies just for the hell of it, and proving your cultural and moral superiority over quarter educated degenerates to the top tier of the community

>>9

>claims he is culturally superior
>uses plebian words like "top tier"

get the fuck out of here

>>10

>claims he is culturally superior

claiming that someone is claiming to be culturally superior is not the same as claiming you are culturally superior but, can you go a single day without trying to start a fight or fuel an existing one?

>>11
Yes, there seems to be some rather comical confusion of identities here. This is actually the first post by the Grand Douche since (4). Though I don't know if I can claim any unique or special grandeur for my own particular douchery these days, as someone else seems to have taken on my former function of pulling your Cracky-worshipping legs and to be fulfilling it with considerable skill and style, in my opinion. (9) and (11) are his, I would assume and (9), at least, is a very well-executed piece of Swiftian irony: the image of St. Francis as a 13th-Century Frasier swanning around trying to impress everyone with how cultured and intelligent he is is a marvellous piece of utter incoherence that I wish I'd thought up myself.

My own remark about the resemblance between the Waterhouse painting and the shot in the Rossellini film, though, was, FYI, quite the opposite of a pretentious "Frasier-ism". It was just a naive expression of the first thing I thought when I saw the original post. It had already been remarked by the poster of (2) how much more striking the daisies and other wild flowers are than any other feature of the painting and a similar effect - I think anyone who watches the video will agree - really is to be noted in the Rossellini scene.

I would contend, then, that the Rossellini remark definitely IS "related" to the Waterhouse painting - an art historian (something I'm not) might be able to trace this foregrounding of the flowers in both images back to some theme or technique in Renaissance painting that both Waterhouse and Rossellini were familiar with - although, of course, that means that it is only CRACKY-related in so distant and derived a way as to amount indeed to a distraction from the theme of your board.

Something I wouldn't want to be guilty of just at present, as it's inarguable that .71 is making an honest effort NOT to become the chaotic (though sometimes enjoyable) mess that Crackyhouse currently is.

>>12

>>13 I don't see the problem to responding to Alex. So he insults the people who post here. So what. At least Alex has some content in his posts. If there's a discussion over a painting or a film or something or other he's going to come sometimes. And he'll have something to say that's worth listening to. Also, he doesn't post photos of hideous random chink broads or spam Rose the trap. I like reading what Alex has to say and .71 would be the poorer without his visits. If you don't have a thick skin, you've got no business being on the internet, let alone here.

>>14
Nice try, faggot.

>>15 You're terrible at identifying socks. Can't you tell an Alex sock from another person? I'll help- this is me, if you really give a shit whether your accusation is true or not, track back to the many <Admiral Chink> posts at this site and look at the posts. If you are intellectually capable, you'll see they are written by the same person- me, not Alex.

Also, that was me who was discussing <Herzog> and <Bruno S> with Alex a few months ago. I wasn't wearing my uniform for that discussion though.

>>16
There's actually no such thing as an "Alex sock", except very occasionally in the form of a subterfuge so transparent that everyone is meant to laugh at it, although inevitably a large part of the board is so dim that they end up trying to play Sherlock Holmes on it, like this dimwit in (15) does on a post that, indeed, certainly wasn't mine.

I imagine he's some utter newfag who takes "Alex" to be some variety of /b/tard (either that or he's a lousy hand at finding appropriate images to accompany his pithy little posts).

For your information, Sherlock, I have pretty much no knowledge of, nor interest in, anything that even obliquely concerns Guy Fawkes, Alan Moore, Natalie Portman, 4chan or any of that stuff.

Insofar as I have any views at all on any of those things, they are negative enough for me not to want to be associated with them:

Guy Fawkes: the sentimentalization of a 17th-Century Osama Bin Laden was never a good idea even in theory and in practice it tended to lead in addition, in the London of my distant youth, to the public highways being blocked every November 5th by aggressive, often rudimentarily armed, proto-chav children demanding that one pay monetary tribute to a heap of filthy rags that they had piled up against the wall of their council estate and that bore not the slightest resemblance to anything human, not even to a long-dead Roman Catholic would-be mass murderer.

Alan Moore: If I had had my way, the history of comic books would have ended in the so-called "Bronze Age" when things had already got dark and dystopian enough for me. I remember being as shocked and troubled as I ever want to be by Neal Adams' and Denny O'Neil's mid-1970s "Batman"s and "Green Lantern"s and Steve Gerber's excellent confrontation, in the same period, of "Captain America" with the terrible disillusionments of Vietnam and Watergate. As far as I'm concerned, after that, all the "Dark Night" and "Watchmen" stuff is just overkill and the careening of headless chickens.

Natalie Portman: a few too many movies where she allowed herself to be portrayed as an object of sexual interest before her 16th birthday

4chan and "Anonymous": the list of my reservations would strain the limits even of the most "tl" of "tl;dr"s

>>18

That's like living in Paris not willing to learn French, French culture or whatever's important to Parisian because you consider the language culture and whatever is important to people of wherever you're from not only simply better than theirs, but theirs to be beneath contempt: in the long run you're bound to find them be hostile to you, and I mean more hostile and chauvinistic than Parisians normally are.

At the very least, if you have no idea about something, shut up about it. Whatever you have brought to Sherlock's attention have nothing to do with anything in this thread, including >>15. The only thing you got somewhat right is that his picture most probably comes from 4chan, but this is more of a /v/ thing, i.e. video games...

Sure it's not important knowledge, and you're in your right to consider it crap unworthy of learning even the rudiments about, let alone the subtleties, but dont be surprised to be called an annoying ignorant jerk if you hang out where this crap, for better or worse, holds place of a common culture, especially if not only getting it wrong, you insist on reminding everybody of just how much you think it's crap.

And your opinions on socks suck just a much. For exemple, I wrote >>8 AND >>9.