Mary Lynn, words cannot express how much I appreciate all the work and effort you put into this 2023 yearly feature. Your work is always fantastic. I just was able to visit all these areas from the comfort of my home. Thanks so much and Happy New Year

Very very good for these online gallery walkthroughs. No wandering shaky camera. no closeups of name tags, very very enjoyable and enlightening.

Investing in art can be a lucrative strategy, but it requires careful consideration and research. Different art offer various growth potentials and risks. Some may provide steady dividends, while others focus on capital appreciation.

@Andres_853

6 ай бұрын

That’s a great speculation, i have never thought of it as an investment or something like that. Please how did you come across this

@Singh11304

6 ай бұрын

Yeah it’s different, you know how people invest in stocks and so on. Art is a very good investment, it will appreciate in price as years go by. Check out the Monalisa!!!! Thanks to my advisor i know this.

@Singh11304

6 ай бұрын

CHRIS RYAN STEWART

@hillarybriggs2561

6 ай бұрын

He appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran a GOOGLE search on his name and came across his website; thank you for sharing.

@Muriel-1112

6 ай бұрын

Looks efficient from what i am seeing, maybe i will send a mail to get insights

39:12 Maestro Michaelagelo may you rest peacefully in the land of the blessed.

Thanks a lot for sharing these with us! 🥰

Thanks for video ❤

Thank you

Happy new Year Mary and thank you. xxxx

Thank you for a chance to see some great work and done so well.

Wonderful visual review, loved the music as well. Thank you for posting!

Great VIDEO , some Prolific ART Advisers can wait for their prospective BILLIONAIRE Art patron - Buyer for their own Museum

Encyclopedic! Kudos to the photographer.

Just the act of looking enriches us. I still like the drawing in the France-Lise McGurn paintings. All that art and the swans look breathtakingly beautiful! Fabulous undertaking: much gratitude and appreciation Mary.

Thank you for sharing your passion for contemporary art.

Thank you for all the time and effort you put into filming and editing these videos. I can't begin to put a value on being able to see so many amazing things I wouldn't otherwise be able to. I also learn a ton from your voiceovers - about what's behind the pieces, but also how you see. I'll stop there, but I get so much from your content that I just wanted to say thanks.

Thanks for that couch tour thru WonderLand. Wrote down a bunch of the artists so I can explore in depth. BTW, not a bad way to make a living!

Hello Mary. I hope you have a great weekend. Thank you for your channel

Thank you so much for sharing ❤️

Thanks for showing. AWESOME !

Thanks!

Thanks For The Wonderful Review❤ Great As Usual🤩

Feliz año 2024 ❤

oh my god - I actually saw one of these paintings correctly - that's only the second time I have been astonished and humbled by my preconceived notions about modern or contemporary art being completely wrong, don't judge me, the first time was standing in front of the red rectangle by Rothko at the ST Louis Art Museum - oh my god - it wasn't an image at all - it was like being enveloped by the color itself - like a gelatinous cube in D&D - it was the most 3D feeling I have ever felt that was technically an illusion - it was like that holographic shark in Back To The Future just coming out at you holographically - and that was simply because pigment reflects the color back to our eyes and they translate the color into whatever feelings, in this case an all over physical sensation, again, completely unexpected to me and I don't think is anything but the whole point of Rothkos color field paintings - They did not tell me that in college - I heard 'less is more' without an explanation or without one being absorbed at least - I was just blown away by the Renaissance, the scale, the epic comic book reality of perfection - but now I know, for a fact, that is the 'male gaze' - a focus on the details allowing a security in the reality of image and the narrative - like a man will look at parts of woman, with good intentions but as an ascetic type of beauty - an external one that can be used as a way to simplify a limited imagination - "production value" - however at kzread.info/dash/bejne/lJqC3LJ-ZJa4Ybw.html I suddenly saw, after trying hard to not think it was a scam or I was doomed to unable to ever get it and that I was overcompensating for the lack of understanding by childishly making fun of it and even worse, getting triggered by it, perhaps I just programmed my mind to just find a bunny in a cloud to give it a meaning or just have it trigger my imagination and I could appreciate it tangentially like Darryl Hannah saying how it matches the furniture, anything, but holy crap, again, like Rotho, it is sucker punch once understood - I'm pretty sure that this one, by Tracey Emin at 41:18 is a true abstraction - in the literal sense not the complete opposite like when people describe a monochrome square as an abstract work of art - I mean what is it an abstraction of exactly, another square? a cube? if it's a color field experience generator, like Rothkos work, then it's not abstract as you can't abstract an optical or physiological effect from laws of science - it is generating the feeling you technically saying you are abstracting in terms of saying a monochrome square is an abstract work of art - what's the point of words if you don't know what they mean, no free pass for using them wrong if you are selling something or claiming to be an expert on it - I don't know how many layers of looking a woman needs to experience this painting but I know 100% women more than men, if they look at it without judgement, will understand it the way it was intended - this is an abstraction of the "dirtiest" and most raw part of an inner narrative where we have no idea what happened to get to this epic point of "the dirtiest" but we all get it, i hope for grown ups I mean, but oh my god - I'm still feeling some brain chemical thing making me shaky a bit - it's not pornograph obviously and you can say neato things about the composition "look how the leg is a parallel of the penis" etc - yeah, yeah, the sex is assumed - it's the quality of the sex that is being experienced - you don't experience this type of sex in movies because you have to use your brain to interpret the images - this painting is an abstraction of what it takes to get to the point of this rawness, one scene in the scenario of letting go and being vulnerable - to be taken and used so there is no brain needed to stop the body by shame or indoctrination, just being completely opened for the ultimate body, not mind, bliss - all the mind stuff got to this point where the mind is not needed, and could be a hinderance, to what is a practical physical release of the ego from the body to maximise the experience - not saying it's an abstraction of an orgasm but that it's an abstraction of what it took to get to this point of being vulnerable, being able to understand what it took to get that vunerable or remember what happened to get that vunerable - the method of the brushstrokes shows how many things were stripped away from the objective woman and any old thing roughly slapped on to show the power over the figure and disregard for her persona - her vulnerability allows the mind to fade away for a while, for it's own good, by giving too little wiggleroom for imagination - there's no escape when you don't want to escape - but if your mind says there is no escape and your body says "i don't want to escape" then you have to choose one or the other or go mad - look at the brutal sketch of the face and torso - done with little regard to her feelings as a beautiful woman but with all the attention on her being satisfied as a woman - the receiver end of the birds and bees - this is just that vunerability part when she is open like 7-11 - definitly not pron as that uses your mind - if you see the painting properly in my humble but experienced fine art opinion then you can see that this is beautiful, I cannot believe that I am writing this but holy crap - I know I'm right on this one - it can't be a bunny in a cloud interpretation - I know women live in their own "Barbie world" as I am often the stand in character in some plot in that world - it feels like to me that I just got pushed on stage as a new character in a long running show where I have no context who why she seems to assume an awful lot about me and she is reciting her lines without giving a crap if I get the context at all, just assuming that the plot is always the same in terms of the locations and activities of the actors - somewhere, some food, some bed - some spin off series with a pretty house - but that painting is an abstraction of one scene in an internal narrative that is irrelevant to the viewer - the narrative is not as important as YOUR inner narrative, whether yours in PG13 or X rated, doesn't matter - this painting being polite - it's letting you use your own narrative you already have going on - this painting says - I'm strong enough to be this vulnerable to be temporarily powerless just biochemical flesh and blood with pre-set programming - this painting is without all the personality and decorations that we say make us beautiful but even though the image when looked at as if it was painted like Leonardo painting Rose on the Titanic which it totally isn't, i mean if one were to assume the artist was trying to paint realistically but had never painted before ever then that is almost certainly the guy way of looking at the cloud making it into a bunny, by taking the objective beauty out of the image as if it is competing with the Mona Lisa or a Playboy centerfold then it is making free of all that baggage - the woman in the painting isn't concerned with her make up looking nice - who the man is in the painting if taken literally doesn't matter - it's a man - the man that got that woman to the point of losing her identity - being vulnerable to the him that fit the bill - the scene only starts when the right actor is on the set in front of the woman - a hundred other actors could be standing there but they weren't THE actor that the script described and again, the painting politely lets the female viewer mix and match any man she might be considering as her actor du jour with the same effect - no need to do any research to pass the art history quiz, if you have realised that pregnancy was possible then being this vulnerable is just part of it - how cool to actually say, yes, you just aren't looking at it the way it was intended but in time you might get it if you are lucky

Coisas lindas de se ver ! Muito obrigado pelo que tens feito .

@MaryLynn_Buchanan

6 ай бұрын

🙏🏼🙏🏼

thank you for saving me from seeing hours of stuff--- I care not to see. This was well done- I'll subscribe DANKE

❤

Why is so hard to you to visit an exhibition that presents quality like Dali in his metaphysical period of time !

Trying to pass the bizarre as creativity? Edward Gibbon?

I wish you would slow down a bit

Katherine Bradford, Nicole Wittenberg, and Jana Schroder are the only Artists who stood out as exceptional the rest were rather mundane.

Sometimes beautiful art in empty halls. Is that the result of modern art, emptyness?

have seen thousand times better art work👎👎👎👎👎👎👎

Thank you, a very good stream The majority want to leave exhibitions happy !

Many beautiful intersting artworks from the point of view of something that looks like a parallel world and where you can project yourself and find and emotion or an art explanation of Joy and Freedom

Kittymack2023.... Love her work

Wonderful visual review, loved the music as well. Thank you for posting!

Thanks!