2007-02-16 20:39:35 · 6 answers · asked by digitalnotions 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
I suppose it is where the landscape was, and how the people were in relation to the scenery around them. If you had a painting of a lonely halfway blown down barn no people would be better. However if you were painting a city landscape people would be needed otherwise it would look like something bad happened. LOL!!!! ;)
2007-02-17 00:14:49 · answer #1 · answered by misteri 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Russian artists Komar and Melamid started an interesting project in 1994. They polled people around the world on what kind of painting they would want to see - and then painted them according to the likes and dislikes of certain countries and areas. While not exactly a scientific experiment - the results are fascinating.
From an entirely personal perspective, I prefer monkeys riding horses in some sort of agricultural setting.
2007-02-17 13:52:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I was buying a painting, I would buy Landscapes without people.
I like the feeling of untouched and unexplored nature. When I go to the country, I go to escape the masses of people.
2007-02-17 07:17:30 · answer #3 · answered by Stony 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any kind of authentic, interesting, colourful creativity besides a black charcoal set of lines over cheap manila paper, available for $400 at the local art gallery. An earlier version was $600, without a frame.
2007-02-17 04:49:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't have any real paintings, but all the prints i have have either people, or still-life flowers. i prefer these.
2007-02-17 04:43:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
landscape. mountains. river or pond. autumn.
2007-02-17 04:48:13 · answer #6 · answered by saxa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋