Avengers

22 in. x 34 in.

Buy This at Allposters.com

the avengers posters, the avengers art prints, superhero posters, marvel comics posters, marvel comics art prints, hulk posters, captain america posters, superhero movies

With Dark Shadows providing little in the way of competition, The Avengers had no trouble at all extending its stranglehold on the box office this weekend. Marvel’s superhero team-up fell 50 percent to $103.1 million, which is by-far the best second weekend ever ahead of Avatar’s $75.6 million. It also topped The Dark Knight for best second weekend hold for a movie that opened to more than $120 million. Other new records include fastest movie to $300 million and $350 million, and highest eight-day, nine-day, and ten-day grosses.

Through Sunday, The Avengers has earned $373.1 million, which ranks 18th on the all-time domestic chart. It’s now inevitable that the movie will finish above $500 million, and it should also claim third place on the all-time chart ahead of The Dark Knight ($533.3 million).

As expected, Dark Shadows couldn’t hold a candle to The Avengers, though its $29.7 million opening is still a bit of a disappointment. Among recent Johnny Depp and Tim Burton collaborations, that’s a tiny fraction of Alice in Wonderland’s $116.1 million and around half of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s $56.2 million. Those were both colorful, fun, recognizable properties, and Dark Shadows is much closer to Sweeney Todd and Sleepy Hollow. It significantly out-grossed Sweeney Todd ($9.3 million at 1,249 locations) but was a bit off from Sleepy Hollow ($30.1 million).

Dark Shadows’s underwhelming debut can be attributed to a handful of factors, not least of which was the tough release date. The second weekend of May is a notoriously difficult time to open a movie, as Warner Bros. experienced with Poseidon in 2006 ($22.2 million) and Speed Racer in 2008 ($18.6 million). The challenge was magnified this year thanks to The Avengers, which is outperforming even the most bullish pre-release forecasts.

Kristen Stewart arrived at the London premiere of “Snow White and the Huntsman” in a daring sheer and skeleton-detailed Marchesa gown. Her attempt at something edgy and film-inspired missed the mark and instead her look is more icecapade-appropriate. Not to mention with all that lace and exposed skin, Kristen must have been cold on a dreary London afternoon with temperatures in the 50s.

Ashton Kutcher is caught in the trademark black turtleneck while making a film about the tech icon.

Ashton Kutcher got the facial hair down. Not to mention the turtleneck and the hair part. But judging from the photo alone, Ashton Kutcher doesn’t necessarily come across as the embodiment of Apple founder Steve Jobs. (Kutcher was spotted in character on Friday, grabbing coffee near his home before heading to a film studio.)

Kutcher, 34, is playing the late technology guru in a biopic tentatively named “Jobs: Get Inspired.” The $15 million film is set to hit theaters next year and revolves around the early years of Apple — from the seventies through the turn of the millennium.

Perhaps the “Two and a Half Men” star will make up for his physical dissimilarities to Jobs with his acting chops… and personal experience. You see, he may have a leg up on the role: Like Jobs, Kutcher is a technology entrepreneur, having helped launch and run two tech start-ups — Ooma and Katalyst. Kutcher was also an early adopter of Twitter, being the first member to reach one million followers (in 2009), and a few years later launched his own own Twitter client with UberMedia, called A.plus.

He also plays successful tech entrepreneur Walden Schmidt on CBS’ “Men.” The film’s producer Mark Hulme recently had this to say about casting Kutcher in the role as Jobs. (He seems to think the two do look alike.):

Since our film covers the early years of Apple, when Jobs was in his 20′s, we needed an actor who could carry not only the youthfulness of Jobs at the time but also the psychological complexity. Because of that, and Ashton’s physical similarities to Jobs, he’s perfect for our film.

Josh Gad (“Love and Other Drugs,” “Numb3rs”) has been cast as Jobs’ early collaborator and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.

Jobs, who also owed much of his success to his purchase of Pixar, died last October after a longstanding battle with cancer at the age of 56.

A Katniss Barbie, however, seemed outside of that particular merchandizing plan. We feared the transformation of Katniss Everdeen into a Barbie doll in much the same way that Katniss is transformed into a dressed up Capitol plaything, but it appears what we’ve actually gotten looks more like an action figure than anything else.

Here’s the Katniss Barbie, available for preorder today, in stores August.

If you’ve been swimming circles around the dating pool with no luck, chances are you’re getting bored of going from one bad date to another. If that’s the case we’re here to help. We put together some simple tips for making dating fun again. So before you lose your faith in love for good, check out our tips for getting back into the excitement of dating fun.

Think outside the box

Since there are only so many movies you can see and so many restaurants you can go to before they all seem the same, one of the best ways to bust dating boredom is to do something non-traditional. First dates especially can be pretty nerve wracking so doing something different can help take the pressure off. Here are some ideas to think about:

• Play a round of mini golf
• Art gallery hopping
• Go hiking if there are trails close by
• Drive to a nearby town or city to have dinner there rather than where you both live
• Go bowling

Take the lead

You might have more fun on your next few dates if you take more of an active role in making sure the evening goes well. For example, if you’re at a restaurant where the service is awful and the food sucks, suggest skipping dessert and heading to your favorite bar for a nightcap, or if you can’t stand the thought of seeing the movie he suggested, tell him and offer an alternate. Just going with the flow can be fine, but when you see an opportunity for improvement, you shouldn’t be afraid to point it out.

Do something active

Never mind sitting in a movie theatre – why not work up a sweat? OK, sweating on a first date might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but doing something that gets your endorphins flowing can be a great way to spend an afternoon with a new guy. Play catch in the park, head to a rock climbing gym for a lesson, or pack a Frisbee with your picnic so you can toss it around post-meal. Getting up and doing something active will help conversation flow, plus you’re both likely to have more fun.

It’s been clear for a while that The Avengers would be a box office success, though few people could have foreseen this opening. The superhero team-up got off to an unprecedented $200.3 million start this weekend, which obliterates the previous all-time weekend record set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 last Summer ($169.2 million).

While it fell short of setting a new opening day record (that still belongs to Potter), The Avengers was responsible for new high marks in most other major categories. It was the fastest movie ever to reach $100 million, $150 million, and $200 million, and it set new records for Saturday ($69.7 million) and Sunday ($50.1 million) grosses. It also had the highest per-theater average ever for a nationwide release with $46,057.

Through its first three days, The Avengers has already grossed more than Thor ($181 million), Captain America: The First Avenger ($176.6 million) and The Incredible Hulk ($134.8 million). It’s still behind Iron Man and Iron Man 2 ($318.4 million and $312.4 million, respectively), though it should pass those movies next weekend.

The incredible opening weekend gross for The Avengers is mostly the result of a lengthy, extremely effective marketing effort which began all the way back in 2008 when Nick Fury made his first appearance after the credits in the original Iron Man. By the time Thor and Captain America opened last year, it became clear that these movies existed in equal parts to make money and to serve as advertisements for The Avengers.

Still, there was the problem of reaching people who hadn’t turned out for Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk. That was solved by Disney’s massive campaign that made the movie seem accessible even for people who have never picked up a comic book in their life. The marketing conveyed that there was a major threat, and the only way to combat it was by bringing together the world’s greatest superheroes. The “head count” ad was a centerpiece of this campaign: it introduced each of the Avengers with a quip from the most-popular Avenger, Tony Stark/Iron Man, and provided a few brief glimpses of the character in action. By the end of that commercial, even the most oblivious viewers probably had a good sense for who everyone was.

The movie went on to receive strong reviews (94 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), which made anticipation reach even higher levels. It also helped that April’s releases were anemic, so The Avengers was able to play on more screens than it would have if another major movie was in the market (like when Thor had to face Fast Five last year).

The big question now is how high The Avengers can go—it will obviously hit $400 million, and with exceptional word-of-mouth (rare “A+” CinemaScore) the movie could even be in line for a $500 million total.

The audience was split evenly between those above and below 25 years-of-age, and it was 60 percent male. 3D screenings accounted for 52 percent of the opening weekend gross, which is an improvement from Captain America’s 40 percent but below Thor’s 60 percent. That 3D share breaks down to 40 percent traditional 3D, 8 percent IMAX, and 4 percent premium large format.

Bauhaus Ausstellung, 50 Jahre

Giclee Print

Buy From Art.com

In 1919 Walter Gropius, one of the leading contemporary German architects, founded in Weimar the Staatliches Bauhaus (State Building House), a grouping together of the schools of fine arts and crafts. The inaugural manifesto concluded with these words: ‘We seek to form a new body of craftsmen who will no longer know that pride of class that erects a high wall between artisans and artists. We must desire, devise and work together to prepare the new edifice of the future, which will harmoniously unite architecture, sculpture and painting. This edifice will be raised by the hands of millions of workmen — a crystalline emblem of the new faith in the future.’

Stemming from the historical and social conditions of defeated Germany, the Bauhaus showed a desire for positive, rational reorganization, as a reaction against expressionist individualism. Its conscious ambition was to revive the lost unity of all the arts, in relation to modern architecture on the one hand and the concrete needs of our industrial civilization on the other. The ‘ Bauhaus’, according to its programme, ‘wishes to re-establish the harmony between the different artistic activities, between craftsmanship and artistry, and bind them all together in a new conception of building.

Our final but still distant aim is one unified work of art — the magnum opus — where there will no longer be any distinction between monumental and decorative art.’ It was at the same time a School of Fine Arts, and a School of Arts and Crafts, with a broader and more modern spirit than the old, backward-looking institutions of the same name. It was a self-contained centre of artistic instruction and culture, with tremendous breadth of scope.

The leading teachers, together with Gropius, were artists of the first rank: Lionel Feininger (from 1919 to 1933), Paul Klee (from 1920 to 1929), Oskar Schlemmer ( 1921 to 1929), Wassily Kandinsky (from 1922 to 1932), and Ladislaus Moholy-Nagy (from 1923 to 1928). Klee taught theory, then painting on glass and tapestry. He summed up the basic essentials of his method in his book Pedagogical Sketchbook, published in 1925. Kandinsky gave lessons in general theory, but concentrated more on abstract composition and monumental painting.

The influence of these two great artists was tremendous at the Bauhaus but, despite their will to discipline, there was a certain contradiction between their romantic instincts and the clearly architectural and purist tendencies which dominated the group and which suited Feininger, Schlemmer and Moholy-Nagy better. In the spirit of the Bauhaus the latter two renewed the technique of working in metal and plastic materials, the arts of the theatre and the ballet, photography, typography, publicity, and so on. But it was undoubtedly Feininger, faithful to the Bauhaus from its first day to its last, who best exemplified the constructivist aesthetic doctrine in its flexibility and its purity (vide Feininger, Kandinsky, Klee, Moholy-Nagy, Schlemmer).

In 1929, under reactionary pressure, the Bauhaus moved to Dessau where, a victim of National Socialism, it had to close down in 1933. Gropius, who gave up the management of the Bauhaus in 1928, and Feininger settled in the United States in 1937, where their work and influence continue. Moholy-Nagy joined them there, and tried to revive the tradition of the group, founding a New Bauhaus in Chicago. Two complete retrospective exhibitions have been held, one in New York in 1938, the other in Munich in 1950.

Blue Horizon

Peter Wileman

Art Print

Buy From Art.com

“Abstract form,” Sheldon Cheney has written, “whether narrowed to a summary of the plastic elements, or expressive of the synthesis of instrumental and emotional values, is understood as the basic excellence and test.”

Abstract artists especially have sought analogies for the elements and the principles of geometrical order, in the realm of aesthetic order. The reason that so much “geometrical art” is the subject of popular skepticism is that it is constructed to formula and remains a matter of arrangements and patterns, without the element of fresh creation and aesthetic significance entering in.

Discussion of abstract, non-representational art has generally led to controversy rather than to any real clarification of the subject. Fanatical opponents and supporters reach a deadlock, because it is as useless to deny the legitimacy of abstract art as to try and impose its principles as absolute dogma. No artistic formula can be justified or condemned in itself; it must be judged by reference to the quality of the works that exemplify it. After half a century of vicissitudes, and despite its present widespread acceptance, abstract art still presents difficulties of an historical and aesthetic nature which no article on the subject, no matter how brief and objective, can ignore. Architecture and music are naturally admitted to be abstract arts, not required to ‘represent’ something, and subject to their own laws, whereas poetry, painting and sculpture are considered arts of representation.

Ought this traditional distinction to be maintained or, aesthetics being universal, can all arts claim the same inherent autonomy as music and architecture? It does seem that abstract art was born from the very desire to emulate music and architecture, with a freedom and discipline of its own. Kandinsky, with his suggestions of music, and Mondrian, with his ideal of architecture, demonstrate the limitations and, at the same time, the achievement of abstract art. In the general process of abstraction that characterizes modern art, is there a line of demarcation between the domains of representational and non-representational art? And if so, where should it be drawn? Can one speak of relative and absolute abstraction, and where does absolute abstraction begin? Finally, is abstract art in its various manifestations a truly original creation of the twentieth century, the outcome of historical conditions, or is it a cyclic phase whose equivalent is to be found in the arts of the past?

The term ‘abstract’ itself is equivocal and invites discussion. For one could easily claim that all art is abstract, just as one might follow Picasso in declaring that there is no abstract art. Attempts to substitute other terms for it have failed. One interpreter of the movement, Michel Seuphor, has said: ‘I call abstract art all art that does not recall or evoke reality, regardless of whether that reality be the point from which the artist started, or not’.

Abstract art falls into two historically defined periods: an initial period ( 1910-1916) when abstraction was the result of an antinaturalist process, and a second period that began in 1917 with the De Stijl movement and is still going on, in which abstraction for abstraction’s sake is the absolute principle from which the artist starts. It might perhaps be clearer, as is becoming the accepted practice to do, to call the first ‘abstract art’ and the second ‘non-representational art’.

Read the Full Article on Abstract Paintings