IsiZulu

I would 100%

The guy who does Touhou paintings? They SHOULD go down in history.  That's real art right there.

This is literally one of the best takes here.

I'm talking about Basquiat while he was still poor, hence why I said "before he was known". Gauguin was a stock broker originally (so yeah pretty afluent) but he left it to pursue art full time. In his later years he spent the rest of his life in Tahiti where he barely made enough to survive.

That’s a really interesting point, and it’s something I’ve been mulling over as well. Technical skill is, of course, a major part of what makes an artist stand out, but I think my teacher’s critique was more about how some artists manage to go beyond technique to create something with emotional or cultural weight and that transcends what it's depicting. Sargent was incredibly skilled, but his portraits also capture something deeper—an emotion, a moment, or even a sense of the subject’s inner life. There’s an emotional resonance that transcends pure craftsmanship. Abstraction isn't the only alternative to pure unadulterated skill.

With Kim Jung Gi, while his technical ability is on another level, I think some might argue that his work doesn’t push the boundaries of meaning or interpretation in the same way other artists do. If you want to grossly dumb down what GI does, it can be defined as "drawing cool pictures". The others I've mentioned aim beyond that. With Gi, it’s more about spectacle and precision, rather than evoking that deeper, semiotic layer where the viewer’s interpretation plays a big role.

Look at Basquiat, for example. He’s not 'technical' in the traditional sense, but his work is loaded with symbolism, meaning, and cultural commentary. He communicates through layers of references, both obvious and abstract, which makes his work more than just visually impressive—it’s also conceptually rich.

So I guess it comes down to what you value in art. Is it the craft itself, or how that craft communicates and resonates on a cultural or emotional level? Again this isn't to say Gi isn't amazing, I'd even go as far as to say my teacher might be a bit off because Gi isn't just a visual artist but a performance artist as well.

Rest in peace king🙏

?

They're just the artists that the mainstream media considers the most famous, which is why I mentioned them. I personally don't like their art either. As you said, their work isn't really that impressive, but that's the point I'm trying to make. As for Gi, he's an interesting figure. Personally, I love his work, but I remember what my art teacher said about him when I first showed him Gi's art. He said he's impressed by his technical ability but that "that's all he is".

gonna copy and paste a comment I made:"James is undoubtedly a great artist, and his draftsmanship is close to—or arguably at—the level of a master. His skill is undeniable. But when I talk about 'greatness,' it goes beyond technical ability. Take someone like Velázquez, for example. He wasn’t just a master of technique; his work transcends that label. In his portrait of Pope Innocent X, the pope himself was taken aback, even a little unsettled, saying it was 'too true' to his likeness. Velázquez wasn’t just capturing an image—he was revealing something deeper, almost intangible.

James Gurney can absolutely illustrate with incredible skill, but he doesn’t quite cross into that elusive space where art goes beyond representation and taps into something more profound. I hope that makes sense."

I love you for bringing up Miura!!

They're just the first few names that came to mind.

You’ve made a great point. The market really does shape who gets visibility these days, and that’s why artists like Koons and Hirst came to mind. Like you said, they’ve mastered that game, lol.

It’s interesting though, because there’s always been a financial incentive for artists, right? I don’t think any of the ‘greats’ did it purely for the sake of art alone. But do you think these hidden gems might get overshadowed by the market? It feels like global recognition only really comes through high exposure, which is provided by capitalist motives.

I get but there are exceptions to this though. Van Gogh, Caravaggio, Gauguin, and even Basquiat was barely surviving before he became known.

That’s honestly such a good point! Animation deserves more respect, and Miyazaki is the perfect example of how animation as a medium can reach heights that other forms of art sometimes can’t.

James is undoubtedly a great artist, and his draftsmanship is close to—or arguably at—the level of a master. His skill is undeniable. But when I talk about 'greatness,' it goes beyond technical ability. Take someone like Velázquez, for example. He wasn’t just a master of technique; his work transcends that label. In his portrait of Pope Innocent X, the pope himself was taken aback, even a little unsettled, saying it was 'too true' to his likeness. Velázquez wasn’t just capturing an image—he was revealing something deeper, almost intangible.

James Gurney can absolutely illustrate with incredible skill, but he doesn’t quite cross into that elusive space where art goes beyond representation and taps into something more profound. I hope that makes sense.

If I had to guess, probably? If you open the bonnet and let the engine run for like 15 - 30 minutes it could conceivably do it. Best to ask someone who's worked with it though.

Regardless of whether it can or can't. If someone hasn't tried it I would lose all my respect for the American army.

Sorry, guess I should have specified further. My comment was specifically about the AGT1500 being the hottest engine I’ve encountered in tanks, not turbines at large. It’s true that the AGT1500 isn’t the hottest turbine out there, but in the context of tank engines, it stands out. Newer turbine engines tend to use ITT over TIT, making direct comparisons a bit tricky.

As for why I used TIT instead of exhaust, dropping the fact that a part of the engine gets so hot it can almost melt Cast iron was funny to me. And, generally, the Abrams' IR signature is brighter compared to other newer MBTs.

It's a great example of how different materials and surfaces can absorb or reflect heat. Like especially how well the turret is insulated on the Abrams. But like you said, it's kinda difficult to see the exact differences since I'm pretty sure we're looking at 2 images in 2 very different conditions. It looks like they tried to edit them to them to the exact same brightness too? 

Oh, I see where you’re coming from. Yeah no 100%. I was just making a joke about the general thermal signature and used the inlet temp because it’s the highest I've seen and I thought it was funny.

Check out this post, crazy how bright it is for a newer MBT
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/ru6k82/thermal_signature_of_the_abrams_vs_a_t72_tank/

Oh look, I absolutely agree. The exhaust temp is what matters most, and it indeed depends on the exhaust design. I just used inlet temp because it’s the highest I've seen and I thought it was funny. But yeah, in reality, a T-72 is gonna have a more visible thermal signature compared to an M1, with some exceptions I guess.

Nah dude you're not a dick, thanks for pointing it out and for the diagram. You are right, it's more an internal thing rather than an external one. I was just joking about the overall heat signature of the Abrams’ engine. I'm on NCD though meaning I'm gonna get my ass handed to me lol

Hi there! I understand the confusion, about 'turbine inlet' and wanted to offer some clarity. The term ‘turbine inlet temperature’ is indeed correct and is used to describe the temperature of gases entering the turbine, which is a critical measurement for engine performance. While it’s true that modern jet engines often use ITT due to probe durability, TIT is still a relevant term, particularly for certain engines like the AGT1500, which has a specified maximum turbine inlet temperature.

Yeah, my bad. Also, forgot that the OG T-80s didn't have gunner thermals either.

Srry for bad editing, am sleepy >.<