Ship of Fools: Sharing the pleasure of good art

Thread: Sharing the pleasure of good art Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025337

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Imagine that you're in a large art gallery with the most comprehensive collection of artworks you've ever seen. What do you tend to gravitate to? Impressionists, or do the modern and experimental painters catch your eye? Classical, or early medieval? Surrealism, or do you feel that art shouldn't be complicated and conceptual, it should just be straightforwardly enjoyable?

What makes a piece of art, for you, something that really catches your eye? All answers welcome, and there are no wrong answers.

(If the answer is "If I found myself in a huge art gallery I'd immediately look for the nearest way out", do say why. I'm curious to know why the visual arts seem to have altogether less appeal than the aural arts, i.e. music almost always wins out over other forms, yet sight is the sense we struggle most without if we don't have it.)

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :

I think a lot of it depends on frame of mind - on different days it would be different things I'd look at, but it would be an unusual day where I wouldn't happily spend a lot of time in front of a Rothko or a Pollock. But then as soon as I say that, I feel I'm leaving out a lot of other things I could happily stare at for ages - Lowry, Picasso, Gaugin...

And that's before you get to sculpture.

One of my favourite things recently is going round art galleries with my 8 year old son. Because he has no idea what he's 'meant' to think, talking to him about what he's seeing is fascinating and rewarding. He can spend a surprising amount of time looking at a painting and considering the way the artist shows light and shade, and the modelling of figures. It's an unexpected joy, to be honest.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It would be the surrealists - the Dali and such like. In fact, if they had some original Dalis, that would be my first stop, and work out from there.

What attracts me is an image that grabs me immediately, and then continues to draw me in more and more. When I walk into a room in a gallery, I immediately look round to see what picture immediately grabs me, in less than a second. That is the challenge to me - it has to hit me hard. between the eyes, and instantly.

The subject of the picture is not what grabs me - I am not after an image that shocks or offends, because that takes longer to process. I need a simple basic image that is perfectly balanced, strong, arresting. If you are on twitter, @earthposts posts some extraordinary pictures that do just that.

Art I want to take me further than this sort of picture does, and draw me in more and more, which is why the surrealist work does it for me, having the initial impact, but then more and more as you look further. As a rule, in most art galleries, there is no more than one or two pictures that I take a longer look at. The normal anodyne stuff is pleasant, but really doesn't move me as art should.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I like most forms of art, but my favorite painters are the seventeenth century Dutch, especially Jakob van Ruisdael. I love what he does with the sky.

Moo

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I've been keen on some varied styles of art over the years - Surrealists, Pre-Raphaelites, Art Nouveau, experimental modern, Italian, English eighteenth-century, Japanese... I haven't abandoned them completely, but these days you'd probably find me in either the Dutch section of an art gallery or the medieval.

I never used to think much of Dutch paintings and thought they were dreary, but actually they can be really interesting, very detailed, and with little bits of humour if you look for them. The still-life pictures can be the closest thing of that period you get to a photograph - incredibly detailed and realistic and the way light is portrayed can be very skilful. One of my favourite painters is Aert van der Neer, who liked doing night scenes.

I still like Claude Lorraine (17th century French). He couldn't do people that well, but he did some marvellous seaport pictures. I used to have "The Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba" on my wall for years, until the colours faded.

Medieval art has a charm of its own. I particularly like Robert Campin's Merode Altarpiece - the detail and skill in that are amazing. I also like the little vignettes that you get in these, and in later pictures - the scenes you can see through archways and windows. He also did a couple of portraits of a husband and wife (if you scroll down you'll see them) - the faces are so expressive, which is unusual for that era, that they really tell a story and give a real sense of personality.

I don't usually admit to this in polite company, but I dislike Impressionist pictures, which are hugely popular. I suspect this is because after a lifetime of being shortsighted, I've had enough of the whole world being out of focus and looking like an Impressionist painting, and want clarity, not blurs, in a picture.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I was going to say I will express my dislike for Impressionism in polite company, however it is not likely to happen; as soon as I express my opinions, the company is no longer polite.
One of my criteria is that any piece should have a primary impact which requires no knowledge, no previous study. Layers, complexity, depth, meaning, etc. should add to, but not define, art. If it must be explained to be appreciated, it fails at a primary level. Long way of saying that I do not appreciate a fair chunk of "contempary" art.
Though truly, I do not completely love or hate any movements.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I've never got much out of Surrealism, and I have to be in the right mood for the Pre-Raphs. I'm even a bit hit-and-miss with the Impressionists.

If the Impressionists painted light, I prefer artists who paint darkness. This, for instance, is one of my favourite paintings (and the image doesn't do it justice - I remember it being rather darker). I also like the dark urban paintings of people like Adolphe Valette and Walter Sickert. I think Whistler's 'Nocturne' paintings are awesome. Coming more up to date, stick me in a room with Rothko's Seagram Murals and I'll be there for hours.

I'm not sure what it is about these dark paintings I like, but I think it's something to do with the subtlety that such a narrow range of colour tones brings out. I can spend ages looking at every square inch of a painting like that.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

There aren't really any genres of painting I prefer (although I loathe anything with cherubs), just specific paintings. Usually what happens is I'll walk along a wall of a gallery, and my eye is continually drawn back to one painting. It's the one that needs a second look, and then a third that stays in the brain. Also a good rule of thumb for buying pictures.

Good sculpture is the stuff that makes you want to touch it (although this might just be me [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Crazy Cat Lady (# 17616) on :

I often wonder what the artist themselves would say about their painting. Probably because I did train in art, initially in fine art and later in textiles - and then I lost my confidence. There is no point in creating anything unless you have self confidence, it always looks stilted and uptight.

I dunno that art is a nice pastime - exhibiting is almost painful - you can see everyone who walks past has formed an opinion. If no one gives it a second glance you know you have hung a clanger. You might as well walk around naked. Often in a piece there is a bit you can't get right - I have a friend who struggled for three months with a left eye in a comissioned portrait.

I am trying to get back on the horse after years of idleness. It doesn't come back that quickly, like a wasted muscle, and then some days I just touch it.

I rarely hear artists describe their work as 'good' - they more usually tell you why and how they did it. Sometimes I do gestural drawings of cats - Occasionally I see someone who bought one and has it by the bed so he can wake up and look at it - he says he likes it because it captures a very cat like pose - am more interested in their physiology than fluffy kittens. And at the end of the day - cats sell!

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

Good sculpture is the stuff that makes you want to touch it (although this might just be me ).

Totally not just you. I have been in gardens open to the public and come across some huge Henry Moore sculpture and quickly checked no one was watching before running my hands all over it.
Actually most carving makes me want to touch it. A beautifully carved and polished pew end is enough to make my hands itch [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

Something that tells me a story. Rembrandt did that, as did Vermeer, quite well. Picasso's Guernica. Anything that pulls me in, makes me curious about the people, places, events, and the time. Degas' L'Absinthe. A perceived mystery for me to suss out- like I get from Night Watch. I want a story.

I'm also a sucker for the simply beautiful - all time periods and styles. Haven't met much modern art that captures mu imagination, but i'm not exposed to much new stuff as far as the international scene is concerned.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

For me it's Northern European art of the 1300's and 1400's. It seems like the art world and musical world blended together to produce things of exacting perfection that leaves me very satisfied.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

This may be lowering the tone a bit, but there was an episode of New Tricks, the series where old coppers solve old cases, in which Anthony Head played the part of an art expert. There's one scene in that which mesmerised me, as he showed the woman in charge of the unit how to really look at a picture (I think it was meant to nearly mesmerise her as well).
Since I saw that, I'll download a picture I really like and use it as my background picture for a while, so I can really look deeply at it.
I'm fond of van Gogh, and Vermeer and some of the other Dutch painters, and Monet - I went to Cardiff to see their Monets and van Gogh, and you can really see how much of a hurry van Gogh was in to get the paint on the canvas.
I also like illustrators like Arthur Rackham and Edmund Dulac, and some of the pre-Raphaelites, and when I came across a blog devoted to Scandinavian art, I found a lot there which was rather wonderful - especially Anna and Michael Ancher.
A couple of years ago, I was given a ticket to a talk on Samuel Palmer at the Hay Festival (the other person couldn't go at the last minute). I knew nothing about Samuel Palmer when I went in, but I came out completely enthusiastic about his work!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Wow, it's really nice to hear so many people speaking in this way about Dutch painters. Last time I was in Holland, I managed to go to the Centraal Museum in Utrecht, and I saw some really nice stuff there.

However, in general I like some of the early abstract painters as well, especially Kandinsky.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Wow, it's really nice to hear so many people speaking in this way about Dutch painters.

Definitely. Makes a nice change from the usual 'yeah, Italian painters' response, although I'd usually call them Lowland painters, just in case my (Belgian) Gran decides to come back and haunt me. [Smile]

We had a brass plaque of Rubens on the chimney breast growing up. Incidently,this place is worth a visit if you're ever in the area. The house belonged to Breugel's mother-in-law, also an artist.

It seems obvious and I'm preaching to the choir, but a key to enjoying painting is to see it in the flesh. I didn't much care for Van Gogh until I saw a painting up close, looking at the individual brushstrokes and how a flesh-toned face can be made from mostly green paint.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

I'm a bit of a fan-boy of one or two particular painters and try to seek out their works whenever I'm near a gallery. I would start off with the Breugels, spend a lazy hour or two among the Davids and then on to the Magritte section. I also love anything with hidden things (such as the skull in Holbein's The Ambassadors), with symbolism to decode or just a depiction of some historic even I know a bit about. Failing that just something that makes me go "eh?" or a bit of Joseph Wright.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Perhaps because it is the first major museum I ever visited, the Chicago Art Institute remains my 'touchstone' collection.
And the first work I visit is always the El Greco 'Assumption of the Virgin' -- I usually sit and feast my soul for at least half an hour. And then, the set of Chagall stained glass windows, and after that as much as I can fit into my schedule, always trying to find the Ivan Albright paintings (they're sometimes in obscure places!).
El Greco/Chagall/Albright -- what does that say about my taste?

Posted by norfolkadam (# 17674) on :

I suppose I got to test the theory yesterday on an afternoon's visit to the Tate Britain. I enjoyed the earliest gallery with works from around 1540 and the 1650 gallery but drifted through the 18th and 19th centuries without much really drawing my attention. When I start to get interested again is around 1890 and this carries on until around 1960 and then when you reach the (recently rehung) 1970s-2000s galleries I just lowered myself to mocking remarks to friends.

Medieval and Renaissance art at one end and then a gap until Impressionism and Modernism, that's where my interests lie. That's not to say I don't enjoy the other galleries I just don't look forward to them in the same way.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

When I go to the local art museum, I gravitate to the ground floor and its Asian art gallery as my family collected 18th and 19th-century Japanese woodblock prints and screens. Sadly, all I have is a misframed Hiroshige while my sister has the screen with a philosopher flying through the air sitting on a goose.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

When we were in London about half a dozen years ago, we walked from our flat to the British Museum. We missed some important things but we could not believe how tiny Salvador Dali's famous paintings were!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

My absolute favourites are the Impressionists - you have to see the paintings face-to-face to appreciate how amazing they are, pictures in books just do not do them justice. I love the way you see them close to, often as rough brush strokes, then step back a few paces and find that it all comes into focus as a complete breathtaking whole.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

Chorister, are you short sighted? If you are lucky enough to be myopic then every painting can be an impressionist painting - just take your glasses off and walk slowly away from the picture... [Big Grin]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Speaking of getting up close I recently went to an Italian exhibition at Compton Verney (if you're in the area this exhibition is worth a visit). The gallery is in a Palladian house in spacious landscaped grounds in the wilds of Warwickshire. The wonderful thing about it is that although it hosts some surprisingly big-name exhibitions sometimes, it never seems to be crowded, and you can get right up to the pictures and have a good look, which you can't always do in the bigger galleries.

Anyway, here's another of my favourite paintings (from the Ashmolean) - Vernet's coastal scene. It's a moonlight scene, and I love the atmosphere and the detail in this, and the story it tells.

Has anyone noticed how interesting picture frames themselves can be? Some of the frames on the older paintings are extraordinarily elaborate, with gilded carvings of corn, fruit and so on - an art form in themselves.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Anyway, here's another of my favourite paintings (from the Ashmolean) - Vernet's coastal scene. It's a moonlight scene, and I love the atmosphere and the detail in this, and the story it tells.

Thanks for linking to that. I've never seen it before, and I like it very much.

Moo

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

I find portraits most dull. They were meaningful to the sitter and the sitter's peers, but they are meaningless today.

In galleries, I find I spend the most time looking at the geometric abstract art. I was especially fascinated by Piet Mondrian (in the Hague and New York) and Bridget Riley (in London and Cambridge).

I also enjoy hyper-realism and extraordinarily detailed still life. The effort that goes into them is phenomenal.

And I enjoyed half an hour in the minimalist room at Tate Modern last year watching other people's reaction to the installations. Most people react to the minimalist work like this: stand directly in front of work; look at work for five seconds; take photo of work with mobile phone; move on to next work; repeat until you exit the gallery.

And I really really enjoyed walking on Carl Andre's 144 Magnesium Square, which you are supposed to walk over but which everyone else was carefully walking around [Smile]

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
I find portraits most dull. They were meaningful to the sitter and the sitter's peers, but they are meaningless today.

I'm the opposite. A good portrait's like reading a history book, although it helps to have the biographical info; the National Portait Gallery is good for this (obviously). There's a painting in there of some long-forgotten Tudor Lady, commissioned by her second husband. She is pregnant with his child, but also pictured with her 2 children from her first husband. There's such love in that picture, and pride in an elder son that could easily cause problems in a time when primogeniture was everything. An unusal picture and a reminder that patchwork families are not a modern phenomenon.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
When we were in London about half a dozen years ago, we walked from our flat to the British Museum. We missed some important things but we could not believe how tiny Salvador Dali's famous paintings were!

Yes! I went to a special exhibit at the LA County Museum of Art that concentrated on Dali's film work linked to his paintings. The Persistence of Memory seemed like it could fit in a standard notebook (just Googled- it's 9 1/2 x 13 in.). Another surprise was that Salvador Dali and Walt Disney got on like long lost brothers. [Eek!]

They worked for three months on an animation project but it was not completed in their life times. Roy Disney restarted it and some French animators completed a short work based on Dali's original notes and sketches: Destino. It's truly a tribute piece to both Walt Disney and Salvador Dali.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I got interested in Dutch painting after reading Simon Schama's An embarrassment of riches which explained a lot about the world of those paintings. His Rembrandt book was also a revelation.

But the constant for me is Hiroshige, and to a lesser extent the other the Woodblock painters. I remember my one visit to London, I spent a day with the Turners and then notices an exhibit of Hiroshige at the Royal Acadamy. I got there an hour before closing but after ten minutes I was calmer and busily enjoying all of the paintings. There's something about the alienation of the perspective that does it for me.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

Portraits, and any paintings which have people in from any period. It's probably why I read biographies so much, I find people fascinating; in art, writings and real life. Also the reason I enjoy nursing and teaching so much, so many people with such different stories.
When I lived in Central London I visited the National Portrait Gallery every few weeks. I do like other art too, from medieval to modern, the only painting style I really don't like are some landscapes such as Constable's Haywain, too romanticised for me. I like paintings that tell stories though, and have imagery hidden within.

[ 24. May 2013, 09:47: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I agree with Heavenly Anarchist that portraits are fascinating - I particularly like looking at the clothes, plus trying to interpret the symbolism of objects they are carrying or which appear next to them.

I was amused, amazed and relieved to discover that, when the National Gallery was seething with visitors, the National Portrait Gallery next door was often almost empty, so I could go round in peace.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

<<Tangent alert>>

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
. . . I'm curious to know why the visual arts seem to have altogether less appeal than the aural arts, i.e. music almost always wins out over other forms, yet sight is the sense we struggle most without if we don't have it.)

As someone with a hearing deficit, I'm not sure I agree it's sight we struggle most without having. It certainly make life more difficult, but profound deafness can lead to utter isolation, especially for those born into hearing families, at least until the issue is identified.

But this isn't a good contest to start, so let's not go there.

<<End tangent alert>>

That said, I'm not sure it's visual arts that get short shrift as compared to music so much as "high art," at least in the U.S. That stubborn anti-intellectual streak in U.S. culture that makes so many of us proud of our ignorance or provincialism also works to make us turn up our noses at "effete" institutions like museums and Old Masters (after all, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Bartok don't generally hit the tops of the charts either), and why museums and classical orchestras are always out there with the begging bowl. Meanwhile, the latest pop or rock or CW stars get mobbed.

I'm guessing the visual equivalent of "popular" music might be graphic novelists or fashion.

And that said, I love everything in bits and snatches. Having spent earlier, more prosperous years in big cities with major collections, I haunted museums and galleries. I can't say I love one particular period or school or artist over another, but there are pieces in every period or school I've encountered that have just entranced me.

Just now I'm recalling a bXw photo in a lit textbook I had a thousand years ago in college (I no longer have that text, alas; I wore the binding to ribbons.)

It was a photo of a (I think late medieval) wooden statue of the Virgin Mary (possibly French) holding her baby. What struck me was that the (probably anonymous) artist fashioned her as a very realistically 13- or 14-year-old girl, and she was smiling or laughing at the baby in her arms. It was the most endearing vision of Mary I have ever seen, and I wish I could track down an image of that figure.

Hrmp. I digress, I guess.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Roy Disney restarted it and some French animators completed a short work based on Dali's original notes and sketches: Destino. It's truly a tribute piece to both Walt Disney and Salvador Dali.

Watched it: it was fascinating!

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
It was a photo of a (I think late medieval) wooden statue of the Virgin Mary (possibly French) holding her baby. What struck me was that the (probably anonymous) artist fashioned her as a very realistically 13- or 14-year-old girl, and she was smiling or laughing at the baby in her arms. It was the most endearing vision of Mary I have ever seen, and I wish I could track down an image of that figure.

Hrmp. I digress, I guess.

Could it be this?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1999.208

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:

quote:
It was a photo of a (I think late medieval) wooden statue of the Virgin Mary (possibly French) holding her baby. What struck me was that the (probably anonymous) artist fashioned her as a very realistically 13- or 14-year-old girl, and she was smiling or laughing at the baby in her arms. It was the most endearing vision of Mary I have ever seen, and I wish I could track down an image of that figure.

Hrmp. I digress, I guess.
Could it be this?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1999.208

Oh, thanks for that link -- she's lovely too. But the one I'm remembering has the Virgin looking to her right rather than her left, with the Babe's face nearly on a level with her own, and a crown on her head that nearly dwarfs her features. Also, at least in my memory, the wood is dark.

Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :

I like portraits for the expressions and the costumes. The expressions because they convey something of the person sitting and something of the artist's way of showing them. Costumes because I make clothes for fun and I always wonder how the clothes worked in past times.

Massive art galleries make me tired. We went to Rome and to the Vatican museums a couple of weeks ago, and I wished they'd split the collections and send them on tour rather than clumping them hugely together so that no individual piece could have the starring role so many deserved.

Cattyish, context buff.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cattyish:
I like portraits for the expressions and the costumes.
The expressions because they convey something of the person sitting and something of the artist's way of showing them. Costumes because I make clothes for fun and I always wonder how the clothes worked in past times.

Me, too. The one frustration is that you almost never get a back view -- and back in my SCA days, I always wanted a 360-degree understanding of the costumes.

quote:
Originally posted by cattyish:
Massive art galleries make me tired.

Ditto. After a certain point, I can't "see" any more. One of my nieces, when she was little, would complain after a while (when I took the bunch of them to a fine arts museum), "Can we go home now, Auntie Porridge? My eyes are full!"

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

As an artist myself, I tend to go for the more surrealist stuff. I can't do figure drawing to save my life so I just decided to stop trying and embrace my Picasso-ness, Dali-ness, etc. I love these artists and M.C. Escher. I dig Impressionists and lots of other art but I've never really gotten into that one artist... can't think of his name but he is simple to the point of banality, in my opinion. I saw one of his works, a small red box painted on a canvas inside a bigger orange box. I just don't consider that art. I also think of that dumb guy who "created" "Piss Christ" a few years ago. What a stupid, imbecilic piece of childishness! My art professor tried to tell me that that guy was brilliant and that he was protesting against the hypocrisy of religion but I never agreed with her and I never will.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I love art with a lot of light--e.g., Carravaggio and Frederic Edwin Church.

I'm inclined toward representational art. Jackson Pollack generally isn't to my taste. (And I've sometimes been whimsically tempted to try his paint-balloon thrown onto canvas from a ladder method, and attempt to sell it!)
[Biased]

I like kinetic sculptures, especially those made from repurposed junk. I like other kinds of sculptures that have a little bit of a rough texture to them--e.g., I prefer marble that isn't extremely polished. (And it's interesting that (some) Greek marble sculptures were originally actually *painted* on the surface, in rather garish colors.)

I don't usually go for Deep Analysis of the Significance of a Piece of Art (tm). But I do like pieces that may have a bit of a puzzle or mystery to them.

I like art work that makes me feel better in some way.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cattyish:
Massive art galleries make me tired.

That's the big plus of free galleries; you can view them in sections. There's no urge to 'get your money's worth' resulting in brain ache and less enjoyment.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It helps if you live within reasonable travelling distance of the massive galleries, then you have the option of coming back over a period of time to take in a bit more. However, a lot of people do galleries as tourists, which means cramming in as much as they can because they probably won't be coming back, or at least not for a long time.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by cattyish:
I like portraits for the expressions and the costumes.
The expressions because they convey something of the person sitting and something of the artist's way of showing them. Costumes because I make clothes for fun and I always wonder how the clothes worked in past times.
Me, too. The one frustration is that you almost never get a back view -- and back in my SCA days, I always wanted a 360-degree understanding of the costumes

Yes, this is partly the reason i find portraits so fascinating,, I'm a dressmaker with an interest in historical costume.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I also think of that dumb guy who "created" "Piss Christ" a few years ago. What a stupid, imbecilic piece of childishness! My art professor tried to tell me that that guy was brilliant and that he was protesting against the hypocrisy of religion but I never agreed with her and I never will.

I know the artist wasn't a Christian, but I think "Piss Christ" is one of the most Christian pieces of art I've ever seen. To me, it shows how God in Christ became human, entered our world of piss and shit, and redeemed it and made it beautiful. It's also how we treat Christ - we reject him and insult him, but he is above all that in glory. I love it!

Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :

Picasso, Miro, Modigliani, Kandinsky, and Matisse please---especially Matisse. I fell in love with his work as a teenager on a visit to the Hermitage in St. Petersburg.

Color draws me into a work and at the same time I'm rather bored by the Impressionists. I look at those works and I think, "This is pretty, but only telling a partial truth."

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I've never really gotten into that one artist... can't think of his name but he is simple to the point of banality, in my opinion. I saw one of his works, a small red box painted on a canvas inside a bigger orange box.

Mark Rothko, perchance? His stuff makes me so irritated I want to take an axe to it all.

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I also think of that dumb guy who "created" "Piss Christ" a few years ago. What a stupid, imbecilic piece of childishness! My art professor tried to tell me that that guy was brilliant and that he was protesting against the hypocrisy of religion but I never agreed with her and I never will.
I know the artist wasn't a Christian, but I think "Piss Christ" is one of the most Christian pieces of art I've ever seen. To me, it shows how God in Christ became human, entered our world of piss and shit, and redeemed it and made it beautiful. It's also how we treat Christ - we reject him and insult him, but he is above all that in glory. I love it!

I used to hate 'Piss Christ' too, but over the years have come to appreciate it in much the same way as Earwig.

My favourites are the usual Italians, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Titian etc., as well as dear Vincent (I have a special fondness for him) and a lot of Victorians, especially Atkinson Grimshaw, such as this. The list goes on...

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
...but I've never really gotten into that one artist... can't think of his name but he is simple to the point of banality, in my opinion. I saw one of his works, a small red box painted on a canvas inside a bigger orange box. I just don't consider that art.

Josef Albers?

While he was teaching at Yale, a student took a dart board, painted it in typical Albers shapes and colors, stuck three darts in it, and labeled it objet d'art. He hung it in the Yale art gallery, and almost got expelled.

Moo

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I've never really gotten into that one artist... can't think of his name but he is simple to the point of banality, in my opinion. I saw one of his works, a small red box painted on a canvas inside a bigger orange box.
Mark Rothko, perchance? His stuff makes me so irritated I want to take an axe to it all.

Can you leave one for me? When I'm in front of a Rothko, the rest of the world just sort of switches off. He's all about infinity and eternity. He takes you far away from yourself and right inside yourself. His monolithic paintings have the same effect on me as the stones of Stonehenge: they impose silence and stillness. They have an amazing depth and luminosity to them, and up close (he said the optimum distance from which to view his paintings was about 18 inches) you can see incredible detail in the brushmarks, the layering, the glazing. People often think he must have painted them very quickly, but he didn't - every one of his later paintings has dozens of thin layers of paint on it, which means that every single mark, even an accidental-looking dribble of paint, is there because he meant it to be there. I think he paints mystery, in the theological sense of the word.

I've always promised myself, if I win the lottery, I'll have a Rothko. As long as I have enough left to buy a living room big enough to put it in.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
... and a lot of Victorians, especially Atkinson Grimshaw, such as this. The list goes on...

Thank you for that. This is one of my favourites too, and is now featuring as my background for the day.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

You can have them all, Adeodatus, and welcome, as far as I'm concerned. You argue eloquently in his defence but alas! he leaves me completely cold (when not red with irritation [Biased]

).

Ah yes, Ariel, the wondrous Atkinson Grimshaw, in whose rainy and foggy streets you can almost hear the rattle of wheels and splosh of puddles... [Yipee]

. Now, I could look at those paintings for hours.

Another one I used to spend a lot of time with in the NG is the lovely 'Venus & Mars', here, which I find hypnotically fascinating.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
cattyish: Massive art galleries make me tired.

I managed to spend 4 hours in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, and I was completely exhausted.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
...but I've never really gotten into that one artist... can't think of his name but he is simple to the point of banality, in my opinion. I saw one of his works, a small red box painted on a canvas inside a bigger orange box. I just don't consider that art.
Josef Albers?

While he was teaching at Yale, a student took a dart board, painted it in typical Albers shapes and colors, stuck three darts in it, and labeled it objet d'art. He hung it in the Yale art gallery, and almost got expelled.

Moo

Yes! Josef Albers! Ugh! I can't believe people shell out millions for his stupid "art". Hey, I actually create some cool art, if I may brag a teensy bit. Why don't some of those rich people buy MY stuff?! Oh, yeah... my art isn't showing anywhere. [Biased]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Seidler's skyscrapers are better than Albers' art, but I've designed better houses!

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I know rubbishing is also fun - but let's stay with appreciating , shall we?

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Ok, more appreciating: I've posted this before but it really is one of my most favourite pictures of all time:

[ 01. June 2013, 09:55: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Oh bum, try again!

- this: Noli me Tangere by Titian. Beautiful figures, hypnotic setting, lovely colour... Titian at his best.

I love it to bits.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Pine Marten: - this: Noli me Tangere by Titian. Beautiful figures, hypnotic setting, lovely colour... Titian at his best.

I love it to bits.

I like how Christ a bit awkwardly bends away from Mary of Magdalene. A literal "Don't touch me!"

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Last year at the Huntington Library and Museum I discovered an American artist I'd never been aware of. His name was Roger Medearis and he was a student of Thomas Hart Benton. Now, I've never really been much of a fan of social realism like Benton's, but I believe Medearis outstripped his mentor. Medearis painted landscapes, weird and wonderful still lifes such as these, and distinctive portraits. But frankly, these google images don't do them justice. In person, they really pop. [Yipee]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Perhaps because it is the first major museum I ever visited, the Chicago Art Institute remains my 'touchstone' collection.
And the first work I visit is always the El Greco 'Assumption of the Virgin' -- I usually sit and feast my soul for at least half an hour. And then, the set of Chagall stained glass windows, and after that as much as I can fit into my schedule, always trying to find the Ivan Albright paintings (they're sometimes in obscure places!).
El Greco/Chagall/Albright -- what does that say about my taste?

I do not know if it's the same Albright, but I once saw a painting called Vera Mor in an Art Gallery in buffalo which you could not possibly look at without seeing a three-d hemisphere. I like Kandinsky - cool-looking geometric-type paintings; landscapes which have far horizons.
I do not have an educated taste in art! [Smile]

However, the touch Tours organised by Southampton Museum and Art Gallery have taught me a lot about what I like in sculpture, and that is cool, clean lines.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Just come across these pictures and think they are pretty amazing.

Jengie

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0