# Who is your favorite painter/artist?



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

The thread in the fashion section started by Curator regarding his experience with a suit made by George got me thinking about art (he's pointing at a Constable in one of the pics).

I don't really have any paintings to speak of, other than a few inherited 19th c. still-lifes of no great importance. I can't afford really nice paintings so I been collecting 17th-18th century engravings for the last 20 years (yes you can still buy them cheap in Europe).

If I could choose paintings to live with I think I might first go with German Romantics like Caspar David Friedrich or Carl Blechen or else American Luminists like Fitz Hugh Lane or Martin Johnson Heade. These are the type of pictures I think it could be very easy to live with, to see often. 

I also like English 18th century portraits of officers (army or navy) by Sir Joshua Reynolds and even more so by George Romney. But then I've always had a thing for uniforms.

Lest anyone think I only like "pretty" art if I lived in a huge loft I'd love a landscape by German neo-expressionist Anselm Kiefer.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Thanks for the heads up on Anselm Kiefer!
Do you have any other favorites like this?


m kielty


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> Thanks for the heads up on Anselm Kiefer!
> Do you have any other favorites like this?
> ...


In the same vein are portraits by Georg Baselitz and some good political genre paintings by Jorg Immendorf.

I do have to admit I really like Kiefer, if you get a chance to see his work in person do so. Very interesting impasto (texture) I've seen paintings where the fields actually have straw embedded in the paint. And the colors are much more beautiful than can be captured in reproductions.


----------



## Earthmover (Jan 3, 2005)

My current favorite is Piet Mondrian (Yes, it's modern, and "controversial") in his European phase. Other favorites include Fragonard, Jean Francois Millet, and Rogier van der Weyden. In general, however, I like certain individual paintings by artists whom I am not a fan of in the aggregate. All it takes is one good inspiration, I suppose.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Earthmover_
> 
> My current favorite is Piet Mondrian (Yes, it's modern, and "controversial") in his European phase.


What makes Mondrian controversial?

m kielty


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Norman Rockwell


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Toulouse Lautrec

Andy


----------



## eromlignod (Nov 23, 2005)

Henri Toulouse-Lautrec.

I have two prints and they are my prized posessions.

Don
Kansas City


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Andy_
> 
> Toulouse Lautrec
> 
> Andy


Andy, you surprise me...I didn't peg you for a Moulin Rouge/brothel kind of guy - LOL - or is it the aristocrat gone bohemian image you like.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Paul Klee for his contribution to modern art.
Robert Gober
John Baldessari
Anish Kapoor


----------



## Earthmover (Jan 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a subset of people (at least in my travels, much larger than I'd like) that offhandedly dismiss any and all modern art as rubbish. And since Mondrian is certainly one of the giants of the modern art , he is controversial in the sense that he's the best of the "rubbish". I think the real controversy stems from my attack on those who dismiss modern art so quickly. I usually end up saying something that out-snobs them which doesn't go over so well. Talk about drama.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I saw my first Klee, a quality print of 'fishes' at a friend's house. Serendipity Saint- Saens Carnival of the Animals was playing and the effect was quite magical. But I still want a reproduction dining room of Lascaux or Altamira.And in California why not As an aside, the first Getty Museum just reopened after a 11 year renovation. It is modelled after a roman villa with his core etruscan,greek and roman collections. Tickets are free, but they are allready backlogged into July.It's just off Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. If memory serves me, coming from the north the entrance was a real maelstrom and if you miss it a LOOOONG drive to turn around is penance for the timid.


----------



## Curator (Aug 4, 2005)

How long have I waited for this thread? mpcsb is quickly becoming one of my favorite members. I approve of your taste sir, I also collect engravings, though I tend towards the 19th Century. I've been lusting after David Lucas' engraving of Constable's The Lock for years, but I can't seem to find one for sale anywhere. I've put in a standing order with Oxford's rare print dealer to notify me immediately if one should surface. I've studied Friedrich in some detail and count myself among his great fans as well. An experience that should not be missed for any CD Friedrich fan is viewing a photograph made via infrared reflectography of the underdrawings of paintings like "Cross in the Mountains." He has the most methodical architectural constructions I've ever seen. In addition, Kiefer is one of the few postwar artists I can stomach, so you are high in my book.

My taste is posted for all the world to see in the posters in my Oxford dorm room in my suit thread, 

John Constable is my all consuming passion, and he is the reason I've come to England for the year. Landscape is the broader category of my interests: 
Pennsylvania Impressionists: Daniel Garber and Edward Redfield

Barbizon School: Narcisse Diaz de la Pena, Dupre, Theodore Rousseau, (not the crazy surrealist lions and gypsies by moonlight Rousseau.)

Maine painters: Winslow Homer, (his The Fountains at Night, in the Bowdoin Museum of Art is remarkable,) 

Andrew Wyeth, (and I'm not ashamed like so many art historians are. I will fight to the death if anyone suggests he is a popular and thus bad painter.) 

Rockwell Kent (anyone else see the excellent if dishonestly curated exhibition of his work at the Portland Museum of Art last summer?) 

Roman Baroque: Caravaggio and Carracci, pleasures that until the last 20 years or so were necessarily guilty. Now the Baroque is more in style. 

If we are including the decorative arts, I'm particularly interested in Italian Maiolica (tin glazed earthenware pottery,) from working with the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's excellent Hearst collection last summer.

I'm thrilled to see that so many members of this site are not mere sheep that pretend to like brushstrokes on canvas because the current culture of artistic deification and gutless patronage tells them they have to. These days it takes courage to like representational painting. (It's fascinating to see how the new MOMA stashes away one of their gems, Wyeth's Christina's World, in a narrow side gallery barely larger than a closet like they are ashamed of it.) I, for one, hope that yuppies continue to decorate their cold white lofts with crapart so Barbizon and British School landscapes stay under $10,000 until I have the money to capitalize.

-----------------------------------
"It is an old trick. The playgoer who does not like dirty plays is denounced as a prude; the music-lover who resents cacophony is told he is a pedant; and in all these matters the final crushing blow administered to the man of discrimination is the ascription to him of a hidebound prejudice against things that are new because they are new." -Royal Cortissoz


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Lawrence Coulson 
and George Stubbs.

I enjoy landscapes and horses. And dogs.

And I do like "pretty" art, I must admit.

Also, Jenny Holzer


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Earthmover_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought the controversy was about some trespass against humanity.

I'm trying to control my own ardor for dismissivness so I don't feel in a position to criticize those that find art of any type to be rubbish.I think history has shown we are not alway correct in our artistic judgements.(I'm sure all those on this thread know the most blatant examples).

I think it was the Irish writer, John O'Donohue who said,"Beauty is an event."( Certainly,all art is an event.)
I try to keep that in mind when I'm in beauty's fleeting presence.

My personal favorite is Degas.

m kielty


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I saw my first Klee, a quality print of 'fishes' at a friend's house. Serendipity Saint- Saens Carnival of the Animals was playing and the effect was quite magical. But I still want a reproduction dining room of Lascaux or Altamira.And in California why not As an aside, the first Getty Museum just reopened after a 11 year renovation. It is modelled after a roman villa with his core etruscan,greek and roman collections. Tickets are free, but they are allready backlogged into July.It's just off Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. If memory serves me, coming from the north the entrance was a real maelstrom and if you miss it a LOOOONG drive to turn around is penance for the timid.


My mother lives half the year a stones throw from Lascaux. I wish I had the chance to see the original caves before they closed them. Font de Gaumme, in the same area, is still all original and really an amazing tour. Many prople in the area have caves on their properties. The ones like Lascaux were ceremonial caves, but the living caves tended to be at ground level and more like overhangs. I went to a cocktail party last summer at a friends house, and they were having the party partially in a living cave on teh property.

Many of Klee's great works on Burlap are very hieroglyphic looking.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Edward Hopper

Thomas Eakins

Jack Kirby

Steve Ditko


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

I have moved about, backwards and forwards, over the years with favourite art movements as opposed to particular painters, but they have always been of those since the 1870's, focussing mainly on the fauves, the impressionists, the constructivists, the dadaists, the cubists, the expressionists, etc, but currently I am interested in the pre-Rafaelites and concentrating mainly on the works of Waterhouse and Burne-Jones. This goes hand-in-hand with my passion for English art pottery of the aesthetic movement and beyond, which has developed from thirty-five years' serious interest in twentieth century decorative arts of which I consider I have become quite an authority through personal study and casual involvement with the trade since I was at art college.

Fellow AAAC members always assume that Jack Vettriano must be my favourite painter, but that is not actually the case, although I do admire his rich palette and the tense atmosphere he casts on all his works, but it is for his portrayal of period men's clothing styles that I use his name as a moniker.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Curator_
> 
> How long have I waited for this thread? mpcsb is quickly becoming one of my favorite members. I approve of your taste sir, I also collect engravings, though I tend towards the 19th Century. I've been lusting after David Lucas' engraving of Constable's The Lock for years, but I can't seem to find one for sale anywhere. I've put in a standing order with Oxford's rare print dealer to notify me immediately if one should surface. I've studied Friedrich in some detail and count myself among his great fans as well. An experience that should not be missed for any CD Friedrich fan is viewing a photograph made via infrared reflectography of the underdrawings of paintings like "Cross in the Mountains." He has the most methodical architectural constructions I've ever seen. In addition, Kiefer is one of the few postwar artists I can stomach, so you are high in my book.
> 
> ...


I mean no offense by this, but I am interested to see that your view of art is as narrow as it is. To me you seem to be saying that you value technique and tecnician over visionaries and vision. That is not an uncommon perspective, but not one that I would associate with somebody in the art world, unless your goal is truly art *historian*.

To dismiss all postwar (and I am assuming you mean post ww2) art as garbage, you must not be able to see much other than how somebody paints, and not what somebody sees or feels and expresses through painting. To not appreciate somebody like Mark Rothko is an anathema to me. Perhaps you can explain it. The same goes for Jasper Johns and Alexander Calder. This art may not be your cup of tea, but to dismiss it completely is to dismiss the computer or the light bulb.

I will be interested to see if your taste expands as you get out into the art world, and out of academia. I am quite sure that it will.


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> To dismiss all postwar (and I am assuming you mean post ww2) art as garbage... but to dismiss it completely is to dismiss the computer or the light bulb.
> 
> I will be interested to see if your taste expands as you get out into the art world, and out of academia. I am quite sure that it will.


Now hold on iammatt, that's a bit below the belt for a friendly forum. Curator hasn't said that he dismisses all postwar art - he merely illustrates the modern day trend for crowd-pulling/money-spinning/award-winning 'confrontational art', that let's face it, wakes up Joe Public in the tabloids and gets them going to galleries to see for themselves what it's all about and which fortunately also brings in the much needed funds to keep some of them open at all.


----------



## Curator (Aug 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> I mean no offense by this, but I am interested to see that your view of art is as narrow as it is. To me you seem to be saying that you value technique and tecnician over visionaries and vision. That is not an uncommon perspective, but not one that I would associate with somebody in the art world, unless your goal is truly art *historian*.
> 
> To dismiss all postwar (and I am assuming you mean post ww2) art as garbage, you must not be able to see much other than how somebody paints, and not what somebody sees or feels and expresses through painting. To not appreciate somebody like Mark Rothko is an anathema to me. Perhaps you can explain it. The same goes for Jasper Johns and Alexander Calder. This art may not be your cup of tea, but to dismiss it completely is to dismiss the computer or the light bulb.
> ...


Interesting viewpoint, thanks for the post. I actually started out thinking I wanted to be a scholar of contemporary art. Mark Rothko was one of my early interests and I convinced myself, like so many others, that I felt something standing in front of his pieces. Mostly, I felt a pleasure in "appreciating" something rarified that the masses cannot. Now I have come to the conclusion that the best work of art is one that can be understood on many levels and by many different strata of people, not one that requires you to leave aesthetic sensibility at the door, while requiring a fat wallet and thoroughly bourgeois mindset to pass said door. This is at the core of an essay I've been working on for some time. To call your visionary vs. technician comment a gross oversimplification is charitable and I don't think I can keep my blood at a simmer long enough to address it, as it's a stab at the heart of what I believe. I think you probably realize there's a whole lot more to the story than that.

However you are exactly right with your use of the bold art *historian*. I consider myself a historian first and foremost. I object to the way curators of contemporary art practice their trade, taking an active role in the creation of works of art and considering themselves artists as well, for the way they present the pieces. I feel strongly that art is at an all time low right now, for the reasons in my first post: that there is a dearth of assertive patronage and that a Waltonian concept of 'the artist is always right' has taken over. I fear the future's evaluation of us. I did not intend to dismiss all art since WW2 because it is recent, I suppose it could have seemed that way. There are a few brave souls working in this adverse climate who have my admiration. Bill Viola is one, an intelligent, worldly artist using the video medium to tell timeless stories. His art can be appreciated for the beauty of angelic figures splashing into pools, or on the deeper level of biblical and literary allusions. Chuck Close is another, fascinated with his fellow man and studying their faces with the care of Rembrandt. I begrudge no one the appreciation of art they truly enjoy, I just shake my head with disappointment at the gallery goer who revels in the solitary yet public adrenaline rush many of us know of appearing important while pausing with unseeing eyes in front of an incomprehensible smear on the wall.

-----------------------------------
"It is an old trick. The playgoer who does not like dirty plays is denounced as a prude; the music-lover who resents cacophony is told he is a pedant; and in all these matters the final crushing blow administered to the man of discrimination is the ascription to him of a hidebound prejudice against things that are new because they are new." -Royal Cortissoz


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I pretty much know nothing about art, except I don't like most of the modern stuff, and that I guess I am a bonafied folk artist. 

In my new apt I have three prints so far.

A Soviet socialist-realism of Lenin and some of the proletariat storming out of the darkness and into the light to go overthrow the government.

A framed pen and ink sketch of a snowy Soviet city. I know nothing about the artist nor what the label on the back of the frame says as it is all in Russian cyrillic. I do not even know how old it is. 

And then a repro 1954 Grand Prix poster with Juan Fangio in a Mercedes on it. 

I think my next purchase will be a copy of Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" which is probably my favorite piece.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Thanks Curator for mentioning Rothko. I like alot of post war art, abstract expressionism. I really like Rothko and Jackson Pollack and Franz Klein. But what I really like are the minimalists, Donald Judd sculptures are just too cool. His furniture looks good but I think it would be very uncomfortable. Speaking of minimalists the best of the best is John Pawson, his houses and artifacts are truely beautiful. He designed a bronze bowl - if I only had the money!!!

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Pat Henry
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Benj. Franklin


----------



## Alban (Jan 25, 2006)

I really enjoy many of the Derbyshire Impressionist paintings, like George Turner. I also like the Hudson River School of painters.

I find that the works of Mersad Berber go well with my Horner Dining Room, an odd combination but it works. Some of his work takes you both backwards and forward in time. 

Daum has a type of art glass, Pate De Verre, many pieces are by well known artists. I love these because as Daum's ads used to say "Possess Light," you can too. These are wonderful pieces and few of my friends know what they are.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Jacques-Louis David:


















Benjamin West:


















Charles Willson Peale:










Thomas Cole:










And please pardon me if I think that modern art is, too often, utter rubbish by comparison:

,


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

I'm not familiar with Thomas Cole. He's not at all well known in France - are those two big ones from the Course of Empire ?

Ed: Found it! 

Unusual taste you have - and so much the better!


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

[:0] I must be sitting on a fortune - I've got these all over my bathroom walls, floor to ceiling. 
Perhaps I should cash in and sell them?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Some of the artists and works I enjoy:

Canaletto
London: The Thames and the City of London from Richmond House (1747) Private collection
https://www.wga.hu/art/c/canalett/7/canal705.jpg

Edward Hopper
Automat (1927) Des Moines Art Center

Joseph Cornell
Habitat Group for a Shooting Gallery (1943) Des Moines Art Center
https://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cornell/cornell.hotel-eden.jpg

Gustave Caillebotte
Rooftops under snow 1878, MusÃ©e d'Orsay 
https://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/caillebotte/caillebotte.rooftops-snow.jpg

Grant Wood
Parson Weems' Fable (1939) Amon Carter Museum

Dutch 17th centurystill life paintings, Childe Hassam, the list goes on and on. The graphic design work of Art Chantry has always been a favorite.

I have a friend whose paintings I really like:

A. Oswald
"I'm tired of waiting for something to happen," she said.
Acrylic on panel, 24" x 24", 2002

(I own this painting and the reproduction here really doesn't do it justice--the colors are much warmer)

and the cut paper work of another friend:

Regards,

Charles

https://bostonhistory.typepad.com


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Compared to those posting here, I don't know squat about art. But, my tastes definately do not include many of the post-WWII artists, including the three you mentioned. I think that, for me, it is because their paintings do not do what I expect art to do. I expect art, in any form, to tell a story or evoke an emotion or feeling. Degas' works evoke emotions in me. Goya tell's a story. Mark Rothko's work (what I saw from Google, at least) is sometimes pretty. I'd put it on a wall where I wanted some color, but it doesn't do anything for me on a more visceral level. If he's trying to tell me something with it, he has failed.

CT


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

bosthist,

Joseph Cornell - wow - even when I was working in the museum biz he was still a hard sell. I was always intrigued by his work but even more so by peoples reactions to it. 

ChubbyTiger,

I like paintings that tell a story too, but sometimes there is a use of color or line that for some reason, personally stikes me, and it doesn't matter if there there is a story or even a recognizable (sp?) subject matter. I think of Turners more impressionistic work such as you can see at the Tate Gallery in London (at the "old" Tate formally Tate Millbank now known as Tate Britain, not the Tate Modern).


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> bosthist,
> 
> Joseph Cornell - wow - even when I was working in the museum biz he was still a hard sell. I was always intrigued by his work but even more so by peoples reactions to it.


When I was young and first started going to the Des Moines Art Center--I must have been eight or so--I was struck by Cornell's work because it seemed to me something that one could do oneself, unlike just about anything else in a museum which seemed to require skills far beyond that of an eight year old. It was only as I grew older that I started seeing the complexities in Cornell, which only deepened my appreciation of his work.

Regards,

Charles

https://bostonhistory.typepad.com


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Jacques-Louis David:
> 
> ...


Nice to see appreciation for Benjamin West--I am a descendant of the esteemed English-by-way-of-American painter.

West is, in fact, my middle name.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Current favorite post-WWII artists is Bo Bartlett

I've been on a portrait kick of late (confined mostly to the masters)and thus have grown fond of the likes of Peale, VelÃ¡zquez, Jacques-Louis David, Rubens, Stuart, and my all time favorite John Singer Sargent.

Others include Carvaggio, Church, Bierstadt, Hassam, Harnett, the list goes on....










___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a subset of people (at least in my travels, much larger than I'd like) that offhandedly dismiss any and all modern art as rubbish. And since Mondrian is certainly one of the giants of the modern art , he is controversial in the sense that he's the best of the "rubbish". I think the real controversy stems from my attack on those who dismiss modern art so quickly. I usually end up saying something that out-snobs them which doesn't go over so well. Talk about drama. 
--------------------------------------------------
Earthmover,
I now see what you mean.

m kielty


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Here is my favorite art site.

From the "museum" on that site, I sometimes like to peruse the works of Almada-Tadema:

https://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=8


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> Here is my favorite art site.
> 
> ...


Wow! Great site! The rankings chart is of particular interest.

m kielty


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

The French Impressionists - in no particular order - except for Cezanne and Degas, who annoy me for some reason.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

So many,

but the first who really caught my attention as a kid was Bouguereau.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> Here is my favorite art site.
> 
> ...


I've always liked Bouguereau, particularly _Young Girl Defending Herself From Cupid_ and _The Shepherdess_; but these "Art Renewal" fellows . . . Ah well.

Watteau, Blake, Goya, Dewing, and Modigliani are also personal favorites - along with the usual titans, of course.

"Cross-legged under an umbrel umbershoot, he thrones an Aztec logos"


----------



## Curator (Aug 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> The French Impressionists - in no particular order - except for Cezanne and Degas, who annoy me for some reason.


Most consider Cezanne a "post-impressionist" for future reference.

-----------------------------------
"It is an old trick. The playgoer who does not like dirty plays is denounced as a prude; the music-lover who resents cacophony is told he is a pedant; and in all these matters the final crushing blow administered to the man of discrimination is the ascription to him of a hidebound prejudice against things that are new because they are new." -Royal Cortissoz


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Balthus... and Richard Diebenkorn.

Magritte's always interesting -- I think the late Franco Moschino echoed his vision in his designs, overtly so with a scarf captioned "Ceci n'est pas un foulard!".

Degas is a favorite, as are Ingres and Delacroix. 

I find something wonderful in Elizabeth Vigee-Lebrun's portraits.

I also like early Renaissance stuff when perspective was first being batted around... and the Vegetable Man.

-- RJman


----------



## Thracozaag (Sep 5, 2002)

My triumverate is Caravaggio, Vermeer and Monet.

koji


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I was perhaps 14 when I first saw Clyfford Still's work at the LA County Museum of art the experience was earthshaking. All of a sudden I "got it," meaning I understood to my core on an entirely non-intellectual level what non-objective painting was about. 

I was eventually able to study with the Abstract Expressionists who were on the faculty at Berkeley when I arrived in 1963.

I much admire Klein, Diebenkorn, Rothko, Rauschenberg, Pollack, Sam Francis, and others.

Representational work is generally uninteresting to me. I do, however, very much like Cezanne, Nolde, the Blau Reiter and Broeke (sorry, no German font) groups.

People like what they are equipped by education and aptitude to appreciate. Appreciating Modern Art, in particular, requires, or at least is helped, I think, by having a certain visual aptitude. This is because it is mostly about the composition, the visual relationships between the forms, and technical relationships between the colors. This is analogous, perhaps, to having perfect pitch, and being able to hear the relationships and structures present in music. 

We get many years of educaton in literature. This incidentally equips us to appreciate representational art as they both deal with narrative. Moreover, art history and the history of literature are taught as belonging to the same series of periods. Unfortunately, it is hard to get educated about Modern Art as our education system ignores the technical/formal side of visual stuff.

I'd like to think that Curator and others would get past their reactions to the phoneyness and stylishness of the art world and try to look at non-objective work on its own terms. Or, at least try to acknowledge that the work is valid, even if they don't get it or don't like it.

I have been thinking for several days about what to say in this thread. I find what I've written so far not terribly eloquent. Eventually I'll have a web site and can share images of my work. Meanwhile, if anyone is in Pasadena or Mendocino with a couple of hours to spare, I'd be happy to show you a few dozen canvasses. 

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## jjmorgan (Aug 24, 2005)

Canaletto, Camille Pissarro, Walter Sickert & Nicolas Poussin. In no particular order....


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> People like what they are equipped by education and aptitude to appreciate. Appreciating Modern Art, in particular, requires, or at least is helped, I think, by having a certain visual aptitude. This is because it is mostly about the composition, the visual relationships between the forms, and technical relationships between the colors. This is analogous, perhaps, to having perfect pitch, and being able to hear the relationships and structures present in music.
> 
> ...


Gurdon,
That is as good an explanation as I've ever read.
I tend to lean towards the representational in my own tastes but feel no inclination to press my tastes as paramount.
This thread is mostly about the audience for art.
All art is firstly craft and craft is a process of learning.
That process is universal.
Whether it is a painting , a novel,a complicated watch,a hand tailored item,etc.,the final product has less value than the deep and profound experience that occurred on the way to completion.
That deep and profound experience is the unfolding of a talent that can be likened to a journey.
In the case of practically everything we do, it is the jouney and not the destination that makes life worthwhile.

m kielty


----------



## DressPRMex (Jun 20, 2005)

Painters:

Classic: Vermeer, no contest
Contemporary: Francesco Clemente

Artists:

WAM, without a question, closely followed by the Rolling Stones.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> I was perhaps 14 when I first saw Clyfford Still's work at the LA County Museum of art the experience was earthshaking. All of a sudden I "got it," meaning I understood to my core on an entirely non-intellectual level what non-objective painting was about.
> 
> ...


Do not be unduly modest, Gurdon. Your post is an eloquent statement of intelligent understanding. It is amazing that at this late date Modernism in the arts is still confronted with much hostilty and misunderstanding, even among the educated.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

Giotto


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> People like what they are equipped by education and aptitude to appreciate. Appreciating Modern Art, in particular, requires, or at least is helped, I think, by having a certain visual aptitude. This is because it is mostly about the composition, the visual relationships between the forms, and technical relationships between the colors. This is analogous, perhaps, to having perfect pitch, and being able to hear the relationships and structures present in music.


In other words, those of us who disdain 'modern art' are less aesthetically sophisticated?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> In other words, those of us who disdain 'modern art' are less aesthetically sophisticated?


Actually I think a a rather ggod arguement could be made to that effect.

Generally people do not appreciate Chaucer or Milton unless they have studied these writers. Likewise, people generally do not appreciate paintings that are not "pretty" as "good" art. Please do not get me wrong, something does not have to be complicated or difficult to understand to be good. However, to disdain something because one does not understand it, is I think the definition of unsophistication.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by young guy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

Francis Bacon. The other one.

Rene Magritte

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

Bernard Boutet de Monvel

Rembrandt

Ralph Eugene Meatyard

Guy Bourdin

Velazquez

El Greco

Tiepolo

Canaletto

Lucas Cranach the Elder

Gustav Moreau

Odilon Redon

Katharina Sieverding

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Curator_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A bit patronizing?

Those who "disdain modern art" seem so ready to take umbrage at even a hint of opinion that they might be missing the boat on this issue.
Yet all I've seen from those that "disdain modern art" is that same abuse,namely, that those who enjoy modern art are "aesthetically" challenged.

m kielty


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was not my intention to be patronizing.

I was trying to explain how I came to apprehend non-objective art and by the comparison with music suggest to those who don't care for Modern Art a way to understand it.

It isn't a matter of being aesthetically challenged. One of my points is that most of us get a fair amount of training in how to read literature and very little training in art appreciation. Except for the rare and gifted few, aesthetic appreciation does not come naturally, or without education.

It takes education to appreciate literature. My public high school English teachers taught us how to read literature, explained the form and structure of the novel, and generally tried to help us appreciate the difference between good literature and the not-so-good.

My wife was an English major in college. She was taught how to read through the lens of the "New Criticism" that was current in the 50's and '60's. She is better able to read and appreciate literature than she would have been had she not studied what she did.

It is not, I believe, patronizing to say that one is better equipped to appreciate art or literature if you have studied them.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting.
My criticism was aimed at Curator and JLPWCXIII.

m kielty


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Curator_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_I was away from Berkeley for a year. During that time I took drawing classes with Al Leslie when he taught at UCLA. He was in the midst of his hyper realist change, painting nine foot tall superrealistic nudes in tones of grey. (Leslie was a major Abstract Expressionist. His move to realism was a significant event in post-modernism. He is worth a google) This prepared me for my return to a dramatically changed department. The realists had taken over. Only they wern't as good as Leslie. I counterattacked with somewhat large (8'x10' paintings of houses. I managed to graduate and subsequently went underground.

I also had the good fortune to take classes with Erle Loran who was the first to write about Cezanne's distortions. Loran's book on Cezanne's compositions is still an inspiration.(Actually, if one wants to see how Modern Art got started, buy a copy of Loran's book.)

I place a premium on originality. I see no point in being very good at doing something that has already been done. I believe I have moved on from Abstract Expressionism of my youth to something else; something that is mostly "about" paint.

Regards,
Gurdon_


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

Some people, in spite of all the education and edification they have received, just don't "get it."

I don't care if they went to Harvard or Oxford, or received tutoring on the finer points of Marcel Proust or Virgil, there is almost simply no way for them to understand the art. Sometimes, they only have a grudging respect, instead of simply respect.

At times, it seems to me, that teaching Joseph Campbell to high schoolers, etc. is more or less pointless.

And no, I'm not a disillusioned teacher.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote: Most consider Cezanne a "post-impressionist" for future reference


Depends upon which period of his career you are talking about, for future reference.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

I find it very interesting that - unless I have missed something - no Chinese, Japanese, or other non-Western painters have been mentioned.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> I find it very interesting that - unless I have missed something - no Chinese, Japanese, or other non-Western painters have been mentioned.


Not surprising, really: we're a pretty Eurocentric crowd. There's Gauguin, of course, but he hardly counts. How about Walter Spies, a German artist who lived and painted in Southeast Asia?

https://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~scsgcg/spies/spiefram.html

That's the best I can do.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I don't have any specific favorite painters. My mood in art changes much as my mood in life does.

However, I have never, ever understood or liked modern, post-modern non-representational, abstract art. Much of it in my opinion is not art at all. To a great extent I think abstract art, "found object sculptures" and other such things are little short of a fraud perpetrated against the general public.

Nor do I buy the argument that appreciating such art requires special understanding, education or skill. My skill at the piano has not increased my appreciation of non-melodic forms of music, heavy-metal, certain forms of bebop, etc. And my reading and viewing of paintings have not increased my appreciation of non-representational abstract paintings. In fact, the reverse is actually true. Before, I thought there was something profound about abstract art that I couldn't comprehend. Now I realize that there is nothing to comprehend.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> I find it very interesting that - unless I have missed something - no Chinese, Japanese, or other non-Western painters have been mentioned.


Sir, you have seen so clearly!
It poses a very interesting question,( at least to me).

What do the defenders of 19th century painting think of Chinese and Japanese painting?It seems so reductionist.
And the non-representational side,I guess might have some claim on it as a provinience, but other than that,it would seem it's formalism would be the antithesis of the credo of contemporary art.

m kielty


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> I find it very interesting that - unless I have missed something - no Chinese, Japanese, or other non-Western painters have been mentioned.


I also like Zhang DaQian, Wu Changsuo, Qi BaiShi, et al.

I have a few.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

I like Chinese and Japanese painting, but confess ignorance regarding their artists. I am somewhat familiar with different schools eg Southern Sung et al. 

I suppose I fall into a rather western tradition in that I love (and collect) Chinese porcelain. The main reason is just not shape and color, but the fine painting you find on the better pieces.

This probably reveals too much of my character but my fovorite art is that with which I live, or imagine myself living with. That leaves me with my 19th century still-lifes, 18th century engravings and 16th-19th century Chinese porcelain - and always dreaming of better....LOL


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

m kielty:

I wasn't sure whom you were refering to and I'm paranoid about coming across as arrogant.

Vladimir Berkov:

As a trained musician I presume you can judge the merits of a singer or instrumentalist, whether or not you like the music being performed. Likewise, you could recognize that a particular piece of music has merit while at the same time you might not like it. (I feel this way about a lot of stage music.) What I'm asking is that you consider a similar approach to visual art.

That is, try to distinguish between what is good, and bad, and what you like or find interesting. And try to make the stretch to acknowledge that work you dislike can, nonetheless, be good. 

As to the assertion that some categories of work are fraudulant, I think that you can't make such a statement just because you don't approve of the work. There were a number of very exciting artists working in Russia between 1917 and the early 1920's. Are you at all familiar with this work? Kasimir Malevitch is the one name that comes to mind at the moment and I can't find the referance with more names. A lot of the work I'm referring to was abstract. This group of artists was repressed by the Bolsheviks as they, like the Nazis, disapproved of modernist art.

I beleve it preferable to assume seriousness on the part of artists unless you actually have knowledge of fraud.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ROI (Aug 1, 2004)

Walt Whitman unwittingly presaged the greatest artist: He "contains multitudes." All the questions of art history, from pre-historic to post-modern, are subsumed in Andy Warhol.


"The whole thing is performance and prowess and feats of association. Why don't critics talk about those things - what a feat it was to turn that that way, and what a feat it was to remember that, to be reminded of that by this? Scoring. You've got to score." Robert Frost


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> Vladimir Berkov:
> 
> ...


I understand your point, and I think already practice it. There are many forms of music and art that I don't at all like but respect not only as valid forms of music and art but also good forms. For example, I don't really care for country music specifically, or baroque architecture or painting in general.

However, I believe that much of what passes for modern/abstract art is not art at all. As such, matters of taste really have nothing to do with it. It is as if someone were to ask me whether a scribbled note I have writton on a piece of paper on my desk concerning groceries was good art or bad art. Such a question is pointless because the note is not art at all. (Of course, I have seen things in the Guggenheim that made even LESS sense as art, but I digress...)

Basically I see modern art as the visual equivilant of someone slamming their arm across the piano keys and calling it music.



> quote:
> As to the assertion that some categories of work are fraudulant, I think that you can't make such a statement just because you don't approve of the work. There were a number of very exciting artists working in Russia between 1917 and the early 1920's. Are you at all familiar with this work? Kasimir Malevitch is the one name that comes to mind at the moment and I can't find the referance with more names. A lot of the work I'm referring to was abstract. This group of artists was repressed by the Bolsheviks as they, like the Nazis, disapproved of modernist art.
> 
> I beleve it preferable to assume seriousness on the part of artists unless you actually have knowledge of fraud.
> ...


I just googled that artist and if this is indeed one of the "respected" examples of his work, I must say I am unimpressed. Any idiot without any artistic education, skill or eye could create such a work. A black cross on a white background? It hardly even makes for a good looking flag. Perhaps it makes some incredible message that I would understand if I read some scholarly work on the reasons for its creation, the intent of the artist, etc, but if that is required to appreciate a work of art then that art as a medium has completely failed.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the image you posted has some merit. It is hard to comment without knowing more (dimensions, medium/a, date, title, if any) and without being able to see the actual painting.

The cross form is not symmetrical. This creates visual tension in the form itself and between the various edges of the form and the edges of the canvass. I can't tell from the reproduction whether the apparent texture and variation in color of the white ground is actually part of the painting or not. But there is a contrast between the white ground and its variation and the relatively uniform black of the cross. I think I see evidence of brush strokes in the black. It would be hard to say much more without a better reproduction, or actually looking at the painting.

As part of the process of looking at a painting I assume that the things I see are there on purpose. This painting is pretty simple, yet I do not think "any idiot" could have done it. I find pleasure in looking at paintings such as this and in figuring out the kinds of visual relationships that they have. I'm not asking you to like it. But I am asking that you acknowledge its seriousness and validity.

I think it would be wonderful if Curator and I could spend a few hours with you and some of the other forumites looking at and talking about pictures.

You might try googling Alfred Leslie. It would be instructive to see his early Abstract Expressionist work in light of his later hyper realist canvasses.

De Kooning's skill as an illustrator and draftsman is often referred to in discussions of his abstract paintings. I have always assumed this to be a way of validating his work. Sort of like saying he really can draw realistically if he wants to so this must be OK. I think it might be reassuring to know this about de Kooning, but his paintings stand on their own.

You can follow the progression from realism to geometric abstraction in Mondrian's paintings. Again, it may be interesting,to see how Mondrian got where he was going. But it isn't necessary to enjoy the work on its own terms.

You can see in Cezanne's paintings where Cubism came from.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> m kielty:
> they, like the Nazis, disapproved of modernist art.
> ...


Only page two, and already clumped with the Nazis. Thank-you, Godwin's Law.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gurdon,
You've gone from bad to worse in your defense.
(Also,you need to have a little more practice with the editing controls.)
Here's my bottom line for proofing what is and isn't art.
I learned this from one of my mentors regarding "the good stuff".

If you found it in the trash would you recognize it as art.

It's surprising how few do.
Most people need an expository text.

If it needs an explanation it probably has failed art's basic mission to validate for the rest of us that life is worth living.

mk


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know the referance to Godwin's Law.

It was not my intention to associate anyone with the Nazis. I was pointing out that the Bolsheviks and Nazis disapproved of modernism. I had in mind Hanah Arndt's discussion of totalitarianism and the idea that authoritarians are intolerant of that which defies convention and literalness.

I should have been more careful in how I tried to make my point. I apologize for misspeaking in a way that suggested such an odious comparison.

Gurdon


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> The cross form is not symmetrical. This creates visual tension in the form itself and between the various edges of the form and the edges of the canvass. I can't tell from the reproduction whether the apparent texture and variation in color of the white ground is actually part of the painting or not. But there is a contrast between the white ground and its variation and the relatively uniform black of the cross. I think I see evidence of brush strokes in the black. It would be hard to say much more without a better reproduction, or actually looking at the painting.
> 
> As part of the process of looking at a painting I assume that the things I see are there on purpose. This painting is pretty simple, yet I do not think "any idiot" could have done it. I find pleasure in looking at paintings such as this and in figuring out the kinds of visual relationships that they have. I'm not asking you to like it. But I am asking that you acknowledge its seriousness and validity.


Based on your justification for the painting, I don't think it has any validity as art. It may have validity as _design_ however. All products of human effort are going to evidence some sort of intential design and often the things may be visually appealing or interesting. For instance, somebody spent time and effort creating wallpaper patterns, but wallpaper is not art even though I can look at its design and try to figure out the "tensions" and "visual relationships" in the design.

The argument that some of these modern artists can paint realistically/representationally if they wanted to doesn't mean much. Each individual work has to stand on its own, and to some extent knowing such things only makes it worse. An untalented hack who draws the black cross "painting" is just an untalented hack who has managed to dupe a bunch of people into believing he is an artist. A real artist who wastes his time painting black crosses is wasting his true talent on garbage and the world is missing out on real work he could be creating instead.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

Other artists I am fond of:

Christian Schad

Otto Dix

Kees Van Dongen.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## Curator (Aug 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> I think it would be wonderful if Curator and I could spend a few hours with you and some of the other forumites looking at and talking about pictures.


Sounds great, I'm fascinated to hear your thoughts on contemporary art, and I think that just as many AskAndy members don't see much merit in the Black Cross picture, I don't think many people see more than just a Thomas Kinkade-esque pretty scene when they look at the kinds of art to which I've devoted my life and studies:

Sounds like as good an excuse as any for an AskAndy get together. We'll be the best dressed Museum-goers around. I nominate the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where I'll be working this summer.

-----------------------------------
"It is an old trick. The playgoer who does not like dirty plays is denounced as a prude; the music-lover who resents cacophony is told he is a pedant; and in all these matters the final crushing blow administered to the man of discrimination is the ascription to him of a hidebound prejudice against things that are new because they are new." -Royal Cortissoz


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Curator_
> Sounds great, I'm fascinated to hear your thoughts on contemporary art, and I think that just as many AskAndy members don't see much merit in the Black Cross picture, I don't think many people see more than just a Thomas Kinkade-esque pretty scene when they look at the kinds of art to which I've devoted my life and studies:


Thank-you for the exquisite image, Curator. Constable and Kinkade are no more in the same universe as are George W Bush and Pitt the Younger, though you are probably sadly correct in that most will not appreciate the distinctions.

In short, the Constable painting makes me aspire to the heavens; the Malevitch makes me wince.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_
> 
> I just googled that artist and if this is indeed one of the "respected" examples of his work, I must say I am unimpressed. Any idiot without any artistic education, skill or eye could create such a work. A black cross on a white background? It hardly even makes for a good looking flag. Perhaps it makes some incredible message that I would understand if I read some scholarly work on the reasons for its creation, the intent of the artist, etc, but if that is required to appreciate a work of art then that art as a medium has completely failed.
> 
> _


_

To be perfectly honest, I would find it very difficult to create such a work. To get the exact balance of movement, depth, contrast in texture and light, etc. would be extremely difficult to get just right. Anything I could do would look clumsy and insignificant. I'm not saying this is a great work, but it's got something. It's also very difficult to judge it from a photo. You need to see its real size and the textures of the materials.

A lot of abstract stuff looks easy until you actually try and do it yourself. In fact when you try and do it yourself you get a different view on painting altogether._


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Speaking of early 20th Century Russians, I love the graphic pieces by the Stenberg brothers. There was an exhibition of their work at MOMA 7 or 8 years ago, and it was a total knockout.

Am I remembering correctly this about Malevitch:

At one point he was compelled to paint more traditional pictures. He would include a little abstract thing in the corner, about the size of fly; this he considered the "real" painting.

Like him or not, that's a pretty cool story.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are right about design/wallpaper. One of the Bauhaus principles was the practical application of Modernism to utiltarian ends. This is comparable to the Arts and Crafts Movement application of Pre-Raphaelite aesthetics to furniture and wall paper. (One of my favorite neckties is based on a William Morris wallpaper pattern.)

Much European abstraction (early 20th Century) is far too rigid and geometrical for my taste. Likewise I don't care for the anthromorphical shapes of Miro and others. Although, there is in the Miro museum in Barcelona a series of late paintings that are entirely, as nearly as one can tell, non representational. One in particular, about 5' tall and 6' or 7' wide, (It may be larger, but the proportions are correct.) is beautiful and simple. It consists of one slightly curving dark line against a light ground. The line goes diagonally from near the upper right corner to near the lower left corner. (I think I remember correctly as to which corners. I sent someone the postcard of the painting, which I intended to keep.) The shape and curves of the line are exactly right.

That an abstract painter can draw accurately doesn't mean much in terms of validating the non-representational work was my point. I think we agree on this. That having been said, I believe that drawing something without the crutch of realism is somewhat harder than producing a satisfactory illustration of something. In the latter instance you have the subject against which to compare and judge your illustration. The non-rpresentational "picture" has to stand on formal terms, which are a bit more difficult to master. (El Greco's work is, by the way, a good example of representational work that stands also on formal terms.)
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems to me that you take an inordinate amount of pride in hating any modern art. With all of the energy that you expend doing so, you might benefit from reading some books and spending some time in museums. The ability to like and understand new things is much better for your life than the joy from disparaging them.

As far as Malevitch goes, I am sorry to say that I am not entirely familiar with his work. If the black cross is a good example, I am sure to be a big fan. As Gurdon tried to point out, much of the enjoyment in modern art is the emotion that each piece tries to project. It is not just seeing the quality of a brushstroke, or the beauty of a landscape, it is a much more psychological experience.

I think the observation made about the communists and nazis regarding modern art is a worthwhile one. Modern abstract art is an individual pursuit. It is an individual who sees and paints, and it is an individual who interprets and enjoys. No two people will do it the same way. The two political philosophies above are collectivist philosophies. If you are painting a landscape in a way that others cannot see it, you are looked at as being subversive. You are not a team player, but an individual. This is frowned upon. This is not to disparage classical art, which can be magnificent, but to disparage the point of view that anything different is crap.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Gurdon, Iammatt:

Your comments about emotion in modern art are well taken, and get to the heart of what Malevich was attempting to do.

Kasimir Malevich
"Suprematism"
c. 1915
https://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/malevich.html

"It appears to me that, for the critics and the public, the painting of Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, etc., has become nothing more than a conglomeration of countless "things," which conceal its true value the feeling which gave rise to it. The virtuosity of the objective representation is the only thing admired.

If it were possible to extract from the works of the great masters the feeling expressed in them the actual artistic value, that is and to hide this away, the public, along with the critics and the art scholars, would never even miss it.

So it is not at all strange that my square seemed empty to the public.

If one insists on judging an art work on the basis of the virtuosity of the objective representation the verisimilitude of the illusion and thinks he sees in the objective representation itself a symbol of the inducing emotion, he will never partake of the gladdening content of a work of art.

The general public is still convinced today that art is bound to perish if it gives up the imitation of "dearly loved reality" and so it observes with dismay how the hated element of pure feeling abstraction makes more and more headway ...."


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

my favorites for the most part are from the german speaking world around wwi and the short period after, as well as a few others that fell in with that crowd.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Some favorites:

Kenneth Noland, not a favorite artist, but a particularly great piece:



Paul Klee, one of the greats:


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

Perhaps some of you should read Heidegger.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> Some favorites:


...


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

They put Constable on cookie tins because he is accessible.

This work is by one of the Twentieth Century's most famous artists.










Maybe your all full of the brown stuff..

mk


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> 
> They put Constable on cookie tins because he is accessible.
> 
> ...


Silly, unsophisticated Papists. Why didn't they have something like that on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel instead of that Michelangelo rubbish?

[}][}][}]

I think I'll have a nap now. Hopefully when I awake, the world will no longer be mad.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Robert Gober:

Maurizio Cattelan:




























Great Cattelan installation in Milan:


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

Some other compelling artworks:

Hans Bellmer

Odilon Redon

Pierre Molinier

Otto Dix

Tseng Kwong Chi

Arcimboldo










The Chapman Brothers
*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## rudiddy (Aug 10, 2005)

My interests are fairly wide-ranging:

- Contemporary: Wassily Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian
- Surrealism: Joan Miro
- Post-Impressionists: Henri Rousseau, Paul Gauguin

If I had to select only one favorite, it would be Fitz Hugh Lane (Hudson River School).


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

One of the more fascinating categories of art - of humanity in general - is that produced by autistic artists, or those afflicted with Savant Syndrome. The wax oil crayon drawings of Richard Wawro are particularly impressive - and strange. For all their precision, Wawro's drawings have an unearthly quality that is both disturbing and attractive, as if they provide a glimpse an alternate reality.

Wawro's website contains several galleries of his work.

https://www.wawro.net/index.html

Stephen Wiltshire's drawings and paintings are also amazing:

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## alastair (May 21, 2008)

I like paintings by Boldini, Singer Sargent and Tissot. But some think of these artists paintings as being to chocolate box


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wish I knew the painters name who painted the picture of the fox hunt with the fox riding the last horse.

The 60s optical illuisions some are good.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The Mona Lisa.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Andrew Wyeth


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Atkinson Grimshaw


----------

