How do you price a piece of art or creativity?

[blazeofglory]

Is it possible at all to price creativity? I do not like the way creative works are measured in monetary values. In today's world your success is measured by the number of laurels you received and the size of cash prize you pocketed. Money is okay and everyone needs it. But money is not as great as creative jobs. A piece of music can of course elevate your soul and you ascend heavenward in rapturously. Can you soar so high with your bucks? When one composes a piece of music the way Mozart did or any other composers are doing today can a bundle of notes equate the profundity of fulfillment he had while composing the note of music? I am also a writer and often I feel unjustified when a publisher tries to cheat on me. If he pays low I feel okay but when I feel disrespected or if he tries to buy me with his cash I feel agonized deeply. One has to completely dedicate oneself and take a dip in the ocean of inventive works to emerge as a writer. It is not that easy to be James Joyce though he got unjustifiably overrated. There is a vast amount of work, dedication and involvedness behind his success to stand out as a writer outstripping the rest in the game. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky lived for creative works. Can their works be measured by lucre?

Economic values and creative values are polar opposites and if anybody tries to measure creativity with cheap money it becomes excruciating.

[MystyrMystyry]

Well money is a reward for a job well done

You take the money, you go for a holiday, gain new experiences, gives you something new and interesting to write about, you sell the experience, you take the money and go on a holiday...

I know someone who is a travel correspondent for a newspaper - France, Singapore, Greece, South Africa, India, Scotland, and then she comes home for a holiday for a few weeks a year

It all depends on the kind of life you want to live and how you're going to do it - once you've written something you share it, and if a publisher offers you something for it, well, take their offer - and then run like a thief!

[Alexander III]

I have to disagree with you last sentence

Tolstoy was a rich count, who dedicated his life (before all the religious hooha) to his art, but he could only do that due to the enormous amounts of money he inherited.

Dostoyevsky on the other hand composed many of his works to pay of his gambling debts, for example The Idiot was written because he had to.

As to how to value art works, well this is tough, especially if we look at modern painting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

The Boy With The Pipe, 6th on the list is one of Picasso's lesser juvenile works, and yet it is his most expensive painting.

Truth is for everyone else who is not a writer or artist, the arts are a business, just like speculation or steel. Many artists get to ride with their works and enjoy wealth, the majority don't. But wealth does not equal success. For every moderately talented Andy Warhol there is a genius Cezzane who dies in relative poverty.

"A piece of music can of course elevate your soul and you ascend heavenward in rapturously. Can you soar so high with your bucks?"

Well the soul is a romantic abstract concept which is hard to evaluate, and money can buy you great pleasures which may be equally pleasurable as reading War and Peace. and ironically that money can be used to buy great works of art as well, the best of both worlds.

[stlukesguild]

Robert Hughes is one of the strongest voices against the gross commodification of art. Anyone interested in the subject should view his short video, The Mona Lisa Curse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbQ0GqX0Its

(This is part one of 12)

Hughes is appalled at the gross over-inflation of art prices which make it seem that its primary value is economic, and which increasingly makes art inaccessible to the public as even museums are unable to afford the best works:

When you have the super-rich paying
for an immature Rose Period Picasso
$104m (£57m), close to the GNP of some
Caribbean or African states, something is
very rotten: such gestures do no honour
to art: they debase it by making the desire
for it pathological.

As with anything else, the price is based upon supply and demand. A piece of crap by Andy Warhol might sell for more than a marvelous painting by Goya because the market has created a demand for Warhol. When the Renaissance patrons... even the most rapacious... prided themselves on their sophistication and culture, today's super-rich often pass that responsibility down to dealers and agents who tell them what to buy. This manipulation of the market has resulted in a number of grossly over-priced art superstars and collectors who are willing to spend tens if not hundreds of millions on mediocre... if not bad art, while there are thousands of artists turning out far more interesting work that sells for peanuts relatively:

Most of the time they buy what other
people buy. They move in great schools,
like bluefish, all identical. There is
safety in numbers. If one wants Schnabel,
they all want Schnabel, if one buys a
Keith Haring, two hundred Keith Harings
will be sold.

Hughes, however, and here I fully agree, does not accept the notion that money itself is the problem:

The idea that money, patronage
and trade automatically corrupts the
wells of imagination is a pious fiction,
believed by some utopian lefties and
a few people of genius such as
(William) Blake but flatly contradicted
by history itself.

On the whole, money does artists
much more good than harm. The
idea that one benefits from cold
water, crusts and debt collectors
is now almost extinct, like belief
in the reformatory power of flogging.

Art has always followed wealth and power. In a way, art is a luxury dependent upon the financial well-being of the larger culture as a whole. Societies who spend the lion's share of their labors at just attempting meet their necessities of living do not generally have the time, the resources, or the inclination to create art. It is far easier to create as an artist when one is not overly concerned about where one's next meal is coming from. The notion of the "starving artist" is indeed a Romantic fantasy.

[Vlad Dracula]

Blazeofglory, you are right! Nowadays the value of creativity is given by the prizes and amounts of money. Somebody said "Do not focus on gaining money, but to fulfill people's needs! Create a good product that people need, they will love it and later the money will come, too!" Everything due to the good work you did FIRST!

This could also be applied to art and literature. Is there any famous writer, singer or painter who knew before creating, what celebrity would bring his creation? Of course, no!

The answer to your question is: I appreciate the value of a thing by the feelings wakes up in me, by the detailed and interesting information offers me! I love when a book/ documentary/ movie/ brings me something new and useful for my knowledge!

[cyberbob]

Price is a reflection of demand for something relative to its scarcity.

Since all art is unique, the determining factor would be how much people want it.

If you're getting lowballed then it's because the publisher thinks it will not sell well. Price says nothing inherently about the quality of something.

There is no dichotomy between the economic value and creative value of something; you just have a poor understanding of economics.

[john7]

I agree.
http://pages.eggge.com/images/52.gif

[mal4mac]

Hughes is appalled at the gross over-inflation of art prices which make it seem that its primary value is economic, and which increasingly makes art inaccessible to the public...

If this makes 'some people' think the primary value of art is economic then that is the fault of 'some people', or of the education system, not the super-rich. Most people can't visit more than a few art galleries, so original arts works are fairly inaccessible anyway.

With excellent reproductions & books who needs the original? I recently read "Leonardo and the Mona Lisa Story" by Donald Sassoon and got more out of that than I did from seeing the Mona Lisa - in the Louvre you can only see it at a distance, through a crowd, and the lighting wasn't very good.

Sasoon's books provides several reproductions and close up views, as well as very useful text & other paintings. Also, you can linger for hours over a book, you certainly can't before the actual Mona Lisa!

I'd be happy for the super-rich to own whatever they want as long as they give access to the paintings for superb reproductions in fine books. (Do most of them allow that?)

[Alexander III]

If this makes 'some people' think the primary value of art is economic then that is the fault of 'some people', or of the education system, not the super-rich. Most people can't visit more than a few art galleries, so original arts works are fairly inaccessible anyway.

With excellent reproductions & books who needs the original? I recently read "Leonardo and the Mona Lisa Story" by Donald Sassoon and got more out of that than I did from seeing the Mona Lisa - in the Louvre you can only see it at a distance, through a crowd, and the lighting wasn't very good.

Sasoon's books provides several reproductions and close up views, as well as very useful text & other paintings. Also, you can linger for hours over a book, you certainly can't before the actual Mona Lisa!

I'd be happy for the super-rich to own whatever they want as long as they give access to the paintings for superb reproductions in fine books. (Do most of them allow that?)

The problem that Hughes is outlining is not against the super rich owning lots of art, that has always been a given, if you take that away most artists starve. The super rich owning art is fine and dandy, as they often let some works go on museum tours for the public as well.

The problem is that the modern day super rich, don't know a fig about art and have consultants tell them to buy. So you have MASSIVE amounts of money being spent on bad artwork, or artwork which is nowhere near that value. So there is a huge inflation of art prices which has little to do with quality of the work, that is the main problem as Hughes outlines it.

[IceM]

Excellent artistry is deservingly rewarded with large payments, yet artistry receiving large payments isn't necessarily excellent.

Art specifically intended for making money is typically of lesser quality than art produced for art's sake. Of course, all art at some level is for receiving payment and having the ability to live comfortably; yet one may find that, in art seeking to achieve a greatness beyond what's populist and valuable, large payments may come naturally.

[The Comedian]

When I first read the question in the title of this thread, all I could think of is this: "How desperate for money is the seller?" ;)

[MystyrMystyry]

When I first read the question in the title of this thread, all I could think of is this: "How desperate for money is the seller?" ;)

Fair point - it is true that visiting an artist's studio will give you a different perspective on their creative process than attending a retrospective exhibition

You will likely find walls lined with art that are simply not for sale at any price - these are often the breakthrough moments the artist will use as templates for all further work of a series submitted to a gallery

There's a big difference between desperation and love, think how many win the lottery and know exactly how to waste the fortune, vs those who have already found what brings them happiness - and it's incorruptible

If you win the lottery Blaze, would you return or donate the money because you didn't 'earn' it?

[stlukesguild]

If this makes 'some people' think the primary value of art is economic then that is the fault of 'some people', or of the education system, not the super-rich.

Certainly, there is a problem with the arts and education. Literature (to a greater or lesser degree) is taught because of its link with reading/literacy... and too a lesser extent, history. Education in music and the visual arts are grossly lacking in most public schools. I attended one of the top rated public schools in the state, and yet I graduated without having gained the least exposure to art history. I learned most of what I now know through my own efforts.

The link between economics and the "value" of the arts is inherently supported by popular culture and the media. We have the Billboard charts of the top-selling recordings, the New York Times Best Seller List which follows the sales of books, the weekly gross of the latest blockbuster films are dutifully reported as if the fact that Spiderman 3 grossed $127 million over the weekend proves that it's a great film; and virtually the only time that painting or sculpture makes it into the mainstream press is when some painting by Van Gogh or Picasso sells for the equivalent of the GNP of some Latin-American nations. On more than one occasion I have witnessed museum tourists flocking to a Van Gogh, while declaring, "Oooh! This one's a Van Gogh, dear. I just heard his last painting sold for $X million at auction." Then the proceed to snap pictures of each other standing before the painting/celebrity without ever really bothering to actually look at it.

Most people can't visit more than a few art galleries, so original arts works are fairly inaccessible anyway.

Why is that? Unless we are speaking of those living in rural Appalachia the vast majority of those living in the West are near enough to any number of art galleries and museums. These same individuals have no problem driving to the ballpark or Disneyworld. If art is a priority in your life, there is little problem at seeing it in person. While still a dirt-poor college student I made regular trips to see the museums in New York, Washington, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toledo, Detroit, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Chicago, etc...

With excellent reproductions & books who needs the original?

The reproduction in art is far removed from the original. The actual scale of the work (it's relationship to the physical body of the viewer), the ability to see the true surface and read how the paint was applied or built up in layers, the true colors, and even the context or setting are essential. I cannot count just how many paintings that I found mildly interesting in reproduction but eye-opening in person.

I recently read "Leonardo and the Mona Lisa Story" by Donald Sassoon and got more out of that than I did from seeing the Mona Lisa - in the Louvre you can only see it at a distance, through a crowd, and the lighting wasn't very good.

This is part of the problem that Hughes speaks out against. The Mona Lisa is but one of many marvelous Renaissance portraits. Indeed, the Louvre itself houses a better painting by Leonardo:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5754693129_aa6c6434f8_b.jpg

The Mona Lisa, however, has been turned into an icon. It is literally the most famous painting in the world. As a result it is housed like the Declaration of Independence as if it were a holy relic and access is limited to those without the proper credentials.

Sasoon's books provides several reproductions and close up views, as well as very useful text & other paintings. Also, you can linger for hours over a book, you certainly can't before the actual Mona Lisa!

Yes... just as you can linger for hours (if you are so inclined) over pictures of Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, or Christina Hendricks... but somehow I imagine this experience leaves something to be desired in comparison to real life.

I'd be happy for the super-rich to own whatever they want as long as they give access to the paintings for superb reproductions in fine books. (Do most of them allow that?)

The problem isn't the "super-rich", per se. It is first of all the gross inflation of art prices that has taken even museums out of the game when it comes to being able to purchase major works... thus lessening public access. Secondly, it is the general ignorance when it comes to art of many of these super-rich buyers. Whereas the Renaissance collector honed up on the subject, developed a sense of taste, and bought that which he or she truly admired. If we look to the shift from the patronage system to the market system which took place in 17th century Holland, we still find the bourgeois collector... less knowledgeable, admittedly... but still buying what he or she personally liked. In today's market, the collectors run in packs... buying what others like... what interior designers, professional buyers and dealers tell them is good or "important". The greatest profits, for the dealers, are obviously to be found in the work that can be most rapidly produced and by linking prices with "value" in the minds of the public as well as the collectors we have arrived at a state in which the latest faddish artists are canonized as geniuses, while there are any number of far more talented artists are largely ignored by the press.

Thus we got a wealth of half-a** paintings passed off as "expressive":

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3507/5754964143_d9998aa203.jpg

churned out at the rate of 100 or 200+ large-scale paintings a year (Castelli famously declared that he would show no artist that couldn't complete 75 paintings a year... which would eliminate virtually all the old masters) lacking any of the sensitivity to color and line and composition found in the real expressionist paintings of Van Gogh, Max Beckmann, or Mark Rothko.

Or we got the blank paintings of Minimalism:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5755508214_3299444a8c.jpg

or the mindless "conceptual art" of Vito Aconci masturbating under a platform in the gallery, or Manzoni selling cans of his own sh** :

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5225/5754964221_d7ab94e5a7.jpg

which might indeed be taken as a brilliant cynical comment on the fact that the current crop of buyers would buy any sh** as long as it had the artist's name/logo attached.

Andy Warhol... or rather Leo Castelli, the marketing genius behind him... took the marketing of art to its logical conclusion: Art no longer needed to be the product of the artist's hand... or even his idea... it could be mass-produced like Hallmark Cards. All that mattered was the signature... the logo... the name brand. Warhol or Hirst or Koons are but name-brands like those of fashion designers. Just as we know that Versace dresses are not actually made... or even designed by Versace... so it matters not that Jeff Koons didn't actually have the least to do with Micheal and Bubbles:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5755508258_6f0bba644f_b.jpg

The last problem that Hughes confronts with regard to how money has distorted art, is the fact that the manipulation of the market has carried over into the institutions that should be beyond their influence: the art schools, the critics, and the museums. The art schools have moved from attempting to teach the basic necessary skills needed by artists to promoting the latest fads. The art critics write almost exclusively for magazines dependent upon the advertizing dollars of galleries and dealers whose work they are expected to critique objectively. (Robert Hughes is one of the voices not impacted by this collusion as he writes for Time Magazine). The museums are dependent upon the trustees who in many cases are collectors of such crap. These trustees push museums into offering retrospectives and exhibiting works of art as a means of legitimizing the trustee's personal collections and maintaining the monetary worth. Whereas in past generations it quickly became obvious which works of art were but fads and these were rapidly relegated to basement storage, the amount invested in contemporary art today... much of which is quite bad... is so great that the collectors cannot afford to allow the reputations of artists wane. It will probably take generations before we can look objectively at Warhol or Schnabel, or Koons.

[Drkshadow03]

Excellent artistry is deservingly rewarded with large payments, yet artistry receiving large payments isn't necessarily excellent.

Art specifically intended for making money is typically of lesser quality than art produced for art's sake. Of course, all art at some level is for receiving payment and having the ability to live comfortably; yet one may find that, in art seeking to achieve a greatness beyond what's populist and valuable, large payments may come naturally.

Eh. I don't think there is an easy line between art for art's sake and art for money's sake in the field of literature anyway. To understand why you'd have to know what the typical writer makes and actually know some writers and why they write.

My experience is with SF, fantasy, and horror writers. In supposedly "popular" fields like SF and fantasy, the average first-time fantasy or SF novel makes between about $5000 advance. The average writer in those fields with multiple sales get $12,500 advance. Don't quit your day job! Given those numbers anyone who thinks they're going to write the next Harry Potter and become a bagillionare is an idiot and doesn't know much about what the average writing actually makes or is really confident in their luck and the appeal of their work.

I would even suggest most writers write (no matter what the genre or skill in the craft) because they have a passion for writing or telling stories. While I doubt many SF writers would say they write for art's sake, you would probably get responses to the "why do you write" with answers like, "I just have a passion for science fiction" or "I have a need to write or tell my story" or even "I believe speculative fiction provides the best backdrop for the social issues I want to deal with."

So I don't think it's so simple as splitting artists, writers, or whomever into two easily defined groups as: those who do it primarily for the money and those who do it for the art. Even fairly mediocre artists can have a genuine passion for the art they produce.

[stlukesguild]

So I don't think it's so simple as splitting artists, writers, or whomever into two easily defined groups as: those who do it primarily for the money and those who do it for the art. Even fairly mediocre artists can have a genuine passion for the art they produce.

Of course... and from my experience with the visual arts it is quite often the "professional" artists who are making a living from their work who are accused by the young, naive amateurs of being in it solely for the money... not for the passion. They often embrace Romantic notions of what art is and what the artist's life should be, and are frequently repulsed by the reality of the life of the working artist which involves a great deal of self-discipline and structure.

[MystyrMystyry]

Good point Drkshadow, the various reasons for creating art are often quite different than what the money men realise (or for that matter the patrons and general public attending an exhibition)

The best thing you can do if you're a buyer/investor is buy what you 'like', that which speaks to you personally, and avoid all unbalanced unsupported hype


I'm not fully sold on your argument StLukes, though I agree in essence that some art is complete (and intentionally) rubbish, the absolute fact is that the Age of the Great Masters is gone, and has been for more than a century

Though there are good modern copyists and stylists, there have been too many 'schools' to state with authority what is wrong with modern art (that is, what is current)

Take Titian (whom you'll probably have a better example to post than I could hurriedly dig up) who was a modern painter in every sense except for the age he lived in - his style owed little to the prevalent trends of his time, nor even of classical art before it -this doesn't make his paintings any less than a Rubens or Raphael - they are each expressing themselves, not necessarily their 'age', but finding a balance in what is acceptable and what is adventurous (listen to the first two symphonies of Beethoven, and then follow up with Eroica)

Artists and art are basically harmless, if culture altering, and those that attend an art college to learn how to become a successful (self-supporting) artist versus a pseudo-Grand Master of limited appeal then you will likely hear more about the former than the latter, and they'll be therefore more susceptible to adverse criticism


Robert Hughes is a stale old fart

[mortalterror]

Secondly, it is the general ignorance when it comes to art of many of these super-rich buyers. Whereas the Renaissance collector honed up on the subject, developed a sense of taste, and bought that which he or she truly admired. If we look to the shift from the patronage system to the market system which took place in 17th century Holland, we still find the bourgeois collector... less knowledgeable, admittedly... but still buying what he or she personally liked. In today's market, the collectors run in packs... buying what others like... what interior designers, professional buyers and dealers tell them is good or "important".

A circumspect view of history will show that as often as not collectors were fools with terrible taste who understood nothing about the art they patronized and frequently employed the type of buyers you detest, even in the Renaissance. And no matter what your boyfriend Hughes says, that painting isn't as good as the Mona Lisa.

[PeterL]

There are many different players in the field of creativity. Since this is a literature forum, I will just consider literature. The principal players in literature are authors, publishers, wholesalers, retailers, and readers. All of them have interestes in literature and in reasonably valuing works of literature, but all of them have other issues. Authors have their personal creativity to express, and they want to be compensated for their work. Readers want literature that they like, but there are many different preferences in literature. Publishers want to find buy rights to and oublish works that will be popular among raders, but they have their preferences, much like readers. The methd for paying authors that has been in place for about 00 years is fairer than what preceded it, but it restricts access to selling to publishers. The emerging online epublishing system appears to be capable of finding a balance between authors and readers without intermediation by publishers, etc.

Regardless of how one loks at publishing, it amounts to being a decades long auction that sets the prices. As a reader I think that there is too much published that has no value to me. As an author, I think that there are too many authors trying to sell their writing. In both roles I am not unhappy with the pricing; although I can't imagine why anyone would buy a hardcover or trade paperback any more. I can imagine the book market going mostly to ebooks and instant printing systems with print rins for textbooks, reference works, and a few very popular books. I think that that would result in a resurgance in the used book market.

[stlukesguild]

And no matter what your boyfriend Hughes says, that painting isn't as good as the Mona Lisa.

And your critical opinion is based on what again? Your extensive formal training in art, art criticism, etc...?

[prickly_pete]

So the National Endowment for the Arts - which is admittedly pathetic in the United States compared to other countries - that gives thousands of grants to artists supposedly to produce and promote art for the cultural benefit of the public - is this just a corruption of art as well? By what criteria are these buyers 'ignorant' of the art they're buying? I don't know that I have the answers to these questions, but I don't think anyone has seriously addressed them here.

[mortalterror]

And your critical opinion is based on what again? Your extensive formal training in art, art criticism, etc...?

My eye, and five centuries of art criticism. Usually, you are the one who cries foul when some loon makes a flimsy ridiculous statement opposed to common sense and established canon without bothering to back up his bluster.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not fully sold on your argument StLukes, though I agree in essence that some art is complete (and intentionally) rubbish, the absolute fact is that the Age of the Great Masters is gone, and has been for more than a century

In what way. To speak of the "Age of the Great Masters" is to assume the existence of some period in which art attained an ideal against which all later art is measured. I accept the notion of some ideal canon ala T.S. Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent... the notion that every great new work of art struggles to make a place for itself within the canon... and this process involves comparison... but not a comparison based upon set ideal standards. In other words, one may certainly compare Matisse with Raphael... but the comparison cannot be one way street in which the standards of one artist/era are set up as the ideal measure against which all must succeed or fail.

It is quite likely that we are not living in one of the peak moments in art history... at least with regard to the traditional arts of painting, sculpture, etc... Considering film and photography, however, we may find that this era is quite productive. However... limiting the discussion to the traditional "fine arts" (painting, sculpture, print, drawing, architecture....) we would almost certainly need to give the laurels to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in comparison... the period of High Modernism... which was almost certainly one of the most productive and earth-shattering periods since the Renaissance. It resulted in challenges to the accepted notion that the central aim of painting was to create an illusionary window upon reality. In the process, Modernism opened up the Western artists to a wealth of potential possibilities, perhaps most importantly recognizing the value of pre-Renaissance and non-Western art. Just as the Renaissance was followed by Mannerism and the Baroque by the Rococo... lesser movements in which the artists often seem to be struggling to come to terms with the innovations wrought before them, we are quite likely living through a similar period in which the great innovations wrought by Modernism are being digested. As in the period of Mannerism and the Rococo there are artists of unquestionable ability... but perhaps not quite to the extent as existed during Modernism. I could name a few artists who almost certainly will retain their stature as the leading painters of the day (although we might argue about the inclusion of this or that individual), but the wealth of truly talented painters and sculptors leads one to imagine something akin to the "Little Dutch Masters": a wide array of painters worthy of recognition... if not on the level of Picasso, Rembrandt, or Michelangelo... then certainly equal to Jan Steen, Ruisdael, de Witte, or Terborch. Watteau, Fragonard, Boucher, etc...

Though there are good modern copyists and stylists, there have been too many 'schools' to state with authority what is wrong with modern art.

There is not anything "wrong" with Modern or Contemporary Art. The problems lie with the way art is promoted and marketed... with the current system of dealers, buyers, and other power-brokers. Already chinks in this system are developing. The internet has become one venue to challenge the hegemony of the powerful art brokers. Many artists are beginning to recognize that there is no single, monolithic "art world", but rather a collection of smaller "art worlds" each having its own goals and standards and audiences.

Take Titian (whom you'll probably have a better example to post than I could hurriedly dig up) who was a modern painter in every sense except for the age he lived in - his style owed little to the prevalent trends of his time, nor even of classical art before it...

Actually, Titian's art was firmly rooted in the traditions of the Renaissance which he inherited. Titian was a master of the Venetian School. The Venetian artists were virtually forced by circumstance into developing the possibilities of the relatively new medium of oil paint on canvas as opposed to egg tempera on panel or fresco.

Venice was a powerful seaport and a great economic and cultural rival to Florence and Rome. Because of the extreme humidity and the constant threat of flooding, fresco painting was virtually an impossibility. The alternatives of egg tempera or egg tempera with oil glazes were almost as susceptible to humidity, but more importantly, they greatly limited the scale and speed at which the artist might work. If the Venetian artists were to produce a body of large decorative paintings for the architectural settings of Venice they need a new approach. Having access to a wealth of canvas (as a seaport) artists found they could seal the canvas fibers with a primer and paint directly on the canvas with oil paints. The resulting paintings were far lighter and far more impervious to humidity.

The first major artist of the Venetian School were the Bellinis: Jacopo (father) Gentile and Giovanni (his sons) as well as Andrea Mantegna (their brother-in law). The Bellini's already were developing many of the key elements of the Venetian style that Titian would inherit: the manner of working directly in oil paint, the use of transparent glazes to capture a sense of atmosphere and brilliant color, the use of sfumato, or a softening of edges... again suggesting atmosphere, a love of landscape and the pastoral theme and the frequent use of the horizontal composition.

Some of these elements are already visible in the work of Jacopo Bellini...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5027/5759749383_cf21d147e7_b.jpg

... and clearly present in the paintings of Gentile Bellini...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2139/5760292902_d96f4739e0_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3504/5760292932_f37fffa741_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5227/5760293046_afd98855cf_b.jpg

The second half of the 15th century is largely dominated by Gentile and Giovanni Bellini and their brother-in-law, Andrea Mantegna. By the early 16th century this trio is joined by the Mercurial and brief-lived Giorgione as well as Titian... who will be joined by mid-century Tintoretto, Veronese, and El Greco. This 100 year period, commonly known as the "Golden Age of Venetian Painting", is thought by many to have been the greatest moment in Western painting. A great many of the elements and techniques that dominate painting to this day were developed during this span of incredible cross-fertilization.

As brilliant as Titian was... (and one should make no mistake, he is commonly acknowledged as an equal to Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael, a major influence on Tintoretto, Veronese, Rembrandt, Rubens, Velasquez, Delacroix... and even Mark Rothko, and the virtual founder of the so-called "painterly" school of painting that will inspire Rembrandt, Rubens, Velasquez, and eventually the Impressionists)... he was certainly not unique... an outsider... or somehow falling outside of the tradition he was born into.

Let's look a bit at his oeuvre:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/5760326192_2ba08ab170_b.jpg

This early portrait of an unknown nobleman, commonly known as The Man with the Blue Sleeves, is quite marvelous... sensitive in the touch and softened edges... as well as the masterful characterization of the sitter as an individual.

Of course the painting is build upon earlier models by Leonardo:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5760492686_557d226768_z.jpg

Raphael:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/5760492714_c427a42b81_z.jpg

and Bellini:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/5759749673_26232625b6_b.jpg

... as well as the brilliant Giorgione:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/5760526634_afdd273b55_b.jpg

continued...

His early renderings of the Holy Family...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/5760326318_47fb47d31d_b.jpg

... are just as indebted to Bellini...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/5759963385_ce3f8d9176_b.jpg

Looking at an early allegory such as Sacred and Profane Love...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5759783061_684aa5bb1d_b.jpg

one recognizes not only elements of Bellini's sacra conversaziones...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5760293214_8b97e02bf2_b.jpg

but also Giorgione's mysterious allegories:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/5759982701_409c0c70cd_b.jpg

Giorgione's brilliant pastoral paintings such as the Three Philosophers (above) as well as his Nativity...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2190/5759750051_0f7bc355a5_b.jpg

and the famous Fete Champetre...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/5760293466_afbea66ef5_b.jpg

(which Titian may have completed following Giorgione's untimely death) had a profound impact upon Venetian painting which can be seen in the pastoral and mythological works of Bellini (again possibly completed by Titian following the artist's death)...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/5760293370_0de1917392_b.jpg

as well as Mantegna...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/5760555784_b3584b0111_b.jpg

and of course Titian himself:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5759783421_c2a34ef748_b.jpg

Rather than Titian being so unique as to not have any true predecessors or a heritage upon which he built, the reality is that at times Titian, Bellini, and Giorgione... who were all working in close proximity and pushing the boundaries of painting... are virtually impossible for even the experts to tell apart. Again, this is not to suggest that Titian was but a mere copyist. Even his early paintings are undoubtedly brilliant... while his later works... in which the artist interjected an almost Baroque sense of drama and action... are simply stupendous:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5759783299_d62edd20f5_b.jpg

His Rape of Europa has been called by some "The Greatest Painting in America"... and I wouldn't be quick to dispute the claim.

Yet even as Titian's career develops, he continues to build upon the tradition in which he was born. The infamous Venus d'Urbino...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/5759782953_84d5f19cf5_b.jpg

clearly builds upon Giorgione's great Dresden Venus...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2493/5760293414_7ca2869495_b.jpg

which like Titian's "Venus" is in all actuality a "Venus" in name only. If truth be told, both are audacious paintings of naked women without the least trapping of religious or mythological narrative.

The great Danae...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5760326272_a435f77f4a_b.jpg

on the other hand, is clearly indebted to Michelangelo's Leda...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5760069275_a0dac7bf10_b.jpg

and his sculpture, Night, from the Medici Tombs:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/5760069307_45fa6c2124_b.jpg

Indeed, the heftier, "zaftig" figures of many of Titian's later works owe much to the examples of Michelangelo's muscular figures:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/5759783107_c7b5267fc5_b.jpg

even heading into his final years, Titian was freely borrowing from the imagery of his predecessors:

Mantegna:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2756/5760556006_490fe16033_b.jpg

Titian:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/5760326486_12c7f36ac4_z.jpg

Of course Titian's painting also echoes the great Augustus of Prima Porta which itself hearkens back to Greek models suggesting that Titian was not completely removed from the classical tradition.

My eye, and five centuries of art criticism. Usually, you are the one who cries foul when some loon makes a flimsy ridiculous statement opposed to common sense and established canon without bothering to back up his bluster.

Your eye? I don't know that I'd necessarily put much faith in your eye. Your good at recognizing the works canonized in the art history books... but not too good with Modern of Contemporary art... nor at even recognizing where one work is better than another if it falls outside the usual scope of the art history books and doesn't grab you with some complex narrative. Your focus on narrative is one of the problems of art critics. Art critics are writers... they deal in words and commonly are far more attuned to that which can be put into words. There are any number of instances in which even critics I greatly admire... Robert Hughes, David Sylvester, Donald Kuspit, John Ruskin, etc... make incredible misjudgements seduced by the narrative aspect of a given artist or art work.

You make the statement that the Mona Lisa is clearly superior to The Virgin of the Rocks... to such an extent that my suggestion that the latter is the superior work is ridiculous. Tell me then... without resorting to the critical opinion of others (there are many who revile the painting), its fame (and you might do well to recognize that the painting was truly not well-known until the 19th century) or its presumed influence upon others just what makes this painting so great... just what makes it better than The Virgin of the Rocks.

[JCamilo]

meh, Mortal is the classical latinist, his refusal towards Borges is only logical. He reckonizes the other latinist who does play the model. You are the classical Renaissentist. Your Borges love is the love of renaissence love for medieval allegories who had then another meaning. I possible fix in one model, but I will not name myself. JBI probally does too. He cann't be anti-american all the time. Eventually those discussions end with us. We basically nitpick, constest, ironize, etc. anyone else. Our right probally...

But you are both equal, art elitists who would give a damn for however says otherwise. To make any logic, Mortal just wanted you to bite the bait. Latinist are good at that - romans are sophists in political discurse, he got you of course. I was expecting Oscar Wilde all art is useless, just to point he got a lot of money with it....

[MystyrMystyry]

Ah - thanks StLukes

I might have better reviewed my post (actually meant Tintoretto - I've lost count of the amount of times I've confused their names), but you did, as usual, exceptionally well in refuting the posted (and bogus) claim

Interesting the initial examples being in portraiture - I should perhaps make a case for the Great Masters (and what makes one) in this regard: there is more in their painting than in anything modern, by the mere fact you see the subjects actually thinking (I can't think of anything by Manet and onwards where I've observed or even felt that there was much more to the art than the single idea resulting in its creation

Dali's inclusion and depiction of Dali himself being the possible exception to this, because of the skillful eccentricity involved - but it is of Dali whose paranoic critical method also reveals the dubiety of Hughes claim: An artist if so desiring can in fact teach themselves to paint as 'realistically' (or surrealistically) as they feel their work requires

But again much appreciation for the exhibition - I needed that!

[mortalterror]

Your eye? I don't know that I'd necessarily put much faith in your eye.
Dude, you spent a decade stapling tea bags to folded pieces of paper and your favorite contemporary artist is that dude who paints rectangles and you are criticizing my eye?

I'm not saying that the Virgin of the Rocks isn't a great painting or that the Mona Lisa is absolutely the greatest painting ever. There are maybe twenty different paintings I would have let you say were better than the Mona Lisa. The Last Supper is maybe better, the Sistine Ceiling, The School of Athens, Judith Beheading Holofernes, Rembrandt's 1659 Self-Portrait, Botticelli's Primavera, or Rubens' Descent from the Cross for instance. But if you want me to believe that The Virgin of the Rocks is a better painting than The Mona Lisa you will need to make a compelling argument.


You make the statement that the Mona Lisa is clearly superior to The Virgin of the Rocks... to such an extent that my suggestion that the latter is the superior work is ridiculous. Tell me then... without resorting to the critical opinion of others (there are many who revile the painting), its fame (and you might do well to recognize that the painting was truly not well-known until the 19th century) or its presumed influence upon others just what makes this painting so great... just what makes it better than The Virgin of the Rocks.

You won't accept my opinion about a work of art, because I'm prejudged and discredited beforehand by your own words, and I'm not allowed to bring in the judgements of anyone who's opinion you would respect? You take liberties, my friend. Is it not enough that I've beaten you at your own game a dozen times? Now, you would have me do it on your terms? Besides, as the party making the unpopular claim, the onus is on you to prove the rightness of your view not on me to defend a commonly held belief.

[prickly_pete]

Please try not to clog up threads with huge amounts of images for no reason. If we want to see the paintings for ourselves we can look them up on Google.

Thanks

[The Atheist]

Is it possible at all to price creativity? I do not like the way creative works are measured in monetary values.

What other means would you suggest?

Should there be some central tax pool to pay artists from and they get nothing from royalties, etc?


In today's world your success is measured by the number of laurels you received and the size of cash prize you pocketed.

I think you'll find that not everyone thinks that way.


But money is not as great as creative jobs. A piece of music can of course elevate your soul and you ascend heavenward in rapturously. Can you soar so high with your bucks?

By spending on something like medical research? Sure.

A successful new cancer drug is worth more to me than every piece of music ever written. I'm a bit strange like that, in valuing human life over art, but some things demonstrably need funding. Not to mention that most governments already have programs to support arts, without which there would be very few symphony orchestras, ballet companies or sculpting schools.


I am also a writer and often I feel unjustified when a publisher tries to cheat on me.

I gotta tell you, that looks a bit too personal.


Please try not to clog up threads with huge amounts of images for no reason. If we want to see the paintings for ourselves we can look them up on Google.

Thanks

Seconded!

(And I'm gonna sue for injury if I get carpal tunnel from all that scrolling!)

((And is there a human with a computer who doesn't know what the blimmin' Moaning Lisa looks like? Sheesh.))

[Alexander III]

Please try not to clog up threads with huge amounts of images for no reason. If we want to see the paintings for ourselves we can look them up on Google.

Thanks

Also St.Lukes please don't clog up the threads with so many words, this goes out to everyone, don't create posts full of all these words...geez if I wanted words I would go to a dictionary. All these posts full of words are making it really hard for me to scroll down the page.

[stlukesguild]

Dude, you spent a decade stapling tea bags to folded pieces of paper and your favorite contemporary artist is that dude who paints rectangles and you are criticizing my eye?

It seems interesting that you can base your opinion upon your eye and art criticism... unless it comes to Modern and Contemporary art (and this seems to apply to music and literature as well). Unless one can produce something of a universal consensus as to the merits of the work of art, you want nothing to do with it. Why? Because it forces you to think for yourself? Because it pushes you outside of the comfort zone of having someone else already tell you why a work of art is "great"? Of course there are more than a few critics who champion Joseph Cornell and Kurt Schwitters paper collages and assemblages or Sean Scully's paintings but I'll just accept that Modernism as a whole is a vast black area or anomaly for you.

I'm not saying that the Virgin of the Rocks isn't a great painting or that the Mona Lisa is absolutely the greatest painting ever.

But you are saying that the idea that The Virgin of the Rocks is a better painting than The Mona Lisa is ridiculous with offering any logical reason for your statement.

There are maybe twenty different paintings I would have let you say were better than the Mona Lisa. The Last Supper is maybe better, the Sistine Ceiling, The School of Athens, Judith Beheading Holofernes, Rembrandt's 1659 Self-Portrait, Botticelli's Primavera, or Rubens' Descent from the Cross for instance.

Twenty? Certainly you might name quite a few more. let's face it, the Mona Lisa is a great painting... a masterful portrait... but I don't really think it is inherently better than any of these portraits:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/5762751217_e62f1ebcaa_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5763297294_fb94169eb3_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/5762751909_6f65fa5734_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/5762751505_48843b2ed9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/5763296722_9d49549902_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/5759749673_26232625b6_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/5763296750_d38d1c3b38_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5762751357_1199cb3eac_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2538/5762751269_168c6a2f14_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/5760326192_2ba08ab170_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5763296792_6c63daf143.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2310/5763296876_e5dc068d32_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3499/5763358436_9260f736b5_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2750/5763358470_e2c7d7423b_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5269/5763297328_af2fbf0bf1_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/5762813263_1c08796522_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/5762813227_25d7f25e03_b.jpg

continued....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/5762813281_908e8933ef_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2747/5762813359_32eb59aa97_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2382/5762813199_01077c8a43_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/5763358718_fe4231f891.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/5763358694_784a79e835_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5303/5762813019_a0915c35c8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3458/5762813553_642d113132_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/5763359086_b9394e77ca_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/5763359160_d3579b7580_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5762813751_e6b7440218_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5762813685_6a362fd42d_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/5762813709_56f5d0e061_b.jpg

But if you want me to believe that The Virgin of the Rocks is a better painting than The Mona Lisa you will need to make a compelling argument.

Now I'm not arguing that any of these paintings in clearly and obviously better than the Mona Lisa... although in my opinion some of them are. Da Messina's portrait is one of the earliest in Italy to employ only oil paint and utilize softened edges, sfumato, as well as a heightened realism rivaling the Northern painters. Durer's self-portrait as God is one of the most audacious self-portraits ever undertaken... as well as being one of the first undertakings of a self-portrait as a serious painting. Raphael's Castiglione is one of the most influential paintings ever, studied by subsequent Mannerists, Caravaggio, Rembrandt (who made a study of it), Rubens, Ingres, Degas... even Cezanne. Titian's half-length portraits will have a huge impact on Veronese, Rubens, Velasquez, etc... Holbein's Princess of Cleves establishes a modern iconic style, while his mastery of almost photo-realistic detail equals Van Eyck, Ingres, and Chuck Close.

Again, why do YOU champion the Mona Lisa? Based upon YOUR EYE... when you haven't even bothered to have seen the painting (or anything by Leonardo) in person... and have already expressed the fact that you find that art in reproduction surpasses art in real life (Must make for an interesting sex life.:lol:). Or perhaps you are basing your opinion on that of others... critics. Yet the Mona Lisa is largely unknown until the 19th century and then becomes such an iconic image (largely thanks to the famous theft and the later much hyped trip to NYC) that it is almost ignored by most artists. Everyone knows it... but no one really spends the time seriously looking at it. Again... a great painting... but one of many... and not even Leonardo's best IMO.

[MystyrMystyry]

They're all so amazing

What intrigues me about Mona is the tantalisingly mysterious landscape in the background

There was talk about it actually being a disguised self-portrait at one stage, or he predicted transexualism due to an inner desire (though maybe these were early Dan Brown experiments in seeking what the public was prepared to swallow)

What else have you supplied: Ah that Pope Innocent looking anything but, that's just a freaky cool study in pure evil, and those Spanish inbreds (they all look identically upside-down) yeah - that just makes my skin crawl

Excellent show!


Actually I think I'm going to fill in that landscape without Mona in the foreground - see what happens

[TurquoiseSunset]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5762813685_6a362fd42d_b.jpg

Besides the fact that I really love this painting (and all the others you posted here StLukes - thanks), I think something is a bit off with her right arm's length...or is it just me? Or maybe it's the way she standing?

[billl]

Besides the fact that I really love this painting (and all the others you posted here StLukes - thanks), I think something is a bit off with her right arm's length...or is it just me? Or maybe it's the way she standing?

Good catch! Maybe suggesting motion (backwards). Almost Cubist?

[MystyrMystyry]

Turquoise, that's called foreshortening (at least in the forearm) the length of the upper arm does seem to be lengthened for purposes of the pose. When this was painted there was no such thing as photography (nor thalidomide nor nuclear fallout) to compare the liberty the artist may have taken for artistic expression

But the fact it isn't taken from a photograph provides the clue - in portraiture artists usually only sketch the head of the subject and have stand-ins for limbs and bodies, and a mannequin for the clothing (you wouldn't really expect her to stay posed like that for the 2-4 weeks it would take to finish the detail on the silk would you?)

So different sketches of a variety of poses are used to assemble the finished product (these four sketches - head, neck, each arm) may have been made 20 or 30 years apart from each other using entirely different models)

Also remember that no artwork is perfect, and sometimes the fatal flaw(s) is more obvious to everyone but the people involved

[TurquoiseSunset]

Turquoise, that's called foreshortening (at least in the forearm) the length of the upper arm does seem to be lengthened for purposes of the pose. When this was painted there was no such thing as photography (nor thalidomide nor nuclear fallout) to compare the liberty the artist may have taken for artistic gain

But the fact it isn't taken from a photograph provides the clue - in portraiture artists usually only sketch the head of the subject and have stand-ins for limbs and bodies, and a mannequin for the clothing (you wouldn't really expect her to stay posed like that for the 2-4 weeks it would take to finish the detail on the silk would you?

So different sketches of a variety of poses are used to assemble the finished product (these four sketches - head, neck, each arm) may have been made 20 or 30 years apart from each other using entirely different models)

Also remember that no artwork is perfect, and sometimes the fatal flaw(s) is more obvious to everyone but the people involved

Yes, it's the length of the upper arm that bugs me, not the forearm, as it's angled away, like you said. It's just that that pose could have been achieved even with a shorter upper arm imo. Anyway, I was just making an observation. Aaaand, I'm a perfectionist, hehe.

[MystyrMystyry]

Me too (perfectionist) but it could just be as simple as cutting costs - with portraits there's a fixed price, no royalties - so the artist probably didn't bother getting in a new model to help him finish it and just relied on sketches he already had, made between commissions

Actually when this was done there were guilds which were like art factories, and in those guilds the fine work was handled by different students and specialists - there would have been one working on the face, another the eyes, another the background, another the silk, and another the highlights

In fact the reflection doesn't match either - it should be as high as the sitter

What often happened is artists played visual pranks on the overstuffed benefactors who were too dumb to notice the 'mistakes'

If you look at any large painting by Breugel you'll see he has filled the canvas with tricky limbs and perspective - not because he couldn't do it properly, just because the buyers tended to have more money than sense

And somewhere there's a drawing (like a cartoon) he did of this, with himself painting while a thick-glasses purchaser was quickly pulling out his purse before the painting was even finished

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/mystyrmystyry/100L.jpg

Found it!

[TurquoiseSunset]

Me too (perfectionist) but it could just be as simple as cutting costs - with portraits there's a fixed price, no royalties - so the artist probably didn't bother getting in a new model to help him finish it and just relied on sketches he already had, made between commissions

Heh, I can just see him shrugging his shoulders, saying, "Oh well".

[mortalterror]

It seems interesting that you can base your opinion upon your eye and art criticism... unless it comes to Modern and Contemporary art (and this seems to apply to music and literature as well). Unless one can produce something of a universal consensus as to the merits of the work of art, you want nothing to do with it. Why? Because it forces you to think for yourself? Because it pushes you outside of the comfort zone of having someone else already tell you why a work of art is "great"?

No. If I was content to be led by the hand of criticism I would have accepted a lot of that nonsense you preach wouldn't I? I'm an empiricist, and I accept what other people tell me only in so far as it agrees with my own experience of the universe. I understand the modern theories but find them inadequate to explain the nature of reality as I perceive it.


Of course there are more than a few critics who champion Joseph Cornell and Kurt Schwitters paper collages and assemblages or Sean Scully's paintings but I'll just accept that Modernism as a whole is a vast black area or anomaly for you.

I think you answered that yourself:

There are any number of instances in which even critics I greatly admire... Robert Hughes, David Sylvester, Donald Kuspit, John Ruskin, etc... make incredible misjudgements seduced by the narrative aspect of a given artist or art work.

There will always be critics who champion bad work.


Twenty? Certainly you might name quite a few more. let's face it, the Mona Lisa is a great painting... a masterful portrait... but I don't really think it is inherently better than any of these portraits:

I'll agree with you that Weyden's Portrait of a Lady, Titians Portrait of a Man with a Blue Sleeve, Rubens' Portrait of Susanne Fourment, Rembrandt's Self-Portraits, Velazquez Portrait of Pope Innocent X, and Ingres' Portrait of Louise de Broglie Countesse d'Haussonville are all in the same league as the Mona Lisa, and some of the others you posted are very near to that level. For instance, I think that Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring is as beautiful as Leonardo's Lady With an Ermine, but all this doesn't prove the defects of the Mona Lisa or the merits of The Virgin of the Rocks. So far, you have only proven that the Mona Lisa is not an unrivaled masterpiece. For now, we'll consider your general claim as proven. Move on to your specific claim.

[JCamilo]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Now I'm not arguing that any of these paintings in clearly and obviously better than the Mona Lisa... although in my opinion some of them are. Da Messina's portrait is one of the earliest in Italy to employ only oil paint and utilize softened edges, sfumato, as well as a heightened realism rivaling the Northern painters. Durer's self-portrait as God is one of the most audacious self-portraits ever undertaken... as well as being one of the first undertakings of a self-portrait as a serious painting. Raphael's Castiglione is one of the most influential paintings ever, studied by subsequent Mannerists, Caravaggio, Rembrandt (who made a study of it), Rubens, Ingres, Degas... even Cezanne. Titian's half-length portraits will have a huge impact on Veronese, Rubens, Velasquez, etc... Holbein's Princess of Cleves establishes a modern iconic style, while his mastery of almost photo-realistic detail equals Van Eyck, Ingres, and Chuck Close.

But then, Lewis Carroll's Alice was one of the first to emply the port-manteau... Or Carlyle Sartor one of the first to use a fake analyse of a work to produce a second work. Joyce's Finnengans is certainly the most audacious novel ever undertaken... Daniel Dafoe Robson Crusoe is one of the most influential texts ever, Poe's stabilishes the modern short story... Well, Virgil and Homer comparassions (Virgil is without doubt the better poet, he is a poet after all, he was writing to pretend to be an ode, Homer had no idea... Yet...)...


Again, why do YOU champion the Mona Lisa? Based upon YOUR EYE... when you haven't even bothered to have seen the painting (or anything by Leonardo) in person... and have already expressed the fact that you find that art in reproduction surpasses art in real life (Must make for an interesting sex life.:lol:). Or perhaps you are basing your opinion on that of others... critics. Yet the Mona Lisa is largely unknown until the 19th century and then becomes such an iconic image (largely thanks to the famous theft and the later much hyped trip to NYC) that it is almost ignored by most artists. Everyone knows it... but no one really spends the time seriously looking at it. Again... a great painting... but one of many... and not even Leonardo's best IMO.

But then, it is pure circustance. Today it is possible to most reckonized artwork of the world, and it is not build or created under mass culture. (Of course, all this can only happen in a massive country). Something she has, being apparently one of the many dull portraits of people, usually painted without any prime intention than commercial (we are on topic. Please, full the thread with great artworks of the past which had a price) which is beyond technique (admitelly, I prefer other paintings. I prefer Other painters). If we cann't explain, Mortal certainlly is unable, this only imply our limitation (And it is probally impossible to explain the ranking of masterworks - all afirmations and negations make sense, they are all possible). After all, art is not the object, it is also the experience, and she is providing it quite so well with that sardonic rigor mortis smile on her lips.

[stlukesguild]

Besides the fact that I really love this painting (and all the others you posted here StLukes - thanks), I think something is a bit off with her right arm's length...or is it just me? Or maybe it's the way she standing?

Ingres was a favorite of the Modernists including Picasso for the very fact that his paintings often exhibit such incongruent elements. Seen in person there is a sense of realism in the surface renderings that is almost beyond a photograph... something that few other painters ever have been able to match. At the same time, Ingres was so profoundly obsessed with the linear, two-dimensional design... often making hundreds of studies for a single paining and then spending years upon its completion... employing obvious abstractions in order to emphasize the 2-dimensional design... that the same painting seems at once both flat as a playing card... yet incredibly 3-dimensional.

You have caught one of the abstraction in this famous painting... an absolutely brilliant work that is alone worth the price of admission to the Frick. In order to stress the elegant tilted oval composition of her upper torso, Ingres has intentionally exaggerated her right arm. At that angle and tilt of the torso her right elbow should appear higher than the elbow on the arm nearest to us. Looking at Ingres has always led me to an even greater admiration for Rubens who also employed such linear 2-dimensional compositions... and yet incredibly, rarely ever resorts to the distortion of the anatomy. I find myself thinking, how in the hell did he get his figures to come together in such an elegant and harmonious arrangement??!! Returning to the Ingres... look closely into the mirror and you will find another abstraction... one that Picasso picked up on and parodies:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2129/5766185477_6c0dd66fca.jpg

[MystyrMystyry]

Right - I didn't know Picasso did that sort of thing (I mean to other painters)

But the lesson Ingres may teach us is that too much anal pefectionism may not be the best thing

I had a rather good analytical book on Ingres. but upon completion I found myself feeling sick, and promptly sold it, buying a Cezanne, Chagall and Klee with the proceeds (even in art books you should go with what you like)