The Visual Arts: Exploring the History of "Fine Art" and Beyond

I know that expressionism distorts forms and colors but I would never compare Grunewald’s paintings with Expressionists as I looked at his paintings.

Many artists and art historians have made this connection.

El Greco is regarded as a precursor of Expressionism.

Yes... he is. And you'll note that I included the Mannerists and El Greco would fall under that category. On the other hand, El Greco probably didn't have a huge impact on artists outside of Spain & Picasso for the simple reason that the vast majority of his paintings are housed in Spain and somewhat inaccessible to artists in France or Germany and Spain wasn't much of a destination for artists from outside in the 19th or 20th centuries. Oddly enough, Manet did make a tour of Spain and was quite impressed with his work... as well as with that of Velazquez (which is more obvious).

I was able to see a large portion of El Greco's oeuvre as part of a retrospective shown at the Met some years back. The best paintings do indeed have a sense of a tormented spirituality. The worst paintings, however, have something of black velvet paintings about them. I loved his flickering brushwork... but was disappointed in his use of color. He was an even worst colorist than his teacher, Tintoretto.

While we're on Spain... we might point out that Goya was another precursor of Expressionism:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8475/8...9a582cbf_n.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8323/8...0f47f2ce_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corona

Yeah, El Greco was as relevant for expressionism as he was for the likes of Picasso.
I have to admit I've not been through El Greco's work a lot, so far, but what's really amazing about his artworks is that he was one of the first painters to represent spiritual "tension", to "make visible what's not visible".

---

An interesting way to summarize his art. There is some anxiety but I don’t know the source of it.
There is also an interesting symbolism…..

Oh, St. Luke, I don't blame you. You're an art history reader not an art historian who engages in research. You called Fernando Amorsolo's works "mediocre twaddle"? Do you know what "twaddle" is? I thought you were an English language expert. Anyway, for your education, read this:

"The artist became a professor in his early 20’s and was already establishing himself in the art world. At the age of 25, he was already married to Salud Jorge and had a daughter, Virginia, when he caught the eye of one of the most influential figures in Filipino society. Amorsolo had designed the logo for Ginebra San Miguel, still in use in its original form today, depicting St. Michael vanquishing the devil. The owner of the beverage company, Don Enrique Zobel, a leading figure in the business community and an ardent patron of the arts, was so impressed by his work that he offered to send Amorsolo to the Academia de San Fernando in Madrid for further studies with a generous stipend for himself and his young family. The artist took the standard entrance exam at the Academia. To Amorsolo’s surprise, after evaluating his work, the school informed him that, based on the results, they would accept him not as a student but as a professor at the school."

http://www.fernandocamorsolo.com/

In case you don't know about Academia de San Fernando, that was the same art school Goya ran as its director and where Picasso and Dali went.

If you really read my post and understood it, you would not imply that I liked his works. Even though he was a national artist in my country, I find his works too bucolic and pastoral for my taste. I mentioned his works to show that he already mixed Realism and Impressionism way before Coombs did.

Amorsolo

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8217/8...c4a06e4b_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8219/8...dee38ecd_m.jpg


Coombs

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8502/8...802cce36_m.jpg


Also, Sotheby's and Christie's know Amorsolo. I don't think they know about you and your works.

You're really funny, St. Luke. You chose Ventura's hyperrealist paintings infused with pop art images so you could dismiss him as an artist and insult our art history by saying pop art, an art movement that began in the mid 50's, came late in the Philippine art scene. Pleaseeeeeee.

Filipino artists who were educated in Britain and America went back to the Philippines and did pop art from 60's to 80's. Pop art in my country did not really start in the 60's.

If what Livingstone, de la Croix, and Tansey say about pop art are true, pop art had been made in my country way before Andy Warhol was born.

"In Pop art, material is sometimes visually removed from its known context, isolated, and/or combined with unrelated material."

"The concept of pop art refers not as much to the art itself as to the attitudes that led to it"

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony."

Yes, I used Wikipedia and these statements were bibliographically cited.

Livingstone, M., Pop Art: A Continuing History, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990
de la Croix, H.; Tansey, R., Gardner's Art Through the Ages, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1980.

In 1920's, Amorsolo already popularized this image:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8475/8...9c0a1058_m.jpg

Warhol (1960's)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8081/8...c99317d6_m.jpg

In 1930's, the formative years of Philippine cinema, movie billboards like these were already made:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8089/8...ab5039ab_m.jpg

In 1940's, comics magazines with popular covers were already mass-produced:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8...f1bcbd79_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8468/8...ff30c566_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8...d5bcdfe2_m.jpg

In 1950's, Filipino pop artists painted the surplus jeeps of the Americans after the Second World War to be used as public transportation:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8335/8...c8a156a9_m.jpg

Have I educated you enough?

Now let's go to the the works of Ventura that you excluded:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8236/8...bbd7e057_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8515/8...34813514_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8098/8...b2674efa_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8222/8...7574277b_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8073/8...6bb6361a_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8215/8...80e59b4a_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8470/8...62f9dc6a_m.jpg

If you don't see classical influences like Michelangelo's David and Da Vinci's human anatomy and horses, you are blind. I also see Dada images in his works and Dali's influences too.

Now let me post the works of an artist who has been influenced by Michelangelo, Dali, Bosch, Rubens, Brueghel, and other BS:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8355/8...fa7cd66c_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8375/8...12dc7d17_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8515/8...8deee91e_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8329/8...19ce04a0_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8087/8...b6f05a1e_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8...5d93e5bc_m.jpg

Really? Maybe you're an art history professor. But a painter and painting professor? Really?

Miyako, did it occur to you that you may be able to have a genuine conversation with Stlukes that leads to greater understanding of his influences if you weren't so petty, immature and more concerned with degrading his work than actually talking like a proper human being?

Also, you have an odd understanding of influence. Influence isn't just using elements of previous artists work in your work. Some influences influence you more in such a way as:
-These artists furthered my understanding of the medium
- These artists are the ones that made me take the medium seriously
- These artists inspired me to create my own works of art
- With a great love and understanding of certain art that has come before me, I can use that understanding to create something different, much in the same way that a Romanticist poet can be influenced by a Classicist, but uses their understanding of Classicism to more clearly define and push their own boundaries in new directions.


I'm sure not every single painter StLukes loves and is 'influenced' by has a clear visual 'influence' on his own work, but I'll go out on a limb and say that StLukes understanding and love for all the artists he's mentioned has, over his life, helped him achieve his own artistic vision, if you like (correct me if I'm wrong Stlukes).

Much in the same way that Walt Whitman influenced more than any other poet my love for poetry. But that doesn't mean if I became a poet I'd write like Walt Whitman, however, he'd still be a major influence.

Cut out the pettiness, it's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

While we're on Spain... we might point out that Goya was another precursor of Expressionism:

---

Since you have brought Goya......He had strange attraction to witches....


Witches Sabbath



http://www.franciscodegoya.net/Witch...ath-large.html



Witches In The Air

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/Witch...Air-large.html




The Bewitched Man

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/The-B...Man-large.html





The Conjuration

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/The-C...ion-large.html





Witches Sabbath, The Great He-Goat

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/The-G...oat-large.html




A special gift for you. :wink5:


Nude Maja

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/Nude-Maja-large.html



The complete works

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/the-complete-works.html

If St. Luke is honest, he'll tell you what he deleted. Didn't he say in one of his posts that these artists have influenced his works? You won't see it because it has been edited out.

If I did not see the disconnect, I would not have reacted.

I agree with St.Luke about Goya: the anxiety in his works seems to anticipate some of the 20th century's artworks, especially considering his works are impenetrable so one can't just focus on symbols. You have posted his Coloussus: well, it's nearly impossible to give a single interpretation of the meaning. One could argue it's a prophecy of humanity being crushed, or a comment on humanity being small and defenseless(in another painting about the same theme we see a giant elevating far beyond a city)but the artist's point of view remains unknown.
This could be applied to all of his "Black Paintings": "El Perro"(The Dog) is maybe his most impervious work, being impossible to be deciphered, so "angst" is a possible approach to partially getting Goya's art.

Attachment 8606

The anguish coming from Goya's last paintings comes from the fact these works seems illogical, not explainable by reason, and yet they all seem to focus on "disgusting" themes like Saturn devouring his sons, a witches' sabba, peasants fighting to death, a dog being buried by sand, etc. The fact is that we don't know what does Goya indicate as the source of suffering, of evil: every creature, a man as much as a dog has to suffer from an unknown source of evil, and the only thing Goya seems to focus on in his last paintings is the "low" nature of the human soul. It's a given a painting as his Saturn explores unexplored territories, the dark side of the human soul. Before that just some artists as Bosch or Brueghel had depicted the horror of the human soul, in the case concentring on a more religious matter, specifically on the decaying nature of sin. In Goya's last works even religion seems to be left outside of that.
Human souls is an undiscovered frightening abyss.

As for El Greco I guess the tension coming from his works is still a spiritual one, so that of spirits "extending" high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corona

I agree with St.Luke about Goya: the anxiety in his works seems to anticipate some of the 20th century's artworks, especially considering his works are impenetrable so one can't just focus on symbols. You have posted his Coloussus: well, it's nearly impossible to give a single interpretation of the meaning. One could argue it's a prophecy of humanity being crushed, or a comment on humanity being small and defenseless(in another painting about the same theme we see a giant elevating far beyond a city)but the artist's point of view remains unknown.
This could be applied to all of his "Black Paintings": "El Perro"(The Dog) is maybe his most impervious work, being impossible to be deciphered, so "angst" is a possible approach to partially getting Goya's art.

---

Do we really have to make any interpretations? It is nothing else but an educated guesswork.

We can sit in the artist head, trying hard to make assumptions……..believing that it is true. I don’t do it. Art speaks on its own and I strongly believe that it is not a place for left brain activities. G. Bruno and M. Ficino would agree with me. That’s for sure. It is so hard not to go back to occult. :lol: The answer may be more prosaic that we would want it to be.

That's an interesting and complicated matter!
I don't think there's a "necessary" approach to art; as art itself stands as impossible to be defined it's difficult estabilishing how one should generally approach art. From my point of view it's easier approaching a single artist, trying to estabilish his own poetics for how much we can understand an artist who lived centuries ago.
I think it's still different from a full "interpretation": I think an interpratation has not to be mistaken for a "study" of an artist's poetics.
It's a difficult topic since everything related to art cannot be universally defined, but I'd say it's not necessary interpretating a work, but it's still advantageous trying to "understand" an artist to fully appreciate his art. This should lead to a kind of equilibrium; whether it's true art speaks for itself one can still try to "decipher" the emotions a single artwork involves the viewer/listener/reader.
What I'm saying, to put it straight, is that "studying" and interpretating an artist doesn't necessarily ruin the purity of his art or the fruition, as long as one doesn't exaggerate on interpretation because, of course, it's still art you're viewing, not an essay! If one doesn't just focus on explainations I think studying an artist - his tecnhinque, the use of symbols, the possible meanings he wanted to give - could even help enjoying his art more.
I would definitely say it depends on both the viewer's point of view and method and on the single artist. Interpretating a painting a painting by Salvador Dalì or René Magritte would be partially missing the point, especially in the case of Magritte. In my humble opinion for an artist like Bosch it would be all but misleading trying to "decipher" his symbolism as the artist was probably trying to express something.
One just has not to exceed or it would reduce the pleasure of simply appreciating the work in itself.
Sometimes "interpretating" a work, especially when you're not an art historian, it's just explaining your own feelings giving them a proper "arrangement".

Once again, it's a very complicated topic!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Corona
Sometimes "interpretating" a work, especially when you're not an art historian, it's just explaining your own feelings giving them a proper "arrangement".

---

Of course, it is own opinion of a viewer. How it is different from the art historian? Take, for example, another field of mythology and religion. By the middle of the nineteenth century, mythology was dominated by a comparative mythology, an analysis of myth that takes place in libraries rather than in the field. What soon emerged were various approaches to the study of myth driven by new discoveries and theories within such emergent disciplines as anthropology, psychology, literary criticism, and the history of religions. So, another theory emerged that examined myths. In other words, the same myths but different interpretations. We may ask who is right or wrong. I may give another example, psychology, for instance. It started with Freud, followed by many different psychological theories that have been changing like weather. I can’t stand Freud but there are psychiatrists or psychologists who blindly follow it. Not only psychiatrists but also … art historians who are trying to use his fraudulent theory to explain art. When I have read analysis based on Freud, I was laughing, rolling on the floor.

Anyway, it is more complex than saying ‘you are not art historian” :wink5:

The problem that miyako suffers from... well, beside that of occasionally forgetting to take her medication and certain personality issues... is what Robert Hughes termed the "cultural cringe." The "cultural cringe" is the realization that your culture is considered to be nothing more than a third-world culture which has never been taken seriously in the world of arts and literature... indeed is largely deemed as irrelevant. Like all inferiority complexes, there are those suffering from such who put forth a facade of bluster, bombast, and swaggering braggadocio that only serves to guard their sense of self esteem, feelings of inferiority... and fears that the judgments of others are true.

Art and art history is a dialog. Artists participate in this dialog on a local or regional level, a national level, and an international level. There are undoubtedly local and regional artists of great merit... who by purely formal judgments... based upon the work itself... are every bit as good as some of the biggest names in art. Unfortunately, they are not seen as part of the dialog. One can cry about the fact that such is unfair... and attempt to lay the blame on culture, nationality, race, gender, social class, etc... Ultimately, art is an elitist game. No culture owes it to another to take the "outsiders" efforts seriously or promote it over their native achievements. Earning a place within "the canon" is something that must be fought for. The Europeans... the Parisians... did not hand the title of "The Capital of the Art World" over to the Americans... to New York. It was seized. The art of Jackson Pollock, Willem deKooning, Robert Motherwell, Mark Rothko, etc... demanded attention and could not be ignored.

As it now stands, the Philippines have nothing of any real merit to add to the dialog of art history... just as Miyako has nothing of any worth whatsoever to add to this dialog... and so both will go on being rightfully ignored.

I have feelings that we will see shortly the death of the thread……Gone with the wind


Vladimir Kush, Flown With the Wind

http://www.jacobgallery.com/art_gall...H_THE_WIND.htm


Or,

Vladimir Kush , Farewell Kiss

http://www.thefancy.com/things/29305...-Vladimir-Kush

I hope that I am wrong but the dynamic here is so bloody obvious. :biggrin5:
Sad, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The problem that miyako suffers from... well, beside that of occasionally forgetting to take her medication and certain personality issues... is what Robert Hughes termed the "cultural cringe." The "cultural cringe" is the realization that your culture is considered to be nothing more than a third-world culture which has never been taken seriously in the world of arts and literature... indeed is largely deemed as irrelevant. Like all inferiority complexes, there are those suffering from such who put forth a facade of bluster, bombast, and swaggering braggadocio that only serves to guard their sense of self esteem, feelings of inferiority... and fears that the judgments of others are true.

Art and art history is a dialog. Artists participate in this dialog on a local or regional level, a national level, and an international level. There are undoubtedly local and regional artists of great merit... who by purely formal judgments... based upon the work itself... are every bit as good as some of the biggest names in art. Unfortunately, they are not seen as part of the dialog. One can cry about the fact that such is unfair... and attempt to lay the blame on culture, nationality, race, gender, social class, etc... Ultimately, art is an elitist game. No culture owes it to another to take the "outsiders" efforts seriously or promote it over their native achievements. Earning a place within "the canon" is something that must be fought for. The Europeans... the Parisians... did not hand the title of "The Capital of the Art World" over to the Americans... to New York. It was seized. The art of Jackson Pollock, Willem deKooning, Robert Motherwell, Mark Rothko, etc... demanded attention and could not be ignored.

As it now stands, the Philippines have nothing of any real merit to add to the dialog of art history... just as Miyako has nothing of any worth whatsoever to add to this dialog... and so both will go on being rightfully ignored.

---

What a condescending twaddle! That is the right usage of the word.

How can I blame a person who has not read arts and transnationalism, arts and decolonization, and arts and postcolonialism where arts and artists from Asia are studied and written about by art historians and scholars from the West?

I already told you that your "cultural cringe" would never apply to the painting history of my country because the early development of Philippine painting was strongly connected to the visual arts of Spain and Europe.

Based on your view, I should celebrate because at least we have three different art histories studied in our schools: Western, Philippine, and Asian Art histories. It seems you have only studied one-- arts of the West. So limited, indeed.

Even though Filipino designers are big names now in contemporary furniture design, I do not limit my aesthetic appreciation on furniture. Even when Asian films win in prestigious festivals, I still watch good American, French, Italian movies.

Art is not a dialogue where the marginalized want to become part of the status quo. It is a cultural process that has a shared history. Just wait when Asian countries dominate; Orientalism will be redefined. A new lens will emerge.

As for me, I'll continue appreciating artists who deserve accolades like Kenneth Cobonpue (yes, he's from the "third-world"--I thought this was no longer used in development studies) who blurs the division between arts and design:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8237/8...34397a80_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8...5ca6bca6_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8227/8...9d037b79_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8087/8...0fcc3d89_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8...270081fd_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8...9d985723_m.jpg

Now you will say Cobonpue is accepted in the West because his works are representatives of his culture and he has no "cultural cringe". Wrong. I hadn't seen furniture designs like those before I heard of his name. It just happens that designers are meticulous people. They define beauty inch by inch and their eyes for aesthetics are objective and both quantitative and qualitative.

This will give you a lesson: if fairness is the game, you'll be reading pages about a painter in Vietnam or a sculptor in Kenya. People like you want elitism in arts, so crappy artworks like yours will be considered because other better choices are shut out.

I still don't think you're a skilled, talented painter.