Meh, Plato's prose style is crap, but he had some interesting thoughts, we still read him :pQuote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Printable View
Meh, Plato's prose style is crap, but he had some interesting thoughts, we still read him :pQuote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I hope not! There are many painters who prefer the opposite feelings.
Of course not a single one of the artist you cite is considered a major contemporary figure by any stretch of the imagination. Juan Medina perhaps comes closest and I will acknowledge that William Whitaker's drawing is quite lovely but I seriously question whether you have the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea that mere craftsmanship does not make an artist relevant nor does pastiche.
I agree with the notion that not all Modern/Contemporary artists were/are aiming for morbidity and nihilism... but surely you can find some better examples.
I have a feeling the decision to ignore that pictures I posted is due to the fact that probably everyone else doesn't like it. :lol:
I am no big fan of a lot of 20th century art - for the very reason that the celebration and pursuit of the grotesque is so prevalent. But there are still many paintings focused on simple beauty ala impressionism or social realism which I love.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%281901%29.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tissetoits.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_in_Maine.jpg
http://fascinatingpeople.files.wordp...philosophy.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5bVN3kXOxF...U/s1600/01.jpg
I think that the grotesque (if, indeed, we could come up with any definition of that, in this context) has always been a prevalent part of art. The Raft of the Medusa? Recurrent images of Salome? Most of Bosch?
I'm tempted to ask StLuke to summon some pre-20c examples. I suspect it would take him about ten minutes to cover as many centuries.
But the point is that an aversion to the grotesque isn't really a support for not liking 20th Century art specifically.
Herta Müller
She doesn't write in English, but the translations are fantastic. The Passport and The Appointment are absolute poetry on the page. Raw, acerbic, beautiful. She won a well-deserved Pulitzer within the last few years. If you haven't read her and you enjoy amazing prose, give her a read.
Plato's prose style is crap? that's just being provocative, isn't it? (I'll say nothing about the art because I know nothing about art. I wish I knew more.)
But the point is that an aversion to the grotesque isn't really a support for not liking 20th Century art specifically.
Exactly. There are plenty of examples of 20th century art by artists of relevance and/or artists that have moved beyond pastiche that are undeniably beautiful. First we need to remember that many of the great 19th century masters were still active well into the 20th century. We can't exclude John Singer Sargent or the Impressionists (arguably the first great Modernists) from 20th century art any more than we can exclude Rilke and Proust from 20th century literature:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/...6f27d564_z.jpg
Indeed, Monet and Degas produced many of their most influential works well into the 20th century:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6005/...38fd56ca_b.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/...f0aecfd5_z.jpg
The two central figures of Modernism were unquestionably Picasso and Matisse. While Picasso is charged by many with shattering the great tradition of European painting, no artist actually loved that tradition more. He could produce the most elegant paintings in a near classical manner when he so desired:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6002/...3237c2dc_z.jpg
Matisse, in spite of his Modernist credentials, was often accused of being a hedonist as a result of his unabashed love of visual splendour and colour:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/...7ac7310e_z.jpg
Bonnard took Matisse's love of color and visual spectacle even further. He was misunderstood by many artists who were seemingly more radical (Surrealists, Futurists) but in many ways he was the visual equivalent of Proust... the artist of memory... the artist who remembered the banal details of every day life as glorious magical scenes drenched in light and color:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/...6e338f76_b.jpg
Edouard Vuillard, Bonnard's partner in the Nabi movement, was another poet of the intimate:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6121/...9b23fdd7_b.jpg
Aristide Maillol had almost disappeared from view, when he was introduced to a beautiful young and intelligent model late in life who became the muse for his greatest work, one of the strongest bodies of nude drawings and sculpture in the history of art:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/...7f5b949d_b.jpg
Paris was the unquestioned center of art for the first half of the 20th century and artists came to the French capitol from around the world forming the so-called School of Paris. Beauty and color were in no way unknown:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6161/...85763ecc8f.jpg
-Raoul Dufy
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6017/...afb9188d_b.jpg
-Amadeo Modigliani
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/...810e9ba6_b.jpg
-Marc Chagall
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6023/...8b0d220c_b.jpg
-Balthus
Of course Paris wasn't the sole art center. In Vienna artists were responding to the music of Mahler, Richard Strauss, Bruckner, and the Second Viennese School, the plays of Hugo von Hoffmansthall, and the writings of Sigmund Freud. The central figure of the Viennese School was undoubtedly Gustav Klimt, whose beautifully patterned and gilded paintings were eagerly sought by wealthy collectors. His most famous painting, The Kiss, remains the single most reproduced painting to this day, suggesting that 20th century art is not without it's admirers... especially when it openly embraces visual splendor:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/...d14da500_b.jpg
Germany was another major artistic center... indeed, it may have passed Paris had it not been destroyed by the rise of Hitler. The Russian painter, Kandinsky, working at the famous Bauhaus, merged elements of Russian folk art: patterns and brilliant colors in producing the first true abstract paintings. Avidly collected by the Guggenheim family, these would have a profound impact upon American Abstract Expressionism:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6159/...7b099100_b.jpg
***********
At the other end of the spectrum in Germany, the painter Max Beckmann combined a French love of color and sensual handling of paint with an almost medieval crowding of space and a social commentary worthy of Bosch:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/...1290e2a0_b.jpg
In comparison, the American art scene remained quite conservative... provincial even. Realism remained the dominant style... and would never disappear... even at the height of Abstract Expressionism. Even so, American artists brought a social awareness to the language of realism rooted in the experience of living in the great cities. This city life was not without its own form of "beauty":
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6161/...d5f84d17_b.jpg
-John Sloan
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/...2725e2e269.jpg
-Edward Hopper
Edward Hopper's paintings, which often suggest stills from film noir, became a major influence upon the settings in the films of Alfred Hitchcock
The paintings of Maxfield Parrish, on the other hand, would inspire the stage sets of endless Hollywood films, and his use of color and photographic references would have a major impact upon Pop Art and even the commercial art of the 1960s:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/...87270b28_b.jpg
Following World War II, New York became the center of the art world with the Abstract Expressionists building upon Surrealism and chance, and the abstract paintings of Kandinsky. It was an Armenian refugee from the Turkish imposed genocide, Arshile Gorky, that led the way. His painting, The Liver is the ****'s Comb (titled by the French Surrealist poet, Andre Breton) is a spectacular abstract landscape:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6170/...4dc2bac1_z.jpg
A great many had difficulty in appreciating the beauty of abstract art... even the most exquisite examples...
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/...932dc7857d.jpg
-Paul Feiler
...but American art did not abandon the beauty of figurative painting. Painters such as Fairfield Porter and Alex Katz and Daniel Ludwig and many others continued to build off the tradition of Impressionism:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6154/...f5369b43b7.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/...7f798a5b3f.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6128/...6b32e518_b.jpg
Realism remained strong... throughout the century and any number of beautiful "realist" paintings can be found that in no way ever slip into the banality of kitsch and pastiche:
George Tooker and Robert Vickry both continued in the tradition of Social Realism:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/...bd5c15c3_b.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/...7560f989_b.jpg
While the major art critics and art periodicals focused upon the seemingly endless array of experimental avant garde art, the public and collectors never abandoned their love for well-painted realism:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/...250315b41a.jpg
-Jean Duval
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/...b9d38806_b.jpg
-Martha Erlebacher
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/...dd7eebd6c2.jpg
-Henk Helmantel
*************
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/...0336d0332e.jpg
-Frederick Linden
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6133/...9e46ca40d0.jpg
-Niel Welliver
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/...290eb982_b.jpg
-David M. Lenz
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6123/...56667abb_b.jpg
-Boris Koller
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6013/...e6900133_z.jpg
-Lu Cong
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6139/...722d4aa0_z.jpg
-Will Cotton
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/...a6b61b3bc5.jpg
_Iain Faulkner
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/...0fbce1ee_z.jpg
-Harry Holland
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/...3ea8cf7f_z.jpg
-Jeremy Lipking
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/...cfa77514_z.jpg
-David Remfry
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6154/...52bd0705_z.jpg
William Whitaker's drawings really are something special.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6178/...29e9eedc_b.jpg
-Gerhard Richter
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6003/...f629cb3e_b.jpg
-Aron Wiesenfeld
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6146/...3aafd1c9_z.jpg
-Bo Bartlett
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/...fdc3d2d2b5.jpg
-Sean Beavers
************
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/...6e44ca013e.jpg
-Rob Evans
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6124/...574a1029_z.jpg
-Claudio Bravo
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6004/...c828e51172.jpg
-David Ligare
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/...5e8cecfa5d.jpg
-Scott Fraser
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/...fbf2dbeb_z.jpg
-William Bailey
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6128/...07c70985_z.jpg
-Daniel Sprick
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/...fdc7c31d_b.jpg
-Leonard Kocianski
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/...c7acacca_z.jpg
-Scott Prior
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/...5cbc6ef4_z.jpg
-Scott Prior
Robert Hughes noted that in the second half of the 20th century it was two "Andys" who were the most known artists with the majority of the public... Andy Warhol... and Andrew Wyeth... the great realist who will quite likely outlast the Pop Art icon. Like Bonnard and Vuillard... and Fairfield Porter... Wyeth uncovered a beauty in the banal world around him... albeit his world was that of a stark New England:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6026/...ff296144_b.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/...e904bbcd_z.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/...2c93fd93_b.jpg
It's hard to believe some of those latter realism paintings are actually paintings and not photographs, especially the train and the one by David M. Lenz.
I like paintings that straddle the line between abstract and realism (I guess that would be expressionism?), sort of like what I posted. I like bizzarre art, but at the same time I don't like something that I think I could do, like throwing paint at a canvas. I get all the arguments in support of these abstract methods, but I just can't get past it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
LOL! Thanks for a good laughter. But let’s get serious. I don’t know what you mean by saying, "‘ I seriously question whether you have the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea that mere craftsmanship does not make an artist relevant nor does pastiche." Do you mean that I have to blindly follow scholars who tell what art is good or not. :lol: I have never said that I am art scholar. You know that as I have clearly stated in my response to you that I was lucky to be free from any influences. I love art and I don’t need “authority” confirmation that the art I like is good or not. It doesn’t matter. I have already posted a couple of “famous” paintings that I would want to have..….to sell as soon as possible. :ihih:
Secondly, I work with art in very different way than you do. I have already told you that. I choose art that evokes my feelings as well as the art that touches my soul. Images access our unconsciousness and it is a very powerful tool of self- awareness. In other words, I feel art and I use art for both therapy and to feed my soul.
Finally, we both love art but we love different paintings even though I love many painters as you do. But I try to avoid judging artists' work. Art is one of the way to express oneself so that judging somebody’s art is judging another human being. I love freedom of expression of who we really are. :banana:
LOL! Thanks for a good laughter. But let’s get serious. I don’t know what you mean by saying, "‘ I seriously question whether you have the least grasp of the art of the last century or understand the idea that mere craftsmanship does not make an artist relevant nor does pastiche." Do you mean that I have to blindly follow scholars who tell what art is good or not.
"Blindly" approaching any art is the issue. Art is far less impacted by "scholars" than literature. The formal study of art history doesn't begin until the 19th century. Prior to that what we mostly have is the writings of artists: Vasari, Cellini, Leonardo, etc... but these are not what defines good or bad art. Art is primarily defined by artists and the art loving public.
I have never said that I am art scholar. You know that as I have clearly stated in my response to you that I was lucky to be free from any influences.
No one is free from influences. In spite of admitting such, I will state that art criticism and art theory are of little influence upon my judgment and opinion of art. My opinions are based upon my eye after having looked at a broad array of art across the scope of history and culture.
I love art and I don’t need “authority” confirmation that the art I like is good or not. It doesn’t matter. I have already posted a couple of “famous” paintings that I would want to have..….to sell as soon as possible.
No... but just as it helps to have enough of an ear for literature to recognize the qualitative differences between Dan Brown or the Twilight books and Keats, Yeats and Proust, it is of real importance to have developed enough of an eye to discern kitsch from a masterpiece... or even just good art.
Secondly, I work with art in very different way than you do. I have already told you that. I choose art that evokes my feelings as well as the art that touches my soul. Images access our unconsciousness and it is a very powerful tool of self- awareness. In other words, I feel art and I use art for both therapy and to feed my soul.
Admittedly, I am not interested in "using" art for therapy... or anything else. I am interested in creating art and as such I am interested in the mechanics of art... how as image communicates well without resorting to cliche.
I try to avoid judging artists' work. Art is one of the way to express oneself so that judging somebody’s art is judging another human being. I love freedom of expression of who we really are
The notion that art is little more than self-expression is an idea born of the Romantics... and almost enough to make me really despise Wordsworth. One of the greatest hurdles faced by the 20-something art student is getting over the notion that as an artist their art is an expression of who they are... and as such any criticism of their art is a criticism of them as individuals. Both the creative process and the individual are far more complex than that. No work of art that I have created gives but the least idea of who I am as an individual. My entire oeuvre reveals part of me... but comes nowhere near to "expressing" myself... the whole me. There is a real danger in combining Romantic ideas of "self expression" with post-Freud notions of art as a means of analyzing or diagnosing the individual.
Whether we care to admit to it or not, every time we look at a work of art, part of our judgment is based upon comparison. This work of art stands out (or fails) in comparison to others in teems of handling of paint, color, line, contrast... etc... We compare the handling of all the elements to those as employed in other works we know. "Good" and "bad" and other value judgments are relative terms. We base these opinions upon our knowledge of the whole of art as we perceive it... and as T.S. Eliot noted, this concept changes every time we are confronted with a truly new or original artistic voice that enters into our notion of some imaginary canon of art.
I read it before dinner as we sat on the terrace, Pablo smoking ceaseless cigarettes and topping up his glass of claret after every sip.
“What do you think?” he asked, when I put the sheaf on the table and stood the bottle on top to stop it blowing away in the light breeze.
“I like the tone and the detail. The problem is structure. It hasn’t got one.”
“It has. It’s the structure of me. My thoughts go that way and that’s how I write. It’s valid.”
I have often been confronted by authors making this argument. It’s a variation on the idea that self-expression is, by definition, interesting and consequential – a philosophy that was the bane of every twentieth-century art form, as if ‘honest’ self-expression obviated the need for the presumably mendacious application of technique, style, structure or even talent.
“Pablo, if you made tea-pots and you came up with one that had the handle on the bottom, and a spout eight feet long, and the whole thing made of chicken-wire, would you still say that that was how you made teapots, and that therefore it was a ‘valid’ teapot?”
“Probably, yes,” he said, flipping a cigarette into his mouth.
“And you have the right to, I suppose. But you would have made a teapot that never fulfilled the function of containing and pouring tea. One, in fact, that couldn’t fulfil that function. So it would not be, in any observable sense, a teapot, would it?”
“I thought the whole idea was that we’re after my story, as told by me.”
“But comprehensible to other people.”
Pablo sighed and picked up the empty claret bottle. “All right. I’ll try.” He stood and walked into the house, then paused, sniffing the air. “Something’s burning,” he said.
“Oh, bother,” I said, getting to my feet. “The goulash.”
As I brushed past Pablo on my way to the kitchen, he said, “If it’s burnt, congealed and inedible, it doesn’t in any observable sense fulfil the function of a goulash, does it?”