The Art Thread

[Pierre Menard]

I just read every page of this thread with fascination.


Stlukes, is there a particular book/books that you'd recommend to a art newbie who wants a pretty solid overview of art history, the major players, movements, etc?

I'd more than appreciate suggestions from anyone else as well.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comment

and

discuss the topics at hand rather than each other.

~

[ftil]

This particular painting is rarely shown and at the present it is in the hands of a privet collector. Whenever it was exposed, even the first time, it was presented mostly in separate rooms covered with the curtains just for “special” public to see. For forty years Balthus did not wanted this painting to be exposed or printed because as he himself explained from fear of the public misunderstanding of his controversial piece. The close examination of this particular artwork might vaguely respond why would people be offended to such degree by this image. Certainly, it would not be exaggeration to say that this image represents the zenith of his provocative artistic perversity.

Stlukesguild,

I am quite curious about the painting mentioned in the article I posted. There is no title. Have you seen it, and if so, do know where I can find it? It would be interesting to see it considering the fact that Balthus had no objection to show “Guitar lesson”.

[stlukesguild]

There are a number of highly respected Art History tomes commonly employed in college/university Art History surveys. Jansen's is one of the finest:

http://www.amazon.com/Jansons-Histor...rds=art+jansen

http://www.amazon.com/History-Art-H-...history+abrams

Perhaps the finest sources I have are the "coffee-table" books published by Konemann. These focus upon a single art historical period or city, are lavishly illustrated, and the text is clear and quite in-depth. Among these you might look at:

































Seriously, you can gain a solid art historical education just through Wikipedia:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and...ure_of_Assyria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using the links... you could conceivably garner a grasp of the whole of Western Art History by starting here:

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

But a well-constructed text like Jansen's is probably the best route... after a basic art history survey course.

[stlukesguild]

The article you posted refers to Balthus The Guitar Player, which you already posted above.



The painting was particularly disturbing not only because of the sexual nature of the imagery as well as the age of the participants... but also due to the style of Balthus painting... which was rooted in children's book illustrations... as well as the blatant blasphemous nature of the work. You'll notice how the woman's hand... fondling the girl... is a clear echo/parody of the saint strumming the rays of Christ's halo in Enguerrand Quarton's Pietà of Villeneuve-lès-Avignon... a painting that Balthus would have known from the Louvre.



Balthus at the time was very much under the influence of the Surrealists. Surrealism made many references to subconscious sexual desires and rejected any notion of editing or repressing the expression of these desires... however offensive or "perverse". Similar themes of the sexuality of children were explored by Andre Breton, Georges Bataille (see his infamous Story of the Eye) as well as by Balthus own brother, the writer Pierre Klossowski. Perhaps most infamous were the works of the artist, Hans Bellmer, much of whose work (drawings, prints, photographs, and dolls) verges on the pornographic.

Much of the sex-obsessed work of the Surrealists comes off (with the passage of time) as juvenile, and many of the strongest artists who worked within the Surrealist vein were those outside of the group proper: Joan Miro, Paul Klee, Pablo Picasso, etc... Balthus himself eventually moved on from his youthful obsessions with perversity and shock... probably due in part to a coming of age brought about by the realities of WWII and his first marriage. His later works were primarily formalist and classicist in nature... influenced by early Italian painting as a result of his tenure as the director of the French Academy in Rome, and later by Japanese art, brought about by his experiences as a cultural diplomat to Japan instigated by the Minister of Culture, André Malraux, where Balthus met his second wife-to-be, Setsuko Ideta.

[ftil]

Well, it is your interpretation and very different from Andre Puet, painter and writer, the author of the article I posted. It seems that he is quite knowledgeable about Balthus as he listed in bibliography 25 books written about Balthus. Even though I don’t agree with everything what he wrote in terms of his interpretation of mental and emotional states of Balthus and his motives to paint Guitar lesson, I agree with his overall evaluation of that painting.

BTW, do you know the name of his painting that was presented mostly in separate rooms covered with the curtains just for “special” public to see.

My curiosity is quite high.

[mortalterror]

StLukes, I liked all the paintings you posted, except the one by William Beckman. To me it looks like an uninteresting painting of a not particularly beautiful or particularly ugly woman. What am I missing?

That reproduction... the best available on the net (good reproductions of contemporary work is often difficult to find due to issues of copyright and the desire of galleries to maintain control over images by artists they represent) is undoubtedly not the finest. I have seen the particular painting... a portrait of the artist's wife... several times in the collection of the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington DC. The painting is rendered in an exquisitely polished manner. It is at once "painterly"... and yet the sense of detail and the polished surface are stunning. I am reminded of Ingres. The color is equally exquisite. The background... which appears as little more than a muddy brown in the reproduction, in real life reveals layers of color. One especially notices the subtle mauve or lavender beneath the surface color... which contrasts the warm flesh tones beautifully.

I'm not exactly thrilled by that realistic style either. It seems like everyone who works in realism makes that same boring painting. An unidealized man or woman stands or sits against a blank background with maybe one or two other squares of color to liven and contrast the composition.

"Oh, the wall behind them isn't really blank? It's layered and textured? Bull****! I don't care about your stupid painterly effect if it's boring to look at. Learn to draw a landscape like Da Vinci put behind his Mona Lisa. Or draw the freaking body in motion instead of your models locked in frozen poses.

"Well Rembrandt did it that way." "You ain't Rembrandt." Besides Rembrandt would throw all kinds of detail and individual character into people's clothing, skin, and hair. They were always in costumes with cool plays of light and shading. He was theatrical. Titian's Man with the Blue Sleeve works like it does because of the expressive nature of his subject, the handsome costume, and the intricate detail of said costume. It's not because people love single toned blank walls.

The artists I'm criticizing should try something more like what Ghirlandaio did with his An Old Man and His Grandson or what Piero della Francesca achieved with his Portraits of Federico da Montefeltro and His Wife Battista Sforza. That way if your model is uninteresting you might catch the attention of a viewer by some other detail.

[stlukesguild]

Well, it is your interpretation...

What interpretation? I simply offered you some basic art historical background on Balthus. The only opinion I expressed was that of the assessment of the merits of Surrealism.

...very different from Andre Puet, painter and writer, the author of the article I posted. It seems that he is quite knowledgeable about Balthus as he listed in bibliography 25 books written about Balthus.

According to his website, Andre Pijet is primarily an illustrator. His efforts as a writer seem limited to the essays he has posted on his web site. By that standard, you and I are just as much "writers" as Pijet... although I do have a number of published essays. His citation of some 25 books for a brief essay seems like a bit of overkill... although I have employed as in depth of a bibliography when writing for a college courses. Of course it doesn't mean one has read the whole book. Having said that, I wouldn't begin to suggest that I am an "expert" on Balthus. I am actually far more familiar with his paintings than I am with his biography.

Even though I don’t agree with everything what he wrote in terms of his interpretation of mental and emotional states of Balthus and his motives to paint Guitar lesson...

Well any such interpretation of the mental and emotional states of the artist is but speculation.

[ftil]

Well, it is your interpretation...

What interpretation? I simply offered you some basic art historical background on Balthus. The only opinion I expressed was that of the assessment of the merits of Surrealism.


According to his website, Andre Pijet is primarily an illustrator. His efforts as a writer seem limited to the essays he has posted on his web site. By that standard, you and I are just as much "writers" as Pijet... although I do have a number of published essays. His citation of some 25 books for a brief essay seems like a bit of overkill... although I have employed as in depth of a bibliography when writing for a college courses. Of course it doesn't mean one has read the whole book. Having said that, I wouldn't begin to suggest that I am an "expert" on Balthus. I am actually far more familiar with his paintings than I am with his biography.

Well, I read his article with a pleasure and I am glad that I found it. You are entitled to your opinion but don’t expect that others will accept it without questioning or verifying if it is true or not. I certainly have done it as it was such a discrepancy between what I saw on Balthus’s and Schiele’s paintings and your interpretation.

It is not a good argument to undermine his work. His article stands on its own that everybody can see it.

BTW, you are a master of avoidance....Anyway, I sent him an e-mial, asking where I can find the painting. I am eager to read a few books about Balthus. I really want to see his “heights of artistic perversion” as well as who was lucky to be chosen to see his paintings.

Well any such interpretation of the mental and emotional states of the artist is but speculation.

Well, it has nothing to do with interpretation or speculation provided that you can read feelings behind paintings. Later, I may elaborate a bit about it regarding Schiele’s art.

[stlukesguild]

"Boring" speaks more of the viewer than of the art work... and we all know that your bias in art is toward the literary narrative, the theatricality, and the complex. But visual art is first and foremost VISUAL. It is about the "stupid" visual elements of color, line, texture, value, etc... and how these are organized before anything else.

Learn to draw a landscape like Da Vinci put behind his Mona Lisa. Or draw the freaking body in motion instead of your models locked in frozen poses."Well Rembrandt did it that way." "You ain't Rembrandt."

Yes... all art must be about the narrative... people running about or acting out some grandiose drama. The simple still-life can't be great art...















But then you are confronted with Rembrandt's or Vermeer's or Raphael's static portraits and all you can come up with is "Well you ain't Rembrandt"... because you really don't know what makes Rembrandt work... because it involves a sensitivity to the visual elements... the artist's touch... the colors and textures... and not to something that can be easily put into words... something narrative.

Besides Rembrandt would throw all kinds of detail and individual character into people's clothing, skin, and hair. They were always in costumes with cool plays of light and shading. He was theatrical. Titian's Man with the Blue Sleeve works like it does because of the expressive nature of his subject, the handsome costume, and the intricate detail of said costume. It's not because people love single toned blank walls.

And do you honestly believe that Rembrandt's or Vermeer's paintings are so admired because of the details... the cool costumes... the staged lighting? No other artists of the era were doing the same thing just as well? And do you honestly imagine that complexity is inherently an attribute... that simplicity
cannot result in a great work of art?











The artists I'm criticizing should try something more like what Ghirlandaio did with his An Old Man and His Grandson or what Piero della Francesca achieved with his Portraits of Federico da Montefeltro and His Wife Battista Sforza. That way if your model is uninteresting you might catch the attention of a viewer by some other detail.

In a way, if you are dealing with an attractive model... or an overly "unique" model, there is a danger in the art becoming secondary to the subject. In other words... the viewer is seduced/intrigued by the subject... but not necessarily by what the artist has done with the subject.

[ftil]

Thank you for still life. Nice change. Simple and beautiful. I like Jean-Baptiste Chardin.

A few more of his paintings.



Jean-Baptiste Chardin, Still Life with a Basket of Peaches, White and Black Grapes with Cooler and Wineglass.




Jean-Baptiste Chardin, The Kitchen Table


Or, Paul Cézanne



Paul Cézanne, Apples on a Sheet





Juan Gris, Still Life with Guitar, book and newspaper




Still Life' and Andre Derain




Or, Balthus.........

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've yet to come across a still life that does much for me, unless it has something cool in it like skulls or something.

[mortalterror]

"Boring" speaks more of the viewer than of the art work... and we all know that your bias in art is toward the literary narrative, the theatricality, and the complex. But visual art is first and foremost VISUAL. It is about the "stupid" visual elements of color, line, texture, value, etc... and how these are organized before anything else.

Learn to draw a landscape like Da Vinci put behind his Mona Lisa. Or draw the freaking body in motion instead of your models locked in frozen poses."Well Rembrandt did it that way." "You ain't Rembrandt."

Yes... all art must be about the narrative... people running about or acting out some grandiose drama. The simple still-life can't be great art...

But then you are confronted with Rembrandt's or Vermeer's or Raphael's static portraits and all you can come up with is "Well you ain't Rembrandt"... because you really don't know what makes Rembrandt work... because it involves a sensitivity to the visual elements... the artist's touch... the colors and textures... and not to something that can be easily put into words... something narrative.

Besides Rembrandt would throw all kinds of detail and individual character into people's clothing, skin, and hair. They were always in costumes with cool plays of light and shading. He was theatrical. Titian's Man with the Blue Sleeve works like it does because of the expressive nature of his subject, the handsome costume, and the intricate detail of said costume. It's not because people love single toned blank walls.

And do you honestly believe that Rembrandt's or Vermeer's paintings are so admired because of the details... the cool costumes... the staged lighting? No other artists of the era were doing the same thing just as well? And do you honestly imagine that complexity is inherently an attribute... that simplicity cannot result in a great work of art?

The artists I'm criticizing should try something more like what Ghirlandaio did with his An Old Man and His Grandson or what Piero della Francesca achieved with his Portraits of Federico da Montefeltro and His Wife Battista Sforza. That way if your model is uninteresting you might catch the attention of a viewer by some other detail.

In a way, if you are dealing with an attractive model... or an overly "unique" model, there is a danger in the art becoming secondary to the subject. In other words... the viewer is seduced/intrigued by the subject... but not necessarily by what the artist has done with the subject.

Take away his little pictures and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Are you even trying now? Look how flimsy your arguments are! They are just a series of ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum. You can't pretend I didn't make valid points just by omitting them in your response. If you don't refute them, then they stand as proved.

1.Da Vinci and Piero della Francesca did a nice job with those landscapes in the back of their famous portraits. It would be nice to see more like that.

2.William Beckman doesn't execute that technique as well as Raphael or Vermeer. He may be trying for the same thing but he's not getting there for some reason. I've offered a hypothesis as to why he's not achieving that level of excellence. Why don't you offer a reasonable hypothesis of your own if you actually disagree with me. Or do you really think he's as great a painter as those masters?

3.Beckman is just one of a dozen painters making that same painting today, and that lack of originality on his part is more boring than the picture itself.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm way out of my league on this one. I'm just gonna enjoy the show.

[ftil]

Take away his little pictures and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Are you even trying now? Look how flimsy your arguments are! They are just a series of ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum. You can't pretend I didn't make valid points just by omitting them in your response. If you don't refute them, then they stand as proved.

1.Da Vinci and Piero della Francesca did a nice job with those landscapes in the back of their famous portraits. It would be nice to see more like that.

2.William Beckman doesn't execute that technique as well as Raphael or Vermeer. He may be trying for the same thing but he's not getting there for some reason. I've offered a hypothesis as to why he's not achieving that level of excellence. Why don't you offer a reasonable hypothesis of your own if you actually disagree with me. Or do you really think he's as great a painter as those masters?

3.Beckman is just one of a dozen painters making that same painting today, and that lack of originality on his part is more boring than the picture itself.

You have brought strong points. I agree with you. Anyway, I don't want to interfere but I want to post paintings you have mention in your posts.



Piero della Francesca, Federico da Montefeltro.





Domenico Ghirlandaio, An Old Man and his Grandson.





Titian, Man with the Blue Sleeve




Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa





Johannes Vermeer, The Milkmaid





Raphael, La Donna Velata


And William Beckman