# Which of these 20th-century painters do you like most?



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

Which of those 20th-century painters do you like most?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

my favorites (of this list):
picasso, hopper, klee, matisse, braque, klimt.

I like Boccioni, Dali (but I think his work is incredibly uneven, going from great to kitsch garbage... and he painted a lot of garbage), kandinsky, pollock and rothko.

Mondrian and Malevich are two of the famous painters I really don't like. Actually there are a couple of paintings of Mondrian I would save, but overall I think he's incredibly overrated. He was obviously very influential, and most of the time he influenced a lot of stuff I don't like at all. 
About Malevich his black square is a joke I don't understand, it's like the 4'33" of modern art.
But maybe a better comparison is with Adolf Loos. I see them as a sort of Adolf Loos of paintings. And to be clear, I think Loos is the worst architect ever.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Heh, norman bates, I think Mondrian and Malevich are my favourites from this lot! I guess I like the clarity, hardness, structure and harmony of their works. Pollock is maybe third.

The black square is maybe more commentary on art than art itself, yeah, like 4'33" I guess. But I don't care much for it either.


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

Just curious: Why Rothko?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Of the list, Rothko is first, followed by Hopper. There is something about seeing Rothko's works in person that gets to me, and one time being in a room full of them was overwhelming. I really like Hopper because he paints how I feel in the real world, surrounded by people but still loving the isolation.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Rothko ahead of Hopper for me as well.

Many other names would come ahead of these two for me though, including Marc, Macke, Kirchner, Feininger, Richter.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Hopper was first choice for me. Finely-executed work grounded in everyday reality yet capturing something important by posing questions about the place of the individual in an uncaring and disinterested world. 

That sounds more poncy than intended. But it is what I meant.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm surprised by the success of Rothko. I like his "mental landscapes", but to me he was also a one-trick-pony artist.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Xaltotun said:


> Heh, norman bates, I think Mondrian and Malevich are my favourites from this lot! I guess I like the clarity, hardness, structure and harmony of their works. Pollock is maybe third.


yes, I can understand that. But understanding does not mean that I like it.
One of his paintings I like is this:








it conveys well the idea of ryhthm and I like also the fact that it's less minimalist than usual.
Besides that, one of the things I don't generally like about his paintings is his choice of color. I've read that he choosed to reduce his palette, but I can't see a good reason for that. I find it banal and It loses any chromatic subtleness in my opinion. I like great colorists who are able to toy with nuances and he was going in the opposite direction with this myth of simplicity or purity, I don't know, but to me especially considering that aspect, it did not work at all.


----------



## wolkaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

norman bates said:


> I'm surprised by the success of Rothko. I like his "mental landscapes", but to me he was also a one-trick-pony artist.


Same thoughts. :lol:


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Hopper by a decent margin; Picasso and Klimt tied for second; Klee a close third.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

norman bates said:


> I'm surprised by the success of Rothko. I like his "mental landscapes", but to me he was also a one-trick-pony artist.


I'm curious; have you seen more than one of his paintings in person?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Pat Fairlea said:


> That sounds more poncy than intended. But it is what I meant.


Poncy - that's a new one for me. I love it when I can increase my vocabulary! :tiphat:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm curious; have you seen more than one of his paintings in person?


No, I haven't. But why do you think it's important? I like his work, my point is just the lack of variety. I would say the same for a Lucio Fontana who kept using the same idea over and over (even more than Rohtko probably)... with the difference that I like Rohtko and I don't particularly like Fontana.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

norman bates said:


> yes, I can understand that. But understanding does not mean that I like it.
> One of his paintings I like is this:
> View attachment 96593
> 
> ...


Good analysis there. Despite trying, I'm not that much of a color person myself - I might even prefer sculpture and architechture over painting. So maybe that explains some of it!


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Manxfeeder said:


> Poncy - that's a new one for me. I love it when I can increase my vocabulary! :tiphat:


You're most welcome!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Matisse.........


----------

