# The Art Thread



## The Cosmos

As the title says, post your favorite works of art . (or you could post your own too!)
If you want to find a work of art, use google image search or try the art renewal center -
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/contents.asp

I'll start for now -

Judith Beheading Holofernes by *Caravaggio*

Oil on canvas, 1598

The image is soo disturbing and the expressions are just...priceless!


----------



## Yoshi

That one is good I love the expressions. Disturbing indeed. I don't have that much knowledge about this, but I have some favourites... I'll just find the pictures and post later.


----------



## Polednice

It's so hard to pick things! Maybe I will try and come back later, but I'm a big fan of William Blake and J. M. W. Turner. I do like visual art, but it's always been something I've been largely ignorant of, and I've always regretted it. Music and literature are really my things, and I tend to come across art through them (such as Blake's engravings of Paradise Lost and Dante's Divine Comedy etc.)


----------



## michael walsh

I don't know how to put a picture on here but for my money, yes, check out the art renewal centre - and William Bouguereau. What talent; what subjects. I have two but alas, re-prints.


----------



## Weston

michael walsh said:


> I don't know how to put a picture on here but for my money, yes, check out the art renewal centre - and William Bouguereau. What talent; what subjects. I have two but alas, re-prints.


I'll 2nd the vote for the Art Renewal Center (ARC) and the amazing William Bougereau. Since most of his better works are nudes, I'll post a lesser work, suitable for all viewers.









I could wander for hours at the ARC. It really lowers my blood pressure.


----------



## Weston

And since you invited us to post our own too, here's a sample of the kind of thing I did for about 15 years. Nowhere near in the league of the fine art posted above, but no one dies from it. 




























.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The ARC has some marvelous art on its website, but the philosophy behind the site is as reactionary as it comes. The founders of the ARC would have you believe that the whole of Modernism was some great anomaly... an aberration that has only eclipsed the efforts of the French Academy and the Victorians through some Machiavellian conspiracy... and that the leader of the French Academy, William Bouguereau was actually the greatest figure painter of all time (not Michelangelo, not Rubens, not Raphael, not Velasquez). This is probably akin to proclaiming Arnold Bax as the greatest composer of all time. Like Bax, Bouguereau is certainly skillful and worthy of a degree of recognition... but he is no Degas, Monet, Matisse, or Bonnard... let alone Rubens or Michelangelo any more than Bax is on par with Ravel, Debussy, Richard Strauss, or Stravinsky... let alone Beethoven or Mozart.

To my mind, the greatest single painting is easily the Sistine Ceiling:










Of course the Sistine is essentially an entire collection of paintings... any number of which are among the most brilliant:




























Beyond such a cycle of paintings, my single favorite painting might just be Botticelli's _Primavera_ which strikes me as the romantic poetry of the Renaissance given form:


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The ARC has some marvelous art on its website, but the philosophy behind the site is as reactionary as it comes. The founders of the ARC would have you believe that the whole of Modernism was some great anomaly... an aberration that has only eclipsed the efforts of the French Academy and the Victorians through some Machiavellian conspiracy... and that the leader of the French Academy, William Bouguereau was actually the greatest figure painter of all time (not Michelangelo, not Rubens, not Raphael, not Velasquez). This is probably akin to proclaiming Arnold Bax as the greatest composer of all time. Like Bax, Bouguereau is certainly skillful and worthy of a degree of recognition... but he is no Degas, Monet, Matisse, or Bonnard... let alone Rubens or Michelangelo any more than Bax is on par with Ravel, Debussy, Richard Strauss, or Stravinsky... let alone Beethoven or Mozart.




awesome!

And lets not forget about Bach, Palestrina, Vivaldi, etc etc.


----------



## Scott Good

I would have to say that my favorite paintings are the three prints I own. I much prefer "real" art, so, have lots of paintings from friends and family in my house, but these three I have to have.

1. Fred Farley - Stormy Weather, Georgian Bay Lake










I like this painting for many reasons (form, sense of motion, light vs. dark etc). But it is the subject it's self that interests me most. I have spent many hours/days/years with this landscape, and this painting seems to sum up what it is I love so much about it. Majestic loneliness.

2. Le Rêve - Pablo Picasso










On another forum, I got into it about this work, so I will be brief. But no matter how much I look at this painting, I always see more. An endless adventure.

3. Autumn Glory - Robert Everett

Unfortunately, I can't find it on the net. But, it is a depiction of the changing colours of autumn. Perhaps not the best one ever, but it was a wedding present, and depicts the place where I proposed to my wife. So, heavy on the sentimental value.


----------



## bdelykleon

I'm a great admirer of Flemish masters (both in music and in the fine arts), Early Renaissance (Giotto, Fra Angelico, etc) and Spanish and Flemish Baroque (El Greco, Diogo de Velazquez and Rubens). It varies by my mood, when I'm more reserved, I tend to prefer paintures like this:










But sometimes a Rubens is just what I need, in a hyperdose of muscles, colors, movement and fat:


----------



## Lukecash12

*Composer Beauty Parlor*

Each is a portrait of the late composer depicted. Enjoy their ugly mugs

Scriabin:









Alkan:









Janacek:









Bach:









Tchaikovsky:


----------



## Lukecash12

*Composer Beauty Parlor*

Sibelius:









Roslavets:









Medtner:









Mendelsohnn:









Handel:









Blumenfeld:


----------



## Lukecash12

*Composer Beauty Parlor*

Feinberg:









Mozart:









Beethoven:









Liszt (this one is especially ugly, just for you):









Rameau:









Pierne (I found this one hilarious):


----------



## Lukecash12

*Composer Beauty Parlor*

Chopin:









Dohnanyi:









Monteverdi:









Dvorak:









Henselt:









Debussy:


----------



## Lukecash12

*Composer Beauty Parlor*

Schumann:









Bortkiewicz:









Clementi:









Haydn:









Lyapunov:









Thalberg:


----------



## Lukecash12

*Composer Beauty Parlor*

Sorabji:









Heller:









Prokofeiv:









And an exceptionally ugly picture of Rostropovich, just for good measure:


----------



## michael walsh

Proved! True beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Weston, a bit radical but that isn't sinful: Well done!


----------



## The Cosmos

I do think the ARC are a wee bit over zealous with their views and philosophies, but hey, if they had taken the safe route, the articles wouldn't have been interesting to read about in the first place! But to be honest though, I'm NOT a fan of abstract art, nor do I hate it. It's sort of in the "ok" zone for me, similar to a lot of Avant-guard jazz. I mean, some of it can be cool, but a lot of it I really don't get. Do these weird triangles and circles and rectangles without any form of depth whatsoever happen to mean anything?!(and sometimes they are even politically tied - Talk about getting mindfucked!) The art-critiques usually nod their heads and I just move on, scratching my head half the time. But like I said, I'm not an hater .

So anyways, here are a few recent artists -

*Richard Schmid *
http://www.richardschmid.com/

I've got all his books and videos and I just love them! He's a master of painting outside and in a single session!



















*Susan Lyon* and *Scott Burdick*
http://www.scottburdick.com/

The works on their website are so impressive, that I'm not sure which one to choose! I could just stare at them all day long.

















I'm not a big fan of digital art and lot of the commercial art stuff tied to movies and such, but I think this guy's work is really really good!

*Craig Mullins* -
It looks so painterly, that I could hardly believe it's done digitally.


----------



## Elgarian

The Cosmos said:


> I'm NOT a fan of abstract art, nor do I hate it. It's sort of in the "ok" zone for me, similar to a lot of Avant-guard jazz. I mean, some of it can be cool, but a lot of it I really don't get. Do these weird triangles and circles and rectangles without any form of depth whatsoever happen to mean anything?!


There's no single way of answering the question, but one place to start is by approaching them assuming that they mean no more than themselves. If you look at a flower, or a tree, or patterns in the sand left by the sea, you enjoy the form, tones and colours without asking what it means. So with abstract art - the difference being that this particular structure has been organised by a person, not a natural process.

Having said that, the artistic intention behind the structure varies. Someone like Patrick Heron, for instance, uses colour as a way of exploring pictorial space. Some colours seem to recede behind the plane of the picture, while some advance - so typically one of his paintings invites an exploration of this illusory space that he's created; and the process can be strangely satisfying. Others use shapes that have symbolic value - artists like Nicholson, Rothko, or Malevich might say their art was expressing spiritual or mystical concepts.

Music is an abstract art form, after all - we don't require it to 'mean' something other than itself. It's possible to enjoy abstract painting in the same way.


----------



## Yoshi

Some random favourites apart from the Beethoven painting already mentioned:

The Persistence of Memory - Salvador Dali










The Ship - Salvador Dali









The Scream - Edvard Munch










General's Family - Octavio Ocampo










I'll post later some paintings of my favourite artist...


----------



## Yoshi

My favourite painter at the moment is Vladimir Kush. I absolutely love all of his work.

Arrival of the Flower Ship









Evening Flights









Abandoned Dwellings









Atlas of Wander









Breach









I doubt anyone in here has the same taste as me...


----------



## MrTortoise

Weston said:


> And since you invited us to post our own too, here's a sample of the kind of thing I did for about 15 years. Nowhere near in the league of the fine art posted above, but no one dies from it.


Terrific stuff Weston.


----------



## Yoshi

Scott Good said:


> 3. Autumn Glory - Robert Everett
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't find it on the net. But, it is a depiction of the changing colours of autumn. Perhaps not the best one ever, but it was a wedding present, and depicts the place where I proposed to my wife. So, heavy on the sentimental value.


Is it this one?


----------



## michael walsh

I remember checking out the Liverpool Tate gallery. I wandered into one very large exhibition hall around which were large blue but otherwise blank canvasses. I presumed that it being empty, pictures or other stuff would be soon on view.

I asked the security guard why his presence on the door was needed and asked also what was going to be on view there.

He told me the canvasses, each maybe the size of a living room wall, _were_ the art works. Hmm I presume you're all familiar with the Hans Christian Anderson story, _The Emperor's New Clothes_. You have it in one.

Idiocy but neither I nor many others are taken in by pretentious pontification. "Convince a fool against their will they'll hold the same opinion still."


----------



## Weston

michael walsh said:


> Idiocy but neither I nor many others are taken in by pretentious pontification. "Convince a fool against their will they'll hold the same opinion still."


There's a fantastic Dave Barry commentary about his visiting a high brow art show where an old worn out broken chair was on display. The price was around $20,000 US. The article is hilarious throughout, but he winds up by saying" I admit I'm a complete idiot when it comes to art. So YOU buy the chair!"

Also my college drawing professor tells a story, probably too good to be entirely true, about going to a gallery and admiring a sculpture installation of several shoes piled in a corner. He and his companions discussed the implications of this installation and what the artist was trying to say with it. After a while they moved on toward the next room, where they encountered a sign. "Please remove shoes before entering."


----------



## Scott Good

Jan said:


> Is it this one?


Jan - nicely done! That's the one(although the colours on my print are quite different...)

You are the master of google!


----------



## Aramis

I love traditionald paintings showing... which... well, paintings that... I'm not sure how to name it. I remember Beethoven's quote that said: "Music should light the flame in the heart of a man and fill women's eyes with tears". That's how I think about painting too.

For example some paintings by Wojciech Kossak:


----------



## Elgarian

michael walsh said:


> I remember checking out the Liverpool Tate gallery. I wandered into one very large exhibition hall around which were large blue but otherwise blank canvasses. I presumed that it being empty, pictures or other stuff would be soon on view.
> 
> I asked the security guard why his presence on the door was needed and asked also what was going to be on view there.
> 
> He told me the canvasses, each maybe the size of a living room wall, _were_ the art works. Hmm I presume you're all familiar with the Hans Christian Anderson story, _The Emperor's New Clothes_. You have it in one.
> 
> Idiocy but neither I nor many others are taken in by pretentious pontification. "Convince a fool against their will they'll hold the same opinion still."


It's very easy to assume that work of this kind is pretentious nonsense; in fact it's easy to assume that _any_ art one doesn't understand is pretentious nonsense. (I should know - during the course of my life I've stumbled from one false assumption about art to another, and have often ended up with egg all over my face later on.)

I haven't seen the display you speak of, and I have no idea what the artist's intention was, or his expectation of what a sympathetic viewer might experience. But the idea of being in a very large room surrounded by large blue canvases isn't necessarily ridiculous. To walk into the room, and then just walk out isn't giving the art a fair chance. If the art seems simply too uninteresting to give it the time needed, that's fine - we all make those kind of choices all the time. But when we do so, it means we haven't experienced the art properly, so we simply don't know whether it's any good or not. So if (in those circumstances) we say it's rubbish, we can only be expressing our prejudices.

The point is that a risk is involved. We have to risk being made a fool of, and give it time - surrender to it, as it were; there's no other way to do it. There's no guarantee we'll 'get' it. We may still think it's nonsense, even after standing there for half an hour and doing our utmost to open ourselves to it. But until we've attempted that, we can't usefully say anything about _the work_; only about ourselves.


----------



## Scott Good

Elgarian said:


> It's very easy to assume that work of this kind is pretentious nonsense; in fact it's easy to assume that _any_ art one doesn't understand is pretentious nonsense...
> 
> To walk into the room, and then just walk out isn't giving the art a fair chance... So if (in those circumstances) we say it's rubbish, we can only be expressing our prejudices.
> 
> We have to risk being made a fool of.


Great points (once again, Elgarian!).

For me, it is not foolish to seek pleasure and understanding. I have never seen a work of art that could not stir something inside of me - only if I would let it.

To be honest, I'd most often rather stare at some large blue canvasses for a half hour than have to look at the war horrors, decapitations etc depicted in several of these other posted paintings. Of course, each to their own.


----------



## michael walsh

I cannot understand or respect an absence of art; a void. That is my take and of course each to their own. If they can get something out of staring at a blank canvas then who am I to snigger behind the door ... ?

I love that one about the 'leave your shoes outside' and as is known, many a true word said in jest. I remember the true story about the refuse collectors who hurled a stack of street detrius into the truck. 

They were afterwards informed that it was a 'work of art', which the council had paid thousands for ... sorry, I meant to say wage slaves had financed; yes, the poor bloody indentured.


----------



## Yoshi

Scott Good said:


> Jan - nicely done! That's the one(although the colours on my print are quite different...)
> 
> You are the master of google!


hehe thanks  I couldn't find a bigger picture tho the painting looks nice.


----------



## Elgarian

michael walsh said:


> I cannot understand or respect an absence of art; a void. That is my take and of course each to their own. If they can get something out of staring at a blank canvas then who am I to snigger behind the door ... ?


No one could quibble with your first sentence: an absence of art is just that - nothing. But my understanding is that these were not nothing; not even 'blank' canvases. They were _blue_ canvases - which is perhaps importantly different. And I don't think we can know how we might be affected by a large room full of large plain blue canvases, unless we try it, fairly, and genuinely try to discover (if we can) what the artist was trying to express.



> I love that one about the 'leave your shoes outside' and as is known, many a true word said in jest. I remember the true story about the refuse collectors who hurled a stack of street detrius into the truck.
> 
> They were afterwards informed that it was a 'work of art', which the council had paid thousands for ... sorry, I meant to say wage slaves had financed; yes, the poor bloody indentured.


I agree these are good stories. They're funny because like all such good jokes they're about people and the way they can be confused and misled (and there but for the grace of God go I); and as well as being funny, they tell us something about _people_. But I'm not convinced they tell us anything about _art_, as such.


----------



## Scott Good

Elgarian said:


> I don't think we can know how we might be affected by a large room full of large plain blue canvases, unless we try it, fairly, and genuinely try to discover (if we can) what the artist was trying to express.


Yes.

Shoes: For an instance, those people did look at the shoes as a work of art - and for that time, it was art - it had been framed by the observer. It provoked thoughts.

Perhaps when they learned that it wasn't "art", their vision of it transformed...but to something better, or to something less interesting? My guess is the later, so, why not just keep the image of it being art?

Blue: The colour blue - what does it mean? Depending on the hue, one could become lost in thoughts of the sky, or perhaps water. Blue is such an interesting colour - it's appearance outside of the sky (and it's watery reflection) is quite rare. It exists above the ground - apart from our physical experience, except for rare flowers, and a handful of insects. I have spent much time staring at the subtle change in hue as the blueness cascades into the horizon from the refraction off the light at different angles - it is a beautiful as any Michelangelo Cherub could ever be dream of being. The infinite blur of hue is cause for the most profound of thoughts: existence..eternity - but only if you seek it.










I am so grateful to modern, abstract art for helping me open my mind a bit further to the immensity of possible artistic experience, and potential of beauty to be found everywhere.


----------



## The Cosmos

Weston said:


> And since you invited us to post our own too, here's a sample of the kind of thing I did for about 15 years. Nowhere near in the league of the fine art posted above, but no one dies from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Nice work . The first image reminds me of some of the great illustrators of the past century. (Frank Frazetta comes to mind instantly)

The 3rd one felt a wee bit incomplete, but certainly very spooky!


----------



## michael walsh

Right; here is something to provoke thought and comment 













There you go! What do you think? (this could be interesting).


----------



## The Cosmos

I think that a plain blue on a canvas as a work of art is absolute rubbish. Heck I could just stare at the walls around me and hallucinate all kinds of things. And my walls certainly aren't a work of art - that's for sure. Abstract art - isn't for me, but I could certainly live with it. Plain "blue" with some deep philosophical yadayada?! Sounds like some sort of drug experience to me. (kidding of course...just my point of view, so don't hate me for this ).


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird

modern art rules


----------



## Scott Good

michael walsh said:


> Right; here is something to provoke thought and comment
> 
> There you go! What do you think? (this could be interesting).


Just a tiny bit funny. But, mostly just a silly, predictable rebuttal. Please, try harder.


----------



## Lukecash12

Jan said:


> Some random favourites apart from the Beethoven painting already mentioned:
> 
> The Persistence of Memory - Salvador Dali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ship - Salvador Dali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scream - Edvard Munch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General's Family - Octavio Ocampo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll post later some paintings of my favourite artist...


I love the scream! It's one of the most characteristic paintings that I know of. It's so lucid, humoresque, and characteristic of people. It's silly that people think of their lives as some mello dramatic journey; It always seemed like more of a mass hysteria to me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I do think the ARC are a wee bit over zealous with their views and philosophies, but hey, if they had taken the safe route, the articles wouldn't have been interesting to read about in the first place! But to be honest though, I'm NOT a fan of abstract art, nor do I hate it. It's sort of in the "ok" zone for me, similar to a lot of Avant-guard jazz. I mean, some of it can be cool, but a lot of it I really don't get.

It isn't that the ARC are only against abstraction; they are pretty much dismissive of everything from Impressionism on. As a result, their philosophy is the most incredibly reactionary. They would have the reader believe that there was a single peak of art and that this could be found in the works of 19th century academicians. The reality is that the critics of the ARC have little or no ability to judge "realistic" art any more than they can Modernism or abstraction. Anyone with a real eye for art can recognize that an artist such as William Bouguereau was a fantastic craftsman... but he pales before Ingres, Rubens, Vermeer or Raphael as much as he does before Manet, Matisse, or Picasso. I would go even further than declaring that the ARC is reactionary by declaring that they are nationalistic, racist, and xenophobic. Not only do they dismiss pretty much the whole of Modernism as an aberation, but they equally dismiss most of the artistic products of non-Western art and even European medieval art as "primitive". The reality is that medieval art is as "primitive" as a Gregorian chant or a Gothic cathedral, and a great deal of the art works of Asia, the Middle-East, the Americas, etc... display an astounding degree of sophistication and an originality and compositional mastery to rival the best products of the West.


----------



## Zeniyama

Anyone here up for some Duchamp?









_The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even_

How about a bit of Umberto Boccioni?









_Elasticity_


----------



## Lukecash12

The Cosmos said:


> I think that a plain blue on a canvas as a work of art is absolute rubbish. Heck I could just stare at the walls around me and hallucinate all kinds of things. And my walls certainly aren't a work of art - that's for sure. Abstract art - isn't for me, but I could certainly live with it. Plain "blue" with some deep philosophical yadayada?! Sounds like some sort of drug experience to me. (kidding of course...just my point of view, so don't hate me for this ).


I couldn't agree with you more. Art is quite a sinful thing if it was just made for someone to say look how intelligent I am. It's immature rubbish if there isn't any content to it. I don't want to push too many buttons, but the musical works of Simon Glass are rubbish in the same respect. It's just Narcissistic crap, really.


----------



## Weston

michael walsh said:


> Right; here is something to provoke thought and comment
> 
> There you go! What do you think? (this could be interesting).


I think it has infinite potential.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There are undoubtedly any number of works of contemporary art that straddle... or cross over the line from innovation and experimentation into pure intellectual Onanism. Arguably artists such as Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons are no different from composers such as Stockhausen and Cage. On the other hand... there are works of art that are (or were) undoubtedly experimental and yet which deeply resonate. Mark Rothko, for example, must be experienced in person and contemplated in a manner not unlike that one brings to a medieval chant, a Japanese rock garden, or to classical Japanese Zen flute music. I am continually wary of any broad sweeping statements dismissing the whole of Modern or Contemporary art or music... or the whole of what the 19th century had to offer... or embracing the whole of either. It always comes down to the individual artists. 90% plus of all art is mediocre at best (new or old)... but there are always those who stand out.


----------



## Weston

I've had a few disparaging comments about modern art, but in truth I like it just as much as I like modern music -- that is to say part of the time. I have to be in the mood for it.

Probably one of my all time favorite artists is Yves Tanguy.










I am also very fond of Roberto Matta's work.









These are not really abstract artists, nor would they likely have painted a canvas blue. They are probably closer to surrealism than to more modern ideas. Still they are largely non-representational, or at least not representing anything we can recognize. Yet they move me deeply.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I love Matta as well.


----------



## Elgarian

Scott Good said:


> Yes.
> Blue: The colour blue - what does it mean? Depending on the hue, one could become lost in thoughts of the sky, or perhaps water. Blue is such an interesting colour - it's appearance outside of the sky (and it's watery reflection) is quite rare. It exists above the ground - apart from our physical experience, except for rare flowers, and a handful of insects. I have spent much time staring at the subtle change in hue as the blueness cascades into the horizon from the refraction off the light at different angles - it is a beautiful as any Michelangelo Cherub could ever be dream of being. The infinite blur of hue is cause for the most profound of thoughts: existence..eternity - but only if you seek it.


As Wittgenstein tells us, there are things that can only be said, and things that can only be shown. And blueness can only be shown - as your little blue shaded rectangle demonstrates perfectly.

An artist can show us things we may have looked at before, but have never really seen. As far as I understand it, the particular artist we were discussing was not exhibiting a room with blue painted walls, but a room with large blue-painted canvases on its walls (which is not the same thing). Were those canvases plain blue, actually? Or, if I were to look at them carefully, would I start to see subtle shadings, and if so, what effect might that have on me? I can't tell, unless I try it. I certainly can't tell by merely glancing at it and walking out.

I once spent half an hour inside a construction by the artist James Turrell which was a kind of dome with a rectangular hole in its roof, open to the sky. That was all - just a rectangular patch of sky. It seemed completely pointless, but I decided to try it and just sat and watched the rectangle. After a few minutes I started to see that what I'd thought was a plain blue rectangle wasn't plain at all. The longer I looked, the more nuanced details I could see - faint but exquisite wisps of cloud that normally wouldn't have been visible at all, all weaving intricate patterns with each other. I'd had no idea that there was so much structure in a 'plain blue sky'.

The concentration on it had a remarkable effect. Occasionally a bird would fly across the rectangle - and it seemed like a moment of high drama, occurring as it did suddenly, interrupting the silent blueness. The point is - I went into this construction reluctantly, sceptically, expecting disappointment. I could easily have said 'this is ridiculous' and walked out. But it turned out to be a uniquely beautiful and thoughtful experience that I've never forgotten.


----------



## Elgarian

michael walsh said:


> Right; here is something to provoke thought and comment
> 
> There you go! What do you think? (this could be interesting).


I wondered about printing off a copy and hanging it on my wall, but reproductions never catch the spirit of the original, do they?


----------



## The Cosmos

I don't know about you guys, but I never felt comfortable with the "modern art" term. What I'm not interested in is pretty specifically Non-Representational art. In terms of music, it would translate to something along the lines of - Iannis Xenakis, Luigi Nono, Ligeti (I don't mind some of his works though), karlheinz stockhausen.

And a lot of avant-garde jazz never appealed to me either. (Peter brotzmann or Andrew hill comes to mind - tried it, hated it.)

However, I certainly don't dislike a lot of commercial art related to illustrations, comics, movies and such nor any of the rock, soul, funk etc. music 1960s onwards. And I do consider them 'modern' too. Just my stance of course .


----------



## Scott Good

Elgarian said:


> As Wittgenstein tells us, there are things that can only be said, and things that can only be shown. And blueness can only be shown - as your little blue shaded rectangle demonstrates perfectly.
> 
> An artist can show us things we may have looked at before, but have never really seen. As far as I understand it, the particular artist we were discussing was not exhibiting a room with blue painted walls, but a room with large blue-painted canvases on its walls (which is not the same thing). Were those canvases plain blue, actually? Or, if I were to look at them carefully, would I start to see subtle shadings, and if so, what effect might that have on me? I can't tell, unless I try it. I certainly can't tell by merely glancing at it and walking out.
> 
> I once spent half an hour inside a construction by the artist James Turrell which was a kind of dome with a rectangular hole in its roof, open to the sky. That was all - just a rectangular patch of sky. It seemed completely pointless, but I decided to try it and just sat and watched the rectangle. After a few minutes I started to see that what I'd thought was a plain blue rectangle wasn't plain at all. The longer I looked, the more nuanced details I could see - faint but exquisite wisps of cloud that normally wouldn't have been visible at all, all weaving intricate patterns with each other. I'd had no idea that there was so much structure in a 'plain blue sky'.
> 
> The concentration on it had a remarkable effect. Occasionally a bird would fly across the rectangle - and it seemed like a moment of high drama, occurring as it did suddenly, interrupting the silent blueness. The point is - I went into this construction reluctantly, sceptically, expecting disappointment. I could easily have said 'this is ridiculous' and walked out. But it turned out to be a uniquely beautiful and thoughtful experience that I've never forgotten.


Thank you for sharing this, Elgarian.

I think I need to check out Wittgenstein.


----------



## Weston

Elgarian said:


> I once spent half an hour inside a construction by the artist James Turrell which was a kind of dome with a rectangular hole in its roof, open to the sky. That was all - just a rectangular patch of sky. It seemed completely pointless, but I decided to try it and just sat and watched the rectangle.


Very cool story, but I have to wonder if you were really supposed to look at the rectangle. A dome with a hole in the roof would become a camera oscura. Did you look at the walls?

I am not smart enough to have thought of this myself. We have an art installation in Nashville at the Dyer Observatory by an English artist whose name I have forgotten. You walk inside a partially underground dome that has a hole in the ceiling. You must stay for a good ten or fifteen minutes before your eyes adjust to the darkness and you see the outside world projected upside down on the walls and floor. It's as if you are standing on the sky. To me this borders more on a science demonstration than a work of art, but whatever. It's still a fantastic experience.

ETA: Here is a link to what I was trying to describe. there used to be a video at the site, but is now gone.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/rele...-conjunction-with-music-on-the-mountain.58856


----------



## Elgarian

Weston said:


> Very cool story, but I have to wonder if you were really supposed to look at the rectangle. A dome with a hole in the roof would become a camera oscura. Did you look at the walls?


Oh no, the rectangle of sky was definitely the thing to watch - as if it were a framed painting. There are no lenses involved, and the hole is far too big to act as a pinhole camera, so there's no way in which an image can be formed inside the chamber. (The general character of the light changes of course as clouds move across, but that's not the same thing.)

See here.


----------



## likelake

*One of my farites is ...*

*Mlle. Irène Cahen d'Anvers*

Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Mlle. Irène Cahen d'Anvers. 1880. Oil on canvas. Sammlung E.G. Bührle, Zurich, Switzerland.


----------



## shsherm

I also like the work of Yves Tanguy. I have always found his paintings stimulating and imaginative. One of his works is among my favorites at The Art Institute Of Chicago.


----------



## banyandreams

Hello, I am new here. but I love painting, so I came here to have a look, and air my opinion too.

The kind of art I love most is those that depicting the beauty of nature, like Canadian artist Jake Vandenbrink's paintings:









If you want to see more, go here

They give me a feeling of peace and serenity.

and also American artist Harlan's paintings:










More see here

Thomas Kinkade's paintings give me a nolstalgiac feeling, I especially love the cottages in his paintings:









See more

I also like Joni Eareckson's paintings, who paints with her mouth:









See more

Besides these, there are several other contemparory artists I like, such as Camille Engel, Roland Lee, Mary McSweeny, etc

Among the classical artists, I like Constable, Corot, Millet, Von Gogh, Ivan Shishkin, Levitan most.

I paint a little myself. Here is a water color I painted:










See more


----------



## Yoshi

banyandreams said:


>


I love that one 

Also, nice work with the water colour


----------



## Argus

Thomas Kinkade is awful saccharine cheese. Total style over substance. He's not a bad painter technically but his paintings are cliched and derivative. Like the visual equivalent of Westlife or Coldplay.

Anyway, I am rather unknowledgable in the visual side of the arts but have a few favourites.

Sargent - _The Black Brook_










Turner - _River and Bay_










Kandinsky - _Composition VI_










Goya - _The Dog_










I am probably more a fan of more modern works than I am of the classical Italian or Flemish masters. The influence of the Church probably has a lot to do with this view.

I can fully understand why people don't like or 'get' modern art but aren't these the same type of people who heckled Bob Dyan or Miles Davis for going electric in the 60's. Or rioted against the Rite of Spring at it's premiere. Art will always evolve and whether it's accepted by the masses is irrelevant.

On a sidenote BBC4 recently aired a series called _Art of Spain_ which was very interesting and informative. Spain had some truly great painters, architects and sculptors. It was also accompanied by great music by Rodrigo, Tarrega, Albeniz and loads of flamenco. A new series called _Art of Russia _is set to air soon, which should be good. Also, it is presented by Alan Partridge/Gerard Depardieu love child Andrew Graham Dixon.


----------

