# Favorite Painter(s)?



## Vesteralen

It may have been done before, but I was wondering if there are any visual arts fans on the forum?

At one point my interest in art and artists (painters in particular) rivaled my interest in music.

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for *Corot* - not so much the "Souvenirs" he did in his old age, but the early landscapes and the portraits.

"Gyspy Girl With Mandolin" from the Sao Paolo Museum of Art is one of my favorites. It inspired Picasso to come up with his own take on the subject.


----------



## Aramis

Delacroix but I must admit that I wouldn't be so sure if except of great paintings in general he wouldn't impress me with:

- awesome looks
- great journals that he left us
- scoring for the best portrait of Chopin

Some others I respect would include:

Jacek Malczewski:










C.D Friedrich:










Kossak family, three painters specialised in batalistc/historical paintings:










Recently I've also discovered and loved Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, group of (mainly) English painters, especially J.W Waterhouse:










But all in all I must admit I'm far from being real coinesseur of paintings yet.


----------



## Art Rock

Franz Marc:









August Macke:









Lu Schaper (my wife):


----------



## Vesteralen

Aramis said:


> Recently I've also discovered and loved Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, group of (mainly) English painters, especially J.W Waterhouse:


I once read a lot about the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and had a number of books about them as individuals and as a group. The only one I took with me when I moved was my book on Waterhouse. Still love his work. I also like Burne-Jones in spite of his mannerism, though some might not include him in the group.


----------



## Vesteralen

Art Rock said:


> Lu Schaper (my wife):


Very nice, indeed. "The Blue Rider" group always appealed to me because of the colors (I'm not very sophisticated, I'm afraid). I take it your wife was influenced by them to some degree?


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm drawn to Mark Rotho's paintings. But they really need to be seen in person with proper lighting. Once I was in a gallery, turned the corner, and suddenly I was surrounded by them. I had to sit down.










I also find the paintings and drawings of Remedios Varo fascinating in both their symbolism and execution. They're also impressive in person.


----------



## TxllxT

The Great Figure
Among the rain
and lights
I saw the figure 5
in gold
on a red
fire truck
moving
tense
unheeded
to gong clangs
siren howls
and wheels rumbling
through the dark city

William Carlos Williams 1921
(Painter: Charles Demuth - _The Figure 5 in Gold _(1928))


----------



## Art Rock

Vesteralen said:


> Very nice, indeed. "The Blue Rider" group always appealed to me because of the colors (I'm not very sophisticated, I'm afraid). I take it your wife was influenced by them to some degree?


Indeed, especially Marc and Macke.


----------



## Argus

Art Rock said:


> Lu Schaper (my wife):


Nice.

I do a bit of painting now and again but I've nowhere near the same level of interest in it as I have in music. Actually most of my painting is directly linked to music and sound. Also, it stresses me out during the painting process when I feel the painting isn't going the way I want it, even though in the end I more often than not quite like the outcome.

I don't really have any favourite artists. I like Mondrian and Kandinsky, various ukiyo-e and sumi-e paintings. But really I don't have that discriminating tastes. I mostly like abstract, primarily expressionist or minimalist stuff, some impressionist and earlier guys like Turner. I find it hard to form an opinion on a lot of paintings because I am not enthusiatic enough about the subject to force myself to decide whether I like it or not.


----------



## Chris

Manxfeeder said:


> If any TC-ers would like to own a series of original paintings in this style I will supply them in a range of colour permutations...20 quid each


----------



## Aramis

Chris said:


> Manxfeeder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If any TC-ers would like to own a series of original paintings in this style I will supply them in a range of colour permutations...20 quid each
> 
> 
> 
> You value yourself quite low... I've been offered, here - on TC, 10,000$ for my painting. I wonder if this one would reach 20,000$:
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris

Aramis said:


> Uploaded with ImageShack.us


I see Moses and Aaron....so perhaps the third figure is their sister Miriam. After she was struck with leprosy (Numbers 12:10)?


----------



## Almaviva

A movement I particularly like is expressionism, with painters such as Macke, Marc, Modigliani, Kirchner, Chagall, Kandinsky, Portinari, Di Cavalcanti, Segall, etc.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Aramis said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> You value yourself quite low... I've been offered, here - on TC, 10,000$ for my painting. I wonder if this one would reach 20,000$:
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes... some very nice spray painting in photoshop...
Click to expand...


----------



## Philip

i don't know very much about painting but this waterhouse was striking to me:


----------



## Sid James

I've got many favourite painters, but one most people here probably don't know about is Hungarian *Gyula Derkovits* (1894-1934). His paintings image working class life in Budapest during the interwar years. He was stronly left-leaning in his politics & was not afraid to show that in his works, imaging the grittier side of life back in those days...

Below is _Still Life with Fi_sh (1928) &_ The Fish Seller _(1930) -


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

As a painter, I have frequently played the game of "What 10 paintings would you most like to own?" with my studio mates and other artists. While certain individual paintings might change from time to time I have little doubt that the following works would remain ever near the top of my list of favorites... the majority withing the Top 20:

*1. Botticelli- Primavera:*










I tend to love paintings that are complex and layered and highly ornate... even decorative. Botticelli's _Primavera_ is an exquisite painting which merges elements of Renaissance painting with those of medieval painting and tapestries.

*2. Michelangelo- The Sistine Ceiling *










Perhaps an obvious choice... but I cannot think of a single work of art by a single artist that is as absolutely stunning and has remained so central and influential. Every time I pull out a book on the Sistine and explore Michelangelo's paintings I am stunned by his mastery of color, the sculptural solidity of his figures, his mastery of human anatomy and the gestures that are almost like a frozen ballet or gymnastics... as well as the abstract elements of composition.










Michelangelo repeatedly makes the impossible seem plausible... and even natural. In the Libyan Sibyl (above) the body is twisted into a pose impossible for anyone but a contortionist. Her big toe faces directly at us while her back is completely turned the opposite direction as she sets down a weighty tome while delicately stepping forth from her podium. The artist has combined a series of actions within a single figure in a manner that is almost cubistic... and yet the end result appears fully believable... realistic... and stunningly beautiful.

*3. Peter Paul Rubens- The Judgment of Paris*

*4. Peter Paul Rubens- Portrait of Susanne Fourment*



















No artist was ever a greater master at rendering female flesh. Rubens was the master of sensuality and fecundity. In his great historical and mythological narratives he also brought forth a unrivaled mastery of theater. His paintings virtually married the drama, the mastery of drawing, and the superhuman elements of Michelangelo with the sensuality and atmosphere of Titian and added to this the personality of the individual. In the _Judgment of Paris_, Helen of Troy, who steps forward, is the artist's own young wife. Susanne Fourment, on the other hand, was the artist's "sister-in-law-to-be" at the time of Rubens' portrait. The painting speaks of such sensuality that many have suspected that the artist most assuredly must have had an affair with the young sitter.

continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

*5. Rembrandt van Rijn- Hendrickje Bathing*

*6. Rembrandt van Rijn- Self Portrait 1669*



















Rembrandt was virtually the Shakespeare of painting... in the sense that no artist ever invented characters that were more fully realized and believable as individual human beings. The individuals he chose to paint, however, placed him closer in spirit to Dickens, Zola, or Tolstoy, for these are mostly individuals of humble birth who have struggled through life... and yet who still glow with an inner fire.

Hendrickje Bathing is a tender image of the artist's lover/common-law wife wading in a stream. There is an element of eroticism as she raises her nightshirt, but this is an eroticism clearly tempered by love.

In the _Self Portrait_ from Rembrandt's final years we look into the haunted eyes of a man who has seen more than his share of struggle and personal tragedy. He has lost his beloved first wife. His fame and fortune have slipped through his fingers. Now in his final years he has witnessed the death of his only son before him. His face speaks of a man crushed... and yet his face burns with an inner glow that no other painter has come near to.

7. Paolo Veronese- The Feast at Cana:










Veronese wrought a joyful and almost operatic theatricality to Venetian painting that was completely over-the-top... and often left his patrons and the clergy bewildered. How could an artist dare to present an image of Christ surrounded by a baroque string quartet, drunks, haughty aristocrats, gossiping women, dwarfs, dogs, monkeys, nosy neighbors gathered on the rooftops, servants, and German Protestant guards... all life scale in an immense canvas? One can almost here the noise and the commotion and imagine a soundtrack by Alessandro Scarlatti.

*8. Jan Vermeer- Allegory of Painting*










Where Veronese's painting spoke of noise, Vermeer's speaks of absolute silence... the frozen moment. The artist's entire world centered upon the four walls of his home studio with wife and daughters as models. One almost suspects that the silence of his paintings were an escape from what must have been the noisy reality of his life abiding with his wife and mother-in-law, and 11 daughters in a home that was also an inn, a tavern, and an art gallery. The magic of his paintings is achieved through endless translucent layers of the most expensive pigments until a magical gem-like color is obtained.

*9.Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres- Portrait of Joséphine-Éléonore-Marie-Pauline de Galard de Brassac de Béarn, Princesse de Broglie*










Two centuries after Vermeer, the great French painter, Ingres achieved a similar frozen perfection. Ingres began his career with dreams of becoming the next great history painter... a master of grandiose dramatic narratives such as those of Rubens, Raphael (his idol), and Jacques Louis David (his teacher). Unfortunately, Ingres was never able to achieve a single successful narrative painting. It must have burned to recognize that his great rival, Eugene Delacroix, was the unquestionable master of dramatic narrative paintings in the France of the period. Instead, Ingres became the unrivaled master of the portrait... but my God! There never had been such portraits. The artist might spend years making 100s and 1000s of studies for a single portrait painting. Essentially he invested the same effort and thought about each and every small detail of a portrait painting in the same degree as others might approach the most complex history painting. The resulting works are beyond photographic. They have hyper-realism that is almost unsettling. The women portrayed convey a sort of icy eroticism... not unlike Grace Kelly.

*10. Pierre Bonnard- Bottle of Perfume (Eau de Cologne)*










Bonnard's stunning painting is the one Modernist work that would make any list of my 10 favorite paintings. The artist builds upon Impressionism taking color to a new level. The artist's young mistress (and eventual wife), Marthe stands before her bathing tub like Venus newly risen from the sea, and she is reflected as Cnidian Venus in the mirror. Marthe is back-lit by the light streaming through the great window which dances and twirls through the curtains until everything is animated and fragmented like sunlight raking across a Byzantine mosaic.

continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

With such a wealth of art to choose from, I really can't stick to ten... so I must throw in a few more paintings.

*11. Simone Martini- The Anninciation
12. Gentile da Frabriano- Adoration of the Magi*



















Simone Martini and gentile da Fabriano worked in the same realm as Sandro Botticelli... yet they took the patterns and decoration to an even more archaic extreme that became known as the International Gothic. Ironically, this most lush and opulent of styles... replete with the use of ornately carved frames and gold leaf, was a reactionary movement... in response to the Black Death and the suggestions made by 
Savonarola that all the innovation of the Renaissance were to blame for the plague. While Savonarola's minion's carried out the "bonfire of the vanities" burning the modern paintings that represented the vanity and wastefulness of the Renaissance, the International Gothic offered up the most decadent and visually stunning paintings imaginable.

*13. Henri Matisse- Music
14. Henri matisse- Le Rifain Debout*



















Where Picasso was focused upon line and form, Matisse was the Modern master of color. _Music_ was paired with Matisse's famous Dance on the staircase of the Moscow mansion of his wealthy patron, Sergei Shchukin. The fact that many of Matisse's finest paintings went to Russia and disappeared for years after the revolution is in part responsible for Picasso (rather than Matisse) becoming the leading painter of Modernism. _Music_ is every bit as audacious as any painting by Picasso reducing the image to three colors... built up in layers until they shimmer and glow. The artist intended to convey something of the primordial roots of music rather than the modern sophisticated music of the time.

_Le Rifain Debout_ is equally brutal... and yet stunningly gorgeous. It is one of Matisse's many paintings from Morroco, representing a native Morrocan who stares boldly out at us. The entire image sears its way through our retina in the most intense colors... conveying some notion of the intensity of the light in North Africa. Matisse's wall of color will have the most profound impact upon American artists such as Rothko.

*15. Max Beckmann- The Actors
16. Max Beckmann- The Begining*



















Where Matisse's reputation paled somewhat in contrast to Picasso as the result of many of his finest paintings being long lost in the Soviet Union, Beckmann was virtually relegated to the position of a minor artist as a result of the Francophile and Formalist (and anti-Expressionist) leanings of MoMA and other American art institutions, the rejection of all things German as a result of WWII, and the rejection of anything "too German" by the Germans after the war. Beckmann's reputation has slowly risen over the late 20th century. Currently he is recognized as the greatest Expressionist and the Greatest German artist of the century... an artist who might fairly stand alongside Picasso and Matisse.

Beckmann's greatest paintings were his large, epic triptych's. In these painting, Beckmann employed the format commonly reserved for altarpieces and religious narratives for the creation of complex, allegorical paintings. Beckmann has been called "the history painter in the age in which history was horror". His paintings are a merger of opposites... ugliness and beauty, horror and sensuality. Thick, bituminous outlines frame brilliantly colored passages like the black leading on medieval stained glass. Like medieval art, Beckmann's paintings suggest a _horror vacuii_ or "fear of emptiness" as figures are jammed and crowded in shallow spaces. The individual characters themselves are a surreal array of past and present, real and mythological, high and low culture. Hotel bellhops rub shoulders with Greek heroes and gods; jazz musicians play alongside Madonnas, and Jesus walks along with German um-pah bands and sexy girls clad in lingerie and black stockings.


----------



## tdc

Some great information in this thread. I like a lot of different paintings and artists from many different schools, eras and nationalities, but it is an area I still have a lot to learn in. Some of the obvious greats I like are guys like Da Vinci and Van Gogh. However, much like in my classical music tastes I initially have found myself very much drawn to and enjoying a lot of impressionistic pieces. Here are a couple of examples by artists Pissarro and Monet.

Pissarro - _Bank of the River Oise_ 1878










Monet -_ Poppy Field Argenteuil_ 1875


----------



## Sid James

I enjoyed your "narrative" regarding your favourite painters, stlukes. I am well familiar with all of those paintings, except for the Max Beckmann two triptych pieces. Interesting how, in those, he fused this format (obviously taken from religious paintings) with decidedly "low-life" subject matter. The Maddona/wh*re dichotomy/similarity? Speaking to that & also tdc's love for Monet, here's a couple of favs of mine - *Max Ernst *& another one by *Monet *-

*Max Ernst* - _Pieta or Revolution by Night _(1923) - I've been listening to some of Kurt Weill's songs lately (some from _The Threepenny Opera _which he did with lyricist/dramatist Bertolt Brecht) & this image speaks to that in many ways - not only it's symbolic/surreal content, but also in it's comments on class. I see the suited & hatted figure kneeling as like a capitalist holding his "sacrifice," a commonly clothed worker (who seems happy enough, but comes across to me as being a bit like a lifeless shop window mannequin). The shower head like thing on the right behind them makes me think of an association with the gas chambers in Auschwitz which were to come later (the victims thought they'd be having a shower) but it is more about mechanisation & things like that. I don't know what the line drawing of the man with a head injury is about? Maybe about mental damage? Ernst said that this unconsciously spoke of his relationship with his father, very Freudian as well.










*Claude Monet* - _The Poppy field in Argenteuil _- There are a number of versions of this work, some without the two figures at the back. These were Monet's wife & son, in this version they are in "duplicate." Monet added them twice to give the composition a bit more balance. I love this painting, despite it's "picture postcard" prettiness, that sense of solid composition & also the vividly red & dot-like poppies against the green grass gives it a sense of the abstract.


----------



## kv466

While I appreciate and admire many a painter, my favorite artist is not exactly one at all










M.C. Escher


----------



## TresPicos

Art Rock said:


> Franz Marc:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August Macke:


Cool! Marc and Macke are two of my main favorites as well.

Along with Magritte...










... and Kandinsky:


----------



## Xaltotun

I'm quite ashamed that my knowledge of visual art is very shallow and narrow, even though I like the medium. I've decided to change that, though. One year ago I knew nothing of classical music; now I know more than most people. Soon I'll turn to visual art for the exposure I need! Enough of this ignorance!

But right now, my favourites remain Akseli Gallen-Kallela, Hugo Simberg, Theodore Kittelsen, Aubrey Beardsley, Arthur Rackham, Hieronymous Bosch, C. D. Friedrich... maybe even someone like Giotto di Bondone... I think I'm going to have a wider taste in paintings than music, even though I fully expect the romantic period to take the center point of my interests, like in music... but I think I'm going to branch out more than in music.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Vermeer - that stillness, that light.


----------



## TxllxT

mamascarlatti said:


> Vermeer - that stillness, that light.


Sometimes we have days here in Holland that I recognise as having typical 'Vermeer'-light, other days belong to the 17th century sea, ships & sky (lots of it!)- painters. Again other days I 'see' Van Gogh or Mondriaan, having their day. When we visited London in june we walked through Tate Britain. Nice, but most British painters are spoiling all with wilful dramatic effects; they do not allow me to see for myself, but want to guide, teach or entertain.


----------



## Almaviva

Nice, this thread reads like an art book.


----------



## Argus

Almaviva said:


> A movement I particularly like is expressionism, with painters such as Macke, Marc, Modigliani, Kirchner, Chagall, Kandinsky, Portinari, Di Cavalcanti, Segall, etc.


Yeah, I think more in terms of styles and movements rather than individual painters. Usually if I like work by one artist in a style, I'll like the style as a whole. De Stijl, colour field, hard-edge, abstract expressionism, most of the New York School, anything like that I can normally dig. I don't apply any kind of hidden depth to the paintings though, I just take them at face value and judge them on that.


----------



## Vesteralen

This is the earliest dated painting I love. Not just for the detail (which is incredible - see an enlargement of the reverse painting in the mirror), but for the mystery of it.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that Van Eyck's masterpiece should not be called "The Arnolfini Wedding", but "Mrs. Arnolfini's Memorial Portrait". The clues are convincing, methinks.


----------



## schigolch

I love many of the painters being mentioned here. Just to introduce a new one, I'll say Diego Velázquez:


----------



## Vesteralen

schigolch said:


> I love many of the painters being mentioned here. Just to introduce a new one, I'll say Diego Velázquez:


Ahhhh..Velázquez. It was a real thrill for me to finally see some originals when I went to Vienna a couple of years ago. Now, if only I can get to the Prado someday!


----------



## TxllxT

*Jopie Huisman 1922 - 2000*




























A painter who made his living with collecting & selling of crap and old rags. He never sold one of his paintings (of crap & old rags). In 1986 the Jopie Huisman Museum opened in his hometown Workum.


----------



## graaf

Aramis said:


> But all in all I must admit I'm far from being real coinesseur of paintings yet.


How about becoming connoisseur of spelling, before proceeding to paintings?


----------



## Sid James

graaf said:


> How about becoming connoisseur of spelling, before proceeding to paintings?


Give Aramis a break, his first language isn't English. I bet the man is highly fluent & articulate in his native Polish. I haven't had any problems with his spelling in English or anything like that. I just read the meaning from the context of the mis-spelt word. I don't care about these pedantic things, life's too short, imo...


----------



## waldvogel

I finally got to see this in Chicago last March. It's a painting so good that a musical was written about it... Sunday in the Park with George.


----------



## Sid James

waldvogel said:


> I finally got to see this in Chicago last March.


Lucky bloody you!!!



> It's a painting so good that a musical was written about it... Sunday in the Park with George.


I'll have to check that musical out. Speaking of George, here's the "reverse view" of the painting you posted. In this one, the body language of the people looks a bit more relaxed & even kind of mundane (as I think Seurat was criticised for this back then).Your one shows the middle class, this one shows the working class. Then there's the smoke-stacks in the background, speaking to the industrialisaton of the big European cities (incl. Paris) at that time -


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> How about becoming connoisseur of spelling, before proceeding to paintings?


 I hope you meant this as a joke, graaf, otherwise I'd say it's uncalled for. I think Aramis' English is just fine, for a non-native speaker. Besides, the value of a contributor here is not in any way proportional to his/her ability to spell English. Aramis has contributed with many interesting posts and is able to demonstrate keen musical insights. I couldn't care less for the fact that his spelling in a language that isn't his original one may be less than ideal at times. By the way, having been born myself in a multi-cultural family from a mother who wasn't a native English-speaker, I commit my share of spelling mistakes and awkward grammatical constructions. On the other hand, I speak five languages, so, judging others by their ability to spell in English is not always the most accurate way to gauge someone's linguistic abilities. I wonder how good your spelling in Polish is. Aramis is generous enough to have *liked* your observation, but I can't help but jump to his defense here.


----------



## Weston

Though I am an illustrator and I love painting, it still doesn't have quite the same impact as music on me. I find a lot of it is pretentious drivel. While I was a business partner in a little gallery in Nashville some years ago, if an artist walked in to show us work while spewing "-isms" and "post-" this or that at us, the artist might hang, but not the art.

Still I have my favorites. Mostly I enjoy that lowest craftsman in the pecking order, the illustrator. Suggesting stories and drama with just one image is sublime to me and there are hundreds of great ones about today. But I also enjoy some so called "fine" artists too. A few are below.

Yves Tanguy and Roberto Matta take me to similar worlds where the physical laws of the universe are a bit skewed. Tanguy suggests lonely places and relics while Matta evokes universes at war.



















Charles Burchfield was an amazing painter who could somehow repeat little motifs or gestures so that the piece becomes a kind of visual fugue. At least, that is how I understand them. Some of them even show the sounds of wind and rain or the humming of insects and the heat shimmer of a sweltering summer sun. His work is filled with music.










Jon Singer Sargent shows so much with just the simplest gestures. I'd give up a lot to paint half this confidently. Then again, it leans a bit toward illustration doesn't it?










There are many more.


----------



## Sid James

*@ Weston* - Love Tanguy & Matta to a degree as well, you described them well & I didn't know about Burchfield - good stuff. BTW - have you heard that some say that J.S. Sargent may have been Jack the Ripper? The image by him you posted above speaks to this in a rather chilling way...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I haven't heard the John Singer Sargent/Jack the Ripper rumor. Far more common is the suggestion that the British painter, Walter Sickert, was Jack the Ripper:























































His paintings of naked or near naked women... almost certainly prostitutes... sprawled out upon filthy beds in seedy lower-class London environs went a long way toward supporting this rumor.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I haven't heard the John Singer Sargent/Jack the Ripper rumor. Far more common is the suggestion that the British painter, Walter Sickert, was Jack the Ripper:...
> His paintings of naked or near naked women... almost certainly prostitutes... sprawled out upon filthy beds in seedy lower-class London environs went a long way toward supporting this rumor.


I'm sorry, I think I got the two confused (superficially similar "realists" from UK around the same period?). Yes, you're right, it was Sickert I read that article about 10 years ago (in our most "reputable" newspaper here, a broadsheet one, here's the abstract/summary - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080731138.html ). I was going to press "like" for your post, but realised given the content I wouldn't...


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> *@ Weston* - Love Tanguy & Matta to a degree as well, you described them well & I didn't know about Burchfield - good stuff.


Yeah, Burchfield is still underrated. His paintings of plants and trees are very psychedelic


----------



## norman bates

some paintings that i like:









Goya - Saturn









Levitan - Birch forest









Roberto Melli - La casa rossa (the red house)









Sonia Delaunay - Distant journeys









Ludwig Meidner - Apocalyptic landscape









El Greco - The opening of the fifth seal of the apocalypse


----------



## norman bates

Chaim Soutine - l'ecalier rouge









Felice Casorati - L'attesa









George Inness - Winter evening









Zurbaran - Still Life With Lemons, Oranges and a Rose









Andrew Wyeth - The intruder









Hopper - Sheridan theatre


----------



## Sid James

*@ norman bates* - Enjoyed your selection, very eclectic. I am familiar with quite a few of those paintings, but some others not. Thanks for that...


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> *@ norman bates* - Enjoyed your selection, very eclectic. I am familiar with quite a few of those paintings, but some others not. Thanks for that...


thank you. 
I think it would be interesting if anybody would post great but less familiar paintings


----------



## Vesteralen

Hard to get a really good reproduction of this "View of Pincio, Italy" by Corot, but I love two things about it - the way he expresses volume (a vital step on the way to Cezanne) and his use of white in all his colors, even in the shadows. When other artists of his time were still idealizing their landscapes, Corot was painting what he actually saw - not photographically, but as filtered through his own eyes.


----------



## Sid James

Good one there, Vesteralen, I also like Corot. I think his nudes are similar to that landscape, they are more "real" kind of "blood and bones" women, not idealised godesses - & she below also has the "solidity" of some of Cezanne's more kind of modernistic/cubish stylised nudes to come later (& in a similar natural setting, not indoors) ...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Corot is interesting in that he is a master of two quite different approaches to painting. On one hand he can produce these painting in which he makes bold use of rich impasto, and broad planes to capture a sort of realism that suggests not only Courbet but predicts Cezanne:










On the other hand, he paints these marvelous, late-Romantic paintings with the most delicate, wispy brushwork. These paintings are masterpieces of atmosphere and the most limpid, silvery light and certainly stand as precursors to Impressionism:


----------



## Sid James

*@ stlukes -* Didn't know about those two contrasting styles of Corot, I only knew/saw his "realist" stuff before. Interesting, the second "romantic" image has a whiff of the Claude Lorraines about it, imo...


----------



## Art Rock

Max Pechstein









Edvard Munch









Kees van Dongen


----------



## Vesteralen

Corot at his most Cezanne-like:










and, in inimitable portrait style:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Many beautiful works suggested above, from all periods.

There was a certainly swiftness and agility with many portraits done by Thomas Gainsborough, quite exceptional for his time when numerous other painters' works painted their subjects as rather stiff sitters.


----------



## norman bates

other paintings i like, without any order or theme









Domenico Baccarini - Bitta
i think it's a portrait of incredible intensity.









Albin Brunovsky - your head is a living forest full of song birds









Anselm Kiefer - Twilight of the west









Leonardo Cremonini - Les senses et les choises









Wayne Thiebaud - Apartment view









Fairfield Porter - Island farmhouse


----------



## norman bates

i hope this thread is not already dead.

Braque was an amazing painter. Everybody says the Picasso was maybe the most important painter of the twentieth century and i agree, but the problem is that Braque is seen like a footnote, like he was of secondary importance compared with Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky, Klee, De Chirico, Ernst and the other greats. He is reminded most of all for the analytical cubism period, but i think that his greatest works are those of the thirties and the forties above all. And though his name is well known for the association with the spanish colleague, for me the late Braque shares with Chaim Soutine the title for the most underrated painter of the century. 
I don't even know what to choose because there are too many amazing paintings of that period:


----------



## Aramis

Behold the greatest self-portrait ever:










this muzzle haunts me since I saw it


----------



## norman bates

Yellow:









Brett Whiteley - Summer at Carcoar









William Kurelek - ukrainian pioneer no.6









Joaquim Rodrigo - Praia do vau









Benjamin Palencia - Piornos en flor


----------



## beethovenian

Albert Bierstadt
Looking Down The Yosemite Valley, California








Scene in the Sierra Nevada








Sierra Nevada in California


----------



## Timotheus

I find it difficult to say, because I've never seen a jpeg or print that can hold a candle to the original...especially for the large paintings. "Joshua commanding the sun to stand still over Gibeon" was one of my favorites from a recent trip to the National Gallery but it doesn't look like much at all in the images I can find on the web. 

There's too much I haven't see for me to really say.


----------



## Noak

Stanislaw Fijalkowski


----------



## Curiosity

Beksinski

























Chet Zar









Shang Xi


----------



## sabrina

I am so happy to discover this thread!
* Paul Gaugain*



















His friend...*Vincent*










More van Gogh:


----------



## sabrina

*Claude Monet*
The picture that gave its name to Impressionism.


----------



## sabrina

*Henri Matisse*




























*Henri de Toulouse Lautrec*


----------



## norman bates

sabrina said:


> *Claude Monet*
> The picture that gave its name to Impressionism.


i wonder if Monet knew about Turner's paintings.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Of course he did. He traveled through England... I believe during the German/Prussian siege of Paris. I believe he spoke more of Constable, however.


----------



## norman bates

some works that i like that are not revolutionary or advanced but with a beautiful sense of the composition









James Jacques Joseph Tissot - The letter









Santiago Rusinol y Prats - fuente de san-roc









Charles Harry Eaton - Lily pond









John Lavery - Tennis party


----------



## norman bates

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course he did. He traveled through England... I believe during the German/Prussian siege of Paris. I believe he spoke more of Constable, however.


i don't know what you think about this but i see a connection much more stronger with what Turner was doing than with the works of Constable


----------



## Sid James

Great pics *sabrina*, haven't seen those for a while.



sabrina said:


> *Claude Monet*
> The picture that gave its name to Impressionism...


Yes, but probably for the wrong reasons. I think an art critic said that that painting by Monet was "nothing more than an impression." For better or worse, the name (or label?) "stuck"...


----------



## sabrina

Sid James said:


> Great pics *sabrina*, haven't seen those for a while.
> 
> Yes, but probably for the wrong reasons. I think an art critic said that that painting by Monet was "nothing more than an impression." For better or worse, the name (or label?) "stuck"...


As they violated the academy rules, their start had a hostile public, and the name they got was a critique satire. But what a huge step they performed, as seen in art history.


----------



## sabrina

*Édouard Manet* 
He didn't really belong to the impressionists, although he is mostly associated with this movement. He is seen by many critics as the father of modernism.

Le Chemin de Fer










The classic Dejeuner sur l'herbe..










Olympia










Boating


----------



## sabrina

Pointilism

*Georges Seurat*

Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte










Une Baignade, Asnières










*Paul Victor Jules Signac*


----------



## sabrina

*Alfred Sisley*
The British painter who chose to live in France and paint mainly landscapes. He is the only great Impressionist painter who did not meet success in his lifetime.

Alfred Sisley and his wife, painted by *Auguste Renoir*










Vue du canal Saint-Martin - 1870 (Sisley)










Rives de Seine, Villeneuve-la-Garenne - 1872


----------



## sabrina

*Paul Cézanne*

Les joueurs de carte - 1892-95










Jeune garçon au gilet rouge - 1888-89










*Auguste Renoir*

La loge - 1874










Le déjeuner des canotiers - 1881


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Of the Impressionists, Degas is my favorite (as one might expect considering that I am a figurative painter). After Degas, it's Monet and Manet. I think Manet might have been unrivaled had he not died young. His mastery of the brush is equaled by only a few artists in history: Rubens, Van Dyck, Hals, Velasquez, Titian, Rembrandt, and Sargent come to mind as the sort of company he fits in with. I've had the fortune to see a great majority of his work in person. Of the examples posted, I admire the woman with the girl at the train station (in the National Gallery, Washington) most of all.

I've always had mixed feelings concerning Cezanne. The critic Camille Paglia called him a good Protestant... exemplifying the Protestant Work Ethic. In other words... he was really little more than mediocre with the brush... indeed, a bit of a ham-fisted-duffer in comparison with the virtuosity found in Manet and the artists listed above... but he stubbornly kept at it... spending month... even years building up the paintings in endless layers until he actually achieved something of real merit. It is this element of time infused in the paintings that made them models for the Cubists.

REnoir is another artist I am ambivalent about. As some critics have suggested, he was the absolute worst painter to ever produce a real body of masterpieces. This is not far from the mark. Renoir's portrait of Wagner is so bad it's comic:










Can anyone even begin to imagine this "cute" little old man composing the _Gotterdammerung_!?

As one of my painting professors (and later mentor) suggested, Renoir often comes of like a painter of illustrations for Charmin Toilet Tissue... but then he can turn around and paint something as marvelous as these:










This lovely little Ballerina could have resulted in pure sentimental mush... but the understated colors and delicate handling of paint worthy of Velasquez prevent this from happening and make this painting every bit worthy of its popularity.










The solidity and simplicity of the composition of the famous _Girl with Watering Can_ results in a similar successful straddling the line of kitsch.










Mme. Charpentier and her Children is surely one of the finest portraits of the period... every bit equal to the finest works of Sargent.










Painting right alongside of Monet, Renoir proves himself every bit a master of _plein air_.

continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

continued...

Renoir was perhaps the poorest of the Impressionists early in his career... which may explain his drive to create an art that was accessible... and sell-able. Unable to afford art school, he apprenticed early on is a ceramics workshop where he painted Rococo-inspired fantasies upon porcelain. Of all the Impressionists, he was the one who most recognized the painterly brilliance of such Rococo masters as Boucher, Watteau, and Fragonard... and maintained an admiration for their work. In response to one of Renoir's sensuous and clearly licentious nudes, Monet jokingly replied, "You must forgive Renoir, he's been keeping company with Parisian women, again." (Alluding both to the decadence of Boucher... and to prostitutes/Parisian women).

In spite of this, Renoir's voluptuous nudes were undoubtedly his most influential body of work. Artists as wide-ranging in interests as Picasso, Matisse, Bonnard, Maillol, Beckmann, Modigliani, Francisco Zuniga, Diego Rivera, and Botero were all inspired by Renoir's nudes.











__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## sabrina

Talking about favorites is difficult, although for a long time my number 1 goes to both Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gaugin. Both belong actually to the post-impressionist current.
Very close come Claude Monet and Eduard Manet.
All the others may be amazing, but don't achieve the same status in my heart.


----------



## norman bates

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As some critics have suggested, he was the absolute worst painter to ever produce a real body of masterpieces. This is not far from the mark


not at all. The fact that he was an admirer of mincing painters like Fragonard explains a lot of things.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Rembrandt. Although I could pose as a painter myself considering many of the 'masterpieces' posted in this topic. I have made a total of two paintings (pastels). Here's the first painting (the top one; the other one is by my brother):










Back on topic:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The fact that he was an admirer of mincing painters like Fragonard explains a lot of things.

Don't underestimate the French Rococo. Fragonard turned out a few truly lovely paintings. His portraits were rendered rapidly... and with a sheer bravura joy in the handling of paint that won't be seen again until Van Gogh, Soutine, and DeKooning.




























I especially love the _Girl Reading_... one of the treasures of the National Gallery, Washington. The creamy rich impasto in the dancing draperies, the Cezanne-esque solidity of the head, and that exquisite telling detail of her raised little figure... what is not to love?

Fragonard also continued in the tradition of the "Little Dutch Masters"... portraying scenes of everyday domestic life as opposed to focusing upon Kings, Gods, Mythologies, and such grandiose themes. Both this focus upon what the Japanese would call the "floating world"... the seemingly unimportant images of lovers at play... flirting and seducing one another, the landscape, and the domestic life... combined with the sheer joy in the application of paint and the brush-stroke... would set the stage for Impressionism and beyond.




























While I certainly wouldn't place Fragonard upon the same level as Cezanne, Monet, Degas, or Van Gogh, I do recognize that he is not without merit. I've always thought that some of his... and especially Watteau's paintings are similar in spirit to something like Mozart's _Le Nozze di Figaro._


----------



## Sid James

I've liked all these things. I esp. like *Cezanne*. My father told me an anecdote he came across about Cezanne (don't know if this is true or just legend?). Apparently, a colleague asked Cezanne what he'd exhibit at the Paris Salon or Academy or something of the sort. Anyway, Cezanne answered "I'll send them a bucket of ****." If he said that, maybe he was the first conceptual artist? :lol:

Sabrina's mention of *Degas* made me remember his _*Absinthe*_. This painting talks to the seedier side of Paris, the "lowlife," the "underbelly." The "cut off" & kind of unpolished, "random" composition he took from photography, an emerging technology at the time. The woman is totally out of it, the guy is not far behind. I like how Degas could paint everything from the "low" to the "high" (eg. his classic ballet dancers) & "in-between" (his paintings of the cabarets). He was kind of a "realist" in this way, giving commentaries about society, morality, culture, etc. This painting points forward to other artists dealing with alienation in a big city, eg. the American Edward Hopper...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This painting talks to the seedier side of Paris, the "lowlife," the "underbelly." The "cut off" & kind of unpolished, "random" composition he took from photography, an emerging technology at the time.

Degas would have argued that such apparent "randomness" was the result of the most careful planning. Indeed, Degas was a master of composition. His dislike for Monet's work was largely as a result of Monet's lack of composition. Monet pretty much just set up and painted what he saw. Degas made endless life studies... and then carefully composed his pictures in the studio. In spite of Monet's method, his pictures consistently hold together. Cezanne declared, Monet is nothing but an eye... but my God! What an eye!"

IMO there has been no draftsman as good as Degas since. He had a mastery of capturing the most essential details rapidly that rivaled the drawings of Rembrandt and certain Asian masters. Degas began his career with the goal of becoming the next great French narrative painter/portraitist. His idols was Ingres, and other heroes were the painters of the Renaissance and Baroque. It became rapidly clear to Degas, however, that the traditional historical narrative painting was a thing of the past. He thus turned... along with Manet... toward contemporary life in Paris. He sought out scenes where he might employ his obsession with the human body in motion as in the great narrative paintings of the past. He was fascinated with the dramatic lighting of the theater, cabarets, nightclubs, brothels, and ballet.

The best of Degas early work is usually found among his portraits... such as these two paintings done during his stay in New Orleans:



















The delicate portrait of the artist's blind cousin is particularly touching. The scene from the cotton-market shows the shocking use of cropping off figures that was influenced by the random nature of photography.

The odd tilted perspective and the cropped figures were even more influenced by Degas exposure to Japanese art... especially the Ukiyo-e prints. Degas was enamored of artifice: costumes and theatrical stage sets and dancers and colored lights... but he always contrasts the fantasy with the reality so that we don't commonly see the ballerinas on stage in performance... but rather we see them back stage practicing, going through the steps, waiting in the wings, exhausted after hours of practice:





































continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The above painting is particularly enlightening as an example of how Degas contrasts the fantastic (the spectacular ballet costumes) with the reality that shatters the illusion (the back of the stage sets).










There was an erotic aspect to this theme. Many of the young ballerinas at the time were "sponsored" by older, wealthy male patrons who paid for their lessons, and costumes, etc... in return (in many instances) for sexual favors.



















Male patrons would often join the girls backstage as they dressed.

Degas was enamored with painting women... at least in part... as a result of their marvelous clothes. He painted any number of images of women dressing... shopping for hats... and famously suggested that as a result of women's attention to colors and patterns and textures when dressing, he believed that with the proper education, women might be every bit as good... if not better... than men when it came to art.



















continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Degas was very supportive of, and acted as a mentor to two female artists: Mary Cassatt and Suzanne Valadon.

Degas approached his scenes of the cabaret and brothels with the same contrast of fantasy and reality. The viewer of the cabaret clearly sits near the front row with the musicians in the orchestra pit between the viewer and the performers on stage. Degas repeatedly employed the neck of the great double-bass raised in the foreground against the action on the stage to create a huge leap between foreground and the stage:



















In Degas' later years his eyesight began to fail him and as a result he no longer went out drawing from life, but worked exclusively in his studio. He subject matter was limited to women... bathers... in paintings, prints, and sculpture (which he was able to labor on when his eyesight wouldn't allow him to paint of draw).



















continued...


----------



## Air

I'm really quite a layman when it comes to the visual arts, but a layman can appreciate art can he not? These are a few of my favorites. 

*Turner*
The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up, 1838










Turner's use of light is ethereal, wondrous, and powerful. He seemed to have an interesting obsession with ships.

*Titian*
Sacred and Profane Love










I had the privilege of viewing Titian's work at the Galeria Borghese when I visited Rome last year. Besides the Bernini statues, it was the highlight of the day for me. The symbolism is powerful through and through, yet the work is also beautiful in and of itself.

*Raphael*
The School of Athens










Since a lot of people have posted Michelangelo and Botticelli, Raphael more than deserves a mention too. Everything he did was so beautifully and thoughtfully constructed, down to the most insignificant angle.

*Renoir*
Bal du Moulin de la Galette










How I would have loved to be at that party!

*Chagall*
The Fiddler










Chagall's synthesis of different schools of 20th century art fused with his brilliant use of color and always-present love for village life makes his works a really special thing to behold.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

These "bathers" or nudes were the most innovative and influential body of work in the whole of Degas' oeuvre. Today they appear harmless enough: sensual... slightly erotic images of women in their bathrooms and bedrooms... bathing and dressing. To the audience of Degas' time, they suggested something else altogether.

Respectable, middle- and upper-class women were never seen in the altogether by their husbands. And certainly no respectable woman ever stripped wholly naked... even to bathe. As a result... it was immediately presumed that Degas women were of the lower classes (which as models, they certainly were) and quite likely prostitutes (which some may have been... but certainly not all... or even the majority). Many among Degas' audience assumed, however, that the women MUST have been prostitutes for only a prostitute would allow herself to be viewed by a man naked... and only a prostitute would need to take regular baths between clients.

The Victorian prudery and hypocrisy of Degas' era carried over into modern criticism as many feminist Puritans argued that Degas was a misogynist as a result of his objectification of women and based upon the fact he had never married. In all reality, Degas greatly loved his models and his affections were returned. Any number of the ballerinas and later nude models spoke fondly... even defensively of Degas. Degas, himself, spoke out against the hypocrisy of the idealized nudes of the academies:

_These men (salon painters) each have a wife or mistress whose 
appearance delights them. She has a pug nose and tiny eyes, 
and she is slender and delicate and lively. What they love 
about her are precisely these 'defects.' She is the 'ideal' 
of their hearts, of their minds who has awakened and incarnated 
the truth of their taste, of their sensibility, and of their 
invention, since they have found her and chosen her. But when 
these gentlemen go to their studios they paint Greek types, 
dark, severe, with strait noses and thick necks. The pug nose 
they delight in every evening they betray every morning in the 
studio._

Degas' final "paintings" are undoubtedly his greatest. It should be noted that while Degas was a master with oil paint, he began to focus upon pastel early in his career. The medium, which had been employed in delicate and exquisitely nuanced works during the rococo became an incredibly expressive tool in his hands which allowed for the artist to rapidly combine drawing with color. Degas became so particular about his pastels that he had them made to his specifications by the Roché company in Paris (This company is still in business and it's pastels are reputed to be the absolute best... and yet near impossible to come by). Degas preferred a very soft pastel... which he often spritzed with water or alcohol in order to further soften into a near paste. This allowed him to apply the pastel in an almost impasto-like manner which resulted in an image which appeared much like ancient, weathered fresco. This effect was combined with the most marvelous layers of color, and the most simple and sculptural of forms. In the resulting works, the figure and ground began to merge or blur together with the surrounding draperies, patterns, towels, etc... This approach to painting... in which no element was more important than another... in which the figure was just one part of the formal image as a whole... would have a profound impact upon Bonnard, Vuillard, Matisse, and others.


----------



## norman bates

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I especially love the _Girl Reading_... one of the treasures of the National Gallery, Washington. The creamy rich impasto in the dancing draperies, the Cezanne-esque solidity of the head, and that exquisite telling detail of her raised little figure... what is not to love?


yes those portraits are quite good (i agree that the third is the best), the other three even if the technique is good are just too frivolous for my tastes. Don't get me wrong, i don't think is the worst painter in the world and i like some of his works, but there are tons (even in the eighteen century that for me is probably the worst century of painting) of better artists.


----------



## Art Rock

Feininger









Modigliani









Feng









Richter


----------



## Sid James

All good stuff here. Some *Australian* favourites (Brett Whiteley was mentioned earlier) -

Image below:*Frederick McCUBBIN*(1855-1917)
_The Pioneer_, 1904 (Further info here)

This painter's works tell the story of the European settlement of Australia. In this triptych, the settlers are in thick bush with a wagon in the first panel, there has been more clearing in the second (she now has a baby on her shoulder), in the third we can see a developing town through the trees (& is that young man tending the grave the now grown up baby of the middle panel?). McCubbin was a master of his art & well known to many Aussies through a kind of cheeky "Kit kat" chocolate commercial of about 20 years ago. There was a touring retrospective exhibition of his paintings at that time which I saw & I've liked his stuff ever since.










Image below:*Albert TUCKER* (1914-1999)
From the _Modern Evil_ series (1940's) (More info here)

Tucker was one of the "Angry Penguins" painters centred around Melbourne during and after the WW2 years. His paintings mix the surreal and real. There is a preoccupation with sex (Freud?) & talking to current issues, esp. of city life. This painting, one of a series, portrays soldiers on leave during the war, drinking & "whoring." Quite disturbing stuff for the time, in an Australia that was quite conservative & parochial, an off-shoot of the British Empire.










Image below: *Adam CULLEN* (born 1965)
_Portrait of (actor) David Wenham_, 2000 (Winner of Archibald portrait prize that year) (More info here)

Cullen is one of the more popular of the contemporary Australian painters. I did see an exhibition of his years ago, his works have kind of flourescent colours and dripping paint technique. They also have a surreal flavour, but he's more interested in contrast & engaging with popular culture, the media, "low" art, "grunge," etc. I think this portrait of David Wenham works on many levels, not only as a very good likeness, but also capturing his kind of "shiftyness" and "bland everyman" roles he plays, where there is often much more under the surface than meets the eye.


----------



## norman bates

one of the most popular illustrators of the last century, and probably one of the most snubbed artists by serious art histories (that have no problems with the Hudson river school), Maxfield Parrish for me is one of the greatest colorists ever. I can't understand why i have to read always the name of Gaguin, Bonnard, Veronese (often it's even difficult to see the real colors of his works today!) and not the name of Parrish. I consider him the visual equivalent of Delius: both hated by many because considered too honeyed and old fashioned, but Delius was capable of unique harmonies while Parrish was capable of unique chromatic contrasts. Yes i know that i've said that Fragonard is frivolous and it's the same for him, but look at those colors


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> All good stuff here. Some *Australian* favourites (Brett Whiteley was mentioned earlier) -
> 
> Image below:*Frederick McCUBBIN*(1855-1917)
> _The Pioneer_, 1904 (Further info here)
> 
> This painter's works tell the story of the European settlement of Australia. In this triptych, the settlers are in thick bush with a wagon in the first panel, there has been more clearing in the second (she now has a baby on her shoulder), in the third we can see a developing town through the trees (& is that young man tending the grave the now grown up baby of the middle panel?). McCubbin was a master of his art & well known to many Aussies through a kind of cheeky "Kit kat" chocolate commercial of about 20 years ago. There was a touring retrospective exhibition of his painting at that time which I saw & I've liked his stuff ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image below:*Albert TUCKER* (1914-1999)
> From the _Modern Evil_ series (1940's) (More info here)
> 
> Tucker was one of the "Angry Penguins" painters centred around Melbourne during and after the WW2 years. His paintings mix the surreal and real. There is a preoccupation with sex (Freud?) & talking to current issues, esp. of city life. This painting, one of a series, portrays soldiers on leave during the war, drinking & "whoring." Quite disturbing stuff for the time, in an Australia that was quite conservative & parochial, an off-shoot of the British Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image below: *Adam CULLEN* (born 1965)
> _Portrait of (actor) David Wenham_, 2000 (Winner of Archibald portrait prize that year) (More info here)
> 
> Cullen is one of the more popular of the contemporary Australian painters. I did see an exhibition of his years ago, his works have kind of flourescent colours and dripping paint technique. They also have a surreal flavour, but he's more interested in contrast & engaging with popular culture, the media, "low" art, "grunge," etc. I think this portrait of David Wenham works on many levels, not only as a very good likeness, but also capturing his kind of "shiftyness" and "bland everyman" roles he plays, where there is often much more under the surface than meets the eye.


i have a passion for the australian art, way too underrated, Albert Tucker is great


----------



## Sid James

*@ norman bates* - thx for your compliment re Aussie art. As for Maxfield Parrish I've never heard of him until now. Agree that his colours are unique. I esp. like the first 3 images - the decor (by* Leon Bakst*) of Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloe_ comes strongly to my mind:


----------



## Aramis

Ivan Aivazovsky, the man had to love the sea:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

One of the most popular illustrators of the last century, and probably one of the most snubbed artists by serious art histories (that have no problems with the Hudson river school), Maxfield Parrish for me is one of the greatest colorists ever. I can't understand why i have to read always the name of Gaguin, Bonnard, Veronese (often it's even difficult to see the real colors of his works today!) and not the name of Parrish. I consider him the visual equivalent of Delius: both hated by many because considered too honeyed and old fashioned, but Delius was capable of unique harmonies while Parrish was capable of unique chromatic contrasts. Yes i know that i've said that Fragonard is frivolous and it's the same for him, but look at those colors

The problem with Parrsh...as well as Wyeth, Cadmus, Geoorge Tooker, etc... was that they insisted upon painting "illustrational" narratives at the time in which Modernism was heading toward abstraction. The analogy with Delius is apt. Art History concerns itself with how art as a whole got from point A to point B and so obviously when Modernism is triumphant it is only those artists who were part of this development who are considered relevant. of course there always end up being any number of marvelous artists who fall outside the direction of the moment and yet who produced the most splendid art (Parrish, Bonnard, Wyeth, Delius, Copland, Barber...). As a result of the struggle that new directions in art initially face, they commonly become quite militant and just as dismissive of other voices as the academy was of them... once they become the academy. What is especially ironic with Modernism in art is that it was very much based upon the philosophy of "formalism" in which subject matter didn't matter... it was the formal elements of line, color, texture, etc... and how well they were organized that was the measure of art. This philosophy allowed the critic, it was believed, to offer just as well an opinion of an African sculpture, a Japanese print, a Renaissance painting, or a Modernist work. The irony... considering the rejection of Parrish or Fragonard on grounds of frivolous subject matter is that it seems this formalist theory didn't apply to some works that the Modernists didn't like... and when you consider many Modernist works of art, "frivolity" was not an element unknown to them.

I might add... beyond Parrish' color, his work was quite innovative for his use of the camera in producing photrealistic effects. It should not be surprising as the pendulum has swung back toward figurative art, that Parrish, Wyeth, and others are now afforded far more of their due respect, while the Abstract Expressionists have become less central... the hyperbole surrounding their work slowly fading as the work itself becomes more objectively evaluated within the whole of art history.


----------



## norman bates

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The problem with Parrsh...as well as Wyeth, Cadmus, Geoorge Tooker, etc... was that they insisted upon painting "illustrational" narratives at the time in which Modernism was heading toward abstraction. The analogy with Delius is apt. Art History concerns itself with how art as a whole got from point A to point B and so obviously when Modernism is triumphant it is only those artists who were part of this development who are considered relevant. of course there always end up being any number of marvelous artists who fall outside the direction of the moment and yet who produced the most splendid art (Parrish, Bonnard, Wyeth, Delius, Copland, Barber...). As a result of the struggle that new directions in art initially face, they commonly become quite militant and just as dismissive of other voices as the academy was of them... once they become the academy. What is especially ironic with Modernism in art is that it was very much based upon the philosophy of "formalism" in which subject matter didn't matter... it was the formal elements of line, color, texture, etc... and how well they were organized that was the measure of art. This philosophy allowed the critic, it was believed, to offer just as well an opinion of an African sculpture, a Japanese print, a Renaissance painting, or a Modernist work. The irony... considering the rejection of Parrish or Fragonard on grounds of frivolous subject matter is that it seems this formalist theory didn't apply to some works that the Modernists didn't like... and when you consider many Modernist works of art, "frivolity" was not an element unknown to them.
> 
> I might add... beyond Parrish' color, his work was quite innovative for his use of the camera in producing photrealistic effects. It should not be surprising as the pendulum has swung back toward figurative art, that Parrish, Wyeth, and others are now afforded far more of their due respect, while the Abstract Expressionists have become less central... the hyperbole surrounding their work slowly fading as the work itself becomes more objectively evaluated within the whole of art history.


though i don't consider Fragonard to be an artist of the same level of Parrish for the rest i agree completely.


----------



## sabrina

Do you like flowers? Meet Claude Monet and his flowers. Claude Monet is may be the best to represent the Impressionist movement.


----------



## sabrina

Some other flowers by Monet


----------



## Aramis

Speaking of paintings, I see that there are couple knowledgeable fellows around, so perhaps one of them could identify painting used on cover of this book:










I got it since long time and tried to find out who's the author but never succeeded. There is no information on the title page inside.


----------



## norman bates

talking of flowers and impressionism, the first two painting that i think of are banal choices (though they were not real impressionists):









gaguin - nature morte a l'esperance









van gogh - sunflowers

but there's also Frieseke, an imitator of Renoir who took the worst side of him, but in a strange way in his better paintings i think he succeded to transform the defects in qualities.
Not one of my favorite painters, but i like him, especially this one i'm posting is an orgy of colors, it's practically psychedelic


----------



## Il_Penseroso

I like so many painters, can't really count ! But here's one of my all-time favorites : *Ilya Repin*. There are people who don't understand the real depth of his art yet ...










The Portrait of Mussorgsky, painted just a few days before composer's death of alcohol :


----------



## Aramis

Il_Penseroso said:


> I like so many painters, can't really count ! But here's one of my all-time favorites : *Ilya Repin*. There are people who don't understand the real depth of his art yet ...


I like him too but you must admit his painting of the cossacks writing their reply to sultan isn't even half as remarkable as the letter itself:



> Thou art a turkish imp, the damned devil's brother and friend, and a secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight art thou that cannot slay a hedgehog with your naked ****? The devil *****, and your army eats. Thou son of a bitch wilt not ever make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, **** thy mother.
> 
> Thou art the Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-****** of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, Armenian pig, Podolian villain, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, a fool before our God, a grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's ****, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw thine own mother!
> 
> So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. Thou wilt not even be herding Christian pigs. Now we shall conclude, for we don't know the date and don't have a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year in the book, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our ****!


----------



## Yoshi

Aramis said:


> Ivan Aivazovsky, the man had to love the sea:


I love all of those! I didn't know that painter before but now I love him.


----------



## norman bates

talking of Bonnard, this "yellow and red" could be my favorite painting of him, and one of my favorite still lifes









It's difficult to me to say why, but i find it just extraordinary

the bathroom is another beautiful painting


----------



## Sid James

Another guy in the "Nabis" group, *Maurice Denis* (the last one with interesting use of dotism/pointillism) -


----------



## norman bates

i like Henri Martin too








http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/new/henri-martin/Henri-Martin-xx-Idylle.jpg


----------



## Xaltotun

I think this one has an incredibly striking composition:









"The Boyarynia Morozova", by Vasily Surikov.


----------



## Lenfer

By no means a comprehensive list but here goes.



*Francisco Goya*



*Vincent van Gogh*



*Lucian Freud* (Lucian only died a few weeks ago.)

I am not expert on art I like what I like and I'm not always sure why, I do feel all three artists had something in common. As to what I don't know, genius perhaps?


----------



## norman bates

I didn't know of his death. I've never been a big fan of him, but i really like this one, called Reflections with two children:


----------



## norman bates

one of the greatest artistic geniuses of the century, in my opinion: max ernst









epiphany









europe after the rain









Forest and dove









the antipope









entire city

and though i like Dali, i've alway considered Ernst the greater artist


----------



## itywltmt

More music and paintings on my blogs this week, starting with my Tuesday blog:
http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/305-museum-orchestra-edition.html


----------



## norman bates

does anybody knows if there's some good painting's forum? I'm not talking of forum dedicated to techniques (or at least, not only), i'm interested to know if there's a forum where there are discussions on painters, unkwnown artists, the painting of lesser known countries... something like talk classical for the visual arts


----------



## norman bates

norman bates said:


> does anybody knows if there's some good painting's forum? I'm not talking of forum dedicated to techniques (or at least, not only), i'm interested to know if there's a forum where there are discussions on painters, unkwnown artists, the painting of lesser known countries... something like talk classical for the visual arts


it seems the answer is no


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

does anybody knows if there's some good painting's forum? I'm not talking of forum dedicated to techniques (or at least, not only), i'm interested to know if there's a forum where there are discussions on painters, unkwnown artists, the painting of lesser known countries... something like talk classical for the visual arts

The largest art site is WetCanvas! This site was at one time one of the 10 most active forums on the internet. It is still quite active. The site is divided into a broad array of sub-forums dealing with various media (oils, acrylic, print, etc...) genre (figure, landscape, still life...) as well as forums devoted to business questions, discussions related to teaching art, art history, and then threads that deal with aesthetic issues, discussions of new or favorite artists, etc... The next largest forums are ConceptArt and DeviantArt which deal more with what might be defined as "lowbrow" art: illustration, sci-fi and fantasy art, CGI, etc... DevinatArt, however, has become the largest art site... the art site with the most traffic on the internet.

I am a member at both WetCanvas and Deviant Art.... although I haven't been active at the latter (and even might have lost my password)

You might also check here:

http://www.squidoo.com/art-forums#module109487411


----------



## norman bates

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The largest art site is WetCanvas! This site was at one time one of the 10 most active forums on the internet. It is still quite active. The site is divided into a broad array of sub-forums dealing with various media (oils, acrylic, print, etc...) genre (figure, landscape, still life...) as well as forums devoted to business questions, discussions related to teaching art, art history, and then threads that deal with aesthetic issues, discussions of new or favorite artists, etc... The next largest forums are ConceptArt and DeviantArt which deal more with what might be defined as "lowbrow" art: illustration, sci-fi and fantasy art, CGI, etc... DevinatArt, however, has become the largest art site... the art site with the most traffic on the internet.
> 
> I am a member at both WetCanvas and Deviant Art.... although I haven't been active at the latter (and even might have lost my password)
> 
> You might also check here:
> 
> http://www.squidoo.com/art-forums#module109487411


i do know deviant art but in a superficial way, i like it but i don't know if it's exactly what i'm looking for. Instead i have to check out wet canvas, maybe it's strange but it's the first time that i've heard of it, thank you


----------



## norman bates

back to topic









Joseph Decamp - Sally

Sally was the daughter of the painter.
It's just my opinion, but for me this is one of the most extraordinary portraits in the entire history of art, period.
Look at the detail of the face:

__
https://flic.kr/p/4335890565


----------



## norman bates

some sport paintings:









Harvey Dunn - Racing (sorry, i don't know if it's the real title...)









Morris Kantor - Baseball at night









Ben Shahn - Handball









Thomas Eakins - Max Schmitt in a Single Scull









David Inshaw - The badminton game


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Henri Rousseau, and his mysterious sleeping gypsy is one of my all-time favorite paintings :










La Bohémienne endormie (The Sleeping Gypsy) 
1897
Oil on canvas 
129.5 cm × 200.7 cm
Museum of Modern Art


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Il_Penseroso said:


> I like so many painters, can't really count ! But here's one of my all-time favorites : *Ilya Repin*. There are people who don't understand the real depth of his art yet ...


He was definitely an extreme Realist, as Realist as Mussorgsky was with music. He painted lots of portraits, and ones for many Russian composers: Glinka, Rubinstein, Rimsky-Kostakov, Borodin, Glazunov, Liadov, Mussorgsky, on and on. 

Glazunov knew him as a friend. A quote about Repin:
"... Through Stassov I made the acquaintance of Ilya Repin. ... His lively speech, and the whole atmosphere of his studio, in which hung his own paintings and copies of old masters, the painting brought me closer ... He was a real pedant, and unlike Aivazovsky he did not paint without nature."

Here's a oil chalk portrait of Glazunov by Repin you all probably have never seen before.  Notice the AG in Cyrillics in the back:










It's my secret where I found it. :tiphat:


----------



## Vesteralen




----------



## Vesteralen




----------



## norman bates




----------



## johnfkavanagh

A small selection of some of my favourites.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Many, many, many...El Greco, Murillo, Da Vinci (not the code, please!!!!), Monet, Manet, Van Gogh, Signac, Seurat, Kandisnky, Picasso, Degas, Cézanne, Léger, Matisse...and many more. I have seen so many paintings in my life...OMG!










Martin


----------



## Aramis

Today's discovery - Victor Gabriel Gilbert:



















For the first time I could literally sense atmosphere of painted scenes so strongly. I don't know how it works but I love it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I like the first Gilbert painting. It has a particularly atmospheric effect that keeps the colors of the flowers from becoming to "sweet". The second one makes an intriguing use of opposites or complimentary colors with the red accents playing against the predominance of green focusing the eye toward the central focal point. The Victorians were not great innovators on the level of the Impressionists, but they were indisputably master craftsmen who made some beautiful images.


----------



## norman bates




----------



## Chris

norman bates said:


>


Turn it off! Please turn it off!


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I don't know much about art but I'm aware of famous paintings. I like many of Van Gogh's works and I love Dali's The Persistence of Memory.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

norman bates said:


>


This is hypnotizing. I seriously can't stop watching.


----------



## DABTSAR

Your wifes painting is nice art rock!
I love Kandinsky








And Bosch


----------



## Shostakovichiana

Being a *serious* russophile, I just adore the paintings of Boris Kustodiev.. The everyday Russian life is very well portrayed in his pictures. And very amusing!









His portrayal of a wealthy, fat aristocrat is just pure, awesome genius!!  
"Count Ignatiev";


----------



## Shostakovichiana

Wow, computer mac-crash..  Here it is:


----------



## Tapkaara

I like Goya. But my favorite is probably Akseli Gallen-Kallela of Finland. His depiction of his native country, as well as scenes from the Kalevala, are masterful.

The Japanese painters Hokusai and Hiroshige also appeal to me very much.


----------



## Ukko

I like van Gogh's paintings. What he saw, he saw intensely.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

David Blackburn . Leaf Coast . 1999 . pastel on paper . 50x38cm

Blackburn is an English artist working exclusively, as far as I can tell, in pastels, usually at this size. His pictures are more or less abstract landscapes and I'm delighted to own half a dozen, including another in the Leaf series - though I really want this one!


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Tapkaara said:


> I like Goya.


_El sueño de la razón produce monstres_
(The sleep of reason produces monsters)

To be honest, I like the title more than the picture, which strikes me as clumsy.
Incidentally it is also an undercurrent in Hans Werner Henze's _Tristan _for piano, tapes and orchestra.


----------



## brianwalker

For me painting has always been the "Dark Continent", aesthetically speaking. I've had my fair share of visits to the art galleries, pored over a number of hardcover picture books, vaguely aware of the history of painting. I've written papers on paintings in college for a general humanites class, and I've taken a few art history courses, but never really "got it"; I felt Panofsky was more arcane and more irrelevant than Derrida. Relative to my knowledge and appreciation of the other fields of the arts I am an absolute novice.

The thing that troubles me is that in every other field of the arts, be it fiction or film, there is a rough alignment of my opinion and the critical aggregates. If there are exceptions, those exceptions are rare and often found in major critics as well. There's very little chance that anyone's greatest film of all time list conforms with the one BFI compiles every ten years, but in the 2002 poll every single one of mine was at least nominated save one (My Fair Lady, horribly underrated film for political reasons, but understandably so). When I dissent, there's usually a group of major critics who feel the same way e.g. Ebert gave the acclaimed Taste of Cherry one star, Zizek said in an lecture that the first film he would burn in public if he could would be Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris.

St. Luke said somewhere the among painters there are acknowledged "tiers', e.g. Caravaggio and Rembrandt are in tier 1, and their superiority over "X, Y, etc" are not really questioned among connoisseurs and painters. I have no sense of these tiers at all, a sense that comes naturally in the other fields, even in their experimental phrases. The charm and sublimity of Pierrot le Fou or Sebald were immediately evident and heartfelt.

My appreciation of painting is so tainted by critical opinion that I question whether I would find Rembrandt great if his name wasn't always spoken in hushed tones and mentioned in quotes like this one. ""One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be - though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes will remain - because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone." - Spengler

It's as if my favorite composer were Johanne Strauss Jr, as if I had found Last Year at the Marienbad and Andrei Rublev "pretentious garbage", and denounced Henry James as "unreadable". If I had no idea that Rubens was such a pivotal persona in the history of art, reaffirmed by St. Lukes that he's a "one of the towering figures of art", I could've never guessed that John William Waterhouse, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, and John Singer Sargent were not his superior or equal, much less definite inferiors.

This remains a problem for me even if modernism, which I will politely refrain from discussing, never existed. (I remember at the National Arts Gallery there was a large room devoted to immense, wall-sized paintings of pure black, which, upon a closer examination, had traces of green. The info booth detailed how the patron of the artist was first bewildered, then became convinced by this very painting that there "was a beyond". Eery music didn't help very much.)

What am I missing here? Is there any hope for me? I'm skeptical that a "How to" book would be of any help. I've read James Wood's "How Fiction Works" and Copeland's "What to Listen for in Music"; both were insightful and contained a series of concepts for things I had noticed in literature/music but did not have names for but I could not imagine how it could induce someone to appreciate Henry James or the Grosse Fugue if they didn't already. I've read Foucault describe Las Meninas "phenomenologically", that is, in a non-technical manner with the exclusion of any biographical detail, historical influence, etc, but it brought the piece to life as much as Boulez's Sonata no. 2 was brought to life by violadude's analysis of the first 30 seconds of it.

Since St. Luke briefly analyzed his favorite paintings, I'll give my brief objection to each of them and explain why I'm largely indifferent to these masterpieces.

1. "complex and layered and highly ornate" - I guess this painting is, like Citizen Kane, important because of its place in history, culmination of previous techniques, by the way you describe it.

2. *Libyan Sibyl * While the illusion of movement in this part of the Sistine Chapel is unrivaled, and all the other elements (color, texture) also superb, it just doesn't reach an artistic "peak" for me, in the sense that this piece of art is doing only what this medium can achieve e.g. Robbe-Grillet said of Rohmer "As for Eric Rohmer, he is the fellow who writes dialogues and then gets actors to speak them in front of the camera". The gestures are likened to a "frozen ballet", but we get something closer to that in Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia, especially the slow-motions shots, where you get these amazing, unbelievable contortions.

3, 4. *Peter Paul Rubens- The Judgment of Paris*

I guess we have radically different conceptions of what is the ideal "female flesh", because what you feel about Rubens I feel about Waterhouse.

5 - 6 Rembrandt

Rembrandt always reminds me of Roman verism. The wrinkly old men with that Promethean spark in their eyes. His paintings, more than anyone else's, evokes a sense of grandeur and majesty. I would contest that the majesty of it all made the subject of his painting more "individual".

I'm disappointed by his painting of women though.










I saw this at the National Arts Gallery a few years ago.

7. Nothing to add, nothing to contradict. Numerical greatness and a variety of subjects doesn't mean anything to me; my loss. Apropos of the Primavera, I'm not a stickler for symbols either (what I loved about Marienbad is that, and this is confirmed by its director, it has zero symbols).

8. Total agreement. This painting brilliantly, inexplicably, inexorably conveys "silence". I'm especially fond of his landscapes.

9. Ditto

10. Philosophical disagreement.


----------



## brianwalker

I have a twisted sense of aesthetics, demanding that each medium of the arts produce what cannot be rivaled, in whatever emotions, beauty, etc, in the other mediums. It's why I am especially fond of Haydn's quartets--unadulterated, not-begotten-through-trial-and-misery joy and celebration, the triumph of the status quo, the absence of struggle, serene nobility is something that can't be found in any other medium, a world without friction--something not in Sophocle's Tragedies or Aristophanes' Comedies, not in Shakespeare or in Borges monomythical adventures, not in War and Peace, Joyce or Proust.

After Mozart and Haydn this sense of wholesome, uninhibited, friction-less joy disappears. You will still find traces of it in Beethoven, especially the vivace from the last string quartet, but it is all but gone by Schubert's 5th symphony. Even the last movement of Brahm's violin concerto, to me his happiest piece, is soaked in melancholy.

This passage from Tolstoy captures a major part of what I think painting is "about".

"Passing through the dining-room, a room not very large, with dark, paneled walls, Stepan Arkadyevitch and Levin walked over the soft carpet to the half-dark study, lighted up by a single lamp with a big, dark shade" Another lamp with a reflector was hanging on the wall, lighting up a-big full-length portrait of a woman, which Levin could not help looking at. It was the portrait of Anna, painted in Italy by Mihailov. While Stepan Arkadyevitch went behind the treillage, and the man's voice which had been speaking paused, Levin gazed at the portrait, which stood out from the frame in the brilliant light thrown on it, and he could not tear himself away from it. He positively forgot where he was, and not even hearing what was said, he could not take his eyes off the marvelous portrait. It was not a picture, but a living, charming woman, with black curling hair, with bare arms and shoulders, with a pensive smile on-the lips, covered with soft down; triumphantly and softly she looked at him with eyes that baffled him. *She was not living only because she was more beautiful than a living woman can be.*"

The modern age has set the bar for the average viewer very high, but to me painting ultimately triumphs, despite the legends below.




























Adorno derided Strauss' Alpine symphony for its very splendor, but the "inaccuracy" of the second movement is why I love it so: "The poverty of the sunrise of Richard Strauss' Alpine Symphony is caused not merely by banal sequences, but by its very splendor. For no sunrise, not even the one in the high mountains, is pompous, triumphal, stately, but each occurs faintly and diffidently, like the hope that everything may yet turn out well, and precisely in the inconspicuousness of the mightiest of all lights lies that which is so poignantly overwhelming."

No sunset will ever match Turner's Ovid, just as no sunrise will ever be more splendid than than Strauss' Sonnenaufgang, and no one will ever experience a single day as rich as Leopold Bloom's June sixteenth.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

_This_ guy will _always_ be my favourite painter.


----------



## norman bates

brianwalker said:


> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons
> For me painting has always been the "Dark Continent", aesthetically speaking. I've had my fair share of visits to the art galleries, pored over a number of hardcover picture books, vaguely aware of the history of painting. I've written papers on paintings in college for a general humanites class, and I've taken a few art history courses, but never really "got it"; I felt Panofsky was more arcane and more irrelevant than Derrida. Relative to my knowledge and appreciation of the other fields of the arts I am an absolute novice.
> 
> The thing that troubles me is that in every other field of the arts, be it fiction or film, there is a rough alignment of my opinion and the critical aggregates. If there are exceptions, those exceptions are rare and often found in major critics as well. There's very little chance that anyone's greatest film of all time list conforms with the one BFI compiles every ten years, but in the 2002 poll every single one of mine was at least nominated save one (My Fair Lady, horribly underrated film for political reasons, but understandably so). When I dissent, there's usually a group of major critics who feel the same way e.g. Ebert gave the acclaimed Taste of Cherry one star, Zizek said in an lecture that the first film he would burn in public if he could would be Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris.
> 
> St. Luke said somewhere the among painters there are acknowledged "tiers', e.g. Caravaggio and Rembrandt are in tier 1, and their superiority over "X, Y, etc" are not really questioned among connoisseurs and painters. I have no sense of these tiers at all, a sense that comes naturally in the other fields, even in their experimental phrases. The charm and sublimity of Pierrot le Fou or Sebald were immediately evident and heartfelt.
> 
> My appreciation of painting is so tainted by critical opinion that I question whether I would find Rembrandt great if his name wasn't always spoken in hushed tones and mentioned in quotes like this one. ""One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be - though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes will remain - because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone." - Spengler
> 
> It's as if my favorite composer were Johanne Strauss Jr, as if I had found Last Year at the Marienbad and Andrei Rublev "pretentious garbage", and denounced Henry James as "unreadable". If I had no idea that Rubens was such a pivotal persona in the history of art, reaffirmed by St. Lukes that he's a "one of the towering figures of art", I could've never guessed that John William Waterhouse, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, and John Singer Sargent were not his superior or equal, much less definite inferiors. [/QUOTE]
> 
> different critics say different things. If you like a picture, what's the problem?


----------



## Vaneyes

Modigliani (1884 - 1920): Portrait of Juan Gris (1915)


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content










Modigliani (1884 - 1920): Anna Akhmatova (1911)


----------



## norman bates

brianwalker said:


> I'm disappointed by his painting of women though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this at the National Arts Gallery a few years ago.


i'm with you, i don't think it's particularly interesting.
This one instead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_-_Self_Portrait111.jpg

is an amazing painting for me.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

My personal favorites are Dali, Van Goh, and Picasso. I especially enjoy The Persintance of Memory. It has to be my favorite of all time.


----------



## jalex

Since expressing my puzzlement at the visual arts in another thread a couple of months ago I have made some effort to learn to appreciate them. My first favourite painting:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

jalex said:


> Since expressing my puzzlement at the visual arts in another thread a couple of months ago I have made some effort to learn to appreciate them. My first favourite painting:


_The Girl with the Pearl Earring_ by Vermeer is surely worthy of being anyone's favorite painting. I will say this of Vermeer... as fine as his paintings look in reproduction in real life they are something else altogether. The artist painted little more than 40 small paintings over the course of his career. The mature works were built up slowly of layer upon layer of translucent paint of the finest pigments so that they take on a luminosity that simply overpowers much everything around them... even those canvases of the usual grandiose Baroque scale. Vermeer's paintings have the appearance as if they were painted of liquid gems... as indeed they were if one considers the Lapis Lazuli from which Vermeer's other-worldly blue was wrought. Like Rembrandt, Rubens, Velazquez and Caravaggio (the other towering painters of the Baroque), Vermeer was at once of his time... and something else altogether. I have always been struck by the absolute quiet of his paintings... in spite of being created in a home in which he lived with his wife, his mother-in-law, his 12 daughters... and the guests of bed and breakfast/tavern that they ran.


----------



## Sid James

Yep, Rembrandt's self portraits are among the finest ever done. Another great cycle is Van Gogh's, & I think Titian did some very psychologically penetrating ones as well.

If you like Vermeer's paintings, be sure to watch the film _The Girl with a Pearl Earring _or read the novel. It's a fictionalised account of the (possible) story behind the making of that painting. & it provides a fascinating insight into what life was like in Vermeer's time, they made a real replica of his house for the film, it comes across as as authentic as we can get, even though we don't know a great deal about many details of Vermeer's life. It's not meant as a fully "authentic" history, more a snapshot of the man and his world...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

norman bates said:


> i'm with you, i don't think it's particularly interesting.
> This one instead
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_-_Self_Portrait111.jpg
> 
> is an amazing painting for me.


Unfortunately that is a miserable reproduction of Rembrandt's _Lucretia_ (National Gallery, Washington). Here is one that is but slightly better:










In all actuality it is all but impossible to capture the appearance of Rembrandt's paintings in the 2-dimensional medium of photography. The handling of the paint has such a variety of tactile qualities ranging from the mere whisper of a wash to the most luminous transparent glaze to the richest and thickest impasto that is literally three-dimensional. In this particular painting, paint on the hands and the cuffs around the hands is applied in a dry "scumbling" (dragging very dry oil pigment over a darker ground in such a manner that some of the under-painting shows through). As her golden gown approaches her chest and face the paint becomes thicker and more sensuous. The white undergarment that frames her breast is so thick one can almost "feel" it as a tactile reality. The same is true of her flesh which is painted in an equally rich impasto... and yet in an altogether different manner from her white lace undergarment. Here the painter is able to capture both the smoothness and the warmth and life of the flesh with bluish tints here and rose tints there that suggest the veins beneath the skin. The face is the focal point... and here is the magic of Rembrandt's handling of paint: the artist is one of those who was able to put into paint some aspect of just how we see things. Rembrandt understood that the human eye can only focus upon one thing at a time and as objects move further and further from this center of focus they become increasingly diffused or out of focus. Rembrandt used this understanding of sight to focus the drama. In the instance of _Lucretia_, the center of focus is upon gloriously painted flesh of her breast and the surrounding white lace moments before she is to stab herself... and thus stain this exquisite white. The knife, sharp and black and contrasted against the white of her sleeve is poised to make the cut while her face... slightly removed from the focal point of her breast in painted in an ever so-slightly blurred manner that suggests, almost, her... and our own... teary-eyed vision.










As usual, Rembrandt is not in the least concerned with an idealized image of the pretty woman, but rather with capturing the drama, the emotion, the character... and bathing it all in an other-worldly light.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

St. Luke said somewhere the among painters there are acknowledged "tiers', e.g. Caravaggio and Rembrandt are in tier 1, and their superiority over "X, Y, etc" are not really questioned among connoisseurs and painters. I have no sense of these tiers at all, a sense that comes naturally in the other fields, even in their experimental phrases. The charm and sublimity of Pierrot le Fou or Sebald were immediately evident and heartfelt.

My appreciation of painting is so tainted by critical opinion that I question whether I would find Rembrandt great if his name wasn't always spoken in hushed tones and mentioned in quotes like this one. ""One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be - though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes will remain - because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone." - Spengler

It's as if my favorite composer were Johanne Strauss Jr, as if I had found Last Year at the Marienbad and Andrei Rublev "pretentious garbage", and denounced Henry James as "unreadable". If I had no idea that Rubens was such a pivotal persona in the history of art, reaffirmed by St. Lukes that he's a "one of the towering figures of art", I could've never guessed that John William Waterhouse, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, and John Singer Sargent were not his superior or equal, much less definite inferiors.

This is the challenge that faces everyone of us as we develop our eye or our ear with regard to music or the turn of poetic phrase. I part it has to do with experience. As a mere 16-year old discovering Bach's Brandenburg Concertos I thought I had unearthed the greatest music ever written, not knowing that it wasn't even the greatest music by Bach. After some 5 or 7 years or seriously listening to classical music I had a grasp on a good deal of the core repertoire... at least from Mozart through Stravinsky... but I knew little of Rameau, Handel, Monteverdi, Bartok, the melodies of Faure and Debussy, etc...

Ultimately, when we speak of artists of the highest rank or echelon or tiers what we are speaking of are those artists who are acknowledged as having had the greatest impact upon the narrative, as it now exists, of the history of art or music or literature. We measure this through influence on subsequent artists of merit and through continued admiration of critics, historians, curators, collectors (and other "experts") as well as the informed audience member.

When we are speaking for ourselves and we are talking of the "greatest artists" what we are really speaking of are the "artists I most like"... or the "artists I personally think are the greatest". There is no real means of objectively measuring the worth of this or that artist for the simple reason that there is so single agreed-upon ideal or set of standards toward which all artist are striving.

This brings us to your question of John William Waterhouse, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, and John Singer Sargent and why they are not recognized as being among the finest or top-tier among painters. Obviously... within the broader sense of looking upon their impact upon subsequent artists and the narrative of art history they all fail to have been as influential or as consistently admired as other artists of the period such as Manet, Degas, Monet, etc... But then... what of judging these paintings solely as a visual object. Waterhouse, Alma-Tadema, Sargent, Bouguereau... a great many of the academics of the late 19th century were undeniably masterful in the construction of a painting. They had learned and built upon their predecessors impressively. So why Monet and not Alma-Tadema. What I would suggest is that at the center of a work of art is an idea as well as an image. The work of art is not merely a beautiful or attractive image... otherwise the beautifully lit Playboy centerfold with the gorgeous naked woman, dramatic lighting, and sensuous satins and lace would be as great (if not greater) than Titian's _Venus d'Urbino_. Alma-Tadema and Waterhouse... rather than bringing some new ideas to the dialog of art, offered little more than a pastiche of the past.

All this, I will say, is irrelevant to what you like. I would in no way look askance at someone whose favorite composer was Johann Strauss... although I'd be quick to challenge them if they went on to suggest that Strauss was greater than Mozart or some such nonsense. I would also point out that the narrative of art and music and literature continually changes... and as it changes certain artists rise in stature as others decline. In 188o John Donne was but a minor figure. By 1930, thanks to Modernism and especially the critical efforts of T.S. Eliot, Donne was seen as almost second only to Shakespeare. As Modernism is increasingly challenged by Post-Modernism artists that were once seen as an anathema to the Modernist narrative (Alma-Tadema, Waterhouse, and especially Bouguereau have been afforded reconsideration.) Figures like Alma-Tadema, Waterhouse and the Pre-Raphaelites are recognized as influential upon the illustration of the last century... and even more so upon the imagery of modern fantasy (The Lord of the Rings, etc...) Ultimately one can only speak of an artist as having unquestionably entered the top tier of the canon or pantheon of art after they have survived for at least a century or two. If it were so easy to recognize the greatest artists of the more recent times there wouldn't be so much disagreement.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Jeremy Marchant said:


> _El sueño de la razón produce monstres_
> (The sleep of reason produces monsters)
> 
> To be honest, I like the title more than the picture, which strikes me as clumsy.
> Incidentally it is also an undercurrent in Hans Werner Henze's _Tristan _for piano, tapes and orchestra.


*monstruos* is the word in Spanish. Monstres is in French.

Martin (trying to help)


----------



## tdc

This artist was brought up yesterday in the current listening thread, and upon looking at his works I am certainly impressed with his work - *Gino Severini*

Here is one of his stunning mosaics:









Unfortunately, most of the pictures I found of his works that I liked were too large of files to be posted on this thread.


----------



## PetrB

Chris said:


> Manxfeeder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If any TC-ers would like to own a series of original paintings in this style I will supply them in a range of colour permutations...20 quid each
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother, when "My kid could paint that."
> 
> NOT.
> 
> Neither you, or 'your kid,' could paint that any more than either of you could compose Schoenberg's "Gurrelieder."
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

I think that's a Rothko isn't it, on Manxfeeder's "offer"? Reminds me of the person on the other thread who said people would rather listen to Handel's, "Waterworks" in the concert hall than Beethoven, Bach or Wagner. Yeah, that was weird.


----------



## Xaltotun

These days I find that Jacques-Louis David is my favourite of them all. Oath of the Horatii, The Sabine Women, The Coronation of Napoleon, The Death of Socrates, Lictors bringing the sons of Brutus to his home... these affect me greatly, they stimulate my mind and my heart. The Death of Marat and Napoleon crossing the Alps, not so much.


----------



## deggial

I'm very fond of Kandinsky, Gaugain and Malevich.

...but I think the Death of Marat is quite powerful and would be my favourite from David.


----------



## Novelette

Ahh, Hyacinthe Rigaud is my absolute favorite painter.

Followed closely by Philippe de Champaigne.


----------



## cwarchc

Nice resurrection of a thread.
One of my favourites is Valette.
A french artist that painted scenes of urban Manchester, around the turn of the last century
I'm lucky enough to have seen quite a few of the originals at an exhibition last year


----------



## ptr

I mostly dig non descriptive art, I prefer (B&W)photography for realistic/descriptive things, sometimes I find surreal painters like Dalì, Magritte or Escher interesting, but their grab seldomly seem last. Kandinsky, Malevich, Miró and Klee rate high with me while someone like Jackson Pollock gets to random for me... I have moments when I find darker things like Zdzisław Beksiński's art alluring (even if he is slightly horror kitsch)..

Paul Klee








Zdzisław Beksiński








Tamara de Lempicka did some quite beautiful portraits that I actually can stand..
















/ptr


----------



## JCarmel

Like others on this thread, I love Rembrandt and the self-portraits perhaps most of all....this is a real, sentient being captured on canvas in a way that is not only a miracle of artistry but also I feel, of deep personal insight.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I mostly dig non descriptive art, I prefer (B&W)photography for realistic/descriptive things, sometimes I find surreal painters like Dalì, Magritte or Escher interesting, but their grab seldomly seem last. Kandinsky, Malevich, Miró and Klee rate high with me while someone like Jackson Pollock gets to random for me... I have moments when I find darker things like Zdzisław Beksiński's art alluring (even if he is slightly horror kitsch)..

Not only does Zdzisław Beksiński often cross over the line into kitsch, but I would suggest that Tamara de Lempicka is quite kitsch. I love Klee myself. He was probably the first abstract artist who grabbed my attention. One critic suggested that Klee invented the whole of Modern art in miniature... and I don't think the comment is too great of an exaggeration.


----------



## TxllxT

Rembrandt's Nachtwacht / Night Watch is back on its place. On 13th April the Rijksmuseum reopens after 9 years of renovation. On that day the acces to the museum is free!


----------



## Xaltotun

deggial said:


> I'm very fond of Kandinsky, Gaugain and Malevich.
> 
> ...but I think the Death of Marat is quite powerful and would be my favourite from David.


It is quite powerful indeed, and I guess most people would name it their favourite from David. But I'm especially impressed by those of his works that show both the needed sacrifice, and the glory of an ideal. Marat is a splendid example of a sacrifice, but even though he's a martyr of the revolution, the piece does not glorify the ideal as much as the sacrifice. While that Napoleon on a fiery steed, there's glory and ideal, but no sacrifice. Now on some other works he nails both aspects, even in the coronation of Napoleon, because even if it looks just glorifying on the surface, I think the severity and solemnity suggests an aspect of sacrifice. Napoleon had to consciously and willingly betray his ideal of freedom when he assumed the imperial crown - all for "the greater good", at least in theory.


----------



## tdc

I'm starting to take more of an interest in the visual arts lately, these are the painters who thus far I seem to be the most inspired by:

- Leonardo Da Vinci (my favorite painting at the moment is his painting _Annunciation_)
- Ingres
- Picasso
- Van Gogh
- Severini


----------



## Ravndal

Harriet Backer got some wonderful stuff.

This one hangs over my fireplace (different frame though)


















Monet









Pisarro









Van Gogh


----------



## Guest

I like

Delaroche http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/paul-delaroche-the-execution-of-lady-jane-grey

Wyndham Lewis http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/article_images/Wyndham Lewis.jpg

Kandinsky, http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/0/t/kandinsky_gugg_0910_25.jpg

Dali http://cdn.head-fi.org/0/06/06d60f84_salvador-dali-metamorphosis-of-narcissus.jpeg

Magritte, http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/v/7/1/04-Rene-Magritte-The-Lovers-1928.jpg

Hammershoi http://www.hammershoi.co.uk/CroppedImages/sunbeamssmall2.jpg

Klimt http://www.newyorkartworld.com/images-reviews02/aklimt/FarmhousWBirchTrees-370x372.jpg


----------



## Ravndal

Ravndal said:


> Harriet Backer got some wonderful stuff.
> 
> This one hangs over my fireplace (different frame though)


Harriet Backer is actually the elderly sister of painist & composer "Agathe Backer Grøndahl". (They are both Norwegian)


----------



## Xaltotun

tdc said:


> I'm starting to take more of an interest in the visual arts lately, these are the painters who thus far I seem to be the most inspired by:
> 
> - Leonardo Da Vinci (my favorite painting at the moment is his painting _Annunciation_)
> - Ingres
> - Picasso
> - Van Gogh
> - Severini


I want to talk about Ingres a bit; I'm delighted that someone other than myself appreciates him. I'm drawn towards the deliberate artificiality, the coldness, the... _cruelty_ of his paintings. No one seems to be free there, everyone is somehow "chained" by a law, nature, fate... that they can't escape. This I like. It seems... somehow... _musical._


----------



## Ingélou

Alma-Tadema, John William Waterhouse, Vermeer, Goya ... also Orthodox Icons & Mughal paintings...


----------



## deggial

Xaltotun said:


> It is quite powerful indeed, and I guess most people would name it their favourite from David. But I'm especially impressed by those of his works that show both the needed sacrifice, and the glory of an ideal. Marat is a splendid example of a sacrifice, but even though he's a martyr of the revolution, the piece does not glorify the ideal as much as the sacrifice. While that Napoleon on a fiery steed, there's glory and ideal, but no sacrifice. Now on some other works he nails both aspects, even in the coronation of Napoleon, because even if it looks just glorifying on the surface, I think the severity and solemnity suggests an aspect of sacrifice. Napoleon had to consciously and willingly betray his ideal of freedom when he assumed the imperial crown - all for "the greater good", at least in theory.


I guess it depends on one's meaning of revolution. I see it as sacrifice rather than glory. I'm not with you on the coronation, but I think your idea is interesting and my reaction is influenced by my disdain for Napoleon...


----------



## Kazaman

I've been enjoying Emil Nolde a lot lately.


----------



## Sonata

Claude Monet is my favorite, then Salvadore Dali, Michelangelo and Paul Cezanne. I should mention DaVinci too though, as work with human anatomy is pretty important for my field, medicine.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I want to talk about Ingres a bit; I'm delighted that someone other than myself appreciates him. I'm drawn towards the deliberate artificiality, the coldness, the... cruelty of his paintings. No one seems to be free there, everyone is somehow "chained" by a law, nature, fate... that they can't escape. This I like. It seems... somehow... musical.

What I have always seen in Ingres is something of an icy eroticism... not unlike Grace Kelly... or Kim Novak in _Vertigo_. Ingres' artistic goal was to be a "history painter"... a painter of those grandiose multi-figure paintings achieved by his hero, Raphael:










or his teacher, J.L. David:










Unfortunately... with few exceptions, Ingres was unable to achieve this goal. What he did instead was to approach the simple portrait with every bit of the same attention to the abstract elements of composition, the slightest details... to the point of obsession.










For all the "realism"... "illusionism" apparent in Ingres, his paintings are incredible artificial and abstract. It should come as no surprise that he was admired by Degas, Picasso, Gorky, DeKooning and many other "Modernists". He remains something of a "painter's painter".


----------



## tdc

I love this painting by Ingres. It is almost as though I can tangibly feel the mood he is trying to evoke. His works leave me with a kind of awed feeling one might have as if they have just awoken from an extremely vivid dream, the kind that seems so detailed and almost "realer" than reality.


----------



## deggial

StlukesguildOhio said:


>




he did a great job with the rendition of fabrics in that painting. Way more alive than the actual portrait.


----------



## Xaltotun

deggial said:


> I guess it depends on one's meaning of revolution. I see it as sacrifice rather than glory. I'm not with you on the coronation, but I think your idea is interesting and my reaction is influenced by my disdain for Napoleon...


Good points! To me, revolution is indeed equal parts sacrifice and glory. My feelings, too, might be influenced by my admiration of Napoleon 

Also, I have a tendency to always see an element of sacrifice wherever I see human emotionality or desire suppressed or chained... in other words, even morality is, to me, always a sacrifice.


----------



## BaronAlstromer

Elias Martin
Pehr Hilleström
Alexander Roslin


----------



## Ryan

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I want to talk about Ingres a bit; I'm delighted that someone other than myself appreciates him. I'm drawn towards the deliberate artificiality, the coldness, the... cruelty of his paintings. No one seems to be free there, everyone is somehow "chained" by a law, nature, fate... that they can't escape. This I like. It seems... somehow... musical.
> 
> What I have always seen in Ingres is something of an icy eroticism... not unlike Grace Kelly... or Kim Novak in _Vertigo_. Ingres' artistic goal was to be a "history painter"... a painter of those grandiose multi-figure paintings achieved by his hero, Raphael:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or his teacher, J.L. David:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately... with few exceptions, Ingres was unable to achieve this goal. What he did instead was to approach the simple portrait with every bit of the same attention to the abstract elements of composition, the slightest details... to the point of obsession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the "realism"... "illusionism" apparent in Ingres, his paintings are incredible artificial and abstract. It should come as no surprise that he was admired by Degas, Picasso, Gorky, DeKooning and many other "Modernists". He remains something of a "painter's painter".


The broad with the blue dress, I'd give her one........................................... out of ten.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The broad with the blue dress, I'd give her one........................................... out of ten.

A real eye for art.


----------

