View Full Version : Painting discussion


Kyriakos
Feb 28, 2010, 02:35 PM
Here one can post paintings and discuss them, or refer to already posted ones.

Let's start with one of my favourites :)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/Leap_of_Faith.jpg

This is "The leap of faith" by Michael Whelan.

I like this painting because it creates a dark environment, which seems to be inescapable, or rather one cannot escape from the protruding piece of concrete he has been found in in any other way apart from jumping in front of him. It makes me think that this extreme step was needed so that one can be set free, and however impossible it seemed, it was the correct measure to take.

The building is black, but the only figure is dressed in white, as if it acquired that purity and whiteness by the leap itself. Apart from it the only living beings are some birds, which advance upwards, as if to show the figure which way to go.

I love the sense of decay and prohibited pleasure in the painting. One sees metalic surfaces, infested with substances that have been carved into the scenery by time. Everything apart from the birds and the main figure is static. And yet one sees hope, in the final leap :)

Yared
Feb 28, 2010, 05:32 PM
http://www.interiors.intendo.net/magritte/lovers.jpg


Love is blind...

This painting makes me smile...

Kyriakos
Feb 28, 2010, 05:33 PM
You could also mention why it makes you smile (if you don't want Plotinus to close us down ;) )
:)

Yared
Feb 28, 2010, 06:03 PM
Well, true love is blind. When I look at my GF I notice her pretty eyes, her nice smile, her beautiful hair, her cute lips... They are all a part of who she is.

But most of all I see her. I know her better than anyone else, and vice-versa. I know she's not perfect, and neither am I. I see her for who and how she really is - beyond the superficial beauty. And when she looks at me I feel like she can see the deepest of me.

To us, those two are merely people whose faces are covered in cloth. So what? Well, the love is present (as made obvious by the passionate kiss) and they see the deepest of things when they view each other, they feel love for each other when they view each other; and no cloth or physical obstacle can cover that stuff up ;)

Every time I look at her... I smile :)

Cynovolans
Feb 28, 2010, 07:40 PM
I like paintings of monarchs that portray them in divine or biblical ways. I like looking at paintings and finding what certain objects or the clothes they wear refer to.

Like this painting of Elizabeth I of England-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Metsys_Elizabeth_I_The_Sieve_Portrait_c1583.jpg
The sieve she holds is an allegory to the Vestal Virgin, Tuccia. The globe in the back represents an empire, and the mediallons on the pillar illustrate the story of Dido and Aenas, suggesting that like Aenas Elizabeth was to reject marriage and build an empire instead.

Plotinus
Mar 03, 2010, 05:32 AM
I like looking at paintings and finding what certain objects or the clothes they wear refer to.

When on one of my rare incursions into an art gallery, I always like to go to the medieval section and play "guess the saint" until my better half declares herself unable to stand it any longer.

Fifty
Mar 03, 2010, 07:22 AM
This is "The leap of faith" by Michael Whelan.

I must say I find that painting quite boring.

Sure, it creates "a dark environment", but "dark" paintings are a dime a dozen. There is an unfortunate tendency among bad artists, after such figures as Kafka came around, to think that anything that throws words and ideas like "madness" and "darkness" and "modernity" around is somehow a great work. On the contrary, it just comes off as hackneyed and derivative.

The symbolism of the painting is so tired, so obvious, and so boring. And when you further consider the fact that the painting was made so recently, it positively *screams* "I have no artistic vision! I'm just vaguely interested in darkness/madness/modernity and have vast and unfounded pretensions that anything that combines those concepts represents authentic imaginative vision!"

I mean, there isn't a single iota of originality in that painting. Black/white symbolism using light needs to be done skillfully if it is to be done artistically anymore. It has been so common for so long (hundreds of years!) that just throwing it in an otherwise boring painting does nothing.

As for your analysis, varwnos, your discussion of the white birds made no sense. It isn't at all clear that all or even most of them are flying upwards. The grim industrial landscape may be "dark", but that certainly doesn't make it interesting. A great work of art needs authentic imaginative vision, and this piece has none. My suspicions were confirmed when I found out it was painted by a 3rd rate sci-fi and fantasy artist.

All things considered:

-The painting has no imaginative vision.

-The painting just rehashes concepts like "madness", industrial decay, death-as-freedom, and so on in a completely unoriginal way. There is nothing new or fresh about the painting. Nor does it treat its old themes well enough for us to forgive its lack of imagination.

-Varwnos's analysis is insufficient to establish his claim that it is a good work of art.

-Indeed, it is just the usual derivative and boring art created by the legions of aspiring artists who think any vague smattering together of madness, modernity, blazingly obvious symbolism etc. constitutes serious art.


~Fifty

bhsup
Mar 03, 2010, 07:25 AM
No offense, Varnwos, but I have to agree with Fifty on this one. I don't have the analytical brain to make the detailed analysis that he did, but my gut reaction is that I just don't like it.

Kyriakos
Mar 03, 2010, 07:29 AM
Take it easy VRW, this is just an internet forum. I don't give a crap if you agree with a boring troll, who is on permanent ignore ;)
As for not liking the painting, well i think i will refrain from changing my view of it if you dont mind :lol:

azzaman333
Mar 03, 2010, 07:41 AM
I don't see how a painting of someone about to commit suicide is particularly insightful or stuff.

This painting, compared to a good one, would be like comparing my post to fifty's.

I must say I find that painting quite boring.

Sure, it creates "a dark environment", but "dark" paintings are a dime a dozen. There is an unfortunate tendency among bad artists, after such figures as Kafka came around, to think that anything that throws words and ideas like "madness" and "darkness" and "modernity" around is somehow a great work. On the contrary, it just comes off as hackneyed and derivative.

The symbolism of the painting is so tired, so obvious, and so boring. And when you further consider the fact that the painting was made so recently, it positively *screams* "I have no artistic vision! I'm just vaguely interested in darkness/madness/modernity and have vast and unfounded pretensions that anything that combines those concepts represents authentic imaginative vision!"

I mean, there isn't a single iota of originality in that painting. Black/white symbolism using light needs to be done skillfully if it is to be done artistically anymore. It has been so common for so long (hundreds of years!) that just throwing it in an otherwise boring painting does nothing.

As for your analysis, varwnos, your discussion of the white birds made no sense. It isn't at all clear that all or even most of them are flying upwards. The grim industrial landscape may be "dark", but that certainly doesn't make it interesting. A great work of art needs authentic imaginative vision, and this piece has none. My suspicions were confirmed when I found out it was painted by a 3rd rate sci-fi and fantasy artist.

All things considered:

-The painting has no imaginative vision.

-The painting just rehashes concepts like "madness", industrial decay, death-as-freedom, and so on in a completely unoriginal way. There is nothing new or fresh about the painting. Nor does it treat its old themes well enough for us to forgive its lack of imagination.

-Varwnos's analysis is insufficient to establish his claim that it is a good work of art.

-Indeed, it is just the usual derivative and boring art created by the legions of aspiring artists who think any vague smattering together of madness, modernity, blazingly obvious symbolism etc. constitutes serious art.


~Fifty

Quoted for effect of comparison between my crappy post (like the painting) and fifty's wise and insightful post (not like the painting)

Kyriakos
Mar 03, 2010, 07:47 AM
Please dont litter my thread with your idiocy. If you have nothing to post, dont just troll. You have been reported, *yawn*

azzaman333
Mar 03, 2010, 07:50 AM
Where is the troll? Art is subjective, isn't it? Am I not allowed to make an analogy to describe my thoughts on a painting?

http://www.interiors.intendo.net/magritte/lovers.jpg

I don't like that one either. It's way too cliched.

Plotinus
Mar 03, 2010, 08:00 AM
Everyone, please address the points raised, not the people raising them. Calling someone a "troll" is not a reasonable response to a criticism.

JEELEN
Mar 03, 2010, 08:48 AM
Where is the troll? Art is subjective, isn't it? Am I not allowed to make an analogy to describe my thoughts on a painting?



I don't like that one either. It's way too cliched.

Quite possibly because you already know Magritte through and through. Anyway, that's just as "insightful" as Fifty's, who, instead of showing his usual intellectual superiority (or boredom?) might have posted a painting, which, as the OP clearly states, is the intention of this thread.

BTW, most known art from the past is cliché, but why should that bother anyone from admiring it.

Here's a favourite of mine (it's from right before Mondriaan started on his abstract period, for which he is most known):

LucyDuke
Mar 03, 2010, 02:12 PM
I don't think the first painting is "bad", it's certainly demonstrative, at least, of some respectable level of technical skill. Not an exceptional level of technical skill, since to even my totally untrained eye there are glaring inconsistencies in the lighting and shadowing, but easily a level one must work to reach. I don't find the subject especially interesting, it just makes me think of Final Fantasy, but even if the theme is tired, the painting is decently executed. I'm really weirded out by the spotlight. Also, though we don't know what the dude is jumping into, there are definitely a few possible escape routes along the walls with all those pipes and ladders. Maybe they aren't within jumping distance, but he should have at least tried. Look how high he jumped! That's unnatural, if he can jump that high, he could probably have followed the wall out if he had wanted to. The POV angle seems really contrived, though I'm not sure it's impossible. The higher parts of the left wall do not look right. And I don't trust the walling-up of the leftmost window - it doesn't make any damn sense. But! I guess it's cool that the whole thing speaks to somebody. :confused:

Bill3000
Mar 03, 2010, 02:19 PM
Quite possibly because you already know Magritte through and through. Anyway, that's just as "insightful" as Fifty's, who, instead of showing his usual intellectual superiority (or boredom?) might have posted a painting, which, as the OP clearly states, is the intention of this thread.

Wait, what? The OP states the following:

Here one can post paintings and discuss them, or refer to already posted ones.

I don't particularly see why one must post a picture if you're analyzing/critiquing previous ones. It doesn't and shouldn't need to be just a "post a picture" thread.

Here's an example of, IMO, a good dark painting:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Caspar_David_Friedrich_052.jpg

holy king
Mar 03, 2010, 02:28 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Caspar_David_Friedrich_052.jpg


painting a cemetery for your "dark" painting of the year?
original...

Yared
Mar 03, 2010, 02:50 PM
I don't like that one either. It's way too cliched.

Do you think that love as a theme is overused or that the painting itself is unoriginal?

Fifty
Mar 03, 2010, 05:15 PM
. Anyway, that's just as "insightful" as Fifty's, who, instead of showing his usual intellectual superiority (or boredom?) might have posted a painting, which, as the OP clearly states, is the intention of this thread.

The OP stated that discussion of previous works was also the point of this thread, as Bill3000 noted.

Anyways, here is a painting I've found a few months ago that I enjoy:

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/6654/georgiaokeeffeantelope.jpg

Unfortunately that's the largest pic I could find. The painting is apparently by Georgia O'Keefe, whose work I don't generally love. I don't have a really analytical reason for liking this painting, I just think deserts are cool and I enjoy the colors.

Fifty
Mar 03, 2010, 05:18 PM
I've really never been a big Magritte fan. His paintings are just too obvious and self-consciously cutesy/clever for my taste. I'd say "This is not a Pipe" is the most overrated painting of all time.

holy king
Mar 03, 2010, 11:36 PM
I've really never been a big Magritte fan. His paintings are just too obvious and self-consciously cutesy/clever for my taste. I'd say "This is not a Pipe" is the most overrated painting of all time.



but... but.... but....

http://bp3.blogger.com/_2Z7VYcC8u4c/SIYqdWVS6mI/AAAAAAAACj8/ZJgSDD22fuI/s400/a+reverse+mermaid+rene+magritte.jpg

JEELEN
Mar 04, 2010, 12:57 AM
The OP stated that discussion of previous works was also the point of this thread, as Bill3000 noted.

Anyways, here is a painting I've found a few months ago that I enjoy:

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/6654/georgiaokeeffeantelope.jpg

Unfortunately that's the largest pic I could find. The painting is apparently by Georgia O'Keefe, whose work I don't generally love. I don't have a really analytical reason for liking this painting, I just think deserts are cool and I enjoy the colors.

Yes, well, most people don't have 'analytical reasons' for liking a painting.

Also, I'm inclined to think that naming a painting/painter 'boring' (mentioned twice) constitutes much of an 'analysis'. That Leap of Faith misses vision is incorrect; rather, you do not see the vision. The paintings above and posted by Bill3000 seem bland in comparison; they certainly lack any 'vision'.

And now another unpretentious, 'overrated' painting:

Yared
Mar 04, 2010, 03:21 AM
What do you like about that painting JEELEN?


but... but.... but....

http://bp3.blogger.com/_2Z7VYcC8u4c/SIYqdWVS6mI/AAAAAAAACj8/ZJgSDD22fuI/s400/a+reverse+mermaid+rene+magritte.jpg

Elaborate on your thoughts :pat:

holy king
Mar 04, 2010, 03:28 AM
Elaborate on your thoughts :pat:

mhm, me like fish, urgh, urgh.

Plotinus
Mar 04, 2010, 03:34 AM
That line of discussion can go elsewhere, if you'd be so kind.

Yared
Mar 04, 2010, 03:40 AM
So it's Woman + Fish = Epic?



(sorry if i misunderstand you Plotinus)

You do. This is not the place for spammy discussions of reverse mermaids.

Kyriakos
Mar 04, 2010, 04:50 AM
http://antares666.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/zdzislaw_beksinski_morsir.jpg

This is an untitled painting, by Beksinski.

What i like about it is how the painter creates the sense of danger, and simultaneously creates, literally, a serene and pure pathway for one to observe it, in the form of the white pavement the figure is walking on.
It could seem that for a logical, sensitive person the giagantic statues of the horrific figures would impose their presence in detriment of the psyche of their observer, if there was not such a providence for him, in the form of the light he is holding (which, again, at the same time is making the horror visible, but also negates it, by surrounding the observer in its purity) and the path. ;)

azzaman333
Mar 04, 2010, 05:12 AM
The white "pavement" is just sand. He's hopelessly lost in the desert, and is about to die. The birds will soon be feasting on his rotting corpse.

Japanrocks12
Mar 04, 2010, 06:26 AM
I keep coming back to this painting by Caspar David Friedrich, entitled "The Abbey in the Oakwood."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood.jpg

In this painting, Friedrich deviates from his usual landscaping-painting ability to paint the quintessentially creepy scene. The murkiness of the black mist clings to the ground of the painting and contrasts very sharply with the clear air of the top. The gnarled, twisted trees are stand-ins for grotesque figures. The cemetery headstones, while small, cannot be ignored as they are scattered on the hilly grass. The abbey itself looks like one arch and is in obvious disrepair.

Individually, these elements make for a fairly weak evocation of the desolate and creepy title location. Yet, Friedrich's ability to show things as they actually are without going for a cheesy stereotype (though the dude lived 200 years ago, much before these stereotypes were actually ingrained into human culture) makes him a great painter.

Atticus
Mar 04, 2010, 09:30 AM
This is an untitled painting, by Beksinski.


OMG, one guy ont he left has a yo-yo in his hand! :lol:

The painting looks very threatening at first glance, then you start to wonder what is that thing flying there, and see the string, and the whole mood changes.

I'm not much into paintings, but to add more substance, here's a fine aquarelle by Hugo Pratt:
http://agaudi.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/louise.jpg

Pratt's mastery is in minimalism, I think. Hmmm... The same is true for my analysis.

Kyriakos
Mar 04, 2010, 09:35 AM
Isnt it more probable that he is holding something to measure one's soul with? An architectural instrument, which in this context is in perfect accordance with the mood of the painting ;)

Atticus
Mar 04, 2010, 09:51 AM
I kinda like the yo-yo idea, the jest, and how it really turns around how you see the painting, which is very rare in pictorial art. Also I prefer art that gives hope. The white path or fire can achieve that, but the yo-yo turns the whole thing upside down: there was nothing to fear afterall, the world isn't so gloomy place, it's full of joy and laughter.

But at the end it's for watcher top decide. :)

Heretic_Cata
Mar 04, 2010, 10:57 AM
painting a cemetery for your "dark" painting of the year?
original...
Almost as original as a guy killing himself amirite ?

I like these paintings:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5080/dali35.jpg

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7389/195201.jpg

Dali's

Cheezy the Wiz
Mar 04, 2010, 11:41 AM
I'm a huge fan of the Baroque, because I'm a huge fan of Caravaggio, and he more or less defined the taste of the early Baroque.

This is probably his most popular work, The Calling of St. Matthew (1601). I absolutely adore it. I love the figurative uses of lighting , the colors, the hidden intensity behind (relative) visual quietness...its just wonderful.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Calling-of-st-matthew.jpg

I've always loved Rembrandt's Self-Portrait from 1659, too. I like it because its brutally honest. He's getting old, and he's accepted it. Most portraits and self-portraits before photography were supposed to portray someone in their youth or in their prime; muscular and youthful (see Roman Emperor statues), slender and young (Queen Anne of England portraits!), or just...not old. But Rembrandt didn't pull any punches with this one, and that's why I like it.

http://www.mystudios.com/rembrandt/works/rembrandt-sp-turned-up-collar-2.jpg

Another favorite of mine is Velazquez's The Water Carrier of Seville (1623). I like it for a number of reasons. The first is that its not Las Meninas. But I also like it because its a painting of normal people doing everyday things; this is not some portrait of nobility or a famous battle; we don't know their names and it doesn't matter. I like how Velazquez paints roughly, or to use the art historical term, "painterly." It adds a lot to the feel of the work: its about everyday people who are not flashy and are themselves a little rough around the edges (the water carrier is obviously not a wealth fellow, just look at his shirt), and the painting's broad strokes reflect that as well.

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/1691384_f520.jpg

Japanrocks12
Mar 04, 2010, 11:59 AM
I've always liked The Waterseller of Seville for the sheer level of detail that it capture. Look at, for example, the jug at the bottom center of the painting. You can see water drip down the sides! You can even see exactly the direction that the water has flown in the past and several signs that it's worn from frequent use. Look at the glazing on the left jug! The best thing is the suggestion that there is a line of people behind the little boy waiting for water. The next customer is positioned perfectly - he is not involved in the engagement but looms over the scene. His wispish face bears the marks of fatigue and haggardness.

All of this in one simple genre scene.

Plotinus
Mar 04, 2010, 02:25 PM
Isnt it more probable that he is holding something to measure one's soul with? An architectural instrument, which in this context is in perfect accordance with the mood of the painting ;)

I assumed it was a thread, and the figure holding it is one of the Fates.

JEELEN
Mar 04, 2010, 02:32 PM
What do you like about that painting JEELEN?




Elaborate on your thoughts :pat:

I'm not sure why you post someone else's Magritte if I just posted one myself? So I'm not sure how to answer...

I would like to say I thoroughly enjoy the recent postings - including Hugo Pratt's, of whom I've been a huge fan for years. (Anyone who understands drawing'll recognize why.) Dali fcourse is the orginal master of surrealism. It's just pure genius in paint; I dare say his craftmanship is beyond comparison. (i was thinking of posting a Dali, but these are much better choices than what I had in mind.) :hatsoff:

Yared
Mar 04, 2010, 05:48 PM
Actually, I want you to talk about your own :p

Valka D'Ur
Mar 04, 2010, 06:24 PM
I assumed it was a thread, and the figure holding it is one of the Fates.
^This, or it could be a pendulum.

But it's not a yo-yo. :shake:

JEELEN
Mar 05, 2010, 02:18 AM
Actually, I want you to talk about your own :p

:hmm: Why, certainly. In order to talk about a painting I need to step back a little - while when facing a painting, it may actually help to stand a little closer and try different angles. The problem with Magritte is that his work has been copied very often (including in advertising), so as to make his work quite familiar, to the point one might call it cliché.* In this case, the painting of the rock floating in the air above the sea, seems like a familiar theme for fantasy fans - which I am not -, but at the time of creations most works of Magritte were very strange. As is this one: a giant rock cannot float in thin air at that height, yet it does, and there's even a castle or settlement on top of it. Unlike Dali, who's paintings are sually full of surreal images, Magritte habitually focuses on one per painting, which may seem like Magritte applies a more simple approach, but, compared to Dali, his images seem more real then the confusion of dreamlike images on Dali's. He seems to want to capture just the one image, whereas Dali's effort to capture the whole impact of a dream may seem overwhelming in its exuberance. (To be true, there are more 'empty' Dali paintings -like the one below-, but I think it is an essental difference between these two surrealists, with Magritte being the more modest one.) What I like in Magritte is precisely this lack of exuberance and in this painting in particular the combination of a dreamlike image with its attempt at realism. (Standing very close to that rock can have a frightening effect - as a dream can.) And I appreciate his use of colours, which are quite simple, and include my favourite shade: blue. (I also have an affinity to water, so a desert painting will less likely attract me than a sea painting.)

"And that's all I have to say about that."

* To the point that I'm not sure if I've ever seen an actual Magritte, yet I know all of his work and recognize it immediately - even as a copy.

JEELEN
Mar 05, 2010, 08:12 AM
Actually, I need to add something still: strictly speaking Magritte can ofcourse be counted as belonging to magical realism (like Carel Willink, see below), wanting to show, or rather lift, the magical into reality as opposed to the surrealism of Dali, which shows the generally considered irreal world of dreams as the reality it can be (by letting it come to the surface, lifting it from the subconscious, as it were).

Blue Monkey
Mar 05, 2010, 09:33 PM
One of the key things I see in Magritte's work is the undercutting of cliche by a subversion of the symbolism. I find it very enjoyable. Key to understanding what a lot of these artists were doing is knowing the paintings from the past that they are engaged in a dialog with. Dali's writings are revealing in this regard. Along those lines I'd recommend Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists & Critics (http://www.amazon.com/Theories-Modern-Art-Artists-California/dp/0520052560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267845359&sr=1-1) by Herschel B. Chipp. It's a collection of primary source material from Cezanne up through the early 1960s.

I've had the privilege of spending a half-hour alone with La Gioconda. It's one thing to look at a small digital reproduction & say it's cliched. It's quite another to spend enough time with the painting itself to see Leonardo's mastery at creating the illusion of light. The real power is in the hands, not the smile.

I've also spent a half-hour (20 minutes undisturbed) with Etant donnés: 1° la chute d'eau / 2° le gaz d'éclairage, the final work by other favorite painter, Marcel Duchamp. I won't post a reproduction here since it's not a painting, although it's certainly a continuation of the dialogue. It's designed to be viewed from a particular angle & distance anyway.

So as a compromise I'll offer Duchamp's painted commentary on Da Vinci and the effect of modernity on perception.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/181708568_64fa9e853d.jpg

JEELEN
Mar 06, 2010, 12:55 AM
I've had the privilege of spending a half-hour alone with La Gioconda. It's one thing to look at a small digital reproduction & say it's cliched. It's quite another to spend enough time with the painting itself to see Leonardo's mastery at creating the illusion of light. The real power is in the hands, not the smile.

I've also spent a half-hour (20 minutes undisturbed) with Etant donnés: 1° la chute d'eau / 2° le gaz d'éclairage, the final work by other favorite painter, Marcel Duchamp.

That's basically the way to experience a painting. (Unfortunately, when I was there, it was somewhat crowded around La Gioconda - "world famous painting, must see!" -, which is always distracting.)

Lone Wolf
Mar 06, 2010, 02:27 AM
The guy in white in Varwnos' paiting is about to commit suicide? :confused:

He obviously jumped from the earth (as the white trail indicates) and passed right though the wall. If he can do these things, he obviously can survive the impact of falling back down. :confused:

Blue Monkey
Mar 06, 2010, 03:32 PM
That's basically the way to experience a painting. (Unfortunately, when I was there, it was somewhat crowded around La Gioconda - "world famous painting, must see!" -, which is always distracting.)The secret is to go on one of the days when you have to pay a premium price & enter the museum an hour before closing time. ;) No tourists taking flash photos of a protective glass plate. Only a guard checking on you every 5-10 minutes.

The Duchamp is easier to do. It's in an alcove at the museum. He built it so you have to look through a sort of stereopticon - a heavy oak door with two peepholes with a recess for the tip of your nose.

JEELEN
Mar 07, 2010, 05:36 AM
Unfortunately, when in Paris, time is short... (Even with three consecutive days spent at the Louvre there's still so much left to see...) :shifty:

Blue Monkey
Mar 08, 2010, 05:10 PM
I've gone back & read the thread from the beginning. There's a lot of food for thought in everyone's posts. If I leave your name out it's not intended as a slight. Look for where your observations have influenced the discussion.

I know it makes me weird, but I'm one of the few Jeelen mentioned that enjoy a painting analytically. I enjoy observing the virtuosity of an artist's technique. I've gotten to where I consciously look at color & composition before I try to analyze the "meaning". One way it's useful here is in understanding the conversation between the artists through their painting. It's a lot like listening to jazz musicians playing for themselves after the club closes.

Jeelen offered an early Mondrian. For some reason I always associate Mondrian & Kandinsky. Maybe because they both shifted from representative art to more purely geometrical works that also continued their experimentations with color. Where they abstracted the subject of their paintings, O'Keefe is an artist who has in a sense gone the other way. Most of her work that I'm familiar with is very informed by geometry - letting her suggest forms with minimal lines & color.

Da Vinci, Rembrandt, & Velasquez were mentioned. All three were masters at combining the use of contrast, intensity of color, and geometry of the composition to stunning effect. Grünewald, from the Medieval period, is just as accomplished. (We'll have to visit The Cloisters together some time Plotinus)

Judging an artist simply because he does work for hire, meaning his subject is not freely chosen, is hardly a fair assessment. LucyDuke's remarks about a level of technical skill that requires practice but doesn't yet rise to the level of mastery turned the light bulb on for me. Rather than see Whelan's painting as a hackneyed repetition try looking at his painting as an exercise in the application of the tools handed down by the masters.

As a starting point look at the geometry of the composition.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9748/lofgeometry.jpg

The vertical from the birds to the figure is about a third of the canvas from the right. That makes me suspect Whelan knows a bit about the proportions used by the masters to force focus. And it's not an accident that the line divides the birds into two groups that mirror each other on more than one axis. It would take quite a while to analyze all the geometry between the viewer, the central figure, and the imagined light source. The "unease" felt is probably at least in part an unconscious response to the angles involved. I'd start by figuring out the angle upward from the launch platform to the unseen light. The approximate line, interestingly enough, bisects another group of birds.

It looks like Whelan is also working at the use of hue & contrast that the masters mentioned above were noted for. That, combined with the formal geometry, creates the intensity of focus that defines the subject of painting.

I'm not going to get much into the "meaning" of the painting since that very rapidly gets very personal - therefore moot. The very thing that Magritte was attacking - and imho intentionally making boring. Arguments about subjective content such as whether the central figure is jumping up, falling, or flying tend to lose my interest after a while. Whether one interprets white as symbolic of purity as in European culture or of death as in much of Asia, I'll just say that the angles suggest to me that it's an apotheosis rather than a suicide. The placement of the birds (doves?) reinforces that.

Cheezy the Wiz
Mar 08, 2010, 09:39 PM
To me, Mondrian seems a bit...overrated. I mean, Composition II is genius, but by itself it encompasses all the values of Neo-Plasticism. There's no need for any other work to understand all the ideas of the movement. A lot of modern art movements seem to be that way. Granted, I'm not as well versed in modern art as I am in Baroque or Renaissance, but I've had my fair share of studies on it.

As a related aside, I think this image could be useful for the thread:

http://softwarestudies.com/cultural_analytics_illustrations/modern_art.gif

JEELEN
Mar 08, 2010, 11:44 PM
@Blue Monkey: Now that's what I call proper analysis of a painting. I'd like only to add that the title also adds a hint about the artist's intent: Leap of Faith has, depending on the viewer's background, a dual meaning - either one trusts such a leap of faith, or one doesn't. Which kind of explains how one reacts to such a painting.

holy king
Mar 09, 2010, 03:54 AM
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~svb/Schiele/TweeVrouwenG.jpeg

"two women", by egon schiele, a viennese expressionist.
always liked his work.

here's another:

http://ampharou.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/egon_schiele_seated_woman_ii_1917.jpg

JEELEN
Mar 09, 2010, 08:39 AM
Very nice. Great artist, Egon Schiele. :goodjob:

Blue Monkey
Mar 09, 2010, 03:15 PM
Saying an artist is "overrated" implies that there are others who are underrated. Instead of making the assertion in a vacuum offer an alternative artist who is/was working on the same issues. Then there's something to discuss.

Blue Monkey
Mar 28, 2010, 02:05 PM
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1807/tumb.jpg
Marcel Duchamp Tu m' 1918

"All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone;
the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification
and thus adds his contribution to the creative act."
Marcel Duchamp, 1961

"There is no comment on pictures but pictures..."
William Carlos Williams, regarding Duchamp (1923)

Cheezy the Wiz
Apr 01, 2010, 12:27 PM
Saying an artist is "overrated" implies that there are others who are underrated.

Only if praise for artistry is a zero-sum game, which its not.

Blue Monkey
Apr 01, 2010, 01:34 PM
Only if praise for artistry is a zero-sum game, which its not.Sorry, Cheezy, but "overated" is a comparison. In order for there to be a comparison there must be something to compare to. Comparison can exist when the sum is fuzzy or undefined since the comparison is a relation rather than a quantitification of the total set to which the compared elements belong. Therefore zero-sum quantitative analysis is not the apt tool. Relational valorization is. It's clear that this holds within the context of this thread since we're discussing subjective aesthetic considerations rather than engaging in an objective gaming analysis in which there is a definite objective. The issue I've raised is that some people have only posted one element of their evaluation. For the discussion to go forward the "compared to" element needs to be made explicit. To do otherwise is the aesthetic equivalent of trolling.

Lone Wolf
Apr 01, 2010, 01:56 PM
Sorry, Cheezy, but "overated" is a comparison.

It's a comparison between how much the artist's work is currently valued versus how much the same artist's work should be (according to the one who considers that work "overrated") valued, not between two artists one of whom is over- and the other under- rated.

Blue Monkey
Apr 01, 2010, 03:03 PM
"Should be" is the function (change in value) not the term (correct value). Still need a relation to determine which direction the value "should" change.

I'm not going to further debate game theory, abstract algebra, or semiotic analysis anymore. Go ahead and post a counter-argument if you wish. I'd much rather see a painting & the discussion of its relative merits.

Bill3000
Apr 03, 2010, 07:49 PM
I'm not going to further debate game theory, abstract algebra, or semiotic analysis anymore.

What on earth do any of those subjects have anything to do with the common meaning of the word "overrated"? :crazyeye:

Blue Monkey
Apr 04, 2010, 03:14 PM
What on earth do any of those subjects have anything to do with the common meaning of the word "overrated"? :crazyeye:Posts 52-57. Cheezy the Wiz brought up game theory. I just applied my experience with it to the discussion. The same for sets/groups in the context of abstract algebra, which is used in this case to understand relative ranking of particular bodies of work. As for semiotics, it's the way I was trained to analyse visual media. Which would include paintings. ;)

PS: There's an old saying about never bringing a knife to a gunfight.

:coffee:

Cheezy the Wiz
Apr 04, 2010, 10:57 PM
I most certainly did not bring up game theory. I just said that Mondrian was overrated. The problem, as I've already said, is that you seem to think that that means that others are underrated, and that's just not a statement that correctly follows mine. There's no game theory involved or any of the other stuff you brought up.

Lone Wolf was precisely correct in his interpretation of my comment.

Blue Monkey
Apr 04, 2010, 11:04 PM
I most certainly did not bring up game theory.Only if praise for artistry is a zero-sum game, which its not.Quoted for truth.

Let's see some more paintings. Or maybe even discussion of the ones that are already posted.

classical_hero
Apr 05, 2010, 01:17 AM
My favourite era of painting is the Impressionistic are. I so much prefer looking at scenery than humans at the subject of paintings.
http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Claude_Monet/monets_garden_argentueil.jpeg

Bill3000
Apr 05, 2010, 08:10 AM
Posts 52-57. Cheezy the Wiz brought up game theory.

Er... he was simply saying that the overrating of an object does not imply the underrating of other objects. "Overrated" in English means that an object is rated, valued, or estimated too highly; it doesn't need to involve relative ranking at all. That's not "bringing up game theory."

JEELEN
Apr 05, 2010, 09:10 AM
Getting back to topic:

My favourite era of painting is the Impressionistic are. I so much prefer looking at scenery than humans at the subject of paintings.
http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Claude_Monet/monets_garden_argentueil.jpeg

And an exquisite example it is. :thumbsup:

Fifty
Apr 05, 2010, 09:46 AM
First of all, Blue Monkey, you're quite embarrassing yourself with your incompetent usage of mathematical terminology to make your argument look more technical. This place isn't full of English majors, many of us are quite mathematically able to see that you are using those terms in a completely inappropriate manner to add an air of intellectualism to your posts that they don't really have. So to the extent that you do not want to embarrass yourself, you should stop using those terms.

Sorry, Cheezy, but "overated" is a comparison. In order for there to be a comparison there must be something to compare to.

Its a comparison between how people rate something, and its actual value. I sure hope you're not a native English speaker to misunderstand such a common word...

Comparison can exist when the sum is fuzzy or undefined since the comparison is a relation rather than a quantitification of the total set to which the compared elements belong.

That is simply nonsense. I mean, its the semantic equivalent of "the multiplicative sum of chocolate is taste, but taste trans-substantiated into a Riemannian lie algebra of classes, so that the Goedellian chestnut is tasted in a post-capitalist form of modernity algebra". Again, if you do not know anything about serious logic, set theory, quantification theory, etc. (which you clearly don't), I'd suggest not using those terms, especially when they seem utterly unnecessary for your actual argument.

Therefore zero-sum quantitative analysis is not the apt tool. Relational valorization is. It's clear that this holds within the context of this thread since we're discussing subjective aesthetic considerations rather than engaging in an objective gaming analysis in which there is a definite objective. The issue I've raised is that some people have only posted one element of their evaluation. For the discussion to go forward the "compared to" element needs to be made explicit. To do otherwise is the aesthetic equivalent of trolling.

A good chunk of this is more completely incomprehensible nonsense, but I'll do my best to peel back all the utterly misappropriated terminology and figure out what you're actually saying.

Cheezy is saying that he thinks that a painter is not as good as many people think that painter is.

You, bizarrely and completely without merit (I'm not counting your silly jargon-laden posturings as an actual counter-argument), think that its somehow impossible or "the aesthetic equivalent of trolling" to say that a painter is overrated, because you don't understand what the term overrated means. You say "Saying an artist is "overrated" implies that there are others who are underrated.", which it doesn't, obviously to anyone who speaks English. No amount of misused jargon will allow you to hide the fact that your basic semantic analysis of the word "overrated" is just false, and obviously so.

Of course, the only recourse for you now, and the one that you will most likely retreat to if pressed, is standard aesthetic relativism. Its the standard tactic of artsy pseuds when they get called out on their nonsense.

When a person says an artist is overrated, that person is just saying that many people assign some amount of value, or some number of positive characteristics to that painting that it does not in fact deserve, either due to the fact that it doens't have that value or it does not possess those characteristics. To say that calling an artist overrated implies another rated only makes an iota of sense (though is still technically false if you knew anything about logic) when you think that we can only assign ordinal and not cardinal value to art, which is obviously false.

Posts 52-57. Cheezy the Wiz brought up game theory. I just applied my experience with it to the discussion. The same for sets/groups in the context of abstract algebra, which is used in this case to understand relative ranking of particular bodies of work.

I suspect that you have no real "experience with it", but if you were actually taught those subjects by someone I'd suggest asking your teacher for your money back, because all your "experience with it" has managed to do is make you look like the type of silly artsy types misusing science and math terms that Sokal famously and brilliantly demolished.

Infracted for flaming.

Blue Monkey
Apr 05, 2010, 10:48 AM
My favourite era of painting is the Impressionistic are. I so much prefer looking at scenery than humans at the subject of paintings.Monet's "Water Lilies" are in my top handful of paintings I really enjoy. I'm curious why the impressionist landscapes are your favorite opposed to Turner or Cole (for example).

Cheezy the Wiz
Apr 05, 2010, 01:26 PM
It was a long time coming that got me to like abstract art, and there are many, many non-representational works I truly despise, but the occasional one grabs my eye.

One of the first abstract works (in the modern sense, not in, say, the Medieval or Mannerist sense) I liked was James Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket, from 1874. Aside from its aesthetic pleasure, I like Whistler's attitude about the work, and abstract art in general. I understood abstraction in painting in terms of another abstract art: music. So I think its appropriate that a work of art that derives its meaning primarily from emotion should be named as such, thus I like that he called his painting a "nocturne." He gave musical titles to many of his works for this very reason.

http://www.jssgallery.org/other_artists/whistler/Nocturne_in_Black_and_Gold_The_Falling_Rocket.jpg

It is this musical, emotional type of abstract art that I like the most. Thus, Wassily Kandinsky is one of the few abstract artists that I like. In particular, this work, the name of which I cannot remember (but is probably simply called "Composition __ " ). Its hard to explain why I like this, I just find the colors and shapes pleasing to look at. It feels happy. It may seem purely non-representational, and its true that Kandinsky was moving towards that throughout his career, but the more you see his work, especially his earlier works, you get a feel for how he renders objects, and you can see some of them carry over into his more abstract works.


http://ast-elementary-art.wikispaces.com/file/view/01330_wassily_kandinsky.jpg/58837358/01330_wassily_kandinsky.jpg

For example, one of Kandinsky's favorite subjects is the horsemen of the apocalypse. he painted them a lot, but mostly just the fourth, the "Blue Rider," or supposed savior of humanity. Thus, this magazine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/BlaueReiter.jpg

The four horsemen appear in the first Kandinsky work I showed, if you know where to see them. Note the general shape of the horse in the Blue Reiter, and try and find suggestions of that shape in the other work. Strange that such a beautiful work as that one can be about the End of Days.

Blue Monkey
Apr 05, 2010, 02:58 PM
It was a long time coming that got me to like abstract art, and there are many, many non-representational works I truly despise, but the occasional one grabs my eye.

One of the first abstract works (in the modern sense, not in, say, the Medieval or Mannerist sense) I liked was James Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket, from 1874. Aside from its aesthetic pleasure, I like Whistler's attitude about the work, and abstract art in general. I understood abstraction in painting in terms of another abstract art: music. So I think its appropriate that a work of art that derives its meaning primarily from emotion should be named as such, thus I like that he called his painting a "nocturne." He gave musical titles to many of his works for this very reason.

...

It is this musical, emotional type of abstract art that I like the most. Thus, Wassily Kandinsky is one of the few abstract artists that I like. In particular, this work, the name of which I cannot remember (but is probably simply called "Composition __ " ). Its hard to explain why I like this, I just find the colors and shapes pleasing to look at. It feels happy. It may seem purely non-representational, and its true that Kandinsky was moving towards that throughout his career, but the more you see his work, especially his earlier works, you get a feel for how he renders objects, and you can see some of them carry over into his more abstract works.I wasn't aware of that particular work of Whistler's. Thanks for showing it. IMHO it is superior to most of Rothko's work (the closest comparison that springs to mind).

Like you, I enjoy Kandinsky's work; in my case especially the ones with a lot of circles. Your comparison of Whistler's painting to music sparked a memory. In Point & Line to Plane Kandinsky gives some hints about using that very connection as an analytic method. Reading it set me on to examing synaesthetic analysis as a general approach. Another example of what I mean would be to use architecture (construction of spaces) as a way to understand ballet.

Kandinsky as a fomenter of modern art is well known. Now I have to look at Whistler from a completely different perspective. You've given me some new things to think about which are worth ruminating for a long time. I can't wait to see what you share next.

Cheezy the Wiz
Apr 05, 2010, 03:14 PM
I wasn't aware of that particular work of Whistler's. Thanks for showing it. IMHO it is superior to most of Rothko's work (the closest comparison that springs to mind).

You mean Mark Rothko, the abstract expressionist dude?

Like you, I enjoy Kandinsky's work; in my case especially the ones with a lot of circles. Your comparison of Whistler's painting to music sparked a memory. In Point & Line to Plane Kandinsky gives some hints about using that very connection as an analytic method. Reading it set me on to examing synaesthetic analysis as a general approach. Another example of what I mean would be to use architecture (construction of spaces) as a way to understand ballet.

That's an interesting idea; I always thought using one medium to understand another was very cool. It reminds me of something Hegel brought up in The Philosophy of Art History: he basically said that, at some point in the future, we will reach an "end of [visual] art," when we exhaust the possibilities of media. Of course, to him there were only a few of the media we have today, so he can be forgiven for being small-minded. He identified the beginnings of these this trend, though, in architecture: because the goal of architecture was to provide protection from the elements, once it had accomplished this adequately, it essentially ceased to be architecture and became sculpture. So he would not understand a Baroque structure, for example, as being a work of architecture, but rather as a work of sculpture. All the more if the building serves no real function.

Its not exactly clear to me what he saw painting ending as, but I doubt he envisioned Kandinsky or Kline!

Kandinsky as a fomenter of modern art is well known. Now I have to look at Whistler from a completely different perspective. You've given me some new things to think about which are worth ruminating for a long time. I can't wait to see what you share next.

I spent years studying art history in college, so I'm sure we'll have plenty to discuss! :)

Blue Monkey
Apr 05, 2010, 05:18 PM
You mean Mark Rothko, the abstract expressionist dude?That's the one. Don't get me wrong, Rothko is good. And I'd have to see the actual painting to be sure. But I like the Whistler a lot more. I'd like the chance to get up close to the Whistler.

In one of Dali's books I read a long time ago he scaled up a tiny piece of Scotland Forever to reinforce his statement that modern / pomo artists were more honest than the 19th c. "realists". It does look a lot like a Jackson Pollock when seen that close up.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/modules/lesson8/images/sources/source4large.jpg
I spent years studying art history in college, so I'm sure we'll have plenty to discuss! :)I took a History of Modern Art / Contemporary Art / Art Analysis sequence for my BA.

While I was running a couple of computer labs at Cal Poly in the Math Dep't & College of Science I took some courses to learn how to use the computer as an art medium. Then when I went on to my doctoral studies I specialized in the visual aspects of the design & analysis of virtual environments. The Kandinsky book I recommended was one of the required texts in the media analysis seminar I taught. For one semester. Too many students complained that he couldn't understand what he was talking about. Of course they were the same ones that wouldn't go look at his work that was on display a mile or so from the campus.

One of the reasons Duchamp joined Leonardo at the top of my favorite artists was because of the way he kept moving into new techniques as other artists caught on to what he was doing & began imitating it.

Architecture as sculpture is pretty evident in the Deconstructionist style. Visually it's an interesting style, but not when it gets to the point of losing its function. There have been too many times when I have had to endure the baking sun or pouring rain under a latticework that was meant to take the place of a portico.

Maybe we should start a general art theory / analysis / philosophy of aesthetics thread since this one is meant to be about paintings. It would be nice to have someone to talk to about Richard Serra, for example. I look forward to more of your insights. Hopefully you'll surprise us with some more little known pieces by well known artists.

Cheezy the Wiz
Apr 05, 2010, 07:38 PM
My senior seminar was partly about Richard Serra, and the whole Tilted Arc deal.

I've heard the claim about abstraction being more "honest" than 19th century realists, or even than any representational artists. I take Woefflin's position and say the best they can be is even, since each person's interpretation and subsequent representation of reality is unique to themselves.

Here's another abstract work I like, by an Italian dude named Giacomo Balla: Abstract Speed + Sound from 1913. Futurism is probably the only modern art genre I can collectively say I "like," apart from Constructivism, and both for similar reasons. I like this work for the same reason I like the Whistler: its very emotional, its like he was painting music.

A lot of his works are like this, visual representations of mental states. The one below it is called Pessimismo e Optimismo from a decade later; you can only guess the translation. I really like what's at work here, how the darkness of pessimism sharply penetrates everything else, just like how bad attitudes are contagious and disrupt all good ones in real life.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/GBallaArt.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1WiGMYCxJHQ/SQbYZ3mnZzI/AAAAAAAAA_8/VTTLse8XQYc/s400/Giacomo_Balla-Pessimismo_e_Optimismo-Painting-1923.jpg

Blue Monkey
Apr 05, 2010, 08:19 PM
I've heard the claim about abstraction being more "honest" than 19th century realists, or even than any representational artists. I take Woefflin's position and say the best they can be is even, since each person's interpretation and subsequent representation of reality is unique to themselves.What I took away from Dali's remarks (read when I was in high school) was to start looking at the objective painting rather than the supposed subject. Which is pretty amusing considering all the "realistic" paintings he did, like the many apotheosis of Gala pieces. Woefflin sounds like someone who was familiar with Duchamp's views on the influence of the spectator.

Abstract Speed + Sound & Pessimismo e Optimismo are in a style I can appreciate but don't really warm to. The Futurist manifestos are interesting reading. The 2 movements you named both put art in service to society ahead of aesthetics. Not sure why they found Fascism & Communism so attractive. I enjoyed Malevich's work at the Guggenheim when they had a Constructivist retrospective. I went back several times to look at Black Square in context. But I also started to wonder what he really thought about the color red.

Cheezy the Wiz
Apr 05, 2010, 10:00 PM
What I took away from Dali's remarks (read when I was in high school) was to start looking at the objective painting rather than the supposed subject.

What does that even mean? Look at use of line and color? I can hardly see a case for them being "better" at that than the Realists!

Woefflin sounds like someone who was familiar with Duchamp's views on the influence of the spectator.

Maybe he was; they wrote around the same time. But Woefflin wrote primarily about Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque art, I don't think he ever talked about modern art. His argument was actually what convinced me that abstract art was legit (I used to really despise it), and he was talking about Medieval abstraction in comparison to Albertian illusionism!

Abstract Speed + Sound & Pessimismo e Optimismo are in a style I can appreciate but don't really warm to. The Futurist manifestos are interesting reading. The 2 movements you named both put art in service to society ahead of aesthetics. Not sure why they found Fascism & Communism so attractive.

I cannot explain the fascination with Italian Fascism, but the interest in socialism (and vice versa) makes a lot of sense, given their fascination with similar themes like modernity, machines, industry and industrial landscapes, and simple functionality. Despite the aesthetic change to Socialist Realism, The Soviet art world's themes changed little between the 1920s and the 1960s.

I make no secret of the fact that I wish Trotsky's ideas about art had triumphed over Lunacharsky's, merit in his ideas though I believe there to be. Still, the latter's were better than Stalinist art expectations (which is not to say that I dislike Socialist Realist architecture and sculpture aesthetic, though). I always found it a great irony that the state art of socialism was incredibly conservative while capitalist art was increasingly radical.

I enjoyed Malevich's work at the Guggenheim when they had a Constructivist retrospective. I went back several times to look at Black Square in context. But I also started to wonder what he really thought about the color red.

To this day I cannot understand that work. I enjoy his Suprematism, though. The influence of Kandinsky is rather plainly apparent.

EDIT: work referenced:

Malevich: Suprematism (1916) and Black Square (1913)
http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.krasnodar.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Malevich.black-square.jpg

Perfection
Apr 06, 2010, 01:06 AM
Relational valorization is.Relational valorization sounds interesting, what exactly is relational valorization?

Blue Monkey
Apr 06, 2010, 06:10 AM
What does that even mean? Look at use of line and color? I can hardly see a case for them being "better" at that than the Realists!That is a big chunk of the meat of it. Dali didn't claim that they were better. Just more honest - because they didn't hide the fact that it was painted. Taking that position would prefer Van Gogh to Leonardo because his technique is apparent.

Another way to get at the same way of looking at art is to radically change the labels on styles. Everything representational is Abstract Art since the image is abstracted from some real object - even paintings with allegorical subjects are presented in terms of humans, animals, etc. Dali would say that they were lies because there were not any people in them, just paint.
Magritte The Treachery of Images
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg

A commentary on cliched ways of looking at art. I couldn't quickly find an image of it but his painting of bread from the same period is a much more layered commentary.
The paintings of Malevich, Pollock, etc. would then be called Concrete Art. The supposition is that they are not trying to be about anything except colors, composition, and technique of application. There are no lines - that's a mathematical abstraction. The closest one could come to that would be an extremely long & thin area of color.
Piet Mondrian Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/72/Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg/220px-Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg
I don't hold to any of that as an absolute position. It is a useful tool to understand what the artists were trying to do.



Medieval abstraction in comparison to Albertian illusionism!
...
Trotsky's ideas about art had triumphed over Lunacharsky's, merit in his ideas though I believe there to be.Both those are head scratchers for me. Can you recommend any reading?
I always found it a great irony that the state art of socialism was incredibly conservative while capitalist art was increasingly radical.State Socialism approaches an ideal condition from which change is undesirable since it would be a fall from paradise. Whereas Capitalism continually requires something new to sell. For artists who take to heart the proposals of Dali, Magritte, Duchamp, etc. there is always a need for something shockingly new in order to shatter the cliches of the art that has preceded it.
To this day I cannot understand that work. I enjoy his Suprematism, though. The influence of Kandinsky is rather plainly apparent.I didn't get it either until I saw the Suprematist exhibition at the Guggenheim. Seeing the pieces arranged chronologically, with all the ideas I suggested above in mind, they start to make more sense. On the other hand, they might just be a crypto-samizdat regarding the oppressive influence of the state on art.



Relational valorization sounds interesting, what exactly is relational valorization?Valorization would be the assigning of value (societal, not just monetary) to something based on what it symbolizes. The same thing can be valorized differently depending on context. Think about torn faded jeans worn by an unemployed construction worker, a musician performing, a bride. In each of those cases there is an unstated alternative - a white dress in the case of the bride - against which the object in question is measured. By relational valorization I mean at least two objects explicitly compared within the same context. Imagine, for example, children arguing about whether Mighty Mouse or Superman would win a fight. You see it at work in the last few posts here where one painting is compared to another. Valorization is not like attaching a social price tag to something. It's multidimensional & continually in flux.

holy king
Apr 06, 2010, 06:20 AM
relational valorization, what the heck?

if i say something is overrated, everyone knows what i try to say. that a significant amount of the people who actually care for the kind of art in question think something is better than it actually is.

well, everyone but people who engage in page long discussions about it, using terms like relational valorization.

Plotinus
Apr 06, 2010, 09:23 AM
So you're complaining that people use a two-word phrase that you haven't heard before to refer to a concept which you haven't addressed before?

That sounds to me like it's edging fairly close to spam.

Bill3000
Apr 06, 2010, 12:13 PM
So you're complaining that people use a two-word phrase that you haven't heard before to refer to a concept which you haven't addressed before?

That sounds to me like it's edging fairly close to spam.

Objecting to the use of obscure latinate vocabulary used to obfuscate the trivial is hardly spam in any context. The use of the term is wrong, anyway, as the fact that one can only assign ordinal value to art is false, and ordinal value is not what Cheezy was talking about when he was using the term "overrated".

It would be like me using highly technical physics terminology in order to confuse laymen (which we are in this discussion forum) - well, no, not really, because I would be using the terminology relevantly, and in the proper context. It's incredibly important to make sure that your audience understands what you are talking about. It's less of a "knife in a gunfight" and more like "the emperor's new clothes in a parade."

holy king
Apr 06, 2010, 02:46 PM
So you're complaining that people use a two-word phrase that you haven't heard before to refer to a concept which you haven't addressed before?

That sounds to me like it's edging fairly close to spam.

saying that some piece of art is overrated is hardly rocket science.

you can use all the fancy words you want to discuss this simple statement, but me responding with "what the heck, do you even realize what trivial and simple topic you are talking about here in a needlessly verbose and "sophisticated" way" is hardly spam.

Kyriakos
Apr 06, 2010, 02:57 PM
Claiming that a small child is in love with his mother is hardly worth noting, but writing Oedipus Rex is. Similarly if you know how to express yourself with the correct words, it shows that you hold a better understanding of the matter. ;)

holy king
Apr 06, 2010, 03:41 PM
no, it shows that you can dress your opinion on the matter in fancy words.

which, apparently, you even use wrongly.

Blue Monkey
Apr 06, 2010, 04:55 PM
http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/307/w500h420/CRI_151307.jpg

http://thedesired.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/dali-atomicus.jpg

http://www.kevinwolf.com/images/0140_01m.jpg

Blue Monkey
Apr 07, 2010, 06:18 PM
Lest people think the discussion has drifted too far, look at the painting in the OP in light of the use of a limited palette in Arrangement in Black, no. 5 by Whistler
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Whistler_-_Arrangement_in_Black%2C_No._5_%28Lady_Meux%29%2C_ 1881.jpg/400px-Whistler_-_Arrangement_in_Black%2C_No._5_%28Lady_Meux%29%2C_ 1881.jpg
& the composition and subject of Corpus Hypercubus by Dali
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/Dali_Crucifixion_hypercube.jpg
Don't know about anybody else, but I see some influence.

While we're looping back to that first painting, does it encorporate a sly reference to the anamorphosis in Holbein's The Ambassadors?

Kyriakos
Sep 03, 2010, 11:15 PM
Anyone got more paintings to post/discuss? :)

milonlouei
Oct 30, 2010, 01:17 AM
http://thedesired.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/dali-atomicus.jpg



This is so amazing pic. And its funny too..
I liked this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Whistler_-_Arrangement_in_Black%2C_No._5_%28Lady_Meux%29%2C_ 1881.jpg/400px-Whistler_-_Arrangement_in_Black%2C_No._5_%28Lady_Meux%29%2C_ 1881.jpg



This is so beautiful and so attractive.
Thanks for posting.
____________
abstract paintings (http://petesoriginalart.com/)
original paintings (http://petesoriginalart.com/)

Kyriakos
Dec 03, 2010, 12:57 PM
A painting by Bruce Segur that i like:

http://www.cegur.com/Art/ChildhoodDemons.jpg

It is called "childhood demons"

Blue Monkey
Dec 03, 2010, 01:05 PM
A painting by Bruce Segur that i like:

http://www.cegur.com/Art/ChildhoodDemons.jpg

It is called "childhood demons"Here one can post paintings and discuss them, ...Don't you want to start the discussion?

Kyriakos
Dec 03, 2010, 01:19 PM
You are right, but at the moment i am writing a short story influenced by that image :)

I will get back to this thread later..

Kyriakos
Dec 03, 2010, 02:07 PM
Ok:

What i like about this image is that there is the regular doll of the childhood years, and a demon-like human-sized version of it as well. It made me think of a very small child that distills some of his own life onto his toys, and that life turns against him. I imagined the doll uttering horrible threats at that age, and being crashed into the walls, in disqust and fear.

I will continue my story later, i might keep it as well ;)

Bill3000
Dec 06, 2010, 09:52 PM
Ok:

What i like about this image is that there is the regular doll of the childhood years, and a demon-like human-sized version of it as well. It made me think of a very small child that distills some of his own life onto his toys, and that life turns against him. I imagined the doll uttering horrible threats at that age, and being crashed into the walls, in disqust and fear.

I will continue my story later, i might keep it as well ;)

...do you even like any art that doesn't try to invoke the emotion of fear? Any diversity at all?

Nanocyborgasm
Dec 06, 2010, 10:40 PM
Here one can post paintings and discuss them, or refer to already posted ones.


A famous line that sums up my thoughts on this matter should be appreciated by you:

τὶ ὀνόματός ἐστιν; ὅ ῥόδον ἄλλῳ ὀνόματί τινι καλῶμεν, οὕτως γε ἡδέως ἂν ὄζει.

Edit: Not that Kyriakos would have any idea how to speak his ancestral language, but that sentence above says: "what we call a rose by any other name, would at any rate smell as sweet."

holy king
Dec 07, 2010, 11:33 AM
i think the doll's size in the pic is just a reflection of how we remember things we had contact with as kids only as so much bigger than we would perceive them as adults.

the old woman peeking in on this memory of her seems to be saying "o, hai, long time no see". she certainly isnt afraid of this good old memory.

Kyriakos
Aug 07, 2011, 03:15 AM
I am thinking of reviving this. In the meantime if anyone has any painting to post (and hopefully discuss), feel free to do so.

Kyriakos
Dec 24, 2012, 02:33 AM
Maybe a thread can be started about paintings, since currently it is missing in my view.

Here are three that i like:

H.R.Giger: Shaft no 7

http://artcity.bitfellas.org/inspirations/14711i.jpg

Beksinski: No name

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Xl-exG9nesQ/TU-xIBZg7WI/AAAAAAAADdo/OCr7K2g51sM/s1600/Zdzislaw+Beksinski.jpg

Michael Pacher: Satan and St. Augustine (The devil delivers the book of sins)

http://notesfromafrica.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/michael_pacher_004.jpg?w=350&h=402

Heretic_Cata
Dec 24, 2012, 08:51 AM
Maybe a thread can be started about paintings, since currently it is missing in my view.
You could've just posted in your previous thread in A&E:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355377

Kyriakos
Dec 25, 2012, 02:15 AM
Instead of digging up that old thread, better to dig up a grave in this one. Although it seems there is little or no interest anyway.

Valka D'Ur
Dec 25, 2012, 03:51 AM
^ Maybe if you posted something different, or more cheerful. That stuff's depressing enough, but over Christmas? :rolleyes:

Kyriakos
Dec 25, 2012, 03:54 AM
^ Maybe if you posted something different, or more cheerful. That stuff's depressing enough, but over Christmas? :rolleyes:

In fact i was thinking of

It was the Yuletide, that men call Christmas though they know in their hearts it is older than Bethlehem and Babylon, older than Memphis and mankind

rugbyLEAGUEfan
Dec 25, 2012, 04:31 AM
I'd happily visit this thread just to look at the paintings though I'll have little to contribute. Keep them coming.

JoanK
Dec 25, 2012, 05:09 PM
René Magritte, L'Empire des Lumières

http://www.mattesonart.com/Data/Sites/1/magritte/empire%20of%20light.jpg

Birdjaguar
Dec 26, 2012, 08:26 AM
Bump and merge

Loppan Torkel
Dec 26, 2012, 09:47 AM
A painting by Bruce Segur that i like:

http://www.cegur.com/Art/ChildhoodDemons.jpg

It is called "childhood demons"I hated that demon doll. It's a terrible doll and the painting is self explanatory.

Thorgalaeg
Dec 28, 2012, 07:47 AM
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/L/L02/L02546_10.jpg

I like the grotesche eroticism of John Currin. It is like if the old manierist painters got crazy.

Kyriakos
Dec 28, 2012, 08:13 AM
Those necks remind me of how tribal african women of royal status used some rings to extend their own necks. In the end they got so thin and stretched that they could not be supported without those rings, and in a hiddeous way this was seen as a mark of distinction. A bit like how in a Borgesian story, the king of the Yahoo's was maimed so as to signify just that he was being served by others for all his life...

Cheezy the Wiz
Dec 28, 2012, 08:20 AM
The thing about Mannerism, especially second generation Mannerists, was to create such idealized forms as could not exist in reality. What's beautiful? Curvy women with long necks. So let's paint women with such long necks and curves as to be amazingly pretty, but perfectly so, such that they could never exist in reality.

And thus you get things like Parmiganino's Madonna with the Long Neck:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Parmigianino_003b.jpg

I guess it all fits into the Neoplatonist fad going on in Italy around this time; that the only perfect things are those which exist as ideas or in our minds, and nothing in reality can ever be perfect. I guess they missed the part about art being twice the lie as reality, though...

Thorgalaeg
Dec 28, 2012, 12:23 PM
Yep. Western art has always been obsessed with elongated people, dating back to classic greek
sculptures of heroic proportions. Ingres for instance painted his odalisque with too many ribs:

http://www.fileos.net/images/Grande%20Odalisque.jpg

And of course the most mannerist of them all is Botero (but of course at his own very particular "maniera")

http://www.artnexus.net/images/content/webimages/2010/u0012973kin.jpg


BTW i hope these pics dont go against some prudish forum rule about nudity. :shifty:

Atticus
Dec 31, 2012, 02:11 AM
If it isn't too sexually orientated or posted just for nuditys sake, it's ok in my books. :)

rugbyLEAGUEfan
Dec 31, 2012, 03:09 AM
Thanks so much for the contributions guys. My favourite thread on CFC. I know little about art (or not enough to comment anyway). But I know what I like, and I find 90% of the paintings here fascinating.

Kyriakos
Dec 31, 2012, 03:35 AM
Glad you like the thread rugbyLeaguefan :)

My current desctop:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KTNVrrzJq10/TeJEnMVCvyI/AAAAAAAAEl8/0VLLOXUPIng/s1600/Dali-Elephants.jpg

And one of De Chricico's byzantine desolate spaces:

http://xb0.xanga.com/f6ba36e60063063173174/m42349119.jpg

Thorgalaeg
Dec 31, 2012, 01:40 PM
I always find amazing as somebody uneducated, with no formation in art and i would say an under-standard
manual ability could produce such wonderful and suggestive images:

http://ipaintingsforsale.com/UploadPic/Henri%20Rousseau/big/tiger%20in%20a%20tropical%20storm.jpg

Thorgalaeg
Dec 31, 2012, 01:52 PM
And the most suggestive and intriguing painting I have ever seen (after The Bosch paintings), schizophrenic art at its best:

http://elensentier.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/richard-dadd-fairy-fellers-master-stroke.jpg?w=600

Huge image to see it at detail:
http://www.artrenewal.org/artwork/450/2450/10876/the_fairy_fellers_master-stroke-huge.jpg

Birdjaguar
Dec 31, 2012, 06:11 PM
For the most part nudity in paintings and sculpture are allowed if appropriate to the topic.

JEELEN
Jan 01, 2013, 01:33 AM
Allowed by who? :confused:

If an artist uses nude, it's art.

Glad you like the thread rugbyLeaguefan :)

My current desctop:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KTNVrrzJq10/TeJEnMVCvyI/AAAAAAAAEl8/0VLLOXUPIng/s1600/Dali-Elephants.jpg

Dali's imagination is uinparallelled.

René Magritte, L'Empire des Lumières

http://www.mattesonart.com/Data/Sites/1/magritte/empire%20of%20light.jpg

Somehow reminds me of Carel Willink (actually a specific painting of his, but I couldn't find a proper representation):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvCBdBLuodI

Atticus
Jan 01, 2013, 03:57 AM
Allowed by who? :confused:

If an artist uses nude, it's art.


Whether it's allowed to be posted is not about it being art, but it being suitable for CFC. There are artists whose works are indistuingishable from hard core porn, and that we wouldn't allow, for example.

The line is blurry, but I think it's better than the alternatives, and hope you people try not to push it, since otherwise we have to use some very strict guidelines.

Thorgalaeg
Jan 01, 2013, 04:16 AM
Max Ernst's interpretation of a classic religious topic:

http://fotent.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/max-ernst-temptation-of-st-anthony-1945.jpg