Which painters do you like?

I like Monet. They're so relaxing and you feel a bit more harmonious after looking at them. A little like Air on a G string or Canon in D in the form of pictures.
 
Do multimegapixel charge-coupled devices counts as painters in the hyperrealistic style?
 
This thread excites me... I tend to prefer renaissance style, BUT, there are others here too...

Monet
Rembrandt
Dali
Da Vinci
Titiano
Tintoretto
Vermeer
Bosch
Van Gogh
Duerer
Boticelli
Veronese


Not really into...
Picasso... just can't seem to get into his stuff.
 
Do multimegapixel charge-coupled devices counts as painters in the hyperrealistic style?

You mean photographs? Hm, i would not count them if only because they capture something mostly existent outside of the creator of the photograph. I accept that in photography you can have highlights and symbolisms and meaning, but you are fundamentally copying an image found outside of your imagination. Even if you direct the scene, and take a still, you are again copying an image that is external.
Whereas in painting you are creating something from pretty much nothing, even if you are mimicking an image found outside (eg a portrait of someone) you still cannot fail to make it a personalized creation.

But if you have any photograph you really like, i guess you can post it. Just keep in mind the thread is primarily for paintings :)
 
To me this is a no brainer, BUT, I think paintings should be composed of paint...
Any graphic form of art is not painting... such as sketching for example...
 
Define "paint" then.

But if you have any photograph you really like, i guess you can post it. Just keep in mind the thread is primarily for paintings :)

Already a thread for that. Haven't looked at too many paintings, so I have photos instead. I do have some paintings I particularly like. There was this one of Westminster Bridge and/or the Palace of Westminster at late afternoon or sunset, I think. I forget the name.
 
A couple of pictures.

Gotta love the colours. With the camera invented they had to go new ways in order to "compete" with photographies.


I prefer those idyllic gardens but there is something about the next painting as well. You know how you in some amusement parks can dress up in old or exotic clothes and have your picture taken? It's like she has done the same thing, but has been painted in stead. Kinda reminds you that even people who lived 150 years ago were "real persons" who were fascinated by exotic things. I find that easy to forget sometimes.


And who will be first to admit they kinda like Thomas Kinkade? I can't really bring myself to dislike his pictures, but they are a bit much(very American in a way). I like how one critic described it:
It typically featured a cottage or a house of such insistent coziness as to seem actually sinister, suggestive of a trap designed to attract Hansel and Gretel. Every window was lit, to lurid effect, as if the interior of the structure might be on fire.
 
Not pixels, is a good start.

I really don't think I need to define what paint is... as you can go into stores and see it pretty easily displayed...

That's just a textbook definition. Personally I like to look at photographs and paintings the same way.
 
Ink, dye, oils, pastels, acrylics, watercolors, fresco, tempera, goache, enamel, or wax as applied by hand or handheld tools to create an image.

The second part is solid, but what characteristic/s unify the substances you listed?
 
Generally I don't like modern art, and I prefer the older realistic paintings. I can appreciate some impressionist art and other late 19th century-style painting. My one big exception is Shepard Fairey (my avatar is one of his works). I like how he works with propaganda-style posters and colors, stencils, and how he puts a lot of layered detail into the work. They are a marvel to look at.
 
The second part is solid, but what characteristic/s unify the substances you listed?

They are the mediums through which the latter part is performed.

I prefer the older realistic paintings.

What does "realistic" mean? You mean illusionism? Surely you understand that this is only one approach toward representation, and that it is no more "real" than, for example, a Picasso painting.
 
Seems too arbitrary.
 
What does "realistic" mean? You mean illusionism? Surely you understand that this is only one approach toward representation, and that it is no more "real" than, for example, a Picasso painting.

I am not familiar with the art world lingo, so I checked out illusionism on wikipedia and yes, that's what I'm referring to. I like it when I have to do a double-take to figure out whether the picture I am seeing is a photo or a painting.

I don't care for too much of the modern abstract stuff.
 
I am not familiar with the art world lingo, so I checked out illusionism on wikipedia and yes, that's what I'm referring to. I like it when I have to do a double-take to figure out whether the picture I am seeing is a photo or a painting.

I don't care for too much of the modern abstract stuff.

That's fine and well, but don't use the word "realistic" to describe it. Below are four depictions of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. None is more realistic than the other.

You might be tempted to say that the third one is the most realistic, but you must understand that the whole approach to illusionism is to depict things as they would appear if one were looking through a window (the picture frame) into another world where these things exist. It is one way of describing three dimensional objects on a two-dimensional frame (quite the abstraction, I would say, compared to something like sculpture!), and the other three paintings attempt to do the same, depending on what each artist considers to be most "real" to them.







 
Top Bottom