One of my pet hates are Art Museums, more specifically the snobbery and arrogance of the people who 'sponsor' the Fine Art Museums.
The sort of people that can look at an empty Campbell Soup box and say "Oh just look at that it's absolutely fabulous darling"
or pay multi millions for Munch's "Scream" or Picasso's, Dali's and recently Lucien Freud. To me it's obscene.
Mark Landis for 25/30 years (in America) has been fooling the art world by donating forgeries to various Art Institutes under various guises, even dressed as a priest. They were constantly hung on display by pseudo-Directors and admired by millions
of unsuspecting 'aficionados' purely because it was the in thing to do in certain social circles.
He can't get done because he donated them and the onus is on the museums to verify if they are genuine, but no one questioned him. He only got caught because he was donating 2/3 of the same painting to different museums.
Got to love him, I remember there was a Londoner many years back (can't remember his name) who was doing the same thing but on a grander scale as his fakes were 'by' more prominent artists.
Mark Landis - my new hero - I think the BBC have just done a documentary on him
Those same people will swoon over a bottle of Two Buck Chuck if you put a French label on it.
:plus one:
What's wrong with Art galleries?? You may think it's obscene to pay millions for an unmade bed or a picture of some soup, but I'm sure many others would think it's more obscene to pay millions for a football player's contract - to each their own...
Most of the art in galleries goes back centuries, and is traditional paintings,and they are free in this country to anyone.
I think it's very important that all people have access to the Arts, and are encouraged to participate themselves, otherwise they will just become for the powerful few.
There are already Government plans in progress in this country, to have education for most people based around science and business, with education in the Arts only for the privileged few, and I think this is very sad, because a knowledge of The Arts and interest in them, is enriching for most people, as well as equipping them for careers, with insights that a narrowly focussed 'business' education does not have.
The Upper Classes know this, and that is why arts education is still widely available for their own kids.
Even chart pop musicians in this country now come from private education to an increasingly dominant percent, whereas this was previously something open to people from all backgrounds, and like sport, was an area where a working -class person could make good. This is also true of the acting profession where are the Michael Caine's, Albert Finneys, Tom Courtneys, Terence Stamps, Julie Walters, Glenda Jacksons etc. of today?
Quote from: Craven Mad on March 31, 2015, 08:40:58 PM
What's wrong with Art galleries?? You may think it's obscene to pay millions for an unmade bed or a picture of some soup, but I'm sure many others would think it's more obscene to pay millions for a football player's contract - to each their own...
I agree that the huge amounts of money paid for players is ridiculous and so are their wages.
But someone like Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc do entertain millions of people around the world, and so with PS football.
I also agree that everyone should have access to the arts however that is not what I'm having a dig at.
Most working class people who see a Warhol box would see it for what it is, it's the snobs who go to the fund-raising cocktail parties who I don't like.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Art Museums, Opera and Ballet etc do not have mass appeal, football does, and consequently it is generally the upper classes who support the arts although some things are leaning towards the working classes, an example is how The Last Night of the Proms now appeals to and is watched by huge crowds and TV audiences (I play clips from it once a year over here) from all walks of life.
A large % of people who visit Paris would go to La Louvre to see the Mona Lisa purely out of interest.
I did and stood there thinking "what's all the fuss about" ?
If anyone can justify someone paying $120 million for "Scream" to maybe put in their basement just because they can, I'm amazed with that mentality
I always liked what Shaun Greenhalgh did, there was a programme i think it was on channel 4 it just showed what a bunch of pompous twits they are in the Art world a bit of a good story and they couldnt wait to hand over the money
One man's fish is another man's poisson.
Quote from: Holders on March 31, 2015, 09:52:40 PM
One man's fish is another man's poisson.
Non, one man's egg is another mans l'ouef (or something like that)
Tracey Emin's bed... Art... Really?
I love football, art (some of it) and the opera, so heaven knows what stereotype of yours I fit into. The first and third don't come cheap, so no grumbles from me that museums are free. As the National Gallery etc. are major tourist attractions of London, it is more than possible that they pay off indirectly. If not, sorry.
What art dealers and billionaire buyers get up to has no relevance to people's appreciation of being able to see Rembrandts up close. That's an experience worth having and repeating. Same goes for seeing top footballers play live. You might not be a fan of the amount they get paid and how they spend it, but that's a different matter entirely.
Quote from: b+w geezer on March 31, 2015, 11:28:28 PM
I love football, art (some of it) and the opera, so heaven knows what stereotype of yours I fit into. The first and third don't come cheap, so no grumbles from me that museums are free. As the National Gallery etc. are major tourist attractions of London, it is more than possible that they pay off indirectly. If not, sorry.
What art dealers and billionaire buyers get up to has no relevance to people's appreciation of being able to see Rembrandts up close. That's an experience worth having and repeating. Same goes for seeing top footballers play live. You might not be a fan of the amount they get paid and how they spend it, but that's a different matter entirely.
You've also missed my point.
Why be sorry, I didn't comment and am certainly a huge fan of the National gallery, Science Museum, Natural History Museum etc as I am of the Smithsonian Museums in DC.
My main points are: the snobs who consider crap............................oh why bother.
Are you suggesting that the money in football is acceptable or that ludicrous BS paintings that a 4 year old could do sell for $millions.
I just tend to think that that money could be spent elsewhere such as cheaper tickets to matches and $120 million perhaps given to cancer research or the like.
Oh well
It's free-market snobbery in the king's new clothes. Someone with an upper-class accent proclaims that a pile of bricks or an unmade bed is art, puts a ridiculous price on it and others pretend to see value in it so as not to be thought plebs. That's a far cry from forms of art that demonstrate outstanding skill and technique.
But art isn't the only area where the free market puts obscene unmerited value on the trivial, skill-less or unproductive. Where people are prepared to pay, someone will take advantage. I wonder what future generations will make of some of some of what goes on today - Formula 1 or professional golf for example.
Roger of Virginia, I was responding to what I took to be an association between art and vacuous snobbery, so if that wasn't your point, apologies. I confirm agreement that vacuous snobs exist, that the money now swilling around in football is off-putting and that daft prices exist in the art market. Those who peddle those prices are most likely cynical about that, but it's their living. Those who pay the money are most likely in general investing, as they would in a bar of gold. (Attributed famous name equals rarity and hence value in a market of investors such as themselves. The picture itself may even stay in a vault, never on show.)
If they gave their money to charity, that would be better, just as it would be better if I gave my season-ticket money to charity. The world is full of vanities. If you agree that public art galleries aren't one of them, then you are making an unimpeachable point.
I think Tom Keating is the Londoner to whom you refer, Roger.
An interesting bloke (now dead) who produced reasonably expert 'Sexton Blakes', as he called them, with subtle clues to indicate that they were fakes, in order to expose the kind of pretentious flummery that you mention. He fooled loads of 'experts' and annoyed the establishment so much that he was eventually prosecuted, although I think it was called off due to his ill-health.
Sturgeon had it right when he said that 90% of everything is crap (although I think the percentage has increased in this Age of Bullsh!t) - but that doesn't mean we should overlook the 10%.
we stayed in Hannover for a couple of days prior to the wolfsburg game.... pause for the memories.... and whilst there took the chance to visit the museum of modern art, or whatever it is called.....
I am no great fan of the genre but as i understand it is the thing with modern are is not that it is necesarilly beautiful but it challenges perceptions and makes you think...
It may be that it makes you look harder at the things around you, such as tracey emin's bed, or challenges other ideas about light and dark and the way we see things.
I think it a valid artistic statement when done really well and a con when not, just like classical art.
what i do think regarding landis is that it shows the aires and graces and snobbish pretentiousness of the experts should be exploded as often as possible......
So, to look at and enjoy Munch, Picasso, Freud etc is ok but to buy a piece by one of them is not ok if it costs a lot of money? Not sure I follow that line.
I'm reminded of that excellent play "a question of attribution".
I wonder if people who invested in Rolf Harris works (he is/was a very skilled artist) have lost or made money recently.
I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.
And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.
Once again, my main point is highlighted by the fact art directors and the 'elite' have been conned
Compare the 2 paintings in this article
One by Signac, the other by Mark Landis.
Should any aficionado be fooled by such an obvious fake
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31818367 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31818367)
PST: Anyone want to buy a "I'm a clever faker" T- shirt. Signed by M/Landis. (number 73 of 500)
The bidding starts at $27,000
Quote from: Holders on April 01, 2015, 05:00:59 PM
I'm reminded of that excellent play "a question of attribution".
I wonder if people who invested in Rolf Harris works (he is/was a very skilled artist) have lost or made money recently.
His painting of "My view from Cell 27 Block B at Stafford Jail" is up for auction at Billingsgate Fish Market (Colins Cod stall) next Tuesday
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on April 01, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.
And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.
Michael and Angelo??? Van Gogh not talented???
April fool?
Quote from: Craven Mad on April 01, 2015, 05:35:08 PM
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on April 01, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.
And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.
Michael and Angelo??? Van Gogh not talented???
April fool?
Michael and Angelo did the Sistine Chapel
Van Gogh, you're right, he's a genius.
Question is, did he paint this or my next door neighbours cat.
Did he paint this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg)
or this one
http://ivan.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-Copy-1999692 (http://ivan.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-Copy-1999692)
or this one
http://davepuls.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-in-Oil-Pastels-372598368 (http://davepuls.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-in-Oil-Pastels-372598368)
or this one
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/starry-starry-night-copy-sarah-huttu.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/starry-starry-night-copy-sarah-huttu.html)
or this one
http://www.sacks.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Copy-of-Starry-Night-Oil-46x56cm.jpg (http://www.sacks.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Copy-of-Starry-Night-Oil-46x56cm.jpg)
or this one
http://www.amazon.com/Gogh-STARRY-NIGHT-Paint-Number/dp/B004PUIF12 (http://www.amazon.com/Gogh-STARRY-NIGHT-Paint-Number/dp/B004PUIF12)
Which one is the most valuable, now hanging in a museum in New York ?
Quote from: cmg on April 01, 2015, 09:08:37 AM
I think Tom Keating is the Londoner to whom you refer, Roger.
An interesting bloke (now dead) who produced reasonably expert 'Sexton Blakes', as he called them, with subtle clues to indicate that they were fakes, in order to expose the kind of pretentious flummery that you mention. He fooled loads of 'experts' and annoyed the establishment so much that he was eventually prosecuted, although I think it was called off due to his ill-health.
Sturgeon had it right when he said that 90% of everything is crap (although I think the percentage has increased in this Age of Bullsh!t) - but that doesn't mean we should overlook the 10%.
Yes it was Tom Keating, genius
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on April 01, 2015, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: Craven Mad on April 01, 2015, 05:35:08 PM
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on April 01, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.
And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.
Michael and Angelo??? Van Gogh not talented???
April fool?
Michael and Angelo did the Sistine Chapel
Van Gogh, you're right, he's a genius.
Question is, did he paint this or my next door neighbours cat.
Did he paint this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg)
or this one
http://ivan.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-Copy-1999692 (http://ivan.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-Copy-1999692)
or this one
http://davepuls.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-in-Oil-Pastels-372598368 (http://davepuls.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-in-Oil-Pastels-372598368)
or this one
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/starry-starry-night-copy-sarah-huttu.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/starry-starry-night-copy-sarah-huttu.html)
or this one
http://www.sacks.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Copy-of-Starry-Night-Oil-46x56cm.jpg (http://www.sacks.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Copy-of-Starry-Night-Oil-46x56cm.jpg)
or this one
http://www.amazon.com/Gogh-STARRY-NIGHT-Paint-Number/dp/B004PUIF12 (http://www.amazon.com/Gogh-STARRY-NIGHT-Paint-Number/dp/B004PUIF12)
Which one is the most valuable, now hanging in a museum in New York ?
*Michelangelo
Quote from: Craven Mad on April 01, 2015, 09:42:53 PM
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on April 01, 2015, 06:21:57 PM
Quote from: Craven Mad on April 01, 2015, 05:35:08 PM
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on April 01, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
I didn't say I enjoyed them, I think I referred to them as pictures that a 4 year old could paint.
And as if one Scream was not enough, there are 4 version of it.
Those mentioned (IMO) + the likes of Van Gogh are not talented.
I've been to La Louvre and El Prado and admired some of the paintings.
Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic.
Michael and Angelo??? Van Gogh not talented???
April fool?
Michael and Angelo did the Sistine Chapel
Van Gogh, you're right, he's a genius.
Question is, did he paint this or my next door neighbours cat.
Did he paint this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VanGogh-starry_night_ballance1.jpg)
or this one
http://ivan.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-Copy-1999692 (http://ivan.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-Copy-1999692)
or this one
http://davepuls.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-in-Oil-Pastels-372598368 (http://davepuls.deviantart.com/art/Starry-Night-in-Oil-Pastels-372598368)
or this one
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/starry-starry-night-copy-sarah-huttu.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/starry-starry-night-copy-sarah-huttu.html)
or this one
http://www.sacks.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Copy-of-Starry-Night-Oil-46x56cm.jpg (http://www.sacks.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Copy-of-Starry-Night-Oil-46x56cm.jpg)
or this one
http://www.amazon.com/Gogh-STARRY-NIGHT-Paint-Number/dp/B004PUIF12 (http://www.amazon.com/Gogh-STARRY-NIGHT-Paint-Number/dp/B004PUIF12)
Which one is the most valuable, now hanging in a museum in New York ?
*Michelangelo
Really ?
Quote from: rogerpinvirginia on March 31, 2015, 09:31:54 PM
Quote from: Craven Mad on March 31, 2015, 08:40:58 PM
What's wrong with Art galleries?? You may think it's obscene to pay millions for an unmade bed or a picture of some soup, but I'm sure many others would think it's more obscene to pay millions for a football player's contract - to each their own...
I agree that the huge amounts of money paid for players is ridiculous and so are their wages.
But someone like Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc do entertain millions of people around the world, and so with PS football.
I also agree that everyone should have access to the arts however that is not what I'm having a dig at.
Most working class people who see a Warhol box would see it for what it is, it's the snobs who go to the fund-raising cocktail parties who I don't like.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Art Museums, Opera and Ballet etc do not have mass appeal, football does, and consequently it is generally the upper classes who support the arts although some things are leaning towards the working classes, an example is how The Last Night of the Proms now appeals to and is watched by huge crowds and TV audiences (I play clips from it once a year over here) from all walks of life.
A large % of people who visit Paris would go to La Louvre to see the Mona Lisa purely out of interest.
I did and stood there thinking "what's all the fuss about" ?
If anyone can justify someone paying $120 million for "Scream" to maybe put in their basement just because they can, I'm amazed with that mentality
There's a degree of snobbery in most things and we like nothing better than to see those guilty of snobbery exposed. I'm not sure I'd agree with you about galleries not having mass appeal. Have you been to the Tate or National recently?
Painting and sculpture are a really solid link to the past. Primitive art through to pictures of prince's and princes used as an early form of online dating to unite powerful dynasties. The invention of cheap paint in tubes that allowed Artists to break away from a studio and paint outdoors. Which then lead to social commentary, paintings of normal people going about their daily lives.
Because of the portability of art we get to see works from private and national collections brought together at exhibitions.
Whilst Landis may have exposed the greed and vanity of a few galleries and their boards fakery in any form doesn't ultimately help anyone.
Thank you VicHalom's LoveChild. Despite protestations to the contrary when I first responded to the OP, it turned out he did want to knock down straw men (fakes and snobs; hands up who's a fan of them, eh?) and peddle stereotypes. If you want to give football given an easy ride despite its acknowledged financial excesses, but have high art fingered by a perceived association with phonies at cocktail parties (hands up who's attended one of them?), then I guess a football messageboard is the place to do that. As for football's mass appeal, total attendances at matches, viewing figures on TV and subscriptions for Sky Sports are not quite as 'mass' as media coverage might lead one to think. Distinguish between people who actually watch and care about football and those with pre-packaged, second-hand views based purely on what they've heard or read, and you'll surely find that phoney-dom extends to all necks of the woods.
"Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic"
So, for you to look at and enjoy them is ok but to buy a piece by one of them is not ok if it costs a lot of money? Not sure I follow that line either.
(http://)
Quote from: Southcoastffc on April 02, 2015, 09:09:39 AM
"Michael and Angelo, Turner, Hopper, Rembrandt etc are fantastic"
So, for you to look at and enjoy them is ok but to buy a piece by one of them is not ok if it costs a lot of money? Not sure I follow that line either.
That's an irrelevant argument,
Looking at something and enjoying or admiring it is entirely different from buying or condoning someone else for buying said item for vast amounts of money just because they can.
The artists I mentioned plus numerous others have actual talent.
Someone like Van Gogh using simple brush strokes.
Jason Pollock dripping paint on a canvas
I can't see how they can justify ridiculous sums.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUN3UWR_NubcjJRlQIQQvMfJOQ1SACncG-FVyKi8qfb5rcM0P0)
Anyone have any opinions on this fetching $86 million
What on earth does this mean ?
Question: Is it upside down or note ?
Rothko said of himself that he was '
no colorist,' and he seems to have regarded color as a tool of conventional composition, and to that extent distrusted it. However,
his devotion to enriching the color effects in his work shows
that it was important to him. In particular, he seems to have learned from the techniques of the Old Masters. Titian realized, in the 16th century, that modulating the use of color – in particular, using tones both darker and
lighter than the dominant hue – could deepen and enrich the appearance of the hue. This insight seems to have motivated the layering of color in Rothko's work.
Rothko wanted to lend his pictures what he called an "
inner light," a
quality of luminosity that suggested
vivid depths – one might also compare the experience of contemplating one of his works to staring tinto a fire. This, he
hoped, would encourage an experience for the viewer not unlike that of an encounter with another human being. Although the proper context for this idea is Abstract Expressionism, it is thought that Rothko may have borrowed the
phrase from a contemporary book on the techniques of the Old Masters. Just as Titian may have labored over his colors in order to produce particular qualities of beauty that would complement his often religious subject matter, so
Rothko did the same to lend a spiritual quality to works that had no ostensible subject matter at all.
This Picasso is another favorite of mine
(http://www.artrepublic.com/attachments/image/233/10233/10233.jpeg)
Have you ever seen a Rothko is real life?
The picture you've embedded in your response does the work no justice; his pictures are enormous entities that really command a room - they're vital to actually see.
If I had the money for a Rothko, I'd buy ten.
Not liking a picture is fine, but criticising others for liking something - particularly when you don't seem to even understand why it's liked - is a far more snobbish thing to do than what the art "snobs" do when showing appreciation for copies of classic works.
I "sort of" respect your opinion and no I haven't seen one in real life.
In all honesty, if 100 people from a cross section of people irrespective of Race, Sex, Colour, Religion (including atheists) National origin, Disability (including eyesight), Veteran status, Marital status, Sexual orientation, Gender Identity. Citizenship, Pregnancy or Maternity were to stand in front of that painting (or any of his others) what percentage would say:
a/. That's awesome/inspiring
b/. That's shite
c/. Undecided or confused
Are you telling me that if you had $800 million you would spend all it on 10 of his pictures,
leaving nothing for utilities and the supermarket ?
My wife would be furious.
I hope you're not still "sulking" from my 1st April "Michael and Angelo" thingy :016:
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
Back to the association of football with mass appeal / working-class appeal etc.. versus snobby old art.
No secret that I love football and attend it regularly, but the likes of me and -- and certainly the OP -- should not kid ourselves that's it has *all* that mass appeal.
Total average weekly attendances for the four football divisions, 3.13 million. Biggest ever Sky viewing figure for a TV game, 4.41 million for a broadcast peak, 3.436 million for a broadcast average. BBC match of the day viewing figures nowadays: 4 million regularly, in the 5 millions sometimes.
The total population of England is approx 54 million. So we're in the ballpark of 10% or so taking active spectator interest. Make it 15% if you want to really milk those stats. 20% requires exceptional massage of them. That means popular all right, but less overwhelmingly so than coverage in some of the media would tend to suggest.
Meanwhile...
"A growing proportion of the population of England attends museums. 45.8% of adults attended a museum, gallery or archive at least once in 2009, up from 43% in 2006." www.museumsassociation.org (http://www.museumsassociation.org):
(Higher figures for school-children, but they generally have no choice).
One can go for both -- I do and, from these figures, nearly half of those reading this. A minute sliver of a sliver of a percentage of us will have dabbled in the upper reaches of the art market or football transfer negotiations. Most of us aren't implicated in either.
At 45.8% we are the people, as also at 10-20%. Let not clunky talk divide us.
Quote from: Holders on April 02, 2015, 07:49:27 PM
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
Picasso could. His early work was figurative and very good. Once in Paris though mixing with other artists and owning a camera he decided to move on to something that carried a message was more symbolic. His line pictures of faces and animals like the horse picture previous are child like but a child has no fear and isn't out to impress anyone. It's something we all lose too early in life. Give it a go. Get an old newspaper a thick felt tip and without taking pen from paper draw someone's profile full size. Doesn't have to be perfect just full size and quick.
Quote from: YankeeJim on March 31, 2015, 08:37:55 PM
Those same people will swoon over a bottle of Two Buck Chuck if you put a French label on it.
:plus one:
Quote from: Holders on April 02, 2015, 07:49:27 PM
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
I love art, all forms including modern art and did art history at college a couple of years ago. I believe most modern artist you see exhibited studied art and can paint 'properly' as well but obviously each artist chooses the style the want to follow.
Before photography the wealthy/religious commisioned artists to paint the 'scenes' they wanted to capture. Even then art was used to create an impression the patron wanted rather than reality, and it was generally full of symbolism.
After the invention of the camera art has had to invlove in a different way, and I believe this is where impressionism became so popular, a way an artist can express him/herself, show a meaning about something again in art.
Everybody is going to have styles/ artists they love and loath. Also I think seeing art for real makes a hugh difference to seeing a photograph of the piece. For example a Bottatelli is amazing in real life because of it's pinks, blues and golds, and the Crowning of Napoleon is amazing in the Louvre as it is so immense.
But there is amazing modern art, not so much because of the time it took but the idea and the meaning, eg Tracy Eminem's bed, she put so much thought into that before hand as it is a snap shot of her life, she put it in such away that it brought in aspects of things that actual said something and had meaning to her.
I think my life would be a sad place if I couldn't appreciate art, the same if I couldn't listen to music
Both my wife and I really enjoy the art gallerys. When you see a Rembrant, Turner, Constable and their ilk up close it is quite spell binding. However some of the nonsense that passes as art and wins top prizes is mind numbing. Tom Keating showed up the art world's so called top critics and experts to be stuck somewhere personal with his copies of the true greats. He got away with it for years, now he was a brilliant artist who spent his time taking the proverbial. I cant even paint a door properly.
092.gif
Remember Ester Ranzan getting some 8 and 9 year olds to paint some pictures and then they hired a gallery to "exhibit them" all the so called experts spouting on about the brush work etc, it just shows that if you stick a big price on people think it has to be good. IE the injured bubble we bought!
Quote from: VicHalomsLovechild on April 03, 2015, 06:50:14 AM
Quote from: Holders on April 02, 2015, 07:49:27 PM
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
Picasso could. His early work was figurative and very good. Once in Paris though mixing with other artists and owning a camera he decided to move on to something that carried a message was more symbolic. His line pictures of faces and animals like the horse picture previous are child like but a child has no fear and isn't out to impress anyone. It's something we all lose too early in life. Give it a go. Get an old newspaper a thick felt tip and without taking pen from paper draw someone's profile full size. Doesn't have to be perfect just full size and quick.
Yes. First off his stuff was clearly influenced by the Spanish masters, Goya, Velazquez, Xavi.
In fact he said, "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to learn how to paint like a child."
How successful he was, and how keen he was on the midfield diamond, may be seen in his lithograph 'Football' of 1961.
(http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventory/picasso/original/picasso3608.jpg)
I'm a big fan of Goya
Quote from: cmg on April 03, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
Quote from: VicHalomsLovechild on April 03, 2015, 06:50:14 AM
Quote from: Holders on April 02, 2015, 07:49:27 PM
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
Picasso could. His early work was figurative and very good. Once in Paris though mixing with other artists and owning a camera he decided to move on to something that carried a message was more symbolic. His line pictures of faces and animals like the horse picture previous are child like but a child has no fear and isn't out to impress anyone. It's something we all lose too early in life. Give it a go. Get an old newspaper a thick felt tip and without taking pen from paper draw someone's profile full size. Doesn't have to be perfect just full size and quick.
Yes. First off his stuff was clearly influenced by the Spanish masters, Goya, Velazquez, Xavi.
In fact he said, "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to learn how to paint like a child."
How successful he was, and how keen he was on the midfield diamond, may be seen in his lithograph 'Football' of 1961.
(http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventory/picasso/original/picasso3608.jpg)
I wonder if Kits using Pablo's stuff to illustrate his team talks. Would explain all the confusion!
Quote from: VicHalomsLovechild on April 03, 2015, 01:01:53 PM
Quote from: cmg on April 03, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
Quote from: VicHalomsLovechild on April 03, 2015, 06:50:14 AM
Quote from: Holders on April 02, 2015, 07:49:27 PM
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
Picasso could. His early work was figurative and very good. Once in Paris though mixing with other artists and owning a camera he decided to move on to something that carried a message was more symbolic. His line pictures of faces and animals like the horse picture previous are child like but a child has no fear and isn't out to impress anyone. It's something we all lose too early in life. Give it a go. Get an old newspaper a thick felt tip and without taking pen from paper draw someone's profile full size. Doesn't have to be perfect just full size and quick.
Yes. First off his stuff was clearly influenced by the Spanish masters, Goya, Velazquez, Xavi.
In fact he said, "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to learn how to paint like a child."
How successful he was, and how keen he was on the midfield diamond, may be seen in his lithograph 'Football' of 1961.
(http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventory/picasso/original/picasso3608.jpg)
I wonder if Kits using Pablo's stuff to illustrate his team talks. Would explain all the confusion!
Yeah, Picasso's pitch has more grass than half the teams in this league...
Quote from: Berserker on April 03, 2015, 09:21:25 AM
Quote from: YankeeJim on March 31, 2015, 08:37:55 PM
Those same people will swoon over a bottle of Two Buck Chuck if you put a French label on it.
:plus one:
Quote from: Holders on April 02, 2015, 07:49:27 PM
Just out of interest - and not meaning to infer any other point at all - can these people who do these clever minimalist sketches draw "properly" as well, or is that all they can do? I'm not having a dig, just curious.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889396/Did-Tracey-Emin-sleep-2-5m-bed-Art-expert-claims-significant-discrepancies-different-exhibitions-display.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889396/Did-Tracey-Emin-sleep-2-5m-bed-Art-expert-claims-significant-discrepancies-different-exhibitions-display.html)
I love art, all forms including modern art and did art history at college a couple of years ago. I believe most modern artist you see exhibited studied art and can paint 'properly' as well but obviously each artist chooses the style the want to follow.
Before photography the wealthy/religious commisioned artists to paint the 'scenes' they wanted to capture. Even then art was used to create an impression the patron wanted rather than reality, and it was generally full of symbolism.
After the invention of the camera art has had to invlove in a different way, and I believe this is where impressionism became so popular, a way an artist can express him/herself, show a meaning about something again in art.
Everybody is going to have styles/ artists they love and loath. Also I think seeing art for real makes a hugh difference to seeing a photograph of the piece. For example a Bottatelli is amazing in real life because of it's pinks, blues and golds, and the Crowning of Napoleon is amazing in the Louvre as it is so immense.
But there is amazing modern art, not so much because of the time it took but the idea and the meaning, eg Tracy Eminem's bed, she put so much thought into that before hand as it is a snap shot of her life, she put it in such away that it brought in aspects of things that actual said something and had meaning to her.
I think my life would be a sad place if I couldn't appreciate art, the same if I couldn't listen to music
Sorry Mrs B
if this is a "Work of Art" I would think the great artists and even the ones I think are shite would turn in the their graves (or should it be beds)
It is pretentious BS, and who is she and who commissioned this nonsense and did the tax payers pay for it ?
OUCH
