PDA

View Full Version : Artists We Don't Care Too Much About


Kargokultti
04-10-2005, 04:40 PM
I was going to type 'hate', but after reading the last Picasso quote on the Pearls of Wisdom
sticky, I couldn't go so far as to say I hate Picasso.

But I don't care too much about Picasso, or more exactly, his paintings.

A few years back I was in the Picasso museum in Barcelona, wandering through the halls and
getting utterly tired of his stuff. There was a room with some early 'realistic' stuff, and there
it hit me: Picasso became Picasso because he couldn't handle realism.

The works were uninteresting. They weren't exactly wonky on the anatomy, but the colours
seemed shabby, greyish. There are plenty of good paintings that have shabby and greyish
colours, but these would not be Picassos.

To sum it up, it felt to me that Picasso didn't have it - as in the something that draws you to
a piece of art, that je ne sais quoi, or the thing that's hard to name but it's there. The lack
of it was more visible in his early pieces, but I get the same vibes from his blue people and
his ladies-with-the-other-eye-on-the-cheek and the like.

If it weren't for this book I happened to find at our local library, I'd happily declare Picasso as
totally over-hyped. I think there were a few of his sketchbooks in it, or selected drawings
from his sketchbooks, and there was plenty of it to go around there. So my humble opinion of
Picasso is that he was more of a draughtsman than a painter, and that it's weird how
Important Art is still more oil paintings and less any other media, even though the oils might
suck.

Boone
04-10-2005, 05:12 PM
Well, we're all artists in our own way. I too think that Picasso is a tad over-hyped, but thats not what is important - it was his passion for producing art. He had his own style and that was that.

I look at his art and see a man who tried to fit many angles into one vision - as if he wanted to say many things all at once. I suppose its this "frustration" that fuelled his work.

Or something like that! :shrug:

tevih
04-10-2005, 05:18 PM
There are lots of people like you and me who "don't understand picasso" of cubism, modern art, etc. i had a conversation with someone who got completely frustrated with me because I didn't understand. He snorted and rolled his eyes and said, "If you took some classes you would understand why they are genius!"

So I started thinking...

My question is, does art have to smack us upside the head as art to actually be art?

Kargokultti
04-10-2005, 05:46 PM
I still think that Picassos oil paintings are art, I just don't like them.

'What is art?' would be an interesting thread topic, but it's one of those questions that will
never be answered - or it will, but in a thousand different ways. Art varies, and my own opinion
on this is that it's art when you can't really call it by any other name.

But what is good art? To me, Picasso's oils definitely are not, but his drawings are. So I'd say
this: in order to be good, art definitely has to, er, smack me upside the head. But good is such
a subjective attribute, so something that smacks me might be bland and uninteresting to the
rest of the world.

jmBoekestein
04-10-2005, 06:16 PM
Picasso also did other works besides paintings.

I think his paintings just stuck to people or something. To me they look like another baby step for art research in general. Not to say he was infantile, but he helped out the artists alive now to find other means of communication. He did try to better himself and to break some new ground. I think that's more than noteworthy.

This thread seems of a very subjective nature. Hard to get anything from it I think. But I'll just say something for the heck of it. Appel bores the sh*t outta me. I see those things and I think some desaigner agency is trying to sell me something and just walk on. But that's just my taste.

Oh yeah, and I think van Gogh's works are a little splotchy, but that might have been due to the fact that he was, shall we say, dislodged somewhat.:)


It doesn't really matter what I say though does it. I think it's more of a per piece thing. There must be paintings from van Gogh and apple that I like once I stumble onto them.


What a weird thread.

Decade
04-10-2005, 06:19 PM
Picasso's drawing of Don Quixote definately has the touch of genius about it. You know the one I mean : black & white ink one ; if you live in the UK it's on the newest transaltion of the book. Anyway, I respect him just for that drawing. So I guess I agree that his drawings were his best work.

ashakarc
04-10-2005, 06:32 PM
In appreciating the work of art, there is nothing else more subjective than this. There has been many theories along history about art aesthetics. The majority has aknowledged that art is in the subject, not the object. That is in the concious perceptual mind of people not a dead unconcious object. The point is, if you express content or discontent with a work of art or an artist, you are really projecting your own values, life experiences, and intelligence on that judgement. Judgement is analytical, while imagination is synthetical.

Back to Picasso. If you check the work of Picasso at the age of 9, you will see why he has been "over hyped". His immense talent at a very young age in "traditional art" allowed him an admittance in one of the most prestigious art academies in Europe at that time, being the youngest ever to be there.

The socio-cultural medium that Picasso witnessed; the whole vibe of revolutionary thinking, and his exceptional talent allowed him to experiment more than any other artist in history. The novelty and the genius of his approaches are what made him. His contribution to humanity is that he revitalized human thinking and perception towards art creation, evolution, and appreciation. What more could you ask from an artist?

Back to Likes and dislikes. You would enjoy so much more the work of art if you know what it takes to come up with it. This artists was able to put expressions on the faces of people he painted that could tell a whole lot of things about the life and the misery of the crushed souls in the society of that time. So, let's not forget the historical content in our judgement.

best,
ashakarc

jmBoekestein
04-10-2005, 06:38 PM
Very good post ashakarc!

Haven't studied arts, I just dabble with it. Looks like you've got it dead on.:)

Kargokultti
04-10-2005, 10:58 PM
jmBoekenstein: It would please me immensely if you would care to read the last paragraph on
my first post on this thread.

And I don't see how the topic of this thread is any weirder than that of 'Artists we love'. I
realized while checking the favourite painting thread, that I didn't have a favourite painting,
nor a fave artist for that matter, so I decided to start this one.

I don't mean that people should bash artists just because they're dead and famous. But
actually discussing their work'd be so much more interesting than just the plain ol' worsip.
And I think it would be good to note that even Picasso wasn't born in a vacuum. Picasso is
just someone whose work survived, for whatever reason. Talent is a factor, but so is
personality, charisma and any little thing that might come in handy in a cocktail party or
when they interview you for a magazine.

Considering the vacuum, and how just about everybody's born outside it: just this morning
there was spread in the newspaper about these two Finnish artists, a couple in fact. They
worked in the early 20th century, and at first I dismissed them as sad Chagall copies, judging
from the pictures. Then I read the story and I realized that they weren't copying anything,
they'd just lived and worked in the 10s, 20s and 30s, and they'd been influenced by the
same people as Chagall.

Last conceited word for tonight: take them down from the pedestal or you'll never get one
yourself.

Kargokultti
04-10-2005, 11:15 PM
Back to Likes and dislikes. You would enjoy so much more the work of art if you know what it takes to come up with it. This artists was able to put expressions on the faces of people he painted that could tell a whole lot of things about the life and the misery of the crushed souls in the society of that time. So, let's not forget the historical content in our judgement.


And this would be a projection of your values. Yes, I do know about the history behind Guernica, but believe it or not, it is humanly possible not to think much of it whilst knowing of the atrocities it comments.

A link to an image the likes of which there are plenty more in the Picasso museum in Barcelona:

http://deokjin.ms.kr/jart/picasso/images/self1.jpg

This is the kind of stuff that propelled my original argument.

HellBoy
04-10-2005, 11:44 PM
you know theres one artist that I don't care about, I wouldn't say I hate him but his name is MWarsame...

Emmm.... He is me..huh...uhh, he is me....I swear he is me....well what do you know, he is me... :scream:

Dearmad
04-11-2005, 12:42 AM
Critiquing a painting (or drawing, whatever) without actually seeing it isn't a real critique. I learned this after seeing the originals of a lot of great works. Changed my interpretation a lot about various artists. There's something about the mass of paint on the canvas that considerably affects how a painting looks to me, that NO print/image can recapture.

So, yeah, until I saw a lot of Picasso's stuff up close and in person, I didn't get it either. It's wierd how the form of it, the line, the weight just didn't have any power for me until I saw some his works in person. One component to his art, and MANY artists that is so often overlooked, is a true marriage to the medium they used for each work. For example, in many biographies and letters by artists (the GREAT ones, not friends you know) you can read how they fight with their paints, the canvas, whatever- and eventually they truly adapt/force/mold/finesse the physical components of what they used to create the vision.

Having said all that, I don't much care for the Warhol's works. -bleh- Heh, it's not like he ever fought with his medium- more like he had sex with it outside of marriage and left it hanging for a follow-up phone call. :D

jmBoekestein
04-11-2005, 04:50 AM
Discussing why you do not like something defeats the purpose of trying to make something that someone might like. Discussing however what you do like would give the opportunity to learn why and it is inescapably clear that making something beautiful is far more difficult than making something you don't like. You would eventually be wasting energy on thinking about things that don't inspire you. Quite the mindkiller.

:surprisedAnd what is it with the take them from their pedestals gimmick. That's utter nonsense, the only way to get anywhere is to learn from others. I sincerely doubt your capacity to better such artists as Picasso. So it must be that you intend us to relativate according to your taste in sketches or oils, or you want us to tell you about artists we don't like.

Still think it's weird. What are you going to achieve with this? You're going to explain to us why you don't like Picasso's work:shrug:? And then we'll all like some other artist instead or is there a message to this. Clearly you realise that there are many people who like his work for another reason than his fame. You tell me, I can't make heads nor tales of it.
Telling about artists you like makes way more sense because they have achieved something, maybe they inspire you and you can share that. This however has no use. What are you going to do next? Have people hotlink images of paintings they absolutely don't like and never want to see?

Cicinimo
04-11-2005, 07:40 AM
Picasso is not one that I admire for his technical capability. Had he commited his life to improving in these areas, I think alot of us would feel differently about him now. He proved himself to be very gifted from childhood, and I don't doubt he could have painted like Bouguereau if he had put his time into developing that kind of skill. But instead, he helped to push trends away from that kind of art. I can't fault him for that, and I've always been impressed when I study his life as it relates to his work. He really was the quintessential artist type: his work and life were intertwined in some fascinating ways.

I like him, but I would never study his art to improve the technical aspects of my own work. He's just not that type of artist. I like picasso because he was so pivotal in the shifting art trends of his time, and because he's such a fascinating personality.

Kanga
04-11-2005, 09:04 AM
Well then a story of uncertainty.
When you are busy with realism and perhaps even hyper realism certain approaches can be an afront on your senses. I don't care much for Picasso but rumor had it that he was quickly bored with realistic representation at an early age.

I don't care for William Blake because his work just looks wrong to me.
I had a violent dislike of Jackson Pollock. I was incensed when the Melbourne Art Gallery bought one of his works for 6 million bucks called Blue Poles. I thought it was utter rubbish. Lately I hired a video about Pollock's life and however accurate or inaccurate there were many of his works displayed and at a certain moment I though 'wow pretty cool textures' which was quite strange.

There are some artists over at conceptart.org that I admire and their paintings contain a loosness that might have been handed down from the impressionists. If something is painted in a static manor I usually find it uninteresting.

My point being the older I get the less fanatical my beliefs are about what is good or not. This frees me up to use more techniques in my own work. Thinking about what you dislike and why is just as important as being influenced by the things you love. If art is observation not only of the world around you but also of the work of others than the wider your view the more flexible you are.

Thus ends the tale of doubt.

Kargokultti
04-11-2005, 09:09 AM
This however has no use.

And here you are, reading a useless thread. Why are you doing it if this thread has no use for you?

eparts
04-11-2005, 11:31 AM
Well, not to be a cliche here, but I still think Picasso is a very good and unique artist. He is one of the first who showed what art also can be. different. He uses is imagination aswell as recreating some objects and humans. I think he gives alot more real feelings in his art, then just a recreation of a person.

Picasso is very popular because he created something different and has set an important standard to modern art. There are still very good painters who might be as good, or better than him, but his style of expression is important for the art subject and history, so thats why we learn about him in school. Face it, you won't be able to learn about every artist that is good, because there are damn many of them. So, picasso for his art, represents an important direction of the art world. Dali represents another. We learn about the most important ones, so we can get an overview of the evolution of art.

Many people's opinions scare me however, because it reminds me of an attitude that we can find back in the merry 30's of the 1900. I am talking about when art was judged to be 'degenerate'. There where given a final solution not only for jews, but also for art.

Under the nazi regime, many and most of the progressive works of art were deemed "degenerate", confiscated and either sold, burned or set on display as a ridiculed spectacle in what came to be known as "degenerate Art" Museums. Works of artists such as Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee, Max Ernst, Edvard Munch and, two of the most notable of the era and to our purposes here, Otto Dix and George Grosz. The traveling "degenerate Art" museums were some of the greatest and most progressive art exhibitions which the world has ever seen or known, yet ridiculed and demonized in place of the praise they were deserved. Paintings were often auctioned off, vandalized or hung askew in mockery.

I believe art is a result of the world around us, and if you are to decide what art really is, then its the same as living in a dreamworld.

http://www.liceoberchet.it/eventi/gior_mem/entartete_kunst_file/slide0012_image004.jpg

The world has lost many great artworks from that time

Goldee Lox
04-12-2005, 11:28 PM
Orig. posted by Kargokultti:
"And I don't see how the topic of this thread is any weirder than that of 'Artists we love'. I
realized while checking the favourite painting thread, that I didn't have a favourite painting,
nor a fave artist for that matter, so I decided to start this one."

This thread is actually a favourite exercise of mine, and it is of equal importance to one's own progress as the one where you state your favourites. In questions where it is hard to define anything remotely looking like an answer, sometimes it is better to turn things upside down and through exclusion define what is good, what is the problem and what is the answer to some question. And what if if it is counterproductive, it's fun anyway.

Jim
04-13-2005, 02:47 PM
I like some of Picasso's stuff. Like this one:

http://www.artquotes.net/masters/picasso/picasso_vollard1910.jpg

I saw an exhibition of photos that David Hockney did that helped define Cubism for me. Like this one:

http://www.sackville.ednet.ns.ca/art/gallery/exhibit/staged/Hockney,David-Pearblossom_Hwy.,_11-18th_April_1986-No2-1986.jpg

It's better in person. The picture tends to flash in/out, in/out and the ghosting color around the many edges is beautiful. It also helped that I was learning about composition and color, so I was looking with fresh eyes. You get the same visual acuity when you eat mushrooms.

jmBoekestein
04-13-2005, 05:16 PM
And here you are, reading a useless thread. Why are you doing it if this thread has no use for you?

It took me a while after last posting, but I found new posts in here and it took me under 2 minutes to listen to this babble off.

scottsch
04-13-2005, 11:11 PM
Heh, what a funny thread title. I have to say I'm liking these art discussions.

I like Picasso. He was an artist's artist, even when he was being bad. He had talent, at least, and most artists understood that fact, and accept what he did. His graphic arts (line drawings) were very nice, in my opinion.

I would have to say Cezanne heads my list of least favorite artists mainly due to how badly he paints, and how critics don't ever seem to recognize this and tell us how perfectly he paints, and how he is the most important artist in the modern genre. The difference between Cezanne and Picasso was that Cezanne could not paint well to save his life, whereas Picasso could.

For contemporary artists, I don't think there is a worst artist that's had more commercial success than the ever popular Thomas Kinkade, "painter of light". You may hate Picasso's paintings, but does Picasso insult your intelligence and hold you in as little intellectual regard as much as Kinkade? Probably not, as with Picasso there is always a complex human soul behind the work. Peter Max also rubs me the wrong way, he seems completely fake and commercial in all the worst ways. There are dozens of NY charlatans that fit this description but aren't worth mentioning.

Anyone making an attempt to do decent work and put some of their humanity into their art deserves some credit. The art that pursues short term commercial success as top priority pretty much makes me gag.

Magnemar
04-14-2005, 09:38 AM
I went to the Picasso museum in Malaga recently and it really clarified my views on Picasso. It firstly emphasises that he really could do figurative art when he wanted to - his early paintings (the teenage ones) show that he had a great grasp of all aspects of painting - anatomy, light, paint quality etc.

If you follow this through then into his early cubist stuff you can see how his images take the same approach to painting but remove the perspective - these works are great and are rightly valued as such.

The problem comes later when he becomes famous - like Dali, Picasso knew his value and exploited it. You get works then which are just lazy - images knocked up quickly and without passion. The passion and talent is still there - there are great paintings from later in his life and they stand out as such - but there is lots of dross too.

As for 'artists' I have no time for: Tracey Emin has to be up there. Not a huge Matisse fan either although I'm sure he's good for something :)

Kargokultti
04-15-2005, 02:28 PM
eparts: No, I don't think that non-figurative art is all degenerate crap. I haven't read all of
these posts very carefully, but I don't think anyone else said that either.

I find it very interesting that the Nazis get dragged in as soon as there is anything short of
idolatry happening in a discussion about these canonical artists. Just becase something has
been deemed officially good doesn't mean I have to think so. Or that anyone else has to
think so. I think my own thoughts and I hope that everybody else do too. Their own thougts,
not mine. (But yes, I think so too that it is a delicious historical irony that the best art shows
in Nazi-Germany were the ones that were supposed to be the worst.)

But this "Picasso was the first" is something I'd like to... Well, tear down and bash in a few
brains in the process. I'm not an art history student, but Picasso wasn't the first anything.
Nobody is. There's been so many cubists, futurists, dadaists, surrealists, artists of all shapes
and sizes, and being remembered 50 or a 100 years after doesn't prove that the artist was
the best or the first, or a nice person, or anything much for that matter. But that's just me.
I tend to view art history as a sort of a porridge: some stuff floats on the top, some doesn't,
but what does and what doesn't has nothing to do with the goodness of the floating or the
sinking bits, as good is a purely subjective attribute. You know, eye of the beholder and all
that.

Magnemar: Interesting. His early works in Barcelona got me thinking that he really couldn't do
figurative stuff. Or that he could do it, but not as well as the best figurative painters. Or
even the good ones. Maybe I'll have to visit Malaga some day.

Goldee Lox: Yup. I had a teacher who said that although it's good to know what you like, it's
equally good to know what you don't like.

Another artist I'd like to bash: Dalí. But that'll have to wait. Don't bash him before I get back!

ashakarc
04-15-2005, 06:18 PM
Kargokultti: You are not making any argument here that I can look at with seriousness. You are just exhibiting your distasteful appreciation of the work of art. I am not sure what I can gather from this. All I could say is that with a little more "education" your perspective on art will be at least elevated to a level of being "critical" than inflammatory!

There is nothing wrong with having a different world view. So communicate a different world view based on difference not hate!

Ilikesoup
04-15-2005, 10:32 PM
But this "Picasso was the first" is something I'd like to... Well, tear down and bash in a few
brains in the process. I'm not an art history student, but Picasso wasn't the first anything.
Nobody is.

I once heard Frank Miller as "the guy who was drawing ninjas before ninjas were cool". Try thinking of Picasso in these terms -- he wasn't the first, but he inspired a group of artists to explore a certain style. But I think that argument gets us off topic.

I think we can look at the topic as either "Artists whose success I resent", "Artists whose work I'm sick of seeing everywhere" or "Artists I just don't get". I was getting ready to say M.C. Escher is an artist I'm sick of seeing everywhere. My impression was that his entire body of work is based around a single gimmick -- the optical illusion. He made good pictures, but to see his works repeated on coffee mugs, mouse pads, posters, etc., it cheapens his work. I just checked out the official website (http://www.mcescher.com/) and changed my tune. I hadn't realized that most of his works were either linoleum or wood cuts. They look better to me as inked prints and lithographs and Escher gets extra points for "level of difficulty". So I do agree with Dearmad that it's worthwhile to see an artist's work in its original format before passing judgement.

scottsch
04-16-2005, 12:13 AM
But this "Picasso was the first" is something I'd like to... Well, tear down and bash in a few brains in the process. I'm not an art history student, but Picasso wasn't the first anything. Nobody is. There's been so many cubists, futurists, dadaists, surrealists, artists of all shapes and sizes, and being remembered 50 or a 100 years after doesn't prove that the artist was the best or the first, or a nice person, or anything much for that matter. But that's just me.

Not to be jerk or anything, but Picasso was the first Cubist, along with Georges Braque. They invented it - it was their creation as they worked out the details and methodology. Also, he wasn't some dude working in the basement - the entire art world was changed because of him because he frequently exhibited his work and continuously changed his ideas and pushed himself to explore new approaches. The modern era starts slowly with the realists and impressionists, moves forward with Cezanne and Matisse, and then explodes with new ideas from Picasso and Braque. Other artists saw what Picasso was doing and new ideas spread rapidly throughout Europe, whereas before Picasso most of the new artistic progress was being made in Paris.

ThePhotographer
04-16-2005, 12:45 AM
I have the feeling that I don't care much for Bourgereau. Who is he anyway ?

I was born in Denmark, I have lived two years in Germany and 17 years in France and I NEVER heard of Bourgereau ! I bought art history books in all three countries - Bourgereau is in none of them.

Recently I studied photography in France and we had one afternoon of art and photo history class every week - I never heard the name Bourgereau mentioned.

Just a minut ago, I made a Google search on Bourgereau with only French pages for search results - Google found two pages .... then I tried Monet, but gave up the count at 61 pages. There must be some reason.

It appears that Bourgereau was an enemy of the impressionists - well, what's that all about ?

I also tried to look up his name in a French encyclopedia that I bought in 1989 - his name wasn't even in it ....

One of the reasons why I think I dislike him is having visited The Art Renewal site. WHAT renewal ???? Those folks want us all to paint in the same manner - what could be more boring ? And seing how they speak about some of my personal heros, I simply can't recommend this site for anybody. They consider people like Francis Bacon and David Hockney as their worst enemies.

Anyway, what art is among other things about, should be to paint something personal that doesn't look exactly like what everybody else paints.

Just my humble opinion.

Goldee Lox
04-16-2005, 03:04 AM
Some painters/artists I don't care too much about:
(actually I do care, since I am writing this, but you get the point...)

Odd Nerdrum: Pseudoclassical painter and perve. Nothing that brings me anything other than a small embarassment at how easy it is to be forgotten once you're not on everybody's lip.

I would like to claim Anselm Kiefer as one of my favourites, but come to think of it, he doesn't move me. He has potential, but he leaves nothing interesting to the imagination. Everything is said once you've been to the exhibition. I love his themes and his visual style, but he is flat nonetheless.

That might be the biggest failure an artist can have, to be noticed not for his greatness, but for his lack of lustre and immediacy (please insert any word that goes with your definition of goode art). Goes for all media.

Damn, I dont know if all this is true at all, I'm drunk, in love and stressed out. Sorry.

ashakarc
04-16-2005, 04:19 AM
Damn, I dont know if all this is true at all, I'm drunk, in love and stressed out. Sorry.This is what I call the genius moment, where you creativity could soar unrestricted. Don't waste it ;)

Kargokultti
04-16-2005, 10:59 AM
Kargokultti: You are not making any argument here that I can look at with seriousness. You are just exhibiting your distasteful appreciation of the work of art. I am not sure what I can gather from this. All I could say is that with a little more "education" your perspective on art will be at least elevated to a level of being "critical" than inflammatory!

There is nothing wrong with having a different world view. So communicate a different world view based on difference not hate!
Ok, I'm baffled. I don't get this. I don't understand. You're telling me I should do what?

I just wish people would put their own opinions on the line, not tell others what they should say, and how they should say it.

eparts
04-17-2005, 10:53 AM
Kargokultti, it was never my intention to point out that on anyone in here had this opinion.. when i was talking about 'many people' i mean people I have talked to and I have heard very strange stuff. sorry to bring up the horror examples like this everytime someone has a meaning, it was more of a interresting digression. when i said picasso was one of the first, im not really sure anymore because artist seem to be inspired by artists before them. but picasso has made a great effort to the kind of art, so its is important to history and for inspiration.

Lunatique
04-17-2005, 12:09 PM
Isn't it more fun to pick on easy targets like Boris Vallejo and Luis Royo? Wait--that'd be too easy. :D

JHarford
04-17-2005, 12:10 PM
There are reasons why Bourgereau is not mentioned in your books.. there is a thread in the forum with all the information in. He is in my top 5 respected artists... but like anything 'it's all politics ' :)

Kargokultti ; . You say you are not an art history student..saying art is open to your own interpretation..etc.. and yet your trying to validate and qualify your own opinion way too strongly.., Picasso was not the 'first', and as you say there are no 'firsts' , but there are turning point artists.. who are acredited or assosiated with a new art movement.. picasso was one of these.
Your whole attitude is very immature . wanting to 'bash' artists.. for your own reasons... perhaps you should be an art history student and learn the history of these artists before you do that.. Dismissing or criticising anything before having full knowledge of it is a very bad trait.

Goldee Lox
04-17-2005, 09:52 PM
Your whole attitude is very immature . wanting to 'bash' artists.. for your own reasons... perhaps you should be an art history student and learn the history of these artists before you do that.. Dismissing or criticising anything before having full knowledge of it is a very bad trait.

Disaggree strongly there... Dismissing things without having full/good/enough knowledge of it is really a necessity. I could never know the full story behind every painting, and I don't want to either. Therefore you could never criticise anyones opinion in any forum, anytime, is that right? Highly impractical, I would say.Try to apply this thinking in politics and no one would be allowed to say anything. Progress is made through carelessness, not caring too much about aching toes.

You've got points on the method, though. For example: I have a hunch that such a discussion as this (the bashing-thing) feels more at home on the Messenger or Icq. There are simply too many people getting offended in a discussion like this, here. The discussion gets stalled and comes to a halt instead of progressing towards pattern recognition in one's own taste and interest.

And it is so interesting! I've been following this thread in the hopes of finding new artists to check out. Because if someone has got a dislike, there ought to be others liking it. I might be one of them. What do I get instead? Picasso... (no opinion on his works there, just a sigh concerning old news)

ThePhotographer
04-17-2005, 10:19 PM
Actually, I think the impressionism was the "first" really significatif modern art movement. After the invention of photography, painting was nolonger a matter of religious pictures, portraits of famous or rich people. Photography liberated painting. Now painting could be experimental and it started out with the impressionists who dared use visible brushstrokes and paint everyday scenes instead of posed portraits.

At that time (the end of 1800), Bourgereau and others with influence tried their best to prevent these people from being accepted with their new art visions. Nowadays, if we like the impressionists or not, I think we must agree that the impressionist paintings are very widely accepted and even very appreciated all over the world. I don't think we find that there is anything really provocative about their painting style. Bourgereau was also against the construction of the Eifel Tower - today the world's most visited tourist site.

You can be against any modern artist if you like - Picasso for example - , but those artists have allowed other artists after them to do what they like. Instead of just copying nature, the artists of the 20th century became creative and showed us tons of new ways to do art.

JHarford
04-18-2005, 08:59 AM
'At that time (the end of 1800), Bourgereau and others with influence .....'
Bourgereau was not born until 1825...

Goldlee cox.. perhaps I should have rephrased what i orginally said..My comments were directed to someone 'bashing' or 'condemning' an artist before having any knowledge or understanding of his work.. Disagreeing on the artistic talents or motives begind the work, but on an immature level..As schoolkids do to monet..when visiting galleries. I comlpletely agree with you in that there is an opening to discuss or raise opinions on a piece of art or an artist in a positive and constructive way... But as you said.. the 'bashing' belongs in and messenger or nowhere.

ThePhotographer
04-18-2005, 10:51 PM
Sorry, just a way of writing - by 1800 - I meant 1800 until 1900. I should have wrote "end of the 19th century".

NoSeRider
04-19-2005, 02:49 AM
Oh come on, there's gotta be worse artists then Picasso?

How About Peter Max?
http://www.progressiveart.com/max/discovery.jpg

Or Jackson Pollack....I really hate him:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/SHD/S840.jpg

I believe art can be like Films....there's good ones and bad ones.
There's plenty of people that graduated from film school and did bad films.

I could just as easily put up Boris Vallejo and Frank Frazetta......even Frank Frazetta confesses to being a hack painter.

scottsch
04-21-2005, 04:46 AM
How About Peter Max?

Ya know I could have gone a few more years without seeing that. :scream:

paperclip
04-21-2005, 09:09 AM
Peter Max's style is way better in animation-- did you ever see 'Yellow Submarine'? His art is really funky in it.
Not just his own, of course, but he was one of the main artists in it.
The truth is-- no artist is completely bad. Everyone has their good sides and bad sides. I don't like Dali's visions, but he is a technically excellent artist. If he was a terrible draughtsman, I'd like to bet he wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular.
The thing that saddens me most is that a lot of artists graduating these days still don't have technical art skills. A lot don't know anything about perspective. What's the use in being extremely creative and having terrific concepts if you execute them badly?
LOOMIS, people, LOOMIS!

Stahlberg
04-21-2005, 09:35 AM
I could just as easily put up Boris Vallejo and Frank Frazetta......even Frank Frazetta confesses to being a hack painter.

Hm... I guess I'm OT if I try to defend a painter in this thread, but I can't help it. :)
Putting Boris and Frank together like that is like saying Thomas Kinkaid is as good as Rembrandt. Frank invented that style, thousands copy him unsuccessfully. Him saying that about himself is just his humble way (when I met him I saw it firsthand). His skills are simply mindblowing, if you look closer... he did most of it without reference. Which is something I've never seen any other artist be able to do.

kengi
04-21-2005, 09:36 AM
his early years (14-15 years old boy):
http://www.eyeconart.net/history/20th%20c./cubism/EarlyPicasso.htm

Enayla
04-21-2005, 09:41 AM
Well, first of all, isn’t Bouguereau how it’s spelled, not Bourgereau? Or am I entirely confused and mistaking one artist for the other? (I probably am) It’s much easier finding information on him if the name is right :]

Secondly… I don’t think one is ‘bashing’ simply because one doesn’t enjoy the work of an artist. There are plenty of famous artists that have made their place in history that I don’t entirely enjoy the paintings of – I might respect them for the impact they had on the world, but that doesn’t mean I have to like their work. Having said that, of course it hurts me just a wee bit if someone hates a favourite artist of mine, but tastes differ after all.

The only artist I can think of at the top of my head that I’m not too keen on is actually Picasso, and then only some of his work – and then mostly because they just do not ‘engage’ me the way I suspect they are supposed to. No fault of Picasso’s, I think the problem lies entirely with me. I just don’t appreciate more modern art. I’d like to state, though, that it would be some of the pictures that I don’t quite like – the man himself, I find absolutely fascinating.

LadyMedusa
04-21-2005, 10:26 AM
I can't really say I like Roy Lichtenstein's style that mutch, and I'm not really impressed by majority on the cubism paintings, some of them are Ok tho'.
But the artists themselves, hmm.. I don't know, I really can't say anything there.

ThePhotographer
04-21-2005, 01:37 PM
Yes, Bouguereau is the correct spelling - sorry, I don't know where I got that from or perhaps I'm just a bit dyslexic .... Anyway, it didn't change a great lot when searching for him on French webpages and in the encyclopedia there was only three lines.

Let me just add that it's not that I actually dislike this artist - it is more that I don't like the Art Renewal Center for which he seems to be the biggest idol. I would think that meeting in the middle of the road would be reasonable. Worship Bouguereau a little less and hate Picasso a little less too.

Anyway, this discussion about modern art - I get the impression that for most people, modern art is Picasso, Warhol and Pollock and that's almost about all there is to it. That's completely unfair. The 20th century had so many completely different styles. You can love some of them and hate others, but you can't just put all in the same box.

All periods of art should be sources of inspiration which I'm sure they are anyway unconsciously or not.

Some artists though seem to be much more popular with CG artists than outside the CG world - that's perhaps worth thinking about.

snmz
04-21-2005, 04:46 PM
Hi, I respect you not admiring Picasso, BUT, men, women!
The man was a genious! Remember, he painted in a way that was revolutionary and
has inspired a whole generation of artists..
And besides, suceeded in convincing his customers too!
Now, most of the works in these forums and in these cg art beginning days are just
great, but mostly inspired in realism, erotic, film scenarios, games...in my opinion
mostly uninspiring, though highly technical. But there are already fantastic examples
of innovative efforts and increasing by the day.
Sebastian Marquez

snmz
04-21-2005, 04:47 PM
..i am a dead man now! :-)
Sebastian Marquez

ozhaver
04-22-2005, 04:31 AM
Yes, Bouguereau is the correct spelling - sorry, I don't know where I got that from or perhaps I'm just a bit dyslexic .... Anyway, it didn't change a great lot when searching for him on French webpages and in the encyclopedia there was only three lines.

Let me just add that it's not that I actually dislike this artist - it is more that I don't like the Art Renewal Center for which he seems to be the biggest idol. I would think that meeting in the middle of the road would be reasonable. Worship Bouguereau a little less and hate Picasso a little less too.

Anyway, this discussion about modern art - I get the impression that for most people, modern art is Picasso, Warhol and Pollock and that's almost about all there is to it. That's completely unfair. The 20th century had so many completely different styles. You can love some of them and hate others, but you can't just put all in the same box.

All periods of art should be sources of inspiration which I'm sure they are anyway unconsciously or not.

Some artists though seem to be much more popular with CG artists than outside the CG world - that's perhaps worth thinking about.

I just wanted to state that factualy and historically, the Art of The Modern World Starts with Neoclassicism and Romanticism. It's not just 20th century; Modernism is the era of 'Isms'. So all this fight between Art Renewal and the rest is in fact a little civil war between the schools of Modernism and Post Modernism themselves. Being extreme is not the wisest choice. And if you can't find anything about Bouguereau until most recently is due to certain issues between fame, infamy and connections. While his themes aren't always my favorite, I do admire his skill. While I prefer Picasso's early pencil doodles and more classic sketches than to his 'genious' work. I am however not an advocate of any period inside Modernism, cuz it's all a BIG HUGE soup full of different vegetables...all so different from each other and not always that wise to combine between themselves.

I personally don't care much about Mondrian Beckman or Kandinsky- but I can recognize some merits behind their ideas, even though I think they should've stuck to writing instead of splashing about.

ashakarc
04-22-2005, 04:59 AM
Good intervention oz.


I personally don't care much about Mondrian Beckman or Kandinsky- but I can recognize some merits behind their ideas, even though I think they should've stuck to writing instead of splashing about.

Both Mondrian and Kandinsky had great influence on Modern Architecture, may be more so because of the pure abstraction and geomtric correlationships. Let's not forget the context of their ideals, the Bauhaus: a multidiciplinary school that taught architecture side by side with graphic design, painting, sculpture, and industrial design.

Those two artists are a classical example of how not to immitate Modernists. What is left is their profound legacy that we need to understand and the purpose of it, not the style! So it is completely irrelevant to like or dislike their work, IMO

I, too had this hang-over of abstract art that immitated them, and that is not because they were superficial, but their inventions in aesthetics work had a great influence on modern times culture that enabled the incompetent to use them and stand as high and tall as Mondrian, but with an absolutely empty vessel. Similarly, CG has given a great jump start to many people who can't even draw by hand, to generate some striking visual effects paintings that might indicate to look like the work of the Masters.

ozhaver
04-22-2005, 05:33 AM
Yes, Wassily Kandinsky is a great color theorist also; I especially like his thoughts on color.

From: Concerning the Spiritual Art, C.5: “The Effect of Color”

“If you let your eye stray over a palette of colors, you experience two things. In the first place you receive a purely physical effect, namelessly the eye itself is enchanted by the beauty and other qualities of color. You experience satisfaction and delight, like a gourmet savoring delicacy. Or the eye is stimulated as the tongue is titillated by a spicy dish. But then it grows calm and cool, like a finger after touching ice. These are physical sensations, limited in duration. They are superficial, too, and leave no lasting impression behind if the soul remains closed. Just as we feel at the touch of ice a sensation of cold, forgotten as soon as the finger becomes warm again, so the physical action of color is forgotten as soon as the eye turns away. On the other hand, as the physical coldness of ice, upon penetrating more deeply, arouses more complex feelings, and indeed a whole chain of psychological experiences, so may also the superficial impression of color develop into an experience….

And so we come to the second result of looking at colors: their psychological effect. They produce a correspondent spiritual vibration, and it is only a step towards this spiritual vibration that the physical impression is of importance….

Generally speaking, color directly influences the soul. Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammers, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand that plays, touching one key or another purposely, to cause vibration in the soul.

It is evident therefore that color harmony must rest ultimately on purposive playing upon the human soul.”



Like I said, I love his writings…and even though I don’t like his visual works of art, I find some truths and merits inside his words. I think this can well apply to any kind of style and I wouldn’t have minded studying under Kandinsky at all (unless he made me make stuff like his- there we would have had LOTS of trouble). Too bad also I don't always enjoy modern architecture either (which is why I left architecture school back in the 2001).

CGTalk Moderation
04-22-2005, 05:33 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.