CGTalk > General Techniques > Art Techniques and Theories Forum
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-10-2005, 03:40 PM   #1
Kargokultti
pittance
 
Kargokultti's Avatar
Veera Luhtala
employed
Helsinki, Finland
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 661
Artists We Don't Care Too Much About

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.
 
Old 04-10-2005, 04:12 PM   #2
Boone
Lord of the posts
portfolio
-
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,167
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!
__________________
Silo, 3D Coat, Blender
C, C++, Java

Currently working on...HCR #42
 
Old 04-10-2005, 04:18 PM   #3
tevih
Frood
 
tevih's Avatar
animaddict
web designer, illustrator
Amereekah!, USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 762
Send a message via AIM to tevih
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?
__________________
http://www.headlinercreative.com
 
Old 04-10-2005, 04:46 PM   #4
Kargokultti
pittance
 
Kargokultti's Avatar
Veera Luhtala
employed
Helsinki, Finland
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 661
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.
 
Old 04-10-2005, 05:16 PM   #5
jmBoekestein
likes a flower =)...
 
jmBoekestein's Avatar
portfolio
Jan Mark Boekestein
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,854
Send a message via ICQ to jmBoekestein Send a message via AIM to jmBoekestein Send a message via MSN to jmBoekestein
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.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 04-10-2005, 05:19 PM   #6
Decade
Expert
 
Decade's Avatar
Graeme McDougall
London, GB
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 729
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.
__________________
Cinema 4D R17 Studio, VRAYforC4D, Z Brush, Mudbox, Photoshop CS6.
 
Old 04-10-2005, 05:32 PM   #7
ashakarc
timeTraveller
 
ashakarc's Avatar
Ali Shakarchi
Canada
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 711
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
 
Old 04-10-2005, 05:38 PM   #8
jmBoekestein
likes a flower =)...
 
jmBoekestein's Avatar
portfolio
Jan Mark Boekestein
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,854
Send a message via ICQ to jmBoekestein Send a message via AIM to jmBoekestein Send a message via MSN to jmBoekestein
Very good post ashakarc!

Haven't studied arts, I just dabble with it. Looks like you've got it dead on.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 04-10-2005, 09:58 PM   #9
Kargokultti
pittance
 
Kargokultti's Avatar
Veera Luhtala
employed
Helsinki, Finland
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 661
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.
 
Old 04-10-2005, 10:15 PM   #10
Kargokultti
pittance
 
Kargokultti's Avatar
Veera Luhtala
employed
Helsinki, Finland
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashakarc
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.
 
Old 04-10-2005, 10:44 PM   #11
HellBoy
Hobbyist
 
HellBoy's Avatar
portfolio
N. Adam
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,954
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...
__________________
This message DOES reflect the opinions of the extraterrestrials
 
Old 04-10-2005, 11:42 PM   #12
Dearmad
Rendering Monk
 
Dearmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 695
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.
__________________
I wish I was more sorry for my English.
 
Old 04-11-2005, 03:50 AM   #13
jmBoekestein
likes a flower =)...
 
jmBoekestein's Avatar
portfolio
Jan Mark Boekestein
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,854
Send a message via ICQ to jmBoekestein Send a message via AIM to jmBoekestein Send a message via MSN to jmBoekestein
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.

And 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? 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?
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 04-11-2005, 06:40 AM   #14
Cicinimo
Veteran
CGSociety Member
Jaime Jones
student
USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 49
Send a message via AIM to Cicinimo

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.
__________________
Artpad.org
 
Old 04-11-2005, 08:04 AM   #15
Kanga
KillaRoo
 
Kanga's Avatar
portfolio
Chris Kautz
Freelancer/Character artist.
Netherlands
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,566
Send a message via ICQ to Kanga Send a message via MSN to Kanga
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.
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.