Artists We Don't Care Too Much About

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2005   #16
Originally Posted by jmBoekestein: 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?
 
Old 04 April 2005   #17
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.



The world has lost many great artworks from that time
__________________
.personal gallery.
www.EGILPAULSEN.com
 
Old 04 April 2005   #18
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.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #19
I like some of Picasso's stuff. Like this one:

http://www.artquotes.net/masters/pi...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/ar...86-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.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #20
Originally Posted by Kargokultti: 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.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 04 April 2005   #21
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.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #22
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
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------

My Spectacular Entry
 
Old 04 April 2005   #23
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!
 
Old 04 April 2005   #24
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!
 
Old 04 April 2005   #25
Originally Posted by Kargokultti:
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 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.
__________________
"Dream big. Small dreams ain't got no suction." -S. Paige


 
Old 04 April 2005   #26
Originally Posted by Kargokultti: 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.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #27
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.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #28
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.
__________________
Genius held back by crappy computer and lack of cash.

Last edited by Goldee Lox : 04 April 2005 at 02:07 AM.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #29
Originally Posted by Goldee Lox: 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
 
Old 04 April 2005   #30
Originally Posted by ashakarc: 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.
 
Thread Closed share thread



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 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.