Tricky
Briefly immortal
Well, I do like Escher.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Who are your favorite and least favorite painters?
- Thread starter Tricky
- Start date
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
I tend to agree. I feel that in some cases, many art critics read way more meaning into paintings than the artist ever intended. A personal anecdote from my 20's to illustrate this point:
I had a friend who was a painter...although I had a very low opinion of his work and talent (I would never tell him this) I was very proud of him that he made a living off of his painting, and didn't need a regular job to support himself. One of the reasons I had a low opinion of his his work is because I knew how he created it. While he had no problem painting random squiggly lines and obscure shapes on his own, he had no ability to paint any "realistic" element he wanted to include in his painting. If he wanted to include a bird, or a flower or a face to his painting, he had this overhead projector thing that you could place any book or photo on top of, and it would project that image in full color onto the canvas. He would then paint over the top of the projection, carefully copying all the shading and the coloring. In my mind, I thought this was "cheating" a bit, but hey...he actually sold these paintings..so who I am to judge?
One night, he and I went out drinking and got pretty drunk at the bar. After the bar closed, we returned to his house to drink even more beer. In our drunken stupor, I suggested we paint a painting..and he agreed. While he prepped the canvas with background color, I poured through all his art books looking for random images to include on the painting. I worked the projector, picking the images and projecting them on the canvas, and he painted him. It was really fun, and after a couple hours and 12 pack...we had a finished painting.
Several months later, he was invited to show some of his work at a local gallery that featured local artists. I went to show my support. To my surprise...the drunken painting we did that night months before was a part of the show. I giggled to myself...knowing the origin of the painting. What was even more entertaining was listening to the artsy fartsies in their black turtlenecks and horn rimmed glasses trying to "interpret" the "meaning" of the painting. I kicked back and laughed to myself as they said crap like "the bird represents the freedom of the soul"...I just wanted to burst out "no, you douche...the bird is just some random image I pulled out of a book!" ...but of course, I didn't, I wouldn't want to ruin my buddy's chance of making a sale.
While I don't believe this is the case with all art, and all art critics/historians. I do believe that in many cases, the artist just painted a bunch of random crap, with no real philosophy behind it, and later, the art critics gave their own interpretation of deep thought..just to give the painting more meaning.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Favorite: El Greco
Least favorite: Norman Rockwell.
Least favorite: Norman Rockwell.
Scopedog
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2012
- Messages
- 928
No, you fool! Can't you see? The art god guided your spirits that night to move the aether and extricate cosmic significance! (Or maybe you're too ignorant and pedestrian to know how talented you are)
Oh, Tatyana was there?
Last edited:
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Taste in art (music, film, theater, etc.) is almost totally subjective.
The sum total of past influences, events, people, neurological impulses and responses, chemical and hormonal production, and the memories of all the aforementioned conspire to make up your personality -- and your aesthetic tastes.
From that perspective, an education in art can greatly expand your appreciation of it. Understanding where certain schools of art come from -- the ideologies behind them and their roots in history -- can help you to appreciate the imagery of a finished piece.
So can understanding the elements of art such as line, shape, form, space, texture, value and color. Learning what makes art art (or craft, craft) can help you analyze and dissect what you think works, or doesn't work, about a certain piece -- irrespective of its style or school.
So, it's not that you're too "ignorant and pedestrian" to appreciate, for example, Pollock or Kandinsky (I say this without knowing if you like either of these artist's works). It may be be that because you (or anyone) haven't been exposed to and/or educated about a particular school of art that you cannot see the value of it. A bunch of paint splattered on a canvas may seem valueless to a viewer who does not understand the historical origins of abstract expressionism, or who doesn't know enough about the elements of art to discern whether there is any craftsmanship to be admired or valued in the piece.
All that said, if education in art (its history and elements) somehow led everyone who studies it to appreciate/value the same things, no one in the art world would have a dissenting opinion. But art criticism is rife with conflict and dissent. Art education can help to refine the senses and build the vocabulary necessary to discuss and analyze what makes a piece "good" or "bad", but at the end of the day taste is still almost totally subjective.
Y'know this thread highlights a massive hole in my inventory of personal likes and dislikes and I'm a little ashamed that I'm so ignorant of fine art.
Of course I know of the majority of artists mentioned here and their work but I cannot think of any one piece that I like above all else nor one artist that moves me. The reverse is true also.
I've gazed upon the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and was struck only by how small it was. I walked past Raphaels Madonna and Child in the Hermitage St. Petersburg and had to double back to see it when I realised I had missed it.
I don't think I'm a philistine and I do enjoy art and paintings in particular, plus I never tire of admiring just how talented these artists are/were. I think my issue is that I'm not informed enough to have an opinion.
Good thread though.
ETA - I should have read Vortigern99s post above as it seems to address my feelings on the subject.
Of course I know of the majority of artists mentioned here and their work but I cannot think of any one piece that I like above all else nor one artist that moves me. The reverse is true also.
I've gazed upon the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and was struck only by how small it was. I walked past Raphaels Madonna and Child in the Hermitage St. Petersburg and had to double back to see it when I realised I had missed it.
I don't think I'm a philistine and I do enjoy art and paintings in particular, plus I never tire of admiring just how talented these artists are/were. I think my issue is that I'm not informed enough to have an opinion.
Good thread though.
ETA - I should have read Vortigern99s post above as it seems to address my feelings on the subject.
Last edited:
My favourite: definitely Picasso.
They are. Picasso's cubist period was only a part of his lifespan. I love how he took what he learned from that and developed, or rather subtracted from it, later.
Matisse is a fairly close second-favourite.
They are. Picasso's cubist period was only a part of his lifespan. I love how he took what he learned from that and developed, or rather subtracted from it, later.Matisse is a fairly close second-favourite.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Favourites: Jacques-Louis David, Vincent van Gogh, Albert Namatjira
Hate: Jackson Pollack and his ilk.
Hate: Jackson Pollack and his ilk.
seayakin
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2003
- Messages
- 1,441
I'll have to say I'm a sucker for the impressionists partly because many of the paintings are aesthetically pleasing. (I really like Monet's hay stack series where he is studying the light.)
Where I have an issue now is what passes sometimes for good (or even great) art in the modern era. No longer is originality enough. I'm really skeptical that you can do anything now that hasn't been done before. For instance, Pollock's blue poles was novel and interesting because it was new and different but it takes no technical skills to do what he did. However, paintings by the masters demonstrate a high level of skill and control. Similar, Picasso and mor modern artists demonstrate this but look at the world in different ways, I find Picasso fascinating although not necessarily aesthetically pleasing. He really was looking at the world much differently which is shown in cubism but also in his masterpiece Guernica.
However, one of the most abysmal examples of modern art I read about was a New York artist who deficated in a cat food can and put it out as art. Technically, he did something unique and it can meet an academic definition of art but there is absolutely no value in what he did.
Where I have an issue now is what passes sometimes for good (or even great) art in the modern era. No longer is originality enough. I'm really skeptical that you can do anything now that hasn't been done before. For instance, Pollock's blue poles was novel and interesting because it was new and different but it takes no technical skills to do what he did. However, paintings by the masters demonstrate a high level of skill and control. Similar, Picasso and mor modern artists demonstrate this but look at the world in different ways, I find Picasso fascinating although not necessarily aesthetically pleasing. He really was looking at the world much differently which is shown in cubism but also in his masterpiece Guernica.
However, one of the most abysmal examples of modern art I read about was a New York artist who deficated in a cat food can and put it out as art. Technically, he did something unique and it can meet an academic definition of art but there is absolutely no value in what he did.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,268
Yacek Yerka is my favorite painter right now.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,099
This is the problem with a thread like this. Not liking the works of Lichenstein, Warhol and Whistler is fine (I like all of them as artists), but Kinkade shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Like them or not, the other three are at least serious artists. Including Kinkade is like me saying my least favorite artists are Renoir, and my Uncle Fred, who draws kitty faces on napkins.
Retrograde
Muse
And a strong contender for my least-favorite big-name artist! The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art recently had a show called "The Steins Collect", which tried to bring together the pictures owned by Gertrude Stein and her siblings when they lived in Paris. Her brother is credited with being the first to bring Matisse to America, and seems to have bought as many works as he could back in the day when Henri was a starving artist. Matisse was prolific, I'll give him that, but he churned them out. (Other than the zillion Matisses, great show).
When it comes to people who get paid for producing what I consider dreck, there are a number of book jacket artists that come to mind.
Ah, but can you promise to learn how to pronounce it ?
(clue - buy a phlegm-guard)
Meanwhile ... love van Gogh, Monet, Miro, Degas, Kandinsky, Van Eyck and many others that don't spring to mind.
Can't stand the Surrealists. Nor Matisse, Gaugin and probably some others.
Ah, but can you promise to learn how to pronounce it ?
(clue - buy a phlegm-guard)
Meanwhile ... love van Gogh, Monet, Miro, Degas, Kandinsky, Van Eyck and many others that don't spring to mind.
Can't stand the Surrealists. Nor Matisse, Gaugin and probably some others.
Is the proper pronunskiation Van Goff?
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
A shout out for Albrecht Durer.
See, I have to disagree here. I quite like Julie Bell's work, but never cared for Julie Bell.
See, I have to disagree here. I quite like Julie Bell's work, but never cared for Julie Bell.