Who are your favorite and least favorite painters?

[Vortigern99]

My favorite painter is Michelangelo. As a failed-yet-studious comics artist, I have a fascination for figure drawing/painting/sculpture, and M. was an unparalleled master at the craft. His knowledge of human anatomy is IMHO unmatched even by his (older) contemporary Leonardo.

My favorite work of Michelangelo's, the Last Judgement wall in the Sistine Chapel, is a towering masterpiece of powerfully muscled figures writhing in agony and ecstasy. I have several post-restoration books on the piece which examine its hundreds of figures in glorious, close detail.

I weep to examine the masterful technique which, like (the fictionalized, cinematic) Salieri to Mozart, I can appreciate and understand -- and perhaps even reproduce -- but never come close to creating from whole cloth.

Sigh. It's too beautiful for words to describe. And no, I'm not Catholic or even Christ-ian. I love the work for its supremacy of form and color and texture, not its religious significance.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

There have been quite a few "experiments" where people submitted complete rubbish just to see how people read all sorts of meaning into them. One of them was in poetry, and when the authors revealed that they just wrote down random crap people responded that that is actually a form of writing, and thus they really did create art.

 

[Avery Dashwood]

My favorite would probably be Jasper Johns, with several others close behind. I'm not going to list my least favorites.

 

[gabeygoat]

I don't really get cubism, so I'm not a big fan of Picasso but I do love his earlier more realistic paintings. Gosh they are beautiful.

Pulivinar already said it pretty well, but it's kind of about seeing all perspectives at once. It's about recording things as they are observed in the natural world, even though it isn't realism. I dunno. I think the best way to learn about it is to try it. Even if you have little to no art skills, you can try it and see what it's all about. I think where cubism fails for me as a 21st century boy is that it's been so well mastered in a clinical form that it's lost it's feeling.

 

[Kopji]

Mumm, so many awesome artists, for different reasons. I guess my favorite painter is Jan Vermeer. His work is stunning in the use of light and elevating everyday subjects to timelessness.

But the least favorite... probably among the contestants on that horrible show 'The Next Great Artist'. The good aren't too bad, but the bad are bad bad.

 

[Kotatsu]

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would look twice at Mark Rothko, especially the ones that are just a strip or two of color.

Conversely, I named a species after him for this exact reason. The head patterns reminded me very much of his Saffron (1957). So this kind of paining can, at the very least, help taxonomists with poor imagination...

I do like his art, though, and have several post cards with it on my walls. I guess I like the simplicity and the choice of colours, but I've never made a deeper analysis than that.

Favorite: Paul Klee, Gustaf Klimt, or Egon Schiele (The Girl in the Red Dress!). I couldn't really say what it is that appeals to me in their art, though. The thin, exact, suggestive lines, the slender, appealing figures, the great understanding (in Klee and perhaps some Schiele) of cubism... They were in Vienna during the turn of the century, and I like the music, the art, the architecture and other things of that period (Jugendstil etc. in particular), and this likely has a great influence. Carl Larson, Ivar Arosenius, and John Bauer are similar painters I also like.

In a totally different manner, I like Hundertwasser and Wölfli. I wouldn't care very much to have a garish Hundertwasser painting at home, though, staring at me wherever I go. But it's nice to know that they exist, and that I only have to go to Vienna to see the houses he designed... Same with Diego Rivera or Frida Kahlo, really. I was at a Turner and Monet exhibition recently in Stockholm which was wonderful. Some of Turner's paintings, which seem to be only light and reflection until you go very close and see the faint outlines of a ship at the horizon... Or Monet's great and very evocative paintings of the coast of Brittany.

Least favorite: I don't know their names, but there is (or has been?) a movement of artists in my country whose every piece of art seems to be naivistic and simple, with a yellow sun, white birches, fat ladies in red dresses serving coffee to fat police officers, and fat cats lying on stools, all without perspective or any obvious planning.

Having Googled a bit, it turns out that one of them is Gunilla Mann (click the link for an example of her art).

 

[Tony99]

Avoiding the headache conversation of illustration vs. fine art...
Most of my favorite artists blur the lines between illustration and fine art.
Most have only been around since the 80’s doing what has been coined ‘Low-Brow’ art.
I’ve also developed a liking and understanding for graffiti and guerilla art.
Eric White
Mark Ryden
Alex Gross
Robert Williams
Banksy

Some of you may be familiar with Joel Peter Witkin’s bizarre and disturbing photographs, but his twin brother, Jarome Witkin IMO is a very important painter.

Surrealism fans should check out Otto Dix. Post WWI German painter of Weimar society.
Good blog article about Norman Rockwell vs. Monet.


Like most of you I don’t care for Warhol, but I do understand what he did and what it means to modern 20th century art. I see him as a Malcom McLaren character; pushing the boundaries of consumerism and what consumers are willing to consume. Or he could have been just a narcissistic old queen who surrounded himself with a strung-out fan club of self destructive personalities.
Pollack, I believe you have to see in person to fully appreciate the scale and depth of what the old drunk was trying to accomplish. From the same time period, my favorite has to be Chuck Close.

 

[GlennB]

Is the proper pronunskiation Van Goff?

That's the British way. Then I watched Woody Allen films where he said van Go. So I went to a Dutch colleague and asked . It involves sounds not normally associated with the English language, though Scots get close with their "loch". And the opening "G" invloves extra phlegm-rousing efforts.

 

[Tony99]

Also wanted to turn folks on to my two favorite New York artist.
Dan Witz does the most incredible street art I've ever seen and his 'night time' and 'mosh pit' series gallery paintings are large scale awesome.

Another great young New York artist Owen McAuley is doing fantastic night time scenes. A bit of a modern Turner.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

What movie is this? I'm certain I've seen it, but just can't think of the title.

 

[Bad vibe]

I love David shepherds work but my favourite because he was local, Joseph Wright of Derby not just his paintings but his aquaintances and the amount of associated history fave pics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JosephWright-Alchemist.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W...turing_with_a_Mechanical_Planetary_-_1766.jpg

 

[Nogbad]

I like quite a lot of artists and have a fairly eclectic taste but works that I have seen in the flesh and that have held me transfixed include

El Greco
Titian
Goya
Turner
Van Gogh
Dali

I am drawn and repulsed simultaneously by Francis Bacon

This is just a cross section through the ages.

I'm not going to list artists that I don't warm to.

 

[Coffee]

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.

Then why did you do it?

 

[Silhouette]

Yacek Yerka is my favorite painter right now.

I'd never heard of him before, thanks for sharing!

I love Caravaggio because of his ability to bring raw emotion and intense drama to his paintings. His composition is exciting and incredibly imaginative, he was a consummate draughtsman. He could be both savage in his expression and exceptionally sensitive. I love his sensibilities.

I once saw John Singer Sargent's paintings at LACMA. His paintings were so disgustingly beautiful and exceptional that I actually felt kind of sick to my stomach. His paintings were abstract and luscious up close, and tight and crisp stepping back. His strokes confident, not a brush stroke wasted. He excelled in both watercolors and oils.

Some of my other favorite painters are: Cezanne, Lucian Freud, Egon Schiele, Gustav Klimt, Toulouse Lautrec, Matisse, and Modigliani. There are many more.

It's hard to pick an artist that I don't like. Sometimes I've forced myself to explore and analyse artwork I didn't like only to find that it surprised me and grew on me if I just spent some time with it.

 

[bigred]

Favs include Monet and most impressionists, love the period. Can't stand cubism either, though I respect the attempt to "stretch the boundaries" and all.
Much (most?) so-called "modern art" is IMO crapola. I'm reminded of the pig (or was it an elephant) someone "taught" to paint and they later showed it to people included people allegedly well-versed in art and more than a few hailed it because (blah blah insert pompous art gibberish here, man's inhumanity to man or whatnot). This kind of pretentious idiocy has been going on for decades, unfortunately.

 

[dafydd]

Favourite-Turner
Least favourite-Picasso

 

[Skepticemea]

Woodhouse
James Guthrie
Arthur Melville
Lautrec
Gaugin
Braque

Dislikes? Too numerous to mention. My own work would probably be at the top of the list.

 

[dafydd]

Well, I do like Escher.

I visited the Escher museum in Den Haag last month. Fascinating.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Pollack, I believe you have to see in person to fully appreciate the scale and depth of what the old drunk was trying to accomplish. From the same time period, my favorite has to be Chuck Close.

I snipped it down, but really, i agree with you on basically everything in that post. I absolutely love illustration (along with this print, it's the only art i have on my walls).

Favorites are:

Edward Hopper
Chuck Close (my profile pic)
Mattisse (though, mostly his cutouts)

Least favorite - Van Eyck, and probably a couple others, but mostly Van Eyck.

 

[Tony99]

Saw a recent '60 Minutes' episode about prosopagnosia or face blindness.
Something Chuck Close suffered from among other ailments.