Author Topic: Only the New (art)  (Read 161023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Josquin des Prez

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3655
  • Lyric Suite, Opus131
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #60 on: November 18, 2010, 07:06:00 AM »
Vermeer, anyone?

Vermeer didn't paint over photographs. I don't understand the contemporary aversion of simply picking up a brush and reproduce a subjective interpretation of reality which says as much about the subject being represented as it does about the artist. Is it really that complicated to paint something honestly, without relying to some sort of gimmick?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 07:11:24 AM by Josquin des Prez »

canninator

  • Guest
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #61 on: November 18, 2010, 07:27:53 AM »
Vermeer didn't paint over photographs. I don't understand the contemporary aversion of simply picking up a brush and reproduce a subjective interpretation of reality which says as much about the subject being represented as it does about the artist. Is it really that complicated to paint something honestly, without relying to some sort of gimmick?

As far as I am aware Richter (who has always worked from secondary media) projected photos on to canvas as source material rather than directly on the photo (if that was what you meant). He uses a number of subtle techniques to distort the 'reality' of the photo to achieve his desired intellectual and aesthetic ends which, I would imagine, is a subjective interpretation of reality (if that is what you are decrying a lack of). As an artist, he uses a number of techniques to achieve a given goal. Is it gimmicky? Maybe so if you want to see it that way. I don't, I see works of great depth and beauty produced through the application of consummate skill.

I would be genuinely interested if you could post some contemporary art in this thread you feel is of worth. I don't ask because I would want to belittle what you post but want to know who you value as an artist and is working within an aesthetic that you connect with. Surely, there must be some art that fulfills this criteria.

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 21980
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #62 on: November 18, 2010, 07:28:07 AM »
Vermeer didn't paint over photographs.
Curiously enough, there is an interesting theory that he did exactly that: he mixed some sort of primitive photography with a camera obscura and painting! I shall look after it and post it here.

Quote
I don't understand the contemporary aversion of simply picking up a brush and reproduce a subjective interpretation of reality which says as much about the subject being represented as it does about the artist. Is it really that complicated to paint something honestly, without relying to some sort of gimmick?
All art is a subjective interpretation of reality. Add to this the subjective interpretation of art by the audience and the critics and you're in big trouble --- unless, of course, you don't subscribe to the old and wise maxim that beauty is in the eye (and, perhaps even more) in the mind of the beholder.  :D

For instance, you pronounce Michelangelo a genius, while Pope Julius II saw him as just a great pain-in-the-ass, while many of the cardinals held him in contempt as a pornographer. Who was right?

Be it said from someone who is not very keen on modern and contemporary visual art...
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 07:30:40 AM by Florestan »
What is Music? How do you define it? Music is a calm moonlit night, the rustle of leaves in Summer. Music is the far off peal of bells at dusk! Music comes straight from the heart and talks only to the heart: it is Love!  --- Rachmaninoff

Offline Josquin des Prez

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3655
  • Lyric Suite, Opus131
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #63 on: November 18, 2010, 08:40:26 AM »
Curiously enough, there is an interesting theory that he did exactly that: he mixed some sort of primitive photography with a camera obscura and painting! I shall look after it and post it here.

No need:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/vermeer_camera_01.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/Vermeers-Camera-Uncovering-behind-Masterpieces/dp/0192803026

The problem with Richter is that his paintings look like photographs, he doesn't just use them to give his paintings extra detail. The blur just seems to be a gimmick more then anything, something to give his work a more "artistic" edge over the hyper-realists.

Offline Josquin des Prez

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3655
  • Lyric Suite, Opus131
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #64 on: November 18, 2010, 08:46:58 AM »
For instance, you pronounce Michelangelo a genius, while Pope Julius II saw him as just a great pain-in-the-ass, while many of the cardinals held him in contempt as a pornographer. Who was right?

Nobody is wrong, the cardinals picked the wrong subject to vent their frustration over the use of nudity in their paintings. It is true that the influence of Hellenistic trends did introduce pagan elements to an either wise pious art (that of medieval painting), but in the case of Michelangelo he was able to sanitize the more "daring" trends of his days and produce paintings which were "modern" without necessarily being vulgar and offensive to Christian sensitivities. Of course, there is nothing that could satisfy the John Ashcrofts of his day but that's a different problem.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 08:49:47 AM by Josquin des Prez »

Philoctetes

  • Guest
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #65 on: November 18, 2010, 09:02:26 AM »


Gerhard Richter, Lesende (1994)

Stunningly beautiful contemporary portrait by one of the giants of modern art.

Some people might know Richter by his study Candle (1983) on the cover of Sonic Youth's 'Daydream Nation'

Thanks for sharing that.

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 21980
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #66 on: November 18, 2010, 10:40:22 AM »
No need:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/vermeer_camera_01.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/Vermeers-Camera-Uncovering-behind-Masterpieces/dp/0192803026

The problem with Richter is that his paintings look like photographs, he doesn't just use them to give his paintings extra detail. The blur just seems to be a gimmick more then anything, something to give his work a more "artistic" edge over the hyper-realists.
No argument from me here, too. As I said, I'm not a fan of contemporary visual art and if you ask me, I'd take Vermeer over Richter any time of the day (and night). But neither will I deny those who love Richter their pleasure. The world is large enough to acommodate us all.

I'm an engineer. I tend to think like that: take X, a classic (in the broadest sense) painter and Y, a modern (in the broadest sense) painter. Now, we have one of the folowing cases:

1. X has objective value, Y has not
2. X has objective value, Y has either
3. X has no objective value, Y has.
4. X has no objective value, Y has neither.

My personal (i.e, subjective) appreciation of either X or Y (or both) makes no objective difference in all cases. Test it mathematically and you'll see.  :D



What is Music? How do you define it? Music is a calm moonlit night, the rustle of leaves in Summer. Music is the far off peal of bells at dusk! Music comes straight from the heart and talks only to the heart: it is Love!  --- Rachmaninoff

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 21980
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #67 on: November 18, 2010, 10:42:21 AM »
Nobody is wrong
I agree. But then again, your whole artistic philosophy crumbles if we accept the above.  :D
What is Music? How do you define it? Music is a calm moonlit night, the rustle of leaves in Summer. Music is the far off peal of bells at dusk! Music comes straight from the heart and talks only to the heart: it is Love!  --- Rachmaninoff

Offline knight66

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Edinburgh
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #68 on: November 18, 2010, 12:07:04 PM »
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Offline Josquin des Prez

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3655
  • Lyric Suite, Opus131
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #69 on: November 18, 2010, 12:29:39 PM »
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=235

Mike

Not bad. Some of his late portraits are pretty good. His nudes are grotesque though.

Offline knight66

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Edinburgh
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #70 on: November 18, 2010, 12:31:51 PM »
Unflintching and technically superb. He tells the truth, no flattery. Of the famous family. Each generation of it throws up interesting people.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Offline knight66

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Edinburgh
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #71 on: November 18, 2010, 12:35:24 PM »
Here is another artist who has refined and refined his art.

http://www.richardkentonwebb.com/

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Offline Josquin des Prez

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3655
  • Lyric Suite, Opus131
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #72 on: November 18, 2010, 12:48:29 PM »
He tells the truth, no flattery.

Yes but the truth nowadays is pretty ugly. This is probably one of the reasons why naturalistic, traditional art looks so insipidly artificial this days. Its hard to be inspired by nature when we all live in a world made almost entirely of concrete and plastic.

Offline knight66

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Edinburgh
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #73 on: November 18, 2010, 12:51:18 PM »
Life has always been ugly: or at least had its ugly aspects, but being unflinching and truthful is not to dwell on ugliness. Many find beauty in his canvases. One purpose of art is to illuminate truth, he does that. There is nothing insipid in his art.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Philoctetes

  • Guest
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #74 on: November 18, 2010, 02:09:07 PM »
knight: Thanks for introducing me to both of those artists.

I enjoyed Kenton's sculptures and the nudes of Freud.

Philoctetes

  • Guest
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #75 on: November 18, 2010, 04:46:05 PM »
For the night: Abdi Roble
http://www.abdiroble.com/


greg

  • Guest
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #76 on: November 18, 2010, 06:14:54 PM »
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=235

Mike
I actually saw some of his work while browsing through a list of modern artists- I think just yesterday.

I don't really see the whole reason of so many painters painting nudes, especially when (in the above example) they look so disgusting. Looking at naked ugly women or naked men is not my idea of a good time. And if they do turn out looking good, then it seems the picture may be to serve another purpose- something which isn't art.  ::)

An exception I can think of is Renaissance paintings, because in heaven, you have to be naked.  :D

Anyways... no one ever find a neo-Escher-like artist out there?

Offline Josquin des Prez

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3655
  • Lyric Suite, Opus131
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #77 on: November 18, 2010, 06:58:50 PM »
I actually saw some of his work while browsing through a list of modern artists- I think just yesterday.

I don't really see the whole reason of so many painters painting nudes, especially when (in the above example) they look so disgusting. Looking at naked ugly women or naked men is not my idea of a good time. And if they do turn out looking good, then it seems the picture may be to serve another purpose- something which isn't art.  ::)

An exception I can think of is Renaissance paintings, because in heaven, you have to be naked.  :D

Anyways... no one ever find a neo-Escher-like artist out there?

The ancient Greeks worshiped the human body for its perfection. Today, it is the grotesque that artists focus on because the spirit of modern society is rotten to the core. During the heroic period of our civilization (in Spenglerian terms), artists glorified the greatness of the human form and human existence:



Today, life is interpreted as ugliness, as befitting the defeatist nature of a dying civilization.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 07:01:30 PM by Josquin des Prez »

greg

  • Guest
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #78 on: November 18, 2010, 07:55:51 PM »
The ancient Greeks worshiped the human body for its perfection.
Yes, that's all fine... still, though, it wouldn't hurt to at least put some underwear on David- he would only look more heroic, actually.  :-\

Offline knight66

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 10101
  • Location: Edinburgh
Re: Only the New (art)
« Reply #79 on: November 18, 2010, 11:43:16 PM »
The ancient Greeks worshiped the human body for its perfection. Today, it is the grotesque that artists focus on because the spirit of modern society is rotten to the core. During the heroic period of our civilization (in Spenglerian terms), artists glorified the greatness of the human form and human existence:


Today, life is interpreted as ugliness, as befitting the defeatist nature of a dying civilization.

Twaddle. We have that heritage of the idealised body. Freud clearly chose to explore a reality. The body as it is, with its imperfections, the ageing body, gravity and the effect of time. Why is it ugly? Why is it only those with perfect bodies who are painted, the rest of humankind is supposed to hide itself?

He paints the world as it is, as indeed it has always been. His portraits suggest a lot more about the person than just the shape of the features. As do all great portraitists.

What are you talking about; artists of the heroic period glorifying human existence? Have a look at the dozens of paintings dwelling on martyrdom, Salome, the Rape of the Sabine Women.....hundreds of such works now hung on museum walls and worshipped by art lovers. Great skills put to possibly dubious ends, don't come across with that nonsense about a degenerating spirit of the age. Human nature has always painted human nature, good and bad. Freud's paintings seem to me to be morally neutral, he is an observer and he is not pushing a theology about life.

gerg, many of those bodies in the kind of paintings you mention did indeed cater to the salacious. Michaelangelo cannot be claimed to be exempt from that suggestion; have a look at his 'dying slave' sculpture.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.