The following painting called No.5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock, is a work of the abstract expressionism movement. The painting was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance. It might just be a sheet of whatever paper it is painted on...but ladies and gents, this is the most expensive painting ever sold in human history. According to The New York Times, the painting was sold in an auction on november 2nd 2006,to David Martinez, a member of Fintech Advisory Ltd, in a private sale for a record inflation adjusted price of $140 million USD. Without further delay, let's look at this mesmerizing masterpiece:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/entertainment_enl_1162542063/img/1.jpg)
I don't understand it...my head goes dizzy looking at it and my eyes hurt :-X
What do you think?
Hey,my four year old grandaughter painted this same picture just yesterday!Except there was more pink!
I don't think reproductions can do justice to his work. A painting this big has a physical presence when experienced in real life. I love the sense of depth in this work. It helps to unfocus your eyes and really lose yourself in it. But I guess it's a "love it or loathe it" kind of thing.
I recall some remark of his, regarding how he derived inspiration from the natural beauty around his home in the Hamptons: "I don't paint how nature looks, I paint how nature makes me feel."
But the price? Omigod, insane.
I really dislike Pollock's work. His paintings are ugly dribbles with no regard for form or color. The only reason we are talking about him today is because he rose to fame through succès de scandale, whereas other talented non-objective artists are largely unknown to the public. Take Philip Guston for example. He was an adept draftsman and, in my opinion, struck a balance between form and concept.
I have no clue how to "appreciate" Pollock, but I sure like his painting.
The form and composition of these paintings is outstanding. Pollock actually had a very fine control of his technique
(http://abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g001b_pollock_blue-poles.jpg)
This picture gives an idea of the scale of these paintings, as Joan said, reproductions do not capture the full impact of the original paintings
(http://z.about.com/d/gonyc/1/0/h/F/moma-28.JPG)
May I add...these paintings are created by dripping the paint above the canvas..not painted with a brush.
Does the technique matter if the art has impact and meaning to people? Pollock had a sure technique, it was not random or accidental. The paint landed where he intended it to land. I am not over fond of his work, but it is often arresting.
The value placed on it is now more to to with kudos, business and investment than art appreciation. Art is often treated as a futures comodity in much the way of coffee, but more long term. I wonder what the insurance premiums are?
Mike
140 million? not worth it, i'd say 100 million tops.
I read this recently: "We all think we can paint like Pollack...but we can't."
I don't know. I go back and forth. Sometimes I think abstract expressionism is the biggest con ever...but then I'll see a painting "live" that will blow me away.
Sarge
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:27:26 PM
The following painting called No.5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock, is a work of the abstract expressionism movement. The painting was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance. It might just be a sheet of whatever paper it is painted on...but ladies and gents, this is the most expensive painting ever sold in human history. According to The New York Times, the painting was sold in an auction on november 2nd 2006,to David Martinez, a member of Fintech Advisory Ltd, in a private sale for a record inflation adjusted price of $140 million USD. Without further delay, let's look at this mesmerizing masterpiece:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/entertainment_enl_1162542063/img/1.jpg)
I don't understand it...my head goes dizzy looking at it and my eyes hurt :-X
What do you think?
I was never good at these, people say if you onfocus your eyes you can see something else but I never have
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:27:26 PM
$140 million USD.
As of today, I've changed my profession to that of an "abstract expressionist" artist .........
I was just talking about Pollock with a friend last weekend, when she and I saw some of his work at the Museum of Modern Art. One of her first comments was, "Oh now I get it. You really have to see these in person!" and although that's true of pretty much any artist, it's even more so with Pollock.
As Joan and others said, what doesn't come through in reproductions is the size of most of his paintings, which are extremely large, and the texture of the paint, which in many of his works looks to be almost one inch thick. All that is lost in translation to the printed page. But when you see them in person, there is something really magical going on.
All that said, $140 million is quite an eye-opener.
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on June 22, 2007, 08:02:39 AM
I was just talking about Pollock with a friend last weekend, when she and I saw some of his work at the Museum of Modern Art. One of her first comments was, "Oh now I get it. You really have to see these in person!" and although that's true of pretty much any artist, it's even more so with Pollock.
As Joan and others said, what doesn't come through in reproductions is the size of most of his paintings, which are extremely large, and the texture of the paint, which in many of his works looks to be almost one inch thick. All that is lost in translation to the printed page. But when you see them in person, there is something really magical going on.
--Bruce
That's definitely the case with Pollock. Until you see it in person, the paintings may not mean much.
On the subject of price, any work of art is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It does not have a price tag, but if someone thinks it is worth $140M then it is worth exactly that. I don't see any difference between a modern piece and a Van Gogh, there is nothing inherently worth $100M in a Van Gogh painting either.
I second bhodges's and bvw's comments about appreciating Pollock. that said, there is just way too much hype about certain things that exist in limited numbers, so price is driven up to absurd levels. It just bears no resemblance to value in any non-monetary sense and only reflects a combination of hype and scarcity. There is no reason why a Pollock shoud cost $140 million (you could by a squadron of used fighter jets for that money), or why a Bugatti Atlantique should cost several million or why Le Bernardin in New York should be charging upwards of $7,000 for a bottle of vintage Bordeaux.
Well, I don't know. Of course the price of a Pollock is determined by his iconic status as a key 20th century artist. But is it replacable? No, in fact a Pollock is priceless. In that light, even 140 million does not come close.
Q
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:27:26 PM
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/entertainment_enl_1162542063/img/1.jpg)
looks cool to me, though I normally don't get into any art that's that abstract.
At first I thought this thread was about Kandinsky-type expressionism- in response to the question:
"How do you appreciate expressionist art?" I'd say, "Just look at it" ;D
And in a related story, Damien Hirst is now the world's most expensive living artist. Here is the article (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL2251255420070622) on Reuters.
--Bruce
Hirst has properties all around us. His home...not a post modern building, but a pretty spectacular old Cotswold manor house, is close by. He has bought one factory at the bottom of the hill, then about two miles away, he has another factory he is wanting to modify/restore, but the local council are being difficult...not sure why. He seems to have more respect for buildings than he has for animals or humans.
Mike
As several have said before, you really have to see much art in person to appreciate it.
And yeah, everyone could drizzle paint on a canvas and much abstract art like this, but there's two problems. First, you could do it, but you're not (and really, you couldn't do it with the same technique. It takes skill to achieve interesting patterns and textures in an abstract work, look at Mondrian's work for example). And second, you'd be about 60 years too late to splatter paint on a canvas and call it art. In art, much like music, originality is highly prized. If you want to be a famous artist, you'd better be the first person to do something... or raise the bar on something that's been done before. How many famous composers living today write music in the style of Beethoven?
Quote from: andy on June 23, 2007, 11:43:29 PM
How many famous composers living today write music in the style of Beethoven?
well, there's surely a lot that try to sound like Beethoven but are 4th-rate imitations. None of them are famous, if you don't define putting up your music online as being famous ;D.
Quote from: Mozart on June 22, 2007, 07:39:19 AM
I was never good at these, people say if you onfocus your eyes you can see something else but I never have
haha :)
The question "How do you appreciate expressionist art?" makes as much sense as "How do you appreciate a fig?" or "How do you appreciate Mahler/Bruckner?"
However, the answer to this topic's question is simple: You LOOK at it.
"Expressionist Art Appreciation" would be a better topic.
I tried to tell my friends who think painting means nothing to begin appreciating it. They still don't. What should I tell them, "You're looking at it wrong!"? One friend tried telling me once how to appreciate Pink Floyd. I don't.
It's not expressionist, it's by a living artist but I don't want to classify it as contemporary either. It's simply beautiful!
Read all about it here:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1181502.0.0.php
Thanks for posting that. It's beautiful; it has a kind of dream-like quality to it. The article doesn't say how big the painting is, but it looks pretty large in the photo of the auction. It must have quite an impact in real life.
Happy you like it! Did you click on the tiny paper clip? It enlarges the picture a little bit. If I could find the lot number in the catalogue I might find the size, but Joan, somebody already bought it and you won't have to measure the space above your couch to see if it fits! ;D
I like the position of his exaggerated hands.
Max Beckmann, Art Institute of Chicago
Antonin Mara (Czech, 1877-1946), " Problem", signed bronze with gold wash, circa 1932
Dimensions: Height 10&1/2 inches by 8 inches in depth by 7 inches in width
Quote from: uffeviking on June 24, 2007, 06:34:12 PM
Happy you like it! Did you click on the tiny paper clip? It enlarges the picture a little bit. If I could find the lot number in the catalogue I might find the size, but Joan, somebody already bought it and you won't have to measure the space above your couch to see if it fits! ;D
Space wouldn't be a problem; I would get rid of my couch if I had to! :D
I hope the new owner will loan this to a museum or gallery so the public can enjoy it. It's sad to think of it being locked away in some industrialist's mansion, as is the case with many of these top-selling works.
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:27:26 PM
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/entertainment_enl_1162542063/img/1.jpg)
I don't understand it...my head goes dizzy looking at it and my eyes hurt :-X
What do you think?
Really strong doses of Lysergic acid diethylamide.
I like the way that Pollock liberated artists from the easel. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who has said that Pollock needs to be seen in person: only then can his work be truly appreciated.
Quote from: uffeviking on June 24, 2007, 06:19:05 PM
It's not expressionist, it's by a living artist but I don't want to classify it as contemporary either. It's simply beautiful!
Read all about it here:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1181502.0.0.php
wow that painting is AMAZING!!! :o
i've never seen something like that, maybe similar in style, but something very much like that, no
my new desktop background 0:)
it looks abstract, but it also looks like a painting of a white canoe on a lake surrounded by trees... now that's sweet.
maybe it was possible because of the simplicity of the concept.
canoe, lake, trees. You can get away with a lot of abstraction while still being able to show those things
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:27:26 PM
The following painting called No.5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock, is a work of the abstract expressionism movement. The painting was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance. It might just be a sheet of whatever paper it is painted on...but ladies and gents, this is the most expensive painting ever sold in human history. According to The New York Times, the painting was sold in an auction on november 2nd 2006,to David Martinez, a member of Fintech Advisory Ltd, in a private sale for a record inflation adjusted price of $140 million USD. Without further delay, let's look at this mesmerizing masterpiece:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/entertainment_enl_1162542063/img/1.jpg)
I don't understand it...my head goes dizzy looking at it and my eyes hurt :-X
What do you think?
The first thing I want to know is the real dollar amount paid for the painting. I'm immediately suspicious of the phrase
inflation adjusted price. Did the painting cost $140,000,000 or was that an equivalent of some other amount?
First, it's not Expressionist art, it's Abstract Expressionist Art. Expressionist art originated in Germany, and was largely representational.
The painting you are deriding is a masterpiece by Jackson Pollack. Far from the disorganized spatters of a child, it was the carefully crafted work of a mature artist who moved from the representational into the abstract, and then into the gestural abstract. It's much more complex than you can imagine. One of the most interesting things about the work is that he was able to create fractal curves on the canvas. His imitators do not produce those so that it has become easy for someone with a computer and a good algorithm to pick out the forgeries. If you really want to appreciate a Pollack, you have to go to a museum and look at it in person. Looking at a small picture doesn't really give a good idea of what the painting is all about. Pollack painted monumental sized canvases. They are designs that you can lose yourself in the way you lose yourself in Mahler. Definitely priceless. Great art is so rare that it's worth all the hype. It's the mediocre, trendy, crap (like Jeff Koons works) that commands too much money that gets my goat.
Trying to get a little more information about how a price from 2006 is "inflation adjusted" and I came across this in Wickipedia:
According to a report in the New York Times, on November 2, 2006, the painting was sold by David Geffen, founder of Geffen Records and co-founder of Dreamworks SKG, to David Martinez, managing partner of Fintech Advisory Ltd, in a private sale for a record inflation adjusted price of $140 million [3] The sale was reportedly brokered by Sotheby's auctioneer Tobias Meyer,[4] however, Shearman & Sterling, LLP issued a press release on behalf of its client, David Martinez, to announce that contrary to recent articles in the press, Mr Martinez does not own the painting or any rights to acquire it.[5] It is speculated that Geffen sold the painting, along with two others, to raise enough funds to bid for the Los Angeles Times.
That $140 million price tag just got slashed. End of controversy? I hope so.
Quote from: Bunny on June 26, 2007, 02:38:32 AM
The first thing I want to know is the real dollar amount paid for the painting. I'm immediately suspicious of the phrase inflation adjusted price. Did the painting cost $140,000,000 or was that an equivalent of some other amount?
First, it's not Expressionist art, it's Abstract Expressionist Art. Expressionist art originated in Germany, and was largely representational.
The painting you are deriding is a masterpiece by Jackson Pollack. Far from the disorganized spatters of a child, it was the carefully crafted work of a mature artist who moved from the representational into the abstract, and then into the gestural abstract. It's much more complex than you can imagine. One of the most interesting things about the work is that he was able to create fractal curves on the canvas. His imitators do not produce those so that it has become easy for someone with a computer and a good algorithm to pick out the forgeries. If you really want to appreciate a Pollack, you have to go to a museum and look at it in person. Looking at a small picture doesn't really give a good idea of what the painting is all about. Pollack painted monumental sized canvases. They are designs that you can lose yourself in the way you lose yourself in Mahler. Definitely priceless. Great art is so rare that it's worth all the hype. It's the mediocre, trendy, crap (like Jeff Koons works) that commands too much money that gets my goat.
I didn't say it was expressionist. I said abstract expressionist. Read my first post. :)
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 26, 2007, 02:24:01 PM
I didn't say it was expressionist. I said abstract expressionist. Read my first post. :)
Look at the title of the thread! I expected to see works by Ensor, Munch, kandinsky, Nolde, et al. , and instead found Jackson Pollack. I read, or rather scanned through your post and my mind was shanghaied by that (mythical) huge $140 million. ;D
Edit: the more important thing is that the painting was not sold for $140 million to anyone. That price is fiction. :o
Quote from: Bunny on June 26, 2007, 04:57:13 PM
I expected to see works by Ensor, Munch, kandinsky, Nolde, et al. , and instead found Jackson Pollack.
Poll
ock, please.
Quote from: Bunny on June 26, 2007, 04:57:13 PM
Edit: the more important thing is that the painting was not sold for $140 million to anyone. That price is fiction. :o
So, what's the real price?
Why is the price of an expressionist painting part of its expression? The price should only concern the person who wants to buy. Anways, how do you appreciate the price of an expressionist artwork?
Quote from: Bunny on June 26, 2007, 04:57:13 PM
Look at the title of the thread! I expected to see works by Ensor, Munch, kandinsky, Nolde, et al. , and instead found Jackson Pollack. I read, or rather scanned through your post and my mind was shanghaied by that (mythical) huge $140 million. ;D
Edit: the more important thing is that the painting was not sold for $140 million to anyone. That price is fiction. :o
Isn't abstract expressionism a branch of expressionism? ???
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 26, 2007, 05:17:38 PM
Isn't abstract expressionism a branch of expressionism? ???
No. Abstract Expressionism was a school of art that originated in NYC in the post WW2 period. I believe the term Abstract Expressionism was first used sometime after WW2 and was coined by an art critic. The art was characterized by the rapid application of paint to the surface with broad physical actions. Abstract Expressionism is also described as Action Painting -- which is imo a much better description of the art. The spontaneous
act of putting the paint on the canvas without conscious thought was supposed to create a surface that expresses the inner struggle of the painter's unconscious mind. I've always wondered about that aspect of the art. What I can appreciate is the richly detailed surfaces which in some strange way create a whole new layer of space behind that surface that penetrates into the canvas. With Pollock's art, that surface, created by drips of liquid paint becomes like layers of lace, alternately revealing and obscuring everything that is below, while creating an illusion of depth that you have to see in person to understand. It's art that you can sink into.
Expressionism originated in early 20th century Germany. This was a representational school of art where the physical realistic appearance of people and things were distorted in order to express a subconscious reality. There are various "schools" of Expressionism including Der Blaue Reiter or the Brücke. Edvard Munch's famous painting, The Scream (http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/munch.scream.jpg), is one of the benchmarks of the school
compare these two paintings by Emil Nolde (Brücke school of the Expressionist movement) and Morris Louis (Abstract Expressionist)
(http://www.punctum.com/kirche/konfi/art/nolde.jpg) (http://siteimages.guggenheim.org/gpc_work_large_546.jpg)
Morris Louis created his image with washes of color that he called "veils." I have always found his paintings mysterious, as if colored fogs drifted across the surface. it expresses a state of mind rather than actual literal events as in the Nolde.
Quote from: O Mensch on June 26, 2007, 05:03:17 PM
Pollock, please.
So, what's the real price?
The painting hasn't been sold, or at least not to the person named for the price quoted. If it hasn't been sold it's still in David Geffen's collection. if not, it was sold with 2 other works for an unnamed price to an unnamed buyer in order to raise money for Geffen's bid to acquire the LA Times from the Tribune. The rumored 140 million may be the price of the 3 works combined or may be a fictitious amount. In any event, the last time the LA Times changed hands, the price was in the neighborhood of 2 billion. Consider that $140 million merely a down payment.
"Expressionism is the tendency of an artist to distort reality for an emotional effect; it is a subjective art form."
"To abstract expressionism...technically, an important predecessor is surrealism, with its emphasis on spontaneous, automatic or subconscious creation."
Hmm what is surrealism then?
Surrealism is another school of art which uses images to express subconscious "realities.' In one branch of Surrealism, all of the elements are created in extremely realistic fashion, but they are blended in such a way to create an unreal picture. The painting thus cannot be called realist, so the term "surreal" was coined to describe it. A good example of this is René Magritte's painting below. Both the sky and the street scene below are painted as realistically as possible, but they are showing the scene with different elements at different times of day -- hence the sense of conflict. Eventually surrealism also became more and more abstract. Other surrealist painters include Salvador Dalí, Giorgio di Chirico, Yves Tanguy, Vassily Kandinsky, André Masson, Francisco Picabia, Max Ernst and Juan Gris. Surrealism is also closely related and associated with DaDaism and artists such as Man Ray. What ties all of these schools together is the dependence on Freudian theory; the Surrealist Manifesto was in fact written by André Bretonne who was trained as a psychiatrist, and actually practiced psychoanalysis.
(http://www.cord.edu/faculty/andersod/magritte_empirelight.jpg)
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 26, 2007, 10:22:25 PM
"Expressionism is the tendency of an artist to distort reality for an emotional effect; it is a subjective art form."
"To abstract expressionism...technically, an important predecessor is surrealism, with its emphasis on spontaneous, automatic or subconscious creation."
Hmm what is surrealism then?
Compare the automatic drawing of André Masson to the drip paintings of Pollock. Both are very, very similar in concept. That's why Abstract Expressionism is more closely related to surrealism than Expressionism and many critics and historians prefer to term it "Action Painting."
£5.7m sale makes Scot Europe's most expensive living painter
PHIL MILLER, Arts Corresponent February 09 2007
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1700.0;attach=2196;image
ROCKING THE BOAT: Sotheby's auctioneer Tobias Meyer sells Peter Doig's painting The White Canoe for £5,732,000, about five times the estimate.
He only creates eight paintings a year, he was born in Edinburgh but lives in the Caribbean, and he is little known outside the art world - but now Peter Doig has become Europe's most expensive living painter.
Doig's "masterpiece", White Canoe, has been sold for a record £5.7m at Sotheby's in London, a figure five times its predicted price, and means he now has the financial clout of other living painters such as David Hockney and Lucian Freud.
Doig, born in the Scottish capital in 1959, moved to Canada as a child and grew up there, before returning to the UK to train as an artist.
During the 1990s, when pure painting somewhat lost its lustre in the contemporary arts world, he remained engaged in the traditional form and now his work is "very commercial", according to Francis Outred, Sotherby's senior director.
On Tuesday night, furious telephone bidding led to the painting's rapid rise in price, and thunderous applause greeted the final successful bid for the painting, which had been expected to go for between £800,000 and £1.2m.
White Canoe, painted in 1991, was bought by an anonymous bidder, the auction house said.
Works by other greats including Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein also went under the hammer during the contemporary art sale, raising £45.7m in total.
Oliver Barker, head of Sotheby's contemporary art department in London, said: "We are absolutely thrilled with the enormous, unprecedented success of tonight's sale, and especially with the world record price achieved for a work by Peter Doig - cementing his position among the finest painters of his generation.
ROCKING THE BOAT: Sotheby's auctioneer Tobias Meyer sells Peter Doig's painting The White Canoe for £5,732,000, about five times the estimate.
"What was most notable this evening was the depth and the strength of the bidding for top-quality works across a range of categories."
Doig is best known for his landscapes based on childhood scenes, and has now based himself in the tiny Caribbean state of Trinidad.
One of his last major sales was in June last year, when his canvas Iron Hill was auctioned for a then career record of £1,128,000, following an exhibition of his work by Charles Saatchi, the leading art collector.
In 2005 he was one of the artists exhibited The Triumph of Painting at the Saatchi Gallery in London.
Mr Outred said: "He has been the flag bearer for painting when it came back into fashion. A lot of artists who are now coming out are quoting him as a big influence.
"His works are very commercial objects, very traditional, very romantic and also incredibly complex."
He added: "The British claim he is British, the Canadians think he is Canadian, but he lives in Trinidad, and works in Germany: he's a truly modern day international artist.
"It was an amazing price and we were a little stunned. We think he is second only to Jasper Johns in terms of the price for a single painting by a living artist.
"I think the price was so high for a combination of reasons - he produces very little, he only paints around eight a year, so there is a lack of supply and when this masterpiece came on the market it attracted great interest.
"But I do not predict a great Doig market - it is unlikely to be repeated soon."
The music and film mogul, David Geffen, is alleged to have paid around £30m for Gray Number by Johns in a private deal in the late 1990s, and in 1998 the Metropolitan Museum of Art bought Johns' White Flag for an estimated £10m.
Mr Doig makes much use of photography, magazines, record covers and film stills in preparing his work, but has not ventured beyond paint on canvass.
"I'm not the type of person who would stop doing something because it was not in fashion," he once said.
"But there were always people interested in painting, even though people might not have been actually buying paintings. It is still something that people discussed and made."
Quote from: Anne on June 29, 2007, 06:27:51 AM
He only creates eight paintings a year,
Only? Is that really a small number of works per year? I would have thought more time would go into a masterpiece than 6 or 7 weeks.
I'm coming into this thread a bit late, but anyone with an interest in Pollock should see Ed Harris' movie named, strangely enough, "Pollock". Not that it's that great a film. The script is pretty standard "tortured genius destroys himself" fare, and Pollock himself doesn't come across as all that interesting a person. However, it includes two outstanding performances, by Harris in the title role and Marcia Gay Harden (who won an Oscar IIRC) as Lee Krasner. The best parts of the movie are those that depict Pollock actually painting. Harris apparently studied films of Pollock's technique very rigorously, and it's quite mesmerizing to watch.
Bunny, you've provided a very informative and educative read. You're Appreciated. :D
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 29, 2007, 05:48:45 PM
Bunny, you've provided a very informative and educative read. You're Appreciated. :D
You're welcome. ;)
Quote from: Shrunk on June 29, 2007, 08:31:24 AM
I'm coming into this thread a bit late, but anyone with an interest in Pollock should see Ed Harris' movie named, strangely enough, "Pollock". Not that it's that great a film. The script is pretty standard "tortured genius destroys himself" fare, and Pollock himself doesn't come across as all that interesting a person. However, it includes two outstanding performances, by Harris in the title role and Marcia Gay Harden (who won an Oscar IIRC) as Lee Krasner. The best parts of the movie are those that depict Pollock actually painting. Harris apparently studied films of Pollock's technique very rigorously, and it's quite mesmerizing to watch.
Actually, it's a darn good movie, although it's not a perfect movie. It's a great look into the creative process, and also into the crazy and dysfunctional life Pollock and Krasner lived.
Has this style opposite creation processes to those of impressionist art?
I still remember a radio story I heard many years ago about Pollock. An interviewer in Pollock's studio asked about the supposed "random" nature of his art. Pollock growled, "You want random? I'll show you f#@%in' random!" He then swung his brush--and deposited a single drop of paint in the center of a doorknob more than a dozen feet away. :o 8)
I like Expressionism but not Abstract Expressionism. Rouault and Ensor are two of my favourite painters.
Quote from: vandermolen on September 03, 2016, 07:39:19 AM
Rouault and Ensor are two of my favourite painters.
Mine, as well. There was an excellent exhibition combining his works with those of his teacher, Moreau (
Gustave Moreau - Georges Rouault. Souvenirs d'atelier) at the Gustave Moreau Museum in Paris earlier this year.
Gustave Moreau - Georges Rouault. Souvenirs d'atelier, du 27 janvier au 25 avril 2016 (http://musee-moreau.fr/activites-culturelles/expositions)
Gustave Moreau (1826-1898) fut professeur à l'Ecole des beaux-arts de Paris de 1892 à 1897. Georges Rouault (1871-1958) y fut son élève préféré, celui qu'il considérait comme "représentant" sa "doctrine picturale". L'exposition se propose de mettre en lumière ce qui unit les deux peintres sur le plan artistique, de confronter leurs visions du paysage, de la femme, du sacré, mais aussi de faire apparaître leur fascination commune pour la matière et la couleur. Elle permet également d'évoquer, par les souvenirs de ses élèves, l'atelier de Gustave Moreau à l'Ecole des beaux-arts et d'appréhender l'enseignement libéral de celui qui se considérait comme un passeur plus qu'un professeur : "Je suis le pont sur lequel certains de vous passeront." Fidèle au souvenir de son Maître, Rouault devint le premier conservateur du musée Gustave Moreau, fonction qu'il exerça jusqu'en 1932, et n'eut de cesse de défendre sa mémoire.
Quote from: Wanderer on September 03, 2016, 07:59:37 AM
Mine, as well. There was an excellent exhibition combining his works with those of his teacher, Moreau (Gustave Moreau - Georges Rouault. Souvenirs d'atelier) at the Gustave Moreau Museum in Paris earlier this year.
Gustave Moreau - Georges Rouault. Souvenirs d'atelier, du 27 janvier au 25 avril 2016 (http://musee-moreau.fr/activites-culturelles/expositions)
Gustave Moreau (1826-1898) fut professeur à l'Ecole des beaux-arts de Paris de 1892 à 1897. Georges Rouault (1871-1958) y fut son élève préféré, celui qu'il considérait comme "représentant" sa "doctrine picturale". L'exposition se propose de mettre en lumière ce qui unit les deux peintres sur le plan artistique, de confronter leurs visions du paysage, de la femme, du sacré, mais aussi de faire apparaître leur fascination commune pour la matière et la couleur. Elle permet également d'évoquer, par les souvenirs de ses élèves, l'atelier de Gustave Moreau à l'Ecole des beaux-arts et d'appréhender l'enseignement libéral de celui qui se considérait comme un passeur plus qu'un professeur : "Je suis le pont sur lequel certains de vous passeront." Fidèle au souvenir de son Maître, Rouault devint le premier conservateur du musée Gustave Moreau, fonction qu'il exerça jusqu'en 1932, et n'eut de cesse de défendre sa mémoire.
How very interesting - thanks. Ensor's 'Intrigue' is one of my favourite paintings. I have a framed print of it. My wife finds it too morbid, so it is in the attic. :(
http://cultured.com/images/image_files/2864/8216_m_james_ensor.jpg
Rouault's work is paradoxically very spiritual I think and there is a great compassion for suffering, which moves me. Expressionist art with a Soul:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rouault&prmd=isnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi03eOkzPPOAhVCCsAKHX3rBWIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1024&bih=672&dpr=2#imgrc=5vrg5g7e9bX8dM%3A