The art thread

[algroth]

Hubert Robert

[Amentep]

Just realized that I missed noting the 100 anniversary of the death of one of my favorite Pre-Raphelite artists, John William Watterhouse:


One of his Lady of Shalott Paintings

 

Destiny

[Ben No.3]

Been on a Rodin exhibition some time ago and forgot to post about it. Anyway, by far my favourite of his works; the kiss:

 

 

 

Don't know if you can tell, but their lips are actually connected.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Amentep]

The Delaware Art Museum is making a lot of their documents available online - http://www.delart.org/collections/the-helen-farr-sloan-library-and-archives/digital_collections/

 

Included are correspondence from Pre-Raphelite painter Dante Gabriel Rossetti and correspondence and talks by and about Howard Pyle.  I believe they are still adding things to the digital collection (the Pyle section is currently only a couple of items).

[Oerwinde]

Hubert Robert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every one of those is gorgeous. Its a shame nowadays art like that is relegated to concept work or illustration while abstract post modern garbage gets all the attention

[algroth]

 

Hubert Robert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every one of those is gorgeous. Its a shame nowadays art like that is relegated to concept work or illustration while abstract post modern garbage gets all the attention

 

 

Agreed on the former, not on the latter. Abstract and modernist/post-modern art have their well-earned place as do any other artstyle (I have posted a number of contemporary works in earlier posts for example which I would rank amidst my favorites), the problem is when it becomes so monopolistic in the contemporary scene that it relegates the more classical forms to what you describe. All the same, glad you enjoyed these!

Edited May 17, 2017 by algroth

[Oerwinde]

Have you ever seen Art School Confidential? It pretty much sums up how I feel about art nowadays. If you haven't, its about a talented artist who goes to art school and his work is seen as pedestrian while everyone fawns over the work of an undercover cop who has never painted before in his life and is essentially producing children's artwork.

[Amentep]

I've seen it and read the inspiration for it -  a Daniel Clowes short comics story from his EIGHTBALL anthology series.  While I agree with some of the sentiment in it, I also agree with algroth that not all post-modernist or abstract or 'modern' art is bad (and I say that as someone whose dumped a lot of criticism on the likes of Duchamp and his collaborator for fostering bad ideas on art at the same time that they tried to challenge what art could be).

[algroth]

Have you ever seen Art School Confidential? It pretty much sums up how I feel about art nowadays. If you haven't, its about a talented artist who goes to art school and his work is seen as pedestrian while everyone fawns over the work of an undercover cop who has never painted before in his life and is essentially producing children's artwork.

 

I have not seen it, but I get what you mean all the same - the Emperor's New Clothes argument and all that jazz. I can see how one can feel that way about abstract art but I for one find a lot to appreciate in experiences and ideas expressed in manners that stray from classical, hard-lined conventions; actually I would hope a fan of fantasy and a medium as broadly shunned as videogames and comic books to be more open about such means as well, given the bad rep any of these categories has received over time from those who believe they're only Harry Potter, Call of Duty and superheroes respectively. I mean, as with any such category there's a good and bad side to it, I certainly don't think all abstract artists are great and I do think some can feel quite fraudulent - but then, for every Hubert Robert there's also a dozen mediocre landscape artists painting the same city landmarks over and over so that some housewife can fill an empty wall in her dining room. There are contemporary artists who may be extremely simple in regards to their techniques while others (see Shahzia Sikander, Luis Felipe Noé or Duane Michals in this thread for example) to put a great degree of skill on display as well. In fact the scene is so varied that one cannot rightly point at any piece or art and say 'everything is like that': when you find yourself with a scene that incorporates everything from sculpting and painting to forging to creating electric circuits to manipulating photography to collage, all the way down to readymades and performance, it's pretty disingenuous to me to try and find a blanket statement with which to dismiss it all. In the end I value the effect and impact it has on me regardles of technical or virtuous display - to me the right technique or appropriation, however simple it may be, to convey rightly an idea or feeling is more worthwhile than any amount of skill placed on something that, ultimately, is little more than 'pretty'. That, I think, is worthy of its own place and praise in art.

Edited May 17, 2017 by algroth

[algroth]

I've seen it and read the inspiration for it -  a Daniel Clowes short comics story from his EIGHTBALL anthology series.  While I agree with some of the sentiment in it, I also agree with algroth that not all post-modernist or abstract or 'modern' art is bad (and I say that as someone whose dumped a lot of criticism on the likes of Duchamp and his collaborator for fostering bad ideas on art at the same time that they tried to challenge what art could be).

 

I would also agree, but I'm curious as to what bad ideas you think Duchamp fostered. :D

Edited May 17, 2017 by algroth

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

Have you ever seen Art School Confidential? It pretty much sums up how I feel about art nowadays. If you haven't, its about a talented artist who goes to art school and his work is seen as pedestrian while everyone fawns over the work of an undercover cop who has never painted before in his life and is essentially producing children's artwork.

I have not seen it, but I get what you mean all the same - the Emperor's New Clothes argument and all that jazz. I can see how one can feel that way about abstract art but I for one find a lot to appreciate in experiences and ideas expressed in manners that stray from classical, hard-lined conventions; actually I would hope a fan of fantasy and a medium as broadly shunned as videogames and comic books to be more open about such means as well, given the bad rep any of these categories has received over time from those who believe they're only Harry Potter, Call of Duty and superheroes respectively. I mean, as with any such category there's a good and bad side to it, I certainly don't think all abstract artists are great and I do think some can feel quite fraudulent - but then, for every Hubert Robert there's also a dozen mediocre landscape artists painting the same city landmarks over and over so that some housewife can fill an empty wall in her dining room. There are contemporary artists who may be extremely simple in regards to their techniques while others (see Shahzia Sikander, Luis Felipe Noé or Duane Michals in this thread for example) to put a great degree of skill on display as well. In fact the scene is so varied that one cannot rightly point at any piece or art and say 'everything is like that': when you find yourself with a scene that incorporates everything from sculpting and painting to forging to creating electric circuits to manipulating photography to collage, all the way down to readymades and performance, it's pretty disingenuous to me to try and find a blanket statement with which to dismiss it all. In the end I value the effect and impact it has on me regardles of technical or virtuous display - to me the right technique or appropriation, however simple it may be, to convey rightly an idea or feeling is more worthwhile than any amount of skill placed on something that, ultimately, is little more than 'pretty'. That, I think, is worthy of its own place and praise in art.

I wonder if Art is like music in that if you like a genre of music you can pick out the differences between the artists and what makes them unique and such, but if you don't like a genre it all sounds like repetitive garbage.

[algroth]

 

 

Have you ever seen Art School Confidential? It pretty much sums up how I feel about art nowadays. If you haven't, its about a talented artist who goes to art school and his work is seen as pedestrian while everyone fawns over the work of an undercover cop who has never painted before in his life and is essentially producing children's artwork.

I have not seen it, but I get what you mean all the same - the Emperor's New Clothes argument and all that jazz. I can see how one can feel that way about abstract art but I for one find a lot to appreciate in experiences and ideas expressed in manners that stray from classical, hard-lined conventions; actually I would hope a fan of fantasy and a medium as broadly shunned as videogames and comic books to be more open about such means as well, given the bad rep any of these categories has received over time from those who believe they're only Harry Potter, Call of Duty and superheroes respectively. I mean, as with any such category there's a good and bad side to it, I certainly don't think all abstract artists are great and I do think some can feel quite fraudulent - but then, for every Hubert Robert there's also a dozen mediocre landscape artists painting the same city landmarks over and over so that some housewife can fill an empty wall in her dining room. There are contemporary artists who may be extremely simple in regards to their techniques while others (see Shahzia Sikander, Luis Felipe Noé or Duane Michals in this thread for example) to put a great degree of skill on display as well. In fact the scene is so varied that one cannot rightly point at any piece or art and say 'everything is like that': when you find yourself with a scene that incorporates everything from sculpting and painting to forging to creating electric circuits to manipulating photography to collage, all the way down to readymades and performance, it's pretty disingenuous to me to try and find a blanket statement with which to dismiss it all. In the end I value the effect and impact it has on me regardles of technical or virtuous display - to me the right technique or appropriation, however simple it may be, to convey rightly an idea or feeling is more worthwhile than any amount of skill placed on something that, ultimately, is little more than 'pretty'. That, I think, is worthy of its own place and praise in art.

I wonder if Art is like music in that if you like a genre of music you can pick out the differences between the artists and what makes them unique and such, but if you don't like a genre it all sounds like repetitive garbage.

 

It doesn't really happen to me with the music genres I dislike (depends on the specificity of the genre though, but this applies both to genres I generally like and generally dislike), nor do I see how it's the case with art. Taking some examples I have posted here: Pedro Reyes, Shahzia Sikander, Luis Felipe Noé, Chul Hyun Ahn. I'm not sure how these are alike at all despite being all contemporary art.

Edited May 18, 2017 by algroth

[Bogarus]

By my humble opinion - Art Originals > Prints or photos of Art. For your pleasure you must visiting museums instead of internets.

 

 

[Amentep]

 

I've seen it and read the inspiration for it -  a Daniel Clowes short comics story from his EIGHTBALL anthology series.  While I agree with some of the sentiment in it, I also agree with algroth that not all post-modernist or abstract or 'modern' art is bad (and I say that as someone whose dumped a lot of criticism on the likes of Duchamp and his collaborator for fostering bad ideas on art at the same time that they tried to challenge what art could be).

 

I would also agree, but I'm curious as to what bad ideas you think Duchamp fostered. :D

 

 

I think that Duchamp's Readymades (and to a certain degree, the Dadaists in general) are the source for the type of pretension in artists that "Art School Confidential" pokes fun of.  They foster the idea that anything slapped together and backed by a rationale is art.  But the Readymades (IMO) generally fail any sort of test regarding transformative nature of art.  If you put a bicycle on a stool it is, ultimately a bicycle on a stool.  I get that Dadaism was 'anti-art' but I'd argue that parts of it was art and helped re-expand the boundaries of art after so many years of formalism.  But to me most of the Readymades I've seen fail in the effort to actually be art.

 

To be fair, I'm not sure many people care about the transformative part of art, but to me this is the role of the artist.  Whatever they've 'found' - whether its canvas and paint or a bicycle - needs to be transformed by the artist to really be art.  Its part of why I think Lichtenstein's early "pop art" work isn't transformative at all and therefore doesn't qualify as art to me.  Its a shame that he appropriated the art of others and made millions off of them, to be honest.

 

YMMV.

[algroth]

By my humble opinion - Art Originals > Prints or photos of Art. For your pleasure you must visiting museums instead of internets.

I would agree, but sometimes we just have to make do with what we have. I'm not so picky that I cannot derive enjoyment from a copy, much as the 'real experience' is still bound to trump it.

[Bogarus]

 

By my humble opinion - Art Originals > Prints or photos of Art. For your pleasure you must visiting museums instead of internets.

I would agree, but sometimes we just have to make do with what we have. I'm not so picky that I cannot derive enjoyment from a copy, much as the 'real experience' is still bound to trump it.

 

I'm just become so dissapointed by my photos of Dali exhibition. Gorgeous luminescent art in darky imperial palace looks so cool, but photos of these paintings can't deliver same vibe.

 

[algroth]

 

 

I've seen it and read the inspiration for it -  a Daniel Clowes short comics story from his EIGHTBALL anthology series.  While I agree with some of the sentiment in it, I also agree with algroth that not all post-modernist or abstract or 'modern' art is bad (and I say that as someone whose dumped a lot of criticism on the likes of Duchamp and his collaborator for fostering bad ideas on art at the same time that they tried to challenge what art could be).

 

I would also agree, but I'm curious as to what bad ideas you think Duchamp fostered. :D

 

 

I think that Duchamp's Readymades (and to a certain degree, the Dadaists in general) are the source for the type of pretension in artists that "Art School Confidential" pokes fun of.  They foster the idea that anything slapped together and backed by a rationale is art.  But the Readymades (IMO) generally fail any sort of test regarding transformative nature of art.  If you put a bicycle on a stool it is, ultimately a bicycle on a stool.  I get that Dadaism was 'anti-art' but I'd argue that parts of it was art and helped re-expand the boundaries of art after so many years of formalism.  But to me most of the Readymades I've seen fail in the effort to actually be art.

 

To be fair, I'm not sure many people care about the transformative part of art, but to me this is the role of the artist.  Whatever they've 'found' - whether its canvas and paint or a bicycle - needs to be transformed by the artist to really be art.  Its part of why I think Lichtenstein's early "pop art" work isn't transformative at all and therefore doesn't qualify as art to me.  Its a shame that he appropriated the art of others and made millions off of them, to be honest.

 

YMMV.

 

It's interesting that you should mention the transformative part of art, since that's sort of one of the reasons I love Duchamp's work. One of the oddities about Duchamp's work is the thread of alchemy that runs through all of his work, right from the depiction of the angelical egg and homunculus in Young Man and Woman in Spring to the concerns involving the exoteric and esoteric that are present in Étant Donnés, and transformation, or transmutation at least, is a theme that is present throughout his work as seen clearest in both The Large Glass, his 'futurist' period and the very idea of readymades. In the very early quasi-Fauvist works there's already a concern with the opposition of male and female and their eventual union/transformation into a hermaphrodite individual (this also translating over to L.H.O.O.Q. and his whole Rose Sélavy persona), and in many regards both the Fountain and Bicycle Wheel are also transformations into hermaphrodite beings, in the former's case as the form is both phallic in its topmost protrusion but also womb-like in its lower, more enclosed space, likewise signed aby the alias 'R. Mutt' (Mutt R., mutter), and the latter by means of the union between the classic opposition of stillness and motion in what he'd deem a "kinetic sculpture". I think these examples are transformative in essence as by appropriating these he's able to elevate mundane objects into works with a new purpose and meaning, though granted that the transformation is less literal than it is a resignification or repurposing of what is largely already there.

 

That's my take on Duchamp's work anyhow. For the most part I think something like what the readymades were proposing was bound to happen at some point or other, it seems inevitable from today's perspective at least, but I think that he too made these with more of an idea in mind than just taking a dump on the academic dogmas of the time, and I value his work over that of many of his contemporaries, or Dada and pop artists in general, because of it. The general attitude of 'f*** conventions' is something that gets so far without actual purpose behind it, I feel, and Duchamp's work has that purpose, for me anyhow. I don't think readymades were a bad idea as Duchamp intended them above, I think the gesture is significant and so is this approach to transformation when placed in the context of alchemy, semiotics and so on, but I do agree that perhaps it started more than a few bad habits amidst future artists.

Edited May 18, 2017 by algroth

[Amentep]

Intellectually I get the argument for the Readymades.  And in a way I kind of buy it which is why I'm not necessarily against Duchamp even if he's probably not one of my favorite artists.  But in another way that's kind of the problem I think Duchamp and the Readymades fostered on us.  Anything is art provided you can make a story to explain why its art. Add to that the "and if it doesn't make sense then its the fault of the plebeian who doesn't understand art" and you pretty much have the sort of the art student pretension that, IMO, Clowes was poking fun at with "Art School Confidential".

 

I kind of agree that something like the Readymades was going to happen in some form or fashion; there'd been too long a stranglehold on art that had narrowed 'art' to certain things accepted by the "intelligencia".  There were already earlier rebellions in art prior to Dada but they kind of rebelled (to greater or lesser degree) while remaining in the box that they were rebelling against.   It was inevitable that someone would realize that they needed to break out of the box that art had been put in (or as Duchamp put it, to break away from "retinal" art).

[Bogarus]

Hermitage museum is "must have" place to visit for art eaters. 

 

This is my non-sucessfull photo for "my nordcuck ancestor" meme.