Art

yeah you probably are tbf

A couple of ideas for multis perhaps -

a- which of these paintings was the first/last/most expensive/ was not painted by...

b - which of these art movements came first/last/involved this artist...

positvely - I agree about the modern stuff, not art at all, yet they get paid sh!t loads of money for a blob on a page.

Surrealsim is my favourtie movement. In particualr dali. His work turns my stomach.

I guess it depends what floats your boat. I am a big fan of dali because of the thought behind it but I also like fine art, intricate details, faces, shapes.

Sorry, for waffling. I like art

I suppose that surrealist (I call it weird) stuff is ok. Dali etc. But only as a novelty - quite interesting to have a look at it for a while, but then i'd get bored and rather have a nice picture of some countryside or something.

Re : Van Gogh's Sunflowers - He did many versions, working through his ideas. At the time he painted them, they would be very shocking to Western eyes - at that time, Western art was dominated by Raphael and the "Ideal" - that is, the ideas of Plato, Socrates, etc. Ingres, Bouguereau and Tissot were considered to be the great masters of the 19th Century.

Van Gogh was influenced by Japanese art - strong verticals, flattened perspective and dynamic brushwork. He also experimented with optical effects through "broken" colour - thick swathes of paint - highly coloured dots and dashes placed next to each other.

If you read Van Gogh's letters you'll see that he was a man of convictions, and he was very intelligent in terms of what he was trying to do with brushes and paint, etc.

If you analyze his Sunflowers, you'll see a master hand at work - everything is painted sequentially, so that the flower (for example) is painted over the leaves or stems...very direct, like a Japanese calligrapher.

Agree with the OP. The modern art of Hirst, Emin etc is böllocks of the lowest order.

Tom Keating's biography is well worth a read. His opinion of art dealers and so-called experts are scathing to say the least.

It is estimated that 200 to 300 of Keating's forgeries are still being traded today as originals.

200 to 300! :0

Big Con Art

ls lowery ftw

Do you remember when somebody purchased a rubbish spin drawing from Hirst for a ridiculous sum only to discover it had been drawn by his four-year-old daughter?

This would have been funny enough, but the unbelievable thing was that he subsequently sold it for a profit! Madness to me.

i suppose anything is worth what people will pay for it.

Would I buy a pile of crap modern art made by tracy emin if I KNEW i could make a decent profit, of course I would. But the arse of the market might fall out one day. But if people are buying this sh.ite because they would pay that much money to have this stuff in their house then i'm afraid they have more money than sense.

There's only one answer to this - do it yourself and see how you get on.

If it's all a big con...then why not be a con man?

The thing is - the art world has its rules, just like cricket or golf, etc.

Velasquez 13 Dec 15:11


Re : Van Gogh's Sunflowers - He did many versions, working through his ideas. At the time he painted them, they would be very shocking to Western eyes - at that time, Western art was dominated by Raphael and the "Ideal" - that is, the ideas of Plato, Socrates, etc. Ingres, Bouguereau and Tissot were considered to be the great masters of the 19th Century.

Van Gogh was influenced by Japanese art - strong verticals, flattened perspective and dynamic brushwork. He also experimented with optical effects through "broken" colour - thick swathes of paint - highly coloured dots and dashes placed next to each other.

If you read Van Gogh's letters you'll see that he was a man of convictions, and he was very intelligent in terms of what he was trying to do with brushes and paint, etc.

If you analyze his Sunflowers, you'll see a master hand at work - everything is painted sequentially, so that the flower (for example) is painted over the leaves or stems...very direct, like a Japanese calligrapher.


All that's as maybe vel. But is the point not that it looks nice? something you would like to have on your wall in your house?

I would rather have a nice big print of a photograph of some nice scenery (lake district or scottish highlands or something) stick it on the wall in a nice frame, job done for about fity quid. Why would you want to pay millions on a dodgy painting of some sunflowers. I just don't get it.

I missed a trick about twenty years ago. :(

Damian Hirst bought a pool table from me for a thousand quid. Wish I'd asked for a painting instead of the cash.

a 50p a go table?

It believe he had it set to free play mode.

Positively - In an age of reproduction, a painting is a unique item - a "0ne-off" - and that's where the value lies - in the rarity. Then, there are other labels attached - fame, myth, genius, tradition, high culture, fashion, etc.

BTW - possibly the key book that lead to the fame of people like Hirst and Emin was "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," by Walter Benjamin.

Have you really thought about this? Why stick ANYTHING on the wall anyway? Why do that?

V - you knocked up some gooduns in your time too mate

POS are you that guy in the crowd who shouts out
"The King has no clothes on !! " .. :D

Just like looking at nice things

Positively - you should buy yourself a big feck-off canvas, about 4 ft by 6 ft, and some decent paint and brushes. Then fill the canvas any way you like - and I mean ANY way you like...at the end of it, you'll maybe have a different perspective...




Now it's time for the (drumroll...) ---- PICASSO QUOTE !

"From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan.

Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art. The 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art.

I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind.

The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence.

Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters.

I am only a public clown - a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest." (Pablo Picasso, 1952)

what an amazing coincidence, I currently in the process of trying to reproduce the very same sunflowers painting and believe me it isn't easy at all.

Art is subjective, you either love or loathe,but for myself i would far far sooner have an original work of art than any photo or reproduction, you also have to remember there is something of the artist themselves in any painting, look at for eg. van gogh's whirling 'starry night' .

I do agree about most modern art however, I prefer, and again, this is a totally subjective opinion, the old masters, but this isnt to say there arent still great modren day painters.

like this V:-

http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/innocent-x-velazquez.jpg

Brilliant

btw vel, picasso was being rather modest there, don't you think, we all know very well he could paint fantastically well, ive seen a painting by him of a fisherman which is as good as any of the masters.

Tony - I once charged £600 to copy a small Degas - it had about 20-odd figures in it, and I made a terrific job of it...it would be MUCH more difficult to copy a Van Gogh, due to the distinctive, thick brushwork.

I go to a gallery or museum most weekends, as long as it's not raining, as today. I struggle with much modern art; the best thing about Tate Modern(with one or two notable exceptions, but only one or two) is the walk along the Embankment to get there. As for the Saatchi Gallery, it's a case of The Emporer's New Clothes as far as I can see. Such pretentious cr@p has deluded many of us just as much as Dubai World, sub-prime mortgages and the Xfactor.

But I can spend all day at The National, Tate Britain, The V&A. And I would go every day for a year and a day given the chance. I try very hard to understand modern art. I go on the free tours, buy the audio guides and read avidly, but just can't make it click.

By the way, all the major galleries are now on-line so you can sample before visiting. I'm currently overcome by Seurat's simplicity in his Bather's at Asnieres - to be seen at the National. This link gives you a thumbnail, but there's nothing quite like the real thing

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/georges-seurat-bathers-at-asnieres

That's a proper painting, Reyes - Pope Acker Bilk.

Yeah, Tony - Picasso was a child prodigy and a terrific draughtsman.

i went to Picasso exhibition in Helsinki a week or so ago. Didn't do much for me but was fascinating all the same. The picture of his son dressed as a Harlequin and the (blue) one eyed lady were incredible though.

They had 1 VG that i hadn't seen before, i stood and looked at it for ages as no-one else was interested, the sheer depth of it was astounding. That to me, is ART.

That Seurat painting - you've got factory chimneys in the background...I remember seeing a (left wing) Open Uni programme about the painting...these art critics...many of them are described as Marxist...

Anyway, he talked about the factory workers taking time off to go bathing. But when you look at the painting now - the real thing, not a reproduction - you can see that the artist has created something beautiful, monumental and meaningful.

ha, ha.

I'm a terrific draughtsman!!!!!

vel have u read the masterpiece by emile zola? a truly great read for anyone interested in art...

No - thanks, Tony, I'll try to get hold of a copy.

Tony Broke 13 Dec 16:10
, you also have to remember there is something of the artist themselves in any painting
======================
THAT explains the ear stuck on my van gogh painting ...

It was a shame about Van Gogh losing his sight when he was older, Don't know how he could paint without seeing.

Eh ??

It was Monet and Degas that progressively lost their sight...

I agree with most of what's been said on here.
I like what I like and don't give a fig about pretension.

Lud, I actually made a note on a notepad of the name of that painting and artist when I saw it in tv about 20 years ago, because it 'got me'.

I came across a bit of an arts programme on the telly a few nights age. Emin was viewing some film of a Japanese artist (I think) where Starlings were swooping and gathering in the wondrous way most of us know.
Emin asked: "Are they bats or swifts?"
"Starlings" said the artist.

I switched the programme over.

The thing is, though, Tommy - why do you like what you like?

prob couldn't see her FBI badge .

Because it's instinctive, like most of my life, Vel.

I won't have someone tell me something is 'good' just because they think they can. I use my own judgement.

See, I would get a job (£30 an hour) at an art school and you lot wouldn't!

The trick is this : you DON'T EVER KILL THE QUESTION MARK!

Or should that be.......??

Yeah? Can we all agree on that? A lot of thorough, investigative work has taken place here - yeah?

Now, can we head to the art school bar where I can try to pull the tall Swedish bird whose father works for the UN...?

I just 'like' things which move my spirit in some way, its almost mystical the way a painting, a film, a literary work, or of course a piece of music can stir one's spirit, and yet, that same thing which moves me may be seen as complete drivel by someone else...
of course, some people are never moved by anything, which is in my mind very sad.

Tommy

That was School of Saatchi

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=School%20of%20Saatchi


I'm lucky enough not to have a tv, but have watched the series on iplayer with keen interest, sometimes incredulity.

I totally agree, Tony.

Cheers Lud, although I don't want to see the whole of it.
A so called 'artist' not knowing the difference between a bat or a starling was enough for me.

The Saatchi thing : he's a PR man and he has connections with the Tate Modern. He's like King Midas - the mere fact that he buys something makes it more valuable. So, the Saatchi collection is about Saatchi - not the artists.

Most of the art he buys is "gag" art - like a joke with a punchline. You can only "get" it once.

hey vel you can never truyl call yourself an artists til you've imbibed of a nice tumbler of absinthe!!
I believe this lethal drink helped turn some of the famous writers and artists rather er..unbalnced, well, that and the syphillis

oops, appalling spelling....

I agree, Vel.
And I have no inclination at all to fuel his propaganda machine.

That's Marilyn Manson's drug of choice, Tony!

Unfortunately - or fortunately - I'm allergic to alcohol. A terrible thing for a Scotsman.

The last time I got drunk was when Ireland played Germany in the World Cup. I got slaughtered on a pint of Frosty Jack Cider (real nasty cheapo stuff) and was pig-sick for two days. Haven't touched booze since!

positively4thsteet 13 Dec 16:34
It was a shame about Van Gogh losing his sight when he was older, Don't know how he could paint without seeing.


Velasquez 13 Dec 16:37
Eh ??


Velasquez 13 Dec 16:38
It was Monet and Degas that progressively lost their sight...




Yeah, but after Van Gogh chopped his ear off, he couldn't keep his glasses on. :)

Very funny!

You're the type who could win a Turner Prize.

By the roast Vel!
Buy yourself a bottle of Cava and I'm sure you'll enjoy it's 'relaxation' properties without it making you sick.

I suppose I could handle a small glass, Tommy...

I'll send you a bottle, Vel!
Can't have a good honest Scotsman like you not having a bit of a 'brew'!

http://www.russianartgallery.org/famous/images/serov_peaches.jpg

Here's one I posted on Tony's art thread the other day - "Girl With Peaches" by Valentin Serov.

Agreed, Vel. The old blokes whizzing around in wheelchairs was certainly an amusing visual gag (I think you artists prefer the word installation) but the gag overall was how come such collected nonsense could be displayed throughout the gallery?

However, one feature of the on-line site which is to be admired is the facility for any artist or photographer(or "insallation artist"? arf arf!) to display and flog their work on-line, commission free.

has anyone seen the old version of the film, moulin rouge?
what a sad film, i wondered if the actor portraying artist, toulouse lautrec had to get about on his knees for the performance.

Was that Jose Ferrer? He was in "Laurence of Arabia" - and Zsa Zsa Gabor? She WASN'T in "Laurence of Arabia."

I've seen it many times, Tony.
José Ferrer played a great part.
A very poignant film.

"Production notes
The film was shot at Shepperton Studios, Shepperton, Surrey, England, and on location in London and Paris. Reportedly, John Huston asked cinematographer Oswald Morris that he wanted the color scheme of the film to look "as if Toulouse-Lautrec had directed it".[1]

In the film, José Ferrer plays both Henri and his father, the Comte Alphonse de Toulouse-Lautrec. To transform Ferrer into Lautrec required the use of platforms and concealed pits as well as special camera angles, makeup and costumes. Short body doubles were also used and, in addition, Ferrer used a set of knee-pads of his own design which allowed him to walk on his knees with his lower legs strapped to his upper body (an experience which must no doubt have been painful). He received high praise not only for his performance, but for his willingness to have his legs strapped in such a manner simply to play a role."

These old biographical film are good - like the ones about Pasteur, Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet, Madame Curie...and The Life of Emile Zola with Paul Muni...the Van Gogh one with Kirk Douglas is maybe a bit OTT.

havent seen that emile zola one...have to have a look, seeming as im readng a novel of his at this very moment
i have the 'lust for life' film on video, ott yes but theres still something about it which holds your attention, again, a very sad film, specially in the earlier segments where vincent was acting as a ready made preacher amongst the poor of the belgian mines

My brother brings these films down - he gets 4 or 5 films on a disc...and he gets a "free" bet...he let me down the other day when he ran out of good stuff and brought me down Series 1 and 2 of the A-team...

"In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit.

They promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground.

Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no-one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team."

Some of my favs; Albrecht Durer, Turner, Severeni and other futurists. Malevich and Tatlin. Grosz and Dix. Modern: Gerard Richter: genius.
Chapman brothers cabbages Hell, saw it last year; monumental!
Of Turner prize winners; liked Grayson Perry's pots.
Each to your own and its worth what anyone will pay for it.

Art students love Richter. His reputation didn't really take off until the early 90s as art critics couldn't really figure out what he was doing.

The only art to give me joy is Degas' ballerina: he sculpted her with a flat head on which to rest his pint whilst receiving oral gratification.

Potential Saatchi artist IMO.

If like me you are very much a layman when it comes to art, I thoroughly recommend 'The Story of Painting: The Essential Guide to the History* of Western Art by Sister Wendy Beckett. It certainly helps me understand things better, so adds to the overall enjoyment. About £10 used on Amazon, but £50 new(out of print I guess). Yikes, mine cost £20 new about ten years ago. Hopefully. Vel will concur or recommend something else.

*No very modern cr@p