Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
13 Dec 09
13:35
Joined:
Date Joined:
22 Oct 09
Been doing some research on Art for quiz questions for the leagues, gotta say I know nothing about it.
Was looking at van gogh's sunflowers and it was just a bunch of sunflowers in a jar, painted kind of yellowy. So what.
What was so good about Mona Lisa? or Guernica? Am I looking at them wrong? Im sure the painters had skill, cos I can't draw freehand for toffee, (and I'm sure we all know people who can just look at something and put it to paper no worries - fair play to them, they have a genuine talent) but why would they be worth so many millions of pounds? And don't even get me started on modern art, researched a bit on the turner prize and stuff, couldn't think of any decent questions - it was all utter b.ollox. Is that the point of Tracy Emin and Damien Hurst and co - just to create sh.ite so that the daily mail brigade get all angry about it? Is that the point of modern art?
Only painting I would like would probably be a nice landscape of the countryside, but then a photo would probably do the job just as well. Reckon I'm a lost caue.
Was looking at van gogh's sunflowers and it was just a bunch of sunflowers in a jar, painted kind of yellowy. So what.
What was so good about Mona Lisa? or Guernica? Am I looking at them wrong? Im sure the painters had skill, cos I can't draw freehand for toffee, (and I'm sure we all know people who can just look at something and put it to paper no worries - fair play to them, they have a genuine talent) but why would they be worth so many millions of pounds? And don't even get me started on modern art, researched a bit on the turner prize and stuff, couldn't think of any decent questions - it was all utter b.ollox. Is that the point of Tracy Emin and Damien Hurst and co - just to create sh.ite so that the daily mail brigade get all angry about it? Is that the point of modern art?
Only painting I would like would probably be a nice landscape of the countryside, but then a photo would probably do the job just as well. Reckon I'm a lost caue.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 74
|
By:
yeah you probably are tbf
|
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
It is estimated that 200 to 300 of Keating's forgeries are still being traded today as originals.
200 to 300! :0 |
|
By:
Big Con Art
|
|
By:
ls lowery ftw
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
a 50p a go table?
|
|
By:
It believe he had it set to free play mode.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
V - you knocked up some gooduns in your time too mate
|
|
By:
POS are you that guy in the crowd who shouts out
"The King has no clothes on !! " .. :D |
|
By:
Just like looking at nice things
|
|
By:
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 ! |
|
By:
"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) |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
like this V:-
http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/innocent-x-velazquez.jpg Brilliant |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
That's a proper painting, Reyes - Pope Acker Bilk.
|
|
By:
Yeah, Tony - Picasso was a child prodigy and a terrific draughtsman.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
ha, ha.
I'm a terrific draughtsman!!!!! |
|
By:
vel have u read the masterpiece by emile zola? a truly great read for anyone interested in art...
|
|
By:
No - thanks, Tony, I'll try to get hold of a copy.
|
|
By:
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 ... |
|
By:
It was a shame about Van Gogh losing his sight when he was older, Don't know how he could paint without seeing.
|
|
By:
Eh ??
|
|
By:
It was Monet and Degas that progressively lost their sight...
|
|
By:
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. |