Everything that is art

[devogue]

=

[fordo]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

i had similar misgivings regarding picasso it was only after watching a documentry on matisse did i finally get them both, and that appreciation or what ever you may call it only dawned after maybe 15 years of studying art and artists but thankyou for this thread should be interesting to see what opinions everyone may contribute

[mistermack]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

i had similar misgivings regarding picasso it was only after watching a documentry on matisse did i finally get them both, and that appreciation or what ever you may call it only dawned after maybe 15 years of studying art and artists but thankyou for this thread should be interesting to see what opinions everyone may contribute

My point made for me.
If painting is meant to be some form of communication, Picasso has failed.
If it takes 15 years to get it, I fail to see why people can be bothered.

The first time I heard Bob Marley sing "no woman no cry", I got it within seconds.
Same with the stranglers and "golden brown". And Beethoven's "duh duh duh, duuuuuuuh".

Isn't it possible that after fifteen years of staring at the same spot, you start seeing things?
.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

i had similar misgivings regarding picasso it was only after watching a documentry on matisse did i finally get them both, and that appreciation or what ever you may call it only dawned after maybe 15 years of studying art and artists but thankyou for this thread should be interesting to see what opinions everyone may contribute

Picasso clicked for me when I saw an exhibition of his erotic sketches in Paris. There was one sketch that he had done on the back of an envelope for a bloke in a bar - one of many, he would scribble a sketch for anyone that asked him - it was just three intersecting, curvy lines yet it was instantly recognisable as a woman fingering herself. The economy of effort combined with the precision of execution was mesmerising and I stood staring at the sketch for 10 minutes before moving on. That was the point where I recognised Picasso's genius - after that, learning why he painted what he did and what he was trying to achieve by it was just icing on the cake. I suppose it is a case of knowing that he could easily have drawn and painted anatomically accurate and photo-realistic portraits that made me appreciate far more that he chose not to!

Like I said above, I have never felt that with Matisse at all. Perhaps there is a sketch or a painting by him somewhere that will really move me and open up his work to me in the way that that Picasso sketch did - I won't claim it's impossible - but I haven't seen it yet.

BTW, I heard that Cy Twombly died last week. Now there's an artist to divide opinions!

[Pappa]

My favourite piece of Dada... possibly one of the most contentious artworks ever displayed in a gallery. People are still arguing over what it represents almost 100 years after it was shown.

[devogue]

My favourite piece of Dada... possibly one of the most contentious artworks ever displayed in a gallery. People are still arguing over what it represents almost 100 years after it was shown.

For me it will always be...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[charlou]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

I like the lack of pretension and conformity. I find his work just a little trippy to contemplate, rather than naive as such.



Agree on Kandinsky ... one of my favourite artists too. Fresh, playful colour and movement that cheers the mind ..


Another of my faves is to the other extreme of emotiveness ... Francisco Goya .. his series .. the Black Paintings ... the Disasters of War ... Los Caprichos ... the darker side of humanity explored, satirised, charicaturised, never glorified.


Gallstones, did you ever play Name the Artist? Unfortunately some of the images are no longer there, but would love to see the thread kicked off again.

[Rum]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

I like the lack of pretension and conformity. I find his work just a little trippy to contemplate, rather than naive as such.



Agree on Kandinsky ... one of my favourite artists too. Fresh, playful colour and movement that cheers the mind ..


Another of my faves is to the other extreme of emotiveness ... Francisco Goya .. his series .. the Black Paintings ... the Disasters of War ... Los Caprichos ... the darker side of humanity explored, satirised, charicaturised, never glorified.


Gallstones, did you ever play Name the Artist? Unfortunately some of the images are no longer there, but would love to see the thread kicked off again.

It is worth remembering that people like Matisse, Picasso, the impressionists generally were ground breaking at the time. They also intellectualised what they were doing amongst themselves rather more than we tend to do today with modern art given we seem to be in something of an anti-intellectual dip culturally at the moment. Matisse was determined top strip away the artifices, the representationalism and 'realism' of art to reduce the subject to its barest visual essence. At the time such approaches were considered daring and adventurous - sometimes even scandalous. Easy to forget in an age of anything goes.

[Gallstones]

My favourite artist was Oliver Reed.

His greatest work, " Urine in Snow " sadly didn't survive, but it wasn't meant to, as it was performance art, but he was one of the greatest piss-artists of all time.

And that Kandinsky could have had a career in blanket design. What a waste !!!

• 

I like performance art too.

[Gallstones]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

i had similar misgivings regarding picasso it was only after watching a documentry on matisse did i finally get them both, and that appreciation or what ever you may call it only dawned after maybe 15 years of studying art and artists but thankyou for this thread should be interesting to see what opinions everyone may contribute

Fordo!
We don't see you around enough. I am so glad I could bring you out of that woodwork you've been keeping yourself in.

[Gallstones]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

i had similar misgivings regarding picasso it was only after watching a documentry on matisse did i finally get them both, and that appreciation or what ever you may call it only dawned after maybe 15 years of studying art and artists but thankyou for this thread should be interesting to see what opinions everyone may contribute

My point made for me.
If painting is meant to be some form of communication, Picasso has failed.
If it takes 15 years to get it, I fail to see why people can be bothered.

The first time I heard Bob Marley sing "no woman no cry", I got it within seconds.
Same with the stranglers and "golden brown". And Beethoven's "duh duh duh, duuuuuuuh".

Isn't it possible that after fifteen years of staring at the same spot, you start seeing things?

I disagree. My tastes for food and drink and music and TV shows are not what they were when I was five, nor what they became when I was 15. I have progressed and developed since and that can happen with art and music too. A single point in time doesn't define a person or a whole lifetime.

Visual art = seeing things.

[Gallstones]

I have never understood the appeal of Matisse. His paintings are kindergartenish. Critics praised him for "dispensing with" such things as depth, perspective and proportion - personally, I have never been convinced he knew how to use them in the first place - any evidence that he did is scant!

I like the lack of pretension and conformity. I find his work just a little trippy to contemplate, rather than naive as such.



Agree on Kandinsky ... one of my favourite artists too. Fresh, playful colour and movement that cheers the mind ..


Another of my faves is to the other extreme of emotiveness ... Francisco Goya .. his series .. the Black Paintings ... the Disasters of War ... Los Caprichos ... the darker side of humanity explored, satirised, charicaturised, never glorified.


Gallstones, did you ever play Name the Artist? Unfortunately some of the images are no longer there, but would love to see the thread kicked off again.

No.
Can we start it again?

[Gallstones]

Matisse

1900 Self Portrait


1903

[hadespussercats]

I love these sculptures by Bernini.

They don't photograph well. I'm going to try to show a few different perspectives, but they lose a lot when you're not in the room with them.

Somehow, the marble was warm, and luminous.

They made me cry.

(my namesake, here.)


Some of Daphne's leaves were so delicate, light shone through like wax paper:



Strange that I'm so drawn to images of rape.
Here, though, it seems like the moment of violent conquest is more about being transfigured.
Maybe, since they're mythic subjects, the images are more about exploring undercurrents of sexuality, harder to express in words--
old conflicts between nature and humanity, the beast within...

But the violence itself, untransformed, un-prettified, was an important part of my emotional reaction to them.

[Gallstones]

Well, they aren't urinals.

If I had not been told I would not have associated rape with these sculptures.
If I was to make a list of what I appreciate about them, what they are supposed to represent would be low on that list.
I am overtaken by the level of skill incumbent on creating them.