Favorite artists - contribute!

[Whistler]

You take issue with it? So do I!

I merely pointed out that this is the current situation in the art world. As somebody who has slaved to learn this profession for decades, I deeply resent that some unemployable fool can suddenly become an "artist," and command respect from people who ought to know better, by wrapping himself in cellophane or pouring chocolate syrup over his head.

[Alatar]

I thought Art was whatever matched the Sofa?

[Rowanberry]

Really interesting reactions to that painting. I'm wondering, would people's reaction to it be any different if I told you that the painting was made for a rock album cover?

Does it by any chance happen to be some Italian prog rock album? I've seen quite a few of them favour that style of cover art.

[yovargas]

Not what you were asking? Then what was the question, exactly? The commercial use of the art is the only thing that distinguishes it from something intended for a gallery.

I didn't really have a point, per se. I just thought that knowing it was a part of a larger artistic product or perhaps that it was inspired by music might make it feel less pointless or might make its inspiration clearer somehow. Or not. It makes me think of listening to music that you know is part of a film score. I think maybe you listen differently even if you don't know the film.


Rowan, definately not Italian prog (!).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While strolling through her cactus gardens one warmish June morning, Amanda came upon an old Navajo man painting pictures in the sand.

"What is the functino of the artist?" Amanda demanded of the talented trespasser.

"The function of the artist," the Navajo answered, "is to provide what life does not."

[Rodia]

And then there is the postcard my mother pasted on our bathroom door. It says: "Art is everything you don't have to do."

[yovargas]

[yovargas]

I went to what was probably my first real private art gallery today. The vibe was...kinda unpleasant. There was this creepy vibe that I couldn't put my finger on but was probably coming from that thing that bugs people about modern art stuff - this weird "do they really think this is art or is this just to cash in on the gullible" type thing. Not that I hated the art works, just that the place gives off this vibe likey they're not really hanging this on walls cuz they think it's great art. Why are you asking for $100,000 for that windshield looking thing?


Aaaaanyways, the trip was worthwhile anyways because they had several works by some guy named Dale Chihuly. I'd never heard of him but he's an extraordinary glassblower who makes all sorts of wild, colorful glass creations. The gallery had several of his "chandeliers", which he's apparently hung up in places all over the world. Here's an example, though the pics don't do them justice:



They're really really beautiful. Click here for more examples of his stuff:

http://www.chihuly.com/chands/chand001.html

[Primula Baggins]

All very interesting, and some very beautiful!

I'm impressed by the amount of sheer work that must have gone into each one of those. This is not tossing a can of paint against a newspaper.

[yovargas]

Indeed, Prim. It was by far the only thing in there that clearly justified the $100K+ price tag!

[Estel]

I know others in here have mentioned pre-raphaelite art, and it is one of my favorite styles as well.

William Adolphe Bouguereau was my first introduction to art other than what my parents liked and band posters. I discovered him when I was 14 I think, with this painting



I've never seen any painting by any artist that can portray a persons eyes the way Bouguereau can. He can capture a persons soul in a painting, and it shows in the eyes more than anything else.

Someone in the first page of this thread mentioned that art critics hate Bouguereau - there is an interesting theory of why this is here --> Linky




Other than the pre-raphaelites, one of my favorite artists is one that I discovered online - Stephanie Pui-Mun Law. Her work is so intricate and detailed, and above all, different, from other current artists of today, that I couldn't help but fall in love with her. My sig is one example of her work. I've posted another one simply to show her range in style. It's called "Dance of Fire"

[/quote]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hey, Estel, thanks for bumping this thread! It has been one of my favorites. I love art, but I know very, very little about it. So it makes me really happy when someone who know more then I do shares some of their knowledge.

I like the Bouguereau very much (interesting article too). I find the "Dance of Fire" pretty disturbing, but then, I think it is meant to have that effect.

[Whistler]

I have a collection of Bougeureaus as desktop images on my Mac.

Modern "experts" ridicule Bouguereau as the personification of everything that was stale and silly and about late 19th-Century art. The only "legitimate" artists of the day, they say, were the Impressionists and those who followed in their footsteps.

But Monet and Degas were once spotted in a gallery, and somebody asked them which living artist would be most revered in a hundred years. Without hesitation, both answered "Bouguereau!"

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=7

The above link will take you to 225 Bouguereau images on the site linked by Estel, some of which are poster sized. And while you're at the site, go the homepage and see what's available for viewing. This is the largest online gallery on the internet!

[Estel]

Disturbing? It has almost the opposite affect on me. The way she poses as a flamenco dancer, with shadows of previous poses behind her. I love the way her chin is up, as if in challenge, and her upper body twists towards the viewer as her lower body leans away. The flip of the skirt - the whole picture is lost in red, and yet the dancer seems to be saying "look at me." You can almost see her move, the twist is so strong and the way her skirt flares into nothingness.

It has a movement to it that most of Laws pics do no have. Most of her pics have ten times as much detail as this one, and yet have a center that is very still and serene. This is one of my ultimate favorites by her.




It has an incredible amount of detail to it, and yet at the center is complete stillness. Eyes closed, arms locked in an embrace.

Detail -

The juxtaposition between the two paintings is amazing. The first, almost a challenge. So much movement in it, you can hardly see the woman. And yet, so simple compared the the second. She really is fire - if you interupt her dance, you'll get burned, but like flames, she's facinating. Always changing - shown in midmovement, yet you almost belive that she paused just long enough for the artist to catch some small details, before continuing on.

The second -almost resignation in her embrace. She won't let go, despite everything else going on around her. The detail is amazing, yet, no matter how much your eye travels, the subject of the pic is so still. You could almost imagine she could sit for centuries in that pose.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Disturbing? It has almost the opposite affect on me. The way she poses as a flamenco dancer, with shadows of previous poses behind her. I love the way her chin is up, as if in challenge, and her upper body twists towards the viewer as her lower body leans away. The flip of the skirt - the whole picture is lost in red, and yet the dancer seems to be saying "look at me." You can almost see her move, the twist is so strong and the way her skirt flares into nothingness.

Yes, I can see what you are saying. I particularly agree with you about the proud expression on her face. I think it the "lost in red" part combined with the name "Dance of Fire" that I find disturbing, though perhaps it is not meant to have the connotations that I attribute to it.

But that's the great thing about art. It says different things to different people, different even then what the artist intended. And that is not a bad thing.

[Impenitent]

Whistler, thank you for that link! I can see I will find it very useful in future.

[yovargas]

So glad to have you here, Stella.


eta: Very interesting article link, though as someone who loves much of modern art, I find his hostility towrds it obnoxious.

[Estel]

But I find it just soooooooo refreshing


Seriously though, it is sad that in order to praise one type of art, critics on both sides of the fence feel that they must put the other side down. I dislike modern art quite a bit, but that just means I don't look at it. I don't necessarily feel the need to put it down, especially not to people who like it. When I'm with Steve, I might criticize it with all my might though

Although, when I hear a statement like this

Kasimir Malevich's art and his Suprematist manifesto are amongst the most vital artistic developments of this century.

About a someone who paints something like this




I will not hesitate, for one second, to criticize the heck out of the artist, and the critics. I mean, really.

[yovargas]

Oh, I can't argue with that (though, er, what a lovely shade of red ). My main beef with the article is that he seems to equate a great technical achievement with great artistic achievement. One can be either without the other and, yes, in the field of art it is the artistic achievements that matter more than the technical. Bouguereau was blessed to have both but that is no reason to denigrate Picasso (though I am no fan of his).

[MithLuin]

My favorite painting:

by Aert van der Neer.
It's in the Smithsonian in DC.

I know El Greco is famous enough already, but I like his View of Toledo


Another I like, by Dali:

It's called "The Sacrament of the Last Supper." My sister says I like it because it is elvish. I kinda see her point...though I'd say more gothic, with the light and airy thing going on.

His Christ of St. John of the Cross is nice, too.

I read somewhere that he said his main goal in this painting was to make Christ "beautiful", and I believe he accomplished that.

I know MC Escher has already been mentioned, but here is my favorite:

So I'm a bit morbid...

The Crucifix at San Damiano:


I also like some icons:


Generally, they have brilliant colors and are very...stylistic.

And, of course, Tolkien fan-art such as Jenny Dolfen, Catherine Karina Chmiel, Anke Eissmann, or
this lovely Arwen


So, I'm not much of an artist, and I haven't studied art. I've looked at my brother's high school art history stuff, and listened to my sister, who took an art history class while studying in Paris. But...I just like to look at pretty stuff