Picasso and Monet
Rémi-B. Thériault
Would anyone help me to figure-out this ?
Rose took with her on Titanic some Picasso and Monet Paintings.
Logically, they were false ones, aren't they ? Could it be possible
she bought replicas ? (Well, since she and her family are "fiction",
why would Cameron used some "original" paintings in the story and
loose them with the Titanic... I'm kinda lost here...
Were replicas very popular at that time ?
When were maid the original? Far before 1912?
Thanks
Rémi
ic...@nbnet.nb.ca
Jeff A. Harrell
Rémi-B. Thériault wrote:
>
> Would anyone help me to figure-out this ?
> Rose took with her on Titanic some Picasso and Monet Paintings.
> Logically, they were false ones, aren't they ?
Yes, Rose's paintings were intended to be copies of the originals that
she purchased while they were in Europe.
Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon," for example, is almost eight feet
square. The reproduction that Rose has is much smaller.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff A. Harrell "Once we had printing presses,
RIVA Technologies, Inc. we were pretty much doomed."
je...@riva.com -- Scott Adams
Gary Pollard
Ah, this is the latest line of defence in avoiding the fact that Cameron
screwed up.
Again it holds no water. And is NOT what Cameron's own script says. He
intended for those pictures to be originals. He even says that Rose examines
the signature.
You'd think that anyone who bought a copy of "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon"
would have bought a copy that didn't cut the right hand side of. Or was it
the "pan and scan" version"?
Gary
Jeff A. Harrell wrote in message <34B9883C...@riva.com>...
Harbinger
ic...@nbnet.nb.ca (Rémi-B. Thériault) wrote:
>Would anyone help me to figure-out this ?
>Rose took with her on Titanic some Picasso and Monet Paintings.
>Logically, they were false ones, aren't they ? Could it be possible
>she bought replicas ? (Well, since she and her family are "fiction",
>why would Cameron used some "original" paintings in the story and
>loose them with the Titanic... I'm kinda lost here...
>Were replicas very popular at that time ?
>When were maid the original? Far before 1912?
>
>Thanks
>Rémi
>ic...@nbnet.nb.ca
Art History student coming through, step aside, make way. The Picasso
would date to 1907 so in the grand scheme of things they did existed
in 1912. The overlooked Degas would have been a little older say
1880-1890. Maybe James Cameron just liked those paintings and wanted
to put them in the movie. Give James a break, I mean really, it
wasn't like Cal said, "Rose just loves this Andy Walhol I personal
can't stand it, but at least it was cheap!"
M.T. Hunt
Rémi-B. Thériault wrote:
>
> Would anyone help me to figure-out this ?
> Rose took with her on Titanic some Picasso and Monet Paintings.
> Logically, they were false ones, aren't they ? Could it be possible
> she bought replicas ? (Well, since she and her family are "fiction",
> why would Cameron used some "original" paintings in the story and
> loose them with the Titanic... I'm kinda lost here...
> Were replicas very popular at that time ?
> When were maid the original? Far before 1912?
>
Picasso was nobody then. There would be any replicas. Plus, why would
someone with the 'heart of the ocean' buy a replica. It would be
shameful for such mega rich to buy replicas of anything.
ty
Tziper
If you look closly at the paintings they only look like Picasso or Monet or
Degas. There are some very easily identifiable hallmarks in the paintings
that make them appear to be works by these artists. We see a canvas with an
impressionistic pond of water lillies and we instantly say Monet. ballet
dancers; Degas. Cubic fiqures with African like scarification and we beleive
its a Picasso. Of course if we were to look in every art museum in the world
we would never find these exact paintings, they are fictional artworks, just as
Rose, Cal et all were fictional passengers.
As far as replicas, Monet would often paint the same subject over and over
again under different times of day or under different atmospheric conditions.
There are probly dozens of his Rouen Cathedral but no two are alike.
Cals assertion that the paintings are no good and the artists would amount to
nothing is far more off the mark. By 1912 all these men were well established
in their field, as a matter of fact Monet was by that point painting on very
large canvases, larger than anyone would consider carrying under their arms
into a ships cabin, no matter how roomy it was.
Chip
Art History
Rutgers Unv
Dinavia
That's all well & good, but Jack identifies on e of the paintings as Money &
Rose agrees - she should know, after all....
GLIMA
tfog...@m150.aone.net.au wrote:
>
> Yep, It was just another of the lies that Cameron put into this fantasy
> to cover his lack of talent in script writing.
Not necessarily. Part of the make-up of the character of Cal was tha he
was narrow-minded and ignorant of the things that were not of immediate
conern to him. The comment is in character for him. Additionally, just
because Monet and Picasso were well established in their fields doesn't
mean they were well known in general. How many living painteres can the
average person name today? Or composers other than the ones writting
movie scores? Not many.
>The main charater in this
> moe are fictional, why are people asking questions about the items
> carried by those that never lived? Again there was more than enough real
> life drama and truly interesting pepole on that ship to create a great
> movie, why distort the truth with so many lies?
Is there really record enough of the passengers on that ship to fill an
entire screenplay? Even 'A Night to Rememeber' had some fictional
elements. How far could a writter go in telling the stores of real
passengers? How much artistic license would he have witout risking
offending the living decendents?
There is a real difference between fictinal marrative and "lies."
If it is that offensive to you, perhaps you should steer clear
of the cinema.
Gary
GL...@Prodigy.net
msgn...@cc.memphis.edu
In article <34BB80...@ica.net>,
Picasso was well estabished enough at the time. He was a skilled and
sucessful painter from the age of fifteen or so. The thing that bothers
me about this whole thing is that Picasso kept this particular painting
to himself and only showed it to friends (like Georges Braque) for years.
I'm not sure if it had been shown publicly or sold by 1912, but I know it
didn't go down with the ship. Or maybe it did, and MOMA has a fake.
Hmmmm...
The Monet and the Degas are more plausible because those artists made
several paintings in those series. But it is still pretty silly overall.
I mean, really,
[spoiler warning]
we find out later that Rose and her mother are broke. So where is she
getting the money to buy all these paintings? Her looser boyfriend
certainly wouldn't have bought them for her.
Thats all.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
tfog...@m150.aone.net.au
In article <19980115042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
tzi...@aol.com says...
carried by those that never lived? Again there was more than enough real
life drama and truly interesting pepole on that ship to create a great
movie, why distort the truth with so many lies?
Harbinger
tfog...@m150.aone.net.au wrote:
>In article <19980115042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>tzi...@aol.com says...
>> Of course if we were to look in every art museum in the world
>> we would never find these exact paintings, they are fictional artworks, just as
>> Rose, Cal et all were fictional passengers.
Well within the frame work of the movie they are fictional in the
regards that the real paintings were not lost on the Titanic. I
believe James Cameron (quite the artist himself I might add) put these
paintings in the movie because we liked them.
>> As far as replicas, Monet would often paint the same subject over and over
>> again under different times of day or under different atmospheric conditions.
Correct. If you walk through one of his exhibits a lot of his
paintings will look the same, but with just a few changes here or
there.
>> Cals assertion that the paintings are no good and the artists would amount to
>> nothing is far more off the mark.
I agree with another poster. Cal didn't care for art because he was
too focused on himself.
>>By 1912 all these men were well established
>> in their field, as a matter of fact Monet was by that point painting on very
>> large canvases, larger than anyone would consider carrying under their arms
>> into a ships cabin, no matter how roomy it was.
And for that matter, I think all artwork would have been stored in the
hold of the ship, but hey it's a movie. The importance of the
paintings in the movie IMHO is to help date the movie. Quick think
about 1988. Can't come up with anything, right? But if I played you
a song from that year, named off some books that were written that
year, etc. it would help you remember where you were at that time and
what you were doing. Okay, not to many of us were around in 1912, but
it does help date the period, like the Rose talking about Freud.
>> Chip
>> Art History
>> Rutgers Unv
Bill
Art History
Savannah College of Art and Design
>>
>Yep, It was just another of the lies that Cameron put into this fantasy
>to cover his lack of talent in script writing.
>Terry
Lack of talent? I believe 99.9% of this newgroup would disagree with
you.
Tom Pappas
Watching the movie, I was struck by the rather heavy-handed irony of Cal's
art criticism, as well as someone's remark that "the ship would make
headlines in New York."
C'mon, gang. That sort of stuff detracts from an otherwise splendid script.
M.T. Hunt
> we find out later that Rose and her mother are broke. So where is she
> getting the money to buy all these paintings? Her looser boyfriend
> certainly wouldn't have bought them for her.
Cal says in the movie something about how much they cost him or how much
they cost implying he paid.
ty
PTfuzzface
Cal should have invested in "those finger paintings".Then he wouldn't have had
to put a pistol in his mouth in '29.
x...@yyy.com
I think a better movie could have been made. I think it was made
for the X generation. The movie should have focused on the real
characters that were aboard the ship. I think people who have had
an interest in the Titanic prior to the movie would have liked a more
historical movie. My paternal grandmother was a maid to Molly Brown
in Denver prior to the Titanic. We don't know much more than that
as my father's mother died when he was a young boy.
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:43:15 GMT, hang...@area51.com (Harbinger)
wrote:
Tom Pappas
> Cal should have invested in "those finger paintings".Then he wouldn't
have had
> to put a pistol in his mouth in '29.
LOL!
p.s. The script says it was '28 (did the Depression start earlier in Merry
Olde because of the time difference?)
Paul Gordon
"Tom Pappas" <n...@home.com> wrote:
Don't know what the script said, but in the movie Rose says,
"The crash of twenty-nine hit his interests hard, and ..."
--
Paul Gordon (gor...@neosoft.com)
"When faced with a problem you do not understand, do any
part of it you do understand, then look at it again."
(Robert A. Heinlein - "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress")
Night Owl
Tom Pappas (n...@home.com) wrote:
: Watching the movie, I was struck by the rather heavy-handed irony of Cal's
: art criticism, as well as someone's remark that "the ship would make
: headlines in New York."
: C'mon, gang. That sort of stuff detracts from an otherwise splendid script.
I agree. Same with the Freud reference. It's just kind of embarrassing.
Anyways, I just found this newsgroup today and missed the main discussion
of this thread. The question I was most curious about upon leaving the movie
theatre was whether there really were Picassos and Monets that sunk with
the Titanic. I assume from the title of this thread, no. Can someone
please confirm this for me? Thanks.
I don't think fine art is something Cameron had the right to take dramatic
license with. Saying that paintings were destroyed (when they weren't)
merely for purposes of emphasizing "just how long ago it was" undermines
the tragic loss of actual paintings and other objets d'art in WWII, etc.
Melanie
Aileen Dayao
msgn...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
: we find out later that Rose and her mother are broke. So where is she
: getting the money to buy all these paintings? Her looser boyfriend
: certainly wouldn't have bought them for her.
i got the impression from the way CAL talked that he had paid for the
paintings - and/or that they wree cheap..
{~._.~}
_(Y)_ take care- justmeeh.. Aileen.
(:_~*~_:) mailto:ada...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au
(_)-(_) http://www.st.nepean.uws.edu.au/~adayao/index.html
SierraMist
Let's see...first of all the "I want Titanic to make headlines" is not an exact
quote of Ismay's...BUT was his actual intent during the time of the actual
voyage. It was Ismay who wanted to arrive early "surprise everyone"...proving
the Titanic's speed, capabilities, etc...
Second...the real works of Monet, Degas, Picasso were NOT on the real Titanic,
of course...but I don't see any problem with them being noted as so.(except for
the confusion of those who know little of the disaster) Cameron included these
small remarks...along with the Freud reference...as a way of representing what
time in history this was...with the beginning of Freud's ideas, this type of
art, etc....
Tom Pappas
> Second...the real works of Monet, Degas, Picasso were NOT on the real
Titanic, of course...but I don't see any problem with them being noted as
so.(except for the confusion of those who know little of the disaster)
Cameron included these small remarks...along with the Freud reference...as
a way of representing what time in history this was...with the beginning of
Freud's ideas, this type of art, etc....
Also sprach Tom Pappas:
... and to further delineate Cal as a shallow, artless poseur.