FAVORITE ARTISTS
humbert_...@my-deja.com
I have been getting to know a number of people on here through their
discusions. Occasionaly I see someone make reference to an artist or
movement but I was wondering who the people I am speaking with look at as
their favorites.
For instance, I am fascinated by the Akhenaten era artist of egypt. They
were expresive and dramatically unique for the time they were working and the
schools of thought out of which they sprang.
Some other people I have been looking at ar Valenciennes, Thomas Jones, and
Corot. These artists working at the end of the Eighteenth and early
Nineteenth centuries show a wonderfully intelligent painting style. It is
evident from their paintings what their formal concerns are as far as the
development of composition and colour design.
But I am interested in what artists you are all thinking of. Particularly
contemporary artists. Who do you like that is painting now. This may seem
like a rather academic question I realise but I don't see many people
actually talking about it and I know this is something at least one other
person brought up in conversation. And who knows it may yet lead to some
interesting discussion.
HUMBERT
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Marilyn Welch
I've rarely seen contemporary artists discussed on this
forum.
Example:
Anyone ever heard of Jessica Stockholder?
In my observation the topics are mainly self-centred
around
"my work" or
work of the past centuries
modern art is crap
post-modern art is even worse crap
Picasso, Matisse had no talent
Bougereau was great
If you can get a conversation going on one well-known
contemporary painter it would be a revolution.
Good luck!
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
I really admire the work of Mike Henderson. http://www.gst.net/~chg/MHWork.html
Not all his work - like the ones shown on these pages, but I'll tell you Mike has
done some painting that is completely spellbinding. One painting of an
overstuffed chair comes to mind, it was awesome and haunting -- and I have no idea
why. But I think Mike knows why - it's part of his painter's quest, I think.
Consider his words...
"I AM LOOKING for a painting that doesn't really
have an immediate impact," says painter Mike
Henderson quietly. "It slowly reveals to the
viewer its story or secret, to sort of build up a
conversation, you know, so that when you look at
it in the morning it looks one way, and then if you
look at it at night or under artificial light, or you
light it one way, or you look at it from an angle
that's different, you notice different marks or
brush strokes. And that's something, too, that I
have been trying to develop, this language of
being able to speak secret messages that you can
only see if you go to the left and look at this
painting, or if you look at it in the morning."
http://metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/05.09.96/art-9619.html (worth the visit, Mike
is very articulate.)
I learned something very valuable from Henderson. When stumped, puzzled, gripped
with existentialist delimma or spiritual painting crises, do self portraits. It
works quite well.
Besides Mike is an extremely funky blues musician. A real renaissance man (he'd
just love that! har har har)
Erik Mattila
humbert_...@my-deja.com
humbert_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I was just pondering. . .
>
> I have been getting to know a number of people on here through their
> discusions. Occasionaly I see someone make reference to an artist or
> movement but I was wondering who the people I am speaking with look at as
> their favorites.
>
> contemporary artists. Who do you like that is painting now. This may seem
> like a rather academic question I realise but I don't see many people
> actually talking about it and I know this is something at least one other
> person brought up in conversation. And who knows it may yet lead to some
> interesting discussion.
>
> HUMBERT
>
Well I thought i ought to throw out two or three of my personal faves just to
whet the appetite.
BALTHUS The man is unstopable. OK so he's slowed down in the past few years
but the man has been painting longer than I've been alive!! Although I am
convinced Balthus is in fact the devil I think his paintings imbue an odd
sort of innocence. He gets a lot of flak for some of his subject matter, but
there is this off kilter, teasing he is performing. He makes you say I want
that even when you know you shouldn't. Every painting I see by this man makes
me want more. There are verry few people I personaly rate higher.
(Don't anyone go getting all bent out of shape over that its just my opinion)
Another one whome I am somewhat hessitant to mention is DeNiro. I am
hesitant because he is dead but it may be easier to judge his work more
wholistically because it is now limited to what is.
I have always greatly enjoyed DeNiro's vivid colors and sumptuous textures.
This was a man who had a solid vissual vocabulary who just liked to yell.
I must humbly admit my knowledge of the modern is somewhat limited. I am one
who has always looked to the past rather than the present.
This is one of the reasons I wished to learn more about modern, sorry,
contemporary artists. Looks like we're off to a good start already!
Jaxart
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>
>Yes it would make an interesting discussion.
>I've rarely seen contemporary artists discussed on this
>forum.
>Example:
>Anyone ever heard of Jessica Stockholder?
No. And I try to keep up with the latest of the best.
I was reading down the list of artists in the current
Whitney Biennial the other day and found only a
handful of names I recognized. Time marches on...
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Marilyn Welch
I liked the little of what I saw, the collage like rythmic content and
the tortured surface.
Thanks,
M.
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> > Yes it would make an interesting discussion.
> > I've rarely seen contemporary artists discussed on this
> > forum.
> > Example:
> > Anyone ever heard of Jessica Stockholder?
> >
christopher moss
years but the man has been painting longer than I've been alive!!
Although I am convinced Balthus is in fact the devil I think his
paintings imbue an odd sort of innocence.
_Yep, he's definately the devil. One fact that convnced me is that,
technically speaking, he's had just as many birthdays as me. He was born
on Feb. 29 1908. That's a leap year day. That makes him 23 this year.
_Another thing of interest is an article that appeaed recently in a
french painting magazine (I forget the name) where he allowed them to
take pictures of him at work. He looks like the devil too!
He gets a lot of flak for some of his subject matter, but there is this
off kilter, teasing he is performing. He makes you say I want that even
when you know you shouldn't. Every painting I see by this man makes me
want more. There are verry few people I personaly rate higher.
_Have you looked at much Piero della Francesco? He's one of B's bigest
influences.
Another one whome I am somewhat hessitant to mention is DeNiro. I am
hesitant because he is dead but it may be easier to judge his work more
wholistically because it is now limited to what is. I have always
greatly enjoyed DeNiro's vivid colors and sumptuous textures. This was a
man who had a solid vissual vocabulary who just liked to yell.
_I can't say I've seen a whole lot of DeNiro's paintings but what I saw
I liked a lot. He was in with that circle of NY painters with
Matiasdottor and her husband Lealand Bell (another great painter). It's
a shame about Louisa (did you know she recently passed away?) but her
daughter has a show coming up in NY soon. She's not as great as either
of her parents but I'm still a bit excited to see what she's been up to
lately.
-cm
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> I was just pondering. . .
>
> I have been getting to know a number of people on here through their
> discusions. Occasionaly I see someone make reference to an artist or
> movement but I was wondering who the people I am speaking with look at as
> their favorites.
Favourite Artists:
-
Frank Auerbach - as a painter and *especially* as draughtsman
-
Francis Bacon - for his beautiful brutality & because he found his own way
-
David Burns - a relatively unknown Canadian painter - check out his work
at www.mdi.ca/dburns
-
Richard Diebenkorn - possibly, probably, the greatest colourist of the
20th Century
-
Marcel Duchamp - Duchamp, who pried wide the Pandora’s Box of Conceptual Art
-
Lucien Freud - sculpting flesh from paint, mercilessly, tirelessly
-
Alberto Giacometti - as a Painter!!
-
Betty Goodwin - arguably Canada’s most important living artist
-
Angela Grossman - an extraordinary Vancouver artist
-
Jasper Johns - Conceptually, & for revitalizing encaustic
-
Ron Kitaj - one of the most articulate painters I’ve ever encountered
-
Willem deKooning - Raw, intense power in paint; and those *Women*!!
-
Lee Krasner - Pollock’s shadow stunted her reputation, but not her work
-
Henri Matisse - of course
-
Joan Mitchell - Ab/Ex of the so-called 2nd generation, who had the
courage to stay with it when the rest of the world lost interest.
*Brilliant* colourist
-
Manuel Neri - Bay Area Figurative: figure, form & juicy paint
-
Yan Pei Ming - Amazing Chinese painter living in Paris; does huge
portraits & figures that look Ab/Ex up close, but resolve at a distance
-
Robert Rauschenberg - early Rauschenberg, when he still had a deep
respect for materials and before he got formulaic
-
Jackson Pollock -
-
Larry Rivers - again, *early* Rivers, in his painterly, Proto-Pop years
-
Heike Ruschmeyer - an amazing (if morbid) Berlin Painter - imagine Degas
painting corpses, sublimely
-
Jenny Saville - HUGE corpulent nudes
-
Tony Scherman - great Canadian painter in encaustic - he paints so well
I may have to kill him
-
Egon Schiele - possibly the greatest draughtsman working with the
figure in the 20th Century
-
Kurt Schwitters - collagist, typographer, Merz-builder of mad interior architectures
-
Jessica Stockholder - another Canadian, does installations/sculptures
but with a painterly sensibility
-
Mark Tobey - obsessive, calligraphic, meditative, angular, fluid marks
-
Henri Toulouse-Lautrec - really no need to comment
-
Cy Twombly - scribble scribble in a public/private language
-
I imagine Iíll draw some flak for this, but those are my faves.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
scribbler of the new demi-monde
Marilyn Welch
I would add Gerhard Richter.
and maybe a few more after I've had a coffee.
Marilyn
Tooloose Lowtec
Why thanks Marilyn. Yeah, I've had some interest in Richter, but he
doesn't get under my skin in the way some of the others on my list do.
Completely personal, of course, but we're talking personal favourites
here. You're in Victoria? Do you know some of the other Canadians on the
list? Do you know Scherman's work f'rinstance?
Marilyn Welch
A brief response:
> > > Francis Bacon - for his beautiful brutality & because he found his own way
His technique is brilliant, his subject matter is eerie and obsessive.
> > > Richard Diebenkorn - possibly, probably, the greatest colourist of the
> > > 20th Century
Ocean Park series is amazing. He used studio assistants to apply the
glazes. There must have been a lot of time spent waiting for them to dry.
> > > Lucien Freud - sculpting flesh from paint, mercilessly, tirelessly
> > > -
Very good at old sagging flesh. I get him mixed up with Francis Bacon.
Another painter whose craft is impeccable.
> > > Alberto Giacometti - as a Painter!!
Yes!
> > > -
> > > Betty Goodwin - arguably Canada’s most important living artist
Her swimmers on architect's vellum are haunting. A fiesty late
bloomer.
> -
> > > -
> > > Henri Matisse - of course
Picasso said of him: "In the end, there is only Matisse."
> > > -
> > > Joan Mitchell - Ab/Ex of the so-called 2nd generation, who had the
> > > courage to stay with it when the rest of the world lost interest.
> > > *Brilliant* colourist
Under-rated, tormented painter. yes I like her work.
> > > -
> > > Robert Rauschenberg - early Rauschenberg, when he still had a deep
> > > respect for materials and before he got formulaic
Yes!
> > > -
> > > Jackson Pollock -
> > > -
Yes, of course!
> >
> Larry Rivers - again, *early* Rivers, in his painterly, Proto-Pop years
> > > -
Pretentious dabbler.
His autobiography turned me against him, and his work never appealed to
me. Maybe I will look up his early work now that you mention it.
> > > Egon Schiele - possibly the greatest draughtsman working with the
> > > figure in the 20th Century
Tortured, sexually-obsessed, but he could draw!
> > > -
> > > Kurt Schwitters - collagist, typographer, Merz-builder of mad interior architectures
> > > -
Typographer? He found those typography sheets in the garbage outside
print shops. That's why I love him. He re-used materials and in this
he did portend the future.
> > > Jessica Stockholder - another Canadian, does installations/sculptures
> > > but with a painterly sensibility
> > > -
Wonderful sensitivity to materials, spidery sculpture.
> > > Mark Tobey - obsessive, calligraphic, meditative, angular, fluid marks
Loved that white gouache, didn't he. yes I like him, also Morris Graves.
> > > -
> > > Henri Toulouse-Lautrec - really no need to comment
Saw an ex. of his in Montreal, where his deteriorating brown paper
glowed with the work of his hand. They said the show would never
travel again due to its fragility.
> > > -
> > > Cy Twombly - scribble scribble in a public/private language
Sigh, if only I could scribble like that Cy guy.
> > > -
> > >
> > > I imagine Iíll draw some flak for this, but those are my faves.
> > >
>
> Why thanks Marilyn. Yeah, I've had some interest in Richter, but he
> doesn't get under my skin in the way some of the others on my list do.
> Completely personal, of course, but we're talking personal favourites
> here. You're in Victoria? Do you know some of the other Canadians on the
> list? Do you know Scherman's work f'rinstance?
No I don't know Scherman but I know Betty Goodwin and Jessica Stockholder
and Joyce Wieland, Gathie Falk, Judy Garfin, Ann Hamilton, and many more.
Have you seen the work of Donald Sultan? New York painter.
--
Marilyn
>
>
>
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> x no archive: yes
>
> A brief response:
>
> > > > Francis Bacon - for his beautiful brutality & because he found his own way
>
> His technique is brilliant, his subject matter is eerie and obsessive.
Yeah. Have you seen any 'in the real'? They're stunning. Seattle Art
Gallery has one.
>
> > > > Richard Diebenkorn - possibly, probably, the greatest colourist of the
> > > > 20th Century
>
> Ocean Park series is amazing. He used studio assistants to apply the
> glazes. There must have been a lot of time spent waiting for them to dry.
He's been a HUGE influence colour-wise. I desperately wanted to see his
retrospective last year, but... life gets in the way.
> > > > Lucien Freud - sculpting flesh from paint, mercilessly, tirelessly
> > > > -
>
> Very good at old sagging flesh. I get him mixed up with Francis Bacon.
> Another painter whose craft is impeccable.
They were good friends, apparently, until Bacon became so famous.
>
> > > > Alberto Giacometti - as a Painter!!
>
> Yes!
They're astounding - another tortured soul tho'.
> > > > -
> > > > Betty Goodwin - arguably Canada’s most important living artist
>
> Her swimmers on architect's vellum are haunting. A fiesty late
> bloomer.
Yes, her swimmers haunt me too. Retrospective at the AGO last year, and
a fine book.
>
> > -
> > > > -
> > > > Henri Matisse - of course
>
> Picasso said of him: "In the end, there is only Matisse."
Who? ;)
>
> > > > -
> > > > Joan Mitchell - Ab/Ex of the so-called 2nd generation, who had the
> > > > courage to stay with it when the rest of the world lost interest.
> > > > *Brilliant* colourist
>
> Under-rated, tormented painter. yes I like her work.
Real bravura painting, almost fierce at times - but she was also a
particularly 'difficult' individual.
>
> > > > -
> > > > Robert Rauschenberg - early Rauschenberg, when he still had a deep
> > > > respect for materials and before he got formulaic
>
> Yes!
>
> > > > -
> > > > Jackson Pollock -
> > > > -
>
> Yes, of course!
Talking about 'difficult' people! He was truly tortured AND a real SOB.
If you love his work & you're likely to be affected by biography, stay
well clear of the bio. And I heard there's a film in the works...
>
> > >
> > Larry Rivers - again, *early* Rivers, in his painterly, Proto-Pop years
> > > > -
>
> Pretentious dabbler.
> His autobiography turned me against him, and his work never appealed to
> me. Maybe I will look up his early work now that you mention it.
You should. He was a hell of a painter early on, and broke some
important ground in terms of getting beyond Ab/Ex.
>
> > > > Egon Schiele - possibly the greatest draughtsman working with the
> > > > figure in the 20th Century
>
> Tortured, sexually-obsessed, but he could draw!
Could he DRAW?!! And the marvellous exaggerations & distortions... That
nervous, jangly, but supremely confident line... But again, as an
individual he was, um, something of a shit. You know I honestly never
realized how MANY of the artists whose work I LOVE were people I
probably wouldn't have liked very much. I think it's probably the
obsessiveness required to achieve that level of work, that warps people
in the process. Or is it the other way around? Screwed up people
become great artists because they can't interact with people in
conventional ways?
> > > > -
> > > > Kurt Schwitters - collagist, typographer, Merz-builder of mad interior architectures
> > > > -
> Typographer? He found those typography sheets in the garbage outside
> print shops. That's why I love him. He re-used materials and in this
> he did portend the future.
You should see his Merzbau interiors.
>
> > > > Jessica Stockholder - another Canadian, does installations/sculptures
> > > > but with a painterly sensibility
> > > > -
>
> Wonderful sensitivity to materials, spidery sculpture.
great palette too.
>
> > > > Mark Tobey - obsessive, calligraphic, meditative, angular, fluid marks
>
> Loved that white gouache, didn't he. yes I like him, also Morris Graves.
Yes, his 'White Writing' is mesmerizing. Here's one who I don't think
was a jerk (whew!) - meditative, spiritual.
> > > > -
> > > > Henri Toulouse-Lautrec - really no need to comment
>
> Saw an ex. of his in Montreal, where his deteriorating brown paper
> glowed with the work of his hand. They said the show would never
> travel again due to its fragility.
You are extraordinarily lucky to have seen them. They not only are they
not travelling, they're actually being kept in darkened rooms.
>
> > > > -
> > > > Cy Twombly - scribble scribble in a public/private language
>
> Sigh, if only I could scribble like that Cy guy.
Wow, you like Twombly? - you're almost the only other person I've
encountered who does!
>
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > > I imagine Iíll draw some flak for this, but those are my faves.
> > > >
> >
> > Why thanks Marilyn. Yeah, I've had some interest in Richter, but he
> > doesn't get under my skin in the way some of the others on my list do.
> > Completely personal, of course, but we're talking personal favourites
> > here. You're in Victoria? Do you know some of the other Canadians on the
> > list? Do you know Scherman's work f'rinstance?
>
> No I don't know Scherman but I know Betty Goodwin and Jessica Stockholder
> and Joyce Wieland, Gathie Falk, Judy Garfin, Ann Hamilton, and many more.
>
> Have you seen the work of Donald Sultan? New York painter.
I just did a web search on Sultan & came across some images, which look
intriguing (oil & tar & plaster!), but it is so difficult to get a feel
for an 8'x8' painting from a 4"x4" low resolution image on a screen.
This technology still has a ways to go. I notice some sites are giving
you a thumbnail linked to a larger image linked to an even larger image,
or detail. That's getting there, but still not perfect. Anyone else you
care to steer me towards?
Btw, did you know Wieland died last year? Graham Coughtry too.
Here are a few images by Scherman (with reservations about image quality
etc. & apologies for not doing the HTML thing):
http://www.artincontext.org/images/WWF/0000/WWF0004D.jpg
HTTP://www6.artnet.com/AGIMAGES/GALLERY/4788/FULL/9.CMP
http://www.woltjenart.ab.ca/jpegpics/scht14.jpg
And his gallery page at Heffel in Vancouver:
galleryhttp://www.heffel.com/gallery/inventory/artworks.asp?sArtistNumber=345
Enjoy.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a blue streak
mdeli
>BALTHUS The man is unstopable. OK so he's slowed down in the past few
>years but the man has been painting longer than I've been alive!!
>Although I am convinced Balthus is in fact the devil I think his
>paintings imbue an odd sort of innocence.
Balthus' work is really very ordinary third rate illustrator. Take a
look At his "Golden Days" The color is dull browns all painted in the
opaque technique of a very average art student. The head on the main
subject is broken at the neck. I suppose that sort of thing expresses
how modern he is supposed to be. But the best part is the figure in
the right corner and the dull fire and the fireplace. It as student
drawing as you can get. The subject matter is the very ordinary
uninspired utterly conventional realism artzy fartsys endlessly
complain about, by someone who can't draw well.
Compare his competence to Rockwell. (of course de Kooning and Pollock
are far worse than Balthus)
Balthus' "Golden Days" has subject matter similar to Rockwell's "Girl
at the Mirror" 1954. While Balthus' detail deteriorates to formless
schmier Rockwell's is clear. Balthus was incapable of painting the
mirror or handeling the complexity in drawing, and the composition of
the small details. Just compare the composition and color.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Marilyn Welch
Hi Loose-one,
It pains me that I don't have time for a
comprehensive list of favourite artists.
Thanks for the links which I will follow
later today.
My daughter also loves the inimitable Cy Twombly's work.
Her website: www.artadventures.bc.ca
Donald Sultan - I'm amazed at how little I hear about him.
His lemons, and fire scenes are out of this world.
I was told that tar never really dries??
Also I like that he is inspired by photographs in the
newspaper. This also has inspired a few paintings for me,
and I was told by an instructor that this was just not
done.
Jim Dine - check out the latest book on him where he draws
house plants of all things. Saw an exhibition of his in
Santa Barbara, lots of hearts and bathrobes. Great surfaces!
Wolf Kahn - extraordinary landscapes, master colourist
Book available, also a few samples on the web.
Jane Freilicher - also wonderful expressionist landscapes
( I have mentioned these two so often here that it might
seem like I'm trying to form a cult following for them)
Judy Garfin-
(had her as an instructor in Montreal)
website is www.judygarfin.com or .net
She paints from nature embellishing it with her imagination.
Her work suffers greatly on the small small screen because
it is greatly detailed and large in real life. Can be
seen in Vancouver, or Montreal in the real. Her book is
available at Chapters.
Appreciated all your previous comments, not that I did not
like the work of people on your list which I skipped over,
just trying to be brief and deal with the ones which
really stood out for me.
In the end there is only Vermeer,
but we are trying to list living painters, right?
--
Marilyn
lake
classical and modern standards. Maybe his fame rests on the fact that
he is able (albeit clumsily) to balance between two contadictory ways
of seeing? Providing a sort of erzatz balm to the eye of the
contemporary beholder?
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
christopher moss
also a few samples on the web.
Jane Freilicher - also wonderful expressionist landscapes ( I have
mentioned these two so often here that it might seem like I'm trying to
form a cult following for them)
_Yeah, Marilyn, about these two. I just got back from New York and I
happened to stop in at Tibor de Nagy and Beadleston galleries on the
advice of a good friend of mine. Great shows, both of them. First time
I've seen either of their works. I don't know if I consider Freilicher
an expressionist, she seems a bit more classical to me.
_Interestingly, my first impression of Freilicher's work was not what I
expected. I walked off the elevator and wasn't quite ready to look at
what was in front of me. Flat out I didn't like them but was willing to
give them some time. My perception was that they lacked balls, the
contrasts lacked power, the compositions bothered me a bit, I gave it a
C+ at best.
_I'm real glad I stuck around a bit longer though. I sat down, as most
people will in a gallery with a bench in the middle, I was a bit worn
out, hopping from gallery to gallery and my senses were obviously dulled
from all that looking. As I sat there the little things in her
paintings, the stuff we miss when we don't look carefully, began to gel.
Colors began to interact, subtle variations of colors did a kind of role
call. The tip of a yellow tablecloth began to tease the cool purple
floor. Little orange and red spots announced themselves across the
canvas, and they started a conversation, "I speak and then you speak and
I say something softer, and you yell a bit, and then apologize". A brush
of pink on a flower said, "Here I am, thanks for noticing". In one
painting some voluptuous flowers played the geometry of a New York
skyline with the brush of a well seasoned percussionist. I came to
realize just how sensitive Freilicher is to visual needs. She makes her
statements quietly in the corner of a large and crowded bar.
_I think I did figure something out this afternoon. I was affected by
something nice today, something soft. Something altogether different
from the way Kahn or any of the other painters I saw today affected me.
I figured out that I'm wrong most of the time, or at least I'm not
careful enough when I look. The paintings I saw today at Tibor de Nagy
left me full, I didn't want any more art getting in the way of what I
had just seen. I left the gallery with a clear kind of head, akin to
what your body feels like after a hefty workout, strong, tired but aware
of itself. I'm glad to have had this kind of experience on the occasion
of my 'first Freilicher show'. Grade: A well deserved "A".
-cm
christopher moss
respectively:
(christopher moss) wrote:
BALTHUS The man is unstoppable. OK so he's slowed down in the past few
years but the man has been painting longer than I've been alive!!
Although I am convinced Balthus is in fact the devil I think his
paintings imbue an odd sort of innocence.
_I didn't write that, Humbert did.
Mani:
Balthus' work is really very ordinary third rate illustrator. Take a
look At his "Golden Days"
_I'm looking at a reproduction right now.
The color is dull browns all painted in the opaque technique of a very
average art student.
_I'd like to see any "student" paint something like this. The warm to
cool transitions that play across the forms give definition, weight and
dimension to the figures. Not only that but the edges of the forms
(evidently changed and moved around quite a bit by Balthus) play with
each other in a way that is quite extraordinary. While I've never been
to Washington D.C. to see this picture I can tell just from the bad
repro. I've got that the colors aren't even close to "dull browns". Take
a look at the way he lightens up the wall just below the female figure's
left knee, so the edge of the leg isn't entirely lost in the created
space. Also, what about that multitude of color he finds in her dress,
orange on the right sleeve facing the window, the dark reds in the folds
of her dress. And I'd love to see a student find those reds in a green
carpet.
The head on the main subject is broken at the neck. I suppose that sort
of thing expresses how modern he is supposed to be.
_I've seen Ingres (one of your favorites) break a neck, or lengthen an
arm, or add a vertebrae to a figure before too. That idea of playing
isn't modern at all. Secondly, Balthus expresses a keen interest in art
that is thoroughly NOT modern, he had enough guts to continue painting
within the figurative tradition when modernism was at it's early peak.
But the best part is the figure in the right corner and the dull fire
and the fireplace. It as student drawing as you can get. The subject
matter is the very ordinary uninspired utterly conventional realism
artsy fartsys endlessly complain about, by someone who can't draw well.
_Conventional, maybe, but I've got to say that I personally
(unfortunately) don't have any pretty young women who lie 'round my
apartment with nothing better to do than look in a mirror.
_Inventive I'd say. Sabine Rewald points out in her book on Balthus that
this room didn't even exist at his house in Champrovent (where it was
painted). The story here, while being mostly beside the point, is quite
unordinary. There is a certain sexual tension evident between the boy
who won't look at the sprawling young teen. What's the psychology behind
the young woman's apparent narcissism? That's what's modern about this
painting, not some dumb argument for or against figural contrivances.
Compare his competence to Rockwell. (of course de Kooning and Pollock
are far worse than Balthus)
_Of course they were worse. Why bother learning lessons from painters
who dare to go beyond the conventions of photorealisticly rendered
painting.
Balthus' "Golden Days" has subject matter similar to Rockwell's "Girl at
the Mirror" 1954. While Balthus' detail deteriorates to formless schmier
Rockwell's is clear. Balthus was incapable of painting the mirror or
handeling the complexity in drawing, and the composition of the small
details. Just compare the composition and color.
_Agreed, the colors in this particular painting don't have the weight of
some of his other ones but he could compose circles around Rockwell,
blindfolded, with his hands bound, strapped to a bed, without using any
artist's instruments. Trust me, he'd figure it out. Have you ever seen a
portrait he did called woman with a yellow hat? I think that's the
title. Damn man, that hat is YELLOW! It screams from across the room at
you. So don't tell me he couldn't use color.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
Lake:
I agree with you here, mdeli. Balthus is entirely second-rate, by both
classical and modern standards. Maybe his fame rests on the fact that he
is able (albeit clumsily) to balance between two contradictory ways of
seeing?
_What two contradictory ways might those be?
I don't think there is a difference in standards from the classical era
to the modern, is there? What is it, 'cause I've never seen one.
Providing a sort of ersatz balm to the eye of the contemporary beholder?
_A what? Balthus' works have always had a bit of an unsettling appeal to
me. Not at all balmy, as that stuff is usually meant to soothe, not
upset.
- Lake
-cm
lake
But it is a little too broad to be really instructive. Better to focus
on one or two or three contemporary painters, and see what the
responses are to them. I say, let's have nominations for three of our
most successful peers - living painters mind you, not dead ones - and
whose work is available to view, albeit in a limited sense, on the
internet.
Each person would be able to nominate one painter - my own choice would
be Sigmar Polke - but whichever names came up the most frequently or
passionately, could be discussed. Mdeli could have his own nominee
without dispute, because it would be so interesting to see who he would
choose.
Go-Away Bird
the other artist people have listed. I haven't seen a Stockholder in
person, though, so I'm not sure I have an opinion on her work one way or
the other at this point. Some of her pieces seem to have a sense of
humor, though. One made of men's briefs stuffed like balloons comes to
mind.
As for my favorite artists, here are a few:
Yves Tanguy: Not a "current" artist but probably my all-time favorite so
he belongs at the top of the list. My favorites are his "middle works"
where he's refined his technique and achieved a sense of atmosphere, but
before he starts stuffing the image with obsessive numbers of too many
objects. I actually like almost *all* of his work from 1927 on, though --
not sure I can say that about any other artist. Of course, he pretty much
did one thing well and stuck to it.
Guillermo Kuitka: His primary subject matter revolves around maps as
metaphor. His subject matter includes ghostly interior spaces, beds,
stadium or concert hall seating charts, house floorplans, and networks of
maplike imagery using repeated images like syringes or bones.
www.artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1999/Articles0299/GKuitcaA.html
(I don't buy all the crap about painting being dead, blah, blah, etc. --
but there are some nice images here.)
Ross Bleckner: The way he paints objects that glow with their own inner
incandesence is something I'd like to emulate.
Anselm Keifer: He seems to be an artist that either you love or hate.
For me, the complex mythology about Germanness that he has woven around
his work is what makes it so interesting. Actually, I think this would be
an interesting discussion topic: could/should what goes on "behind the
scenes" of artmaking enhance or even redeem the work of art itself?
Pat Steir: Her "waterfall" paintings are my favorites.
Robert Smithson: Again, he's been dead since 1971 or so, but he's my
favorite site artist. Also, his writing gives his work context.
"A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey" is my favorite of his
essays.
http://www.paceprints.com/contemporary/steir/steir-main.asp
I don't think my artist knowledge is at all up-to-the-moment, though. My
art history classes were in 1990-1994, and what was covered then didn't go
beyond the 80s. I really should get out to galleries more.
--
TURACO: any of about 18 species of African birds constituting the family
Musophagidae, placed with the cuckoos (order Cuculiformes) or separated
as a distinct order, Musophagiformes. Certain of the grayish species are
called go-away birds, in imitation of their calls.
Marilyn Welch
There is an interesting interview between Balthus and David Bowie
(an editor of Modern Painting magazine). I will post it later.
How anyone can call Balthus 3rd or 2nd rate is beyond discussion.
He is a master painter. I'd like to see the paintings of those who
dismiss Balthus exhibited side-by-side with the master's work
and let the world judge.
Marilyn
Tooloose Lowtec
Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> x no archive: yes
Can't figure out what this means Marilyn - don't trash it, archive it?
Early on my wife used to rescue rejected paintings from the trash with
comments like "this isn't THAT bad..." or "HEY, someone might LIKE
this!" I've generated so much work that I've _wanted_ to keep since
then that she doesn't do that anymore.
An artist is somebody who takes perfectly good materials and turns them
into a storage problem.
> Hi Loose-one,
>
> It pains me that I don't have time for a
> comprehensive list of favourite artists.
> Thanks for the links which I will follow
> later today.
>
> My daughter also loves the inimitable Cy Twombly's work.
> Her website: www.artadventures.bc.ca
Your daughter is some BUSY art teacher!
>
> Donald Sultan - I'm amazed at how little I hear about him.
> His lemons, and fire scenes are out of this world.
Found some of his lemons on the web - they _do_ look like they'd be
great in the real.
> I was told that tar never really dries??
My friend David Burns (who I mentioned in my initial list) uses tar in
some of his work. At a recent exhibition he showed an amazing piece
that had been painted on a tar ground so thick it was actually beginning
to migrate off the piece onto the frame! I joked about how the entire
painting might begin to drift down the canvas & he said then he'd just
have to hang it upside down!
> Also I like that he is inspired by photographs in the
> newspaper. This also has inspired a few paintings for me,
> and I was told by an instructor that this was just not
> done.
The instructor obviously lives in boxes that are too small.
>
> Jim Dine - check out the latest book on him where he draws
> house plants of all things. Saw an exhibition of his in
> Santa Barbara, lots of hearts and bathrobes. Great surfaces!
Saw a stunning show of Dine's "Drawings from the Glyptothek" in Montreal
some years ago. Drawings he did of ancient sculpture & fragments of
sculpture in a museum of antiquities in Germany, where he was allowed to
work during off hours. _Big_ drawings on paper, drafting paper & mylar.
Taught me that there is a place "beyond overworked" - that if you keep
going you can sometimes pull something surprisingly powerful out of the
struggle. These things are _so_ heavily worked, so PHysical - he
actually uses a circular sander as an eraser in places!
>
> Wolf Kahn - extraordinary landscapes, master colourist
> Book available, also a few samples on the web.
>
> Jane Freilicher - also wonderful expressionist landscapes
> ( I have mentioned these two so often here that it might
> seem like I'm trying to form a cult following for them)
>
> Judy Garfin-
> (had her as an instructor in Montreal)
> website is www.judygarfin.com or .net
> She paints from nature embellishing it with her imagination.
> Her work suffers greatly on the small small screen because
> it is greatly detailed and large in real life. Can be
> seen in Vancouver, or Montreal in the real. Her book is
> available at Chapters.
I'm going to have to see some work by these artists. I went to Garfin's
website & while it looks like she's done some interesting work I have
to say that, personally, I'm more interested in more painterly work.
That said, I'd _still_ like to see it.
>
> Appreciated all your previous comments, not that I did not
> like the work of people on your list which I skipped over,
> just trying to be brief and deal with the ones which
> really stood out for me.
>
> In the end there is only Vermeer,
> but we are trying to list living painters, right?
Well I had plenty of dead ones on my list, almost half - but they were
almost all 20th Century types. (Pardon the digression, but doesn't it
feel odd to have 'parcelled off' the 20th Century? To be in a new
context?) But you're right, Vermeer was a miracle.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a new streak
Tooloose Lowtec
If you get, or have access to _Art in America_ the March 2000 issue
(with an amazing Jenny Saville double portrait on the cover. 9'x12'!!)
has an almost full page reproduction of a Tony Scherman encaustic about
20 pages in (no numbers). It is in the context of an ad for a book being
published about his work. The book is called _Chasing Napoleon_. When
you look at the reproduction imagine a canvas 6'x6' or larger. The blur
above the 'CH' in 'Chasing' is an area where he has taken a hot knife
(or similar object) and sliced away a section of the encaustic, exposing
the built up layers.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a green streak
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> This is a fascinating subject, and has drawn some interesting responses.
> But it is a little too broad to be really instructive. Better to focus
> on one or two or three contemporary painters, and see what the
> responses are to them. I say, let's have nominations for three of our
> most successful peers - living painters mind you, not dead ones - and
> whose work is available to view, albeit in a limited sense, on the
> internet.
>
> Each person would be able to nominate one painter - my own choice would
> be Sigmar Polke - but whichever names came up the most frequently or
> passionately, could be discussed. Mdeli could have his own nominee
> without dispute, because it would be so interesting to see who he would
> choose.
>
> - Lake
>
I think getting an idea of the work an artist admires tells me a lot
about who I'm talking to. I wish more people would put together a list.
Sure, if you'd like to get into an in-depth discussion about a couple or
three artists that's fine, but I don't really see why that precludes
doing this. Also, why the 'living painters' limit? Unfortunately most
of the greatest painters on my list are dead - some only recently.
(Diebenkorn, deKooning, Bacon).
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a blue streak
Marilyn Welch
Landon MacKenzie, Canadian
She is presently teaching at Emily Carr College, formerly
from the prairies. Your mention of maps brings her work
to mind. She does monumental paintings incorporating
maps, and words, and layers of paint. She has some
work at Vancouver Art Gallery, Concordia U. Montreal.
It would be nice if we could write monographs on
each artist but that would take a lot of time. As it is,
I'm just pointing the way off the top of my head,
letting people who are interested judge for themselves,
since there is so much information already available
on the internet. (One thing you will have to admit,
I'm pretty good at making excuses.)
Marilyn
humbert_...@my-deja.com
The intention of an illustrator is to depict, whereas the intention of a
painter is more acurately described as disigning. That is to compose with
color, shape, and line. Since Balthus is not attempting merely to depict, he
can not be called an illustrator and so youre argument is somewhat confused.
Balthus' intention is never so limited as showing his subject merely
realistically, rather he takes that subject and uses it as a base from which
to create colorfully, well designed compositions. Take a look at Ingres'
"Grand Obalisque" This woman would have to have extra vertabrae in order to
exist the way Ingres depicts her. But Inges was enough of a designer to know
that this break needed to happen in order for the figure to sit well with the
rest of his composition.Or perhaps Ingres' portrair of Louise d'Haussonville.
This poor woman must have had both her shoulders crushed in order to get her
arms into the position depicted. Unless of course Ingres was once more
showing us a creative lie.I suppose that if you understood the people whose
art you admire you would be rather disapointed. > > Compare his [Balthus]
competence to Rockwell. > Rockwell is an illustrator of candy sweet sceans
of nuclear age perfection. His figures are boring and his style formulaic.
But then again he too lied. He elongated figures much the same way Tiepalo
did but not as part of design sence, rather merely as stylistic gimic.I think
CMOSS made a number of good points about this subject as well. He too seems
to show how confused and contradictory your argument on Bathus is.
HUMBERT....No Deli, no sandwich.
lake
typical stiffness of someone who really doesn't draw very well. Compare
Balthus' draughtsmanship to that of Tiepolo or Rembrandt, or even
Ingres. Balthus is so afraid to make a mistake, and so enamoured of his
own misconceptions, that his line is totally constipated. Add this to
the fact that his paintings are finished to within an inch of their
lives....
Besides, as mdeli points out, Balthus' composition is primitive, at
best. Random and haphazard. These faults are all hidden under a sort of
pseudo-classical, highly-refined veneer. As far as I can see, he's just
another fancy-dancy Paris pretender. They're a dime a dozen around St.
Germaine.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> Artzy fartzies like his work because his drawing is mediocre. They
> hate to see good drawing because it makes them feel guilty. The rarety
> of good drawing and technique in the modern sections of museums allows
> them to imagine that Balthus has these qualities.
>
One of the problems with your shoot-from-the-hip generalized insults is
that like all polarized black & white 'thinking' it ignores the grey
zones. I, for instance have Modernist/Post-Modernist sensibilities, BUT
I CAN DRAW. Go figure huh? I've drawn from the figure at least once a
week, and often as much as three times a week for the last six years.
Drawing is central to my paintings. I might use distortion, or play a
finished area off a raw expressive one, but it is BY CHOICE.
So what do you do with artists who don't fit into your reductive agenda?
Integrate them into your thinking? (I'd br shocked) ignore them? or
find other grounds on which to insult them?
--
Tooloose Lowtec
no deli no cry
humbert_...@my-deja.com
wrote:> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:34:30 GMT, humbert_...@my-deja.com
wrote:> HC: The intention of an illustrator is to depict, whereas the
intention of a painter is more acurately described as disigning. > MD: I'm
not interested in intention. The value of artwork is judged on the> basis of
quality.HC: When YOU judge art you base it on YOUR ideas on art. You have
gotten these ideas from being exposed to art, from your teachers, and
eventually using your experience to come to an informed desition all your
own. What you forget is that you are not the only one in the world who looks
at and judges art. Hitler was a huge art critic because he was a failed and
rejected painter. Millions of people supported his ideas and beleifs and
stole and destroyed loads of supposedly degenerate art. Because they had an
opinion did not make them right, and because there were many of them it did
not make them right. Your arguments on art are surprisingly similar to those
of Hitlers. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this Im just saying
that Hitler rejected much art for the same reasons you do. And look where it
got him. > MD: You can try to compose until you're blue in the face. If you
can't> draw its hopeless.HC: Yep Hitler said that too. I agree that drawing
is very important I take great joy in drawing for hours and hours on end.
But drawing and design must work together. If all you do is draw without
design then you end up like Norman Rockwell.> HC: Take a look at Ingres'>
>"Grand Obalisque" This woman would have to have extra vertabrae in order
copy a finger in an Ingres. He's a klutz.HC: Klutz? Wow there is a mature
and serious art term. Anyway you missed the point. (Surprise) The point is
you bash Balthus for altering a figure when one of your favorite artists dose
the same thing. The argument I make here is that y
lake
great. And why not start with Jessica Stockholder? I don't like her
work at all. It exists in that fashionable hybrid-area between
painting, sculpture and set-design which I find particularly
un-appealing. It's neither this nor that, neither here nor there.
Instead of augmenting, or blending several disciplines, it fails in all
of them.
A more awkward and un-beautiful installation than the one in Venice
would be hard to imagine.2x4 and plywood in a 17th century drawing room
- is that supposed to provide some sort of modernist epiphany? If so,
why decorate it with all those silly colors?
The rest of her work is more or less along the same lines - awkward,
clunky shapes sprawling on a pristine gallery floor, painted with great
attention to detail, to no apparent purpose. This kind of work, if you
separate it even slightly from it's high-art, gallery context, loses
all semblance of meaning.
lake
couldn't get the images to enlarge, too bad. He's into the REALITY of
painting, something like Basquiat was. Not show-offy, not trying to
prove anything, just painting, and painting very well.
lake
that. Except to say that it's too long to admit of detailed discussion.
I just wanted to second your nomination of Giacometti as a PAINTER. His
sculpture is so astoundingly fabulous that it's easy to overlook his
heart-wrenchingly beautiful paintings. For instance, compare a
Giacometti portrait to a Warhol portrait, and what do you get?
Sharon Barcone
sharon
Marilyn Welch
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, lake wrote:
> You'right Marilyn, more discussions on contemporary artists would be
> great. And why not start with Jessica Stockholder? I don't like her
> work at all. It exists in that fashionable hybrid-area between
> painting, sculpture and set-design which I find particularly
> un-appealing. It's neither this nor that, neither here nor there.
> Instead of augmenting, or blending several disciplines, it fails in all
> of them.
I don't like the work of Balthus but there's no way I would
state flatly that he is not a master painter. There is a
difference between disliking a work and trashing a work
based on your own entrenched position.
Jessica Stockholder is not a failure because you don't
like her work.
> A more awkward and un-beautiful installation than the one in Venice
> would be hard to imagine.2x4 and plywood in a 17th century drawing room
> - is that supposed to provide some sort of modernist epiphany? If so,
> why decorate it with all those silly colors?
>
> The rest of her work is more or less along the same lines - awkward,
> clunky shapes sprawling on a pristine gallery floor, painted with great
> attention to detail, to no apparent purpose. This kind of work, if you
> separate it even slightly from it's high-art, gallery context, loses
> all semblance of meaning.
The sculpture I have seen was made with found materials,
including plastic bags. You call this high art?
What is your position on postmodern art?
Marilyn
mdeli
>In article <> Balthus' work is really very ordinary third rate illustrator.
>The intention of an illustrator is to depict, whereas the intention of a
>painter is more acurately described as disigning.
I'm not interested in intention. The value of artwork is judged on the
basis of quality.
>That is to compose with color, shape, and line.
You can try to compose until you're blue in the face. If you can't
draw its hopeless.
>Since Balthus is not attempting merely to depict, he
>can not be called an illustrator and so youre argument is somewhat confused.
No illustrator "merely" depicts.
]
> Take a look at Ingres'
>"Grand Obalisque" This woman would have to have extra vertabrae in order to
>exist the way Ingres depicts her.
Balthus doesn't have the skill to copy a finger in an Ingres. He's a
klutz. The only reason he is known is because he had connections to
other modern artists. He's one of millions of slightly above average
no-skill-realists. His compositions and subject matter are utterly
conventional.
Artzy fartzies like his work because his drawing is mediocre. They
hate to see good drawing because it makes them feel guilty. The rarety
of good drawing and technique in the modern sections of museums allows
them to imagine that Balthus has these qualities.
>I suppose that if you understood the people whose
>art you admire you would be rather disapointed.
RIGHT. Now tell us what it is you UNDERSTAND about Balthus that I'm
supposedly missing.
mdeli
>Compare his competence to Rockwell. (of course de Kooning and Pollock
>are far worse than Balthus)
>
>_Of course they were worse. Why bother learning lessons from painters
>who dare to go beyond the conventions of photorealisticly rendered
>painting.
Neither Balthus or Rockwell are Photorealistic.
>
>Balthus' "Golden Days" has subject matter similar to Rockwell's "Girl at
>the Mirror" 1954. While Balthus' detail deteriorates to formless schmier
>Rockwell's is clear. Balthus was incapable of painting the mirror or
>handeling the complexity in drawing, and the composition of the small
>details. Just compare the composition and color.
>
>_Agreed, the colors in this particular painting don't have the weight of
>some of his other ones but he could compose circles around Rockwell,
>blindfolded, with his hands bound, strapped to a bed, without using any
>artist's instruments. Trust me, he'd figure it out.
I don't trust you.
>Have you ever seen a
>portrait he did called woman with a yellow hat? I think that's the
>title. Damn man, that hat is YELLOW! It screams from across the room at
>you. So don't tell me he couldn't use color.
Not interested in painting that scream. Have your ears checked.
>I agree with you here, mdeli. Balthus is entirely second-rate, by both
>classical and modern standards. Maybe his fame rests on the fact that he
>is able (albeit clumsily) to balance between two contradictory ways of
>seeing?
His fame rests on his connections. He is technically as bad and
repetitive as thousands of other mediocraties. He is slightly more
popular today because of an utter bordom with modern abstraction. He
paints badly enough so as not compete too much with all the crap that
hangs in the Modern sections of museums.
br...@wralaw.com
humbert_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I have been getting to know a number of people on here through their
> discusions. Occasionaly I see someone make reference to an artist or
> movement but I was wondering who the people I am speaking...
My Favs change. I am interested in a Variety of Artforms including
literature, carpetry and film...
However in so called fine art over time, Leonardo Da Vinci, Goya,
Salvadore Dali, Vermeer, Bernini, Gaudi -express what I think is
good art as well as what art should be... In the postmodern and
Modern era I have come to like Klee, and even find Dubuffette, or
Picasso entertaining as art stars. In the present or postmodern
era(as some would love to call it) I think Pashke, Audrey Flack,
abd Ann Hamilton are producing good work, as well as thousands of
unknowns like my friend Kent Rushing and Dave Griffin for instance.
The artists I think are the truth are people like Murillo, Valesquez,
Vermeer, Raphael, Carravaggio, Bernini, and Correggio etc. And a few
others(However I am not absolutely shure of any of these people).
> For instance, I am fascinated by the Akhenaten era artist of egypt.
I like some Islamic Tiles Architecture, and Carpentry, Tibetan
Tapestries and paintings, Japanese Abstraction and prints and
sculptures, Hindu sculpture and architecture etc.
Bryn Ayers
Dik F. Liu
<Tooloos...@netscape.net> writes:
>Jenny Saville - HUGE corpulent nudes<
She is getting better and better. At any rate she is much more interesting than
Freud.
>Richard Diebenkorn<
Elevator music.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
>>Anyone ever heard of Jessica Stockholder?<<
A very good sculptor - among the best of her generation.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
SS_Po...@webtv.net (christopher moss) writes:
>BALTHUS The man is unstopable.<
His works are just a bit too tedious for my liking. I also find his subtly
erotic subject too polite. He really needs to his balls swing.
>Another one whome I am somewhat hessitant to mention is DeNiro. I am hesitant
because he is dead but it may be easier to judge his work more wholistically
because it is now limited to what is. I have always greatly enjoyed DeNiro's
vivid colors and sumptuous textures. This was a man who had a solid vissual
vocabulary who just liked to yell.<
Interesting. Just last night, I was talking with a friend about DeNiro. I don't
know why he came up. I have spend years not thinking about DeNiro and do okay.
His works always reminded me of those by another abstract painter, Stephen
Greene (sp?). Their paintings remind me of those cheesy suburban shopping mall
abstract paintings. These two artist's works are probably better, but just as
generic, and emotionally as empty. I guess they are pleasant enough if you
like that sort of things.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
1. Francisco de Zurbaran - over his chum Diego Velasquez
2. Piet Mondrian
3. Martin Johnson Heade
4. Patrick Henry Bruce (20's American Cubist, anyone heard of him?)
5. Antonio Lopez - Spanish realist, the only living artist on the list
6. Rembrandt, the printmaker
There are dozens more but none of them seem worth mentioning at the moment.
Dik
christopher moss
stiffness of someone who really doesn't draw very well. Compare Balthus'
draughtsmanship to that of Tiepolo or Rembrandt, or even Ingres.
_Yes, Balthus bugs a lot of people on this level, his stiffness has an
erie quality to it that can be a bit disturbing. I will admit that there
is something stiff about his work, and this comes from his love affair
with Western art, the Greek pottery, the Roman frescoes, Piero della
Francesca are some examples. Now if you still want to say that all these
'stiff' artists don't appeal to you then that's fine, that's personal
preference. But let's not confuse that with the real fact that Balthus
can compose with the best of them. His paintings are right up there with
Piero and Ingres and Giotto and Tiepolo. (I think he's a bit better than
Tiepolo actually).
Balthus is so afraid to make a mistake, and so enamoured of his own
misconceptions, that his line is totally constipated. Add this to the
fact that his paintings are finished to within an inch of their
lives....
_Some of his paintings, especially the early ones (1930 to about 1950)
have a very 'finished' look to them because they're tightly rendered.
But nobody ever said Balthus was about being expressive with paint,
that's not in his nature. As far as his fear of making mistakes goes, I
think it takes a lot more of a painter to keep working the paint until
the painting is arrived at and fully resolved. A lot of painters
(Picasso I think is one of them) are all too impressed with the marks
they've put on the paper. When Balthus makes a painting he's looking for
something deeper than the initial impression, he's looking for a certain
vitality in his paint. That's what keeps me interested in his paintings,
he grabs hold of the viewer and keeps you locked within that surface,
and when you've looked for a long time new relationships begin to make
themselves apparent. That's one of the distinctions between good
painting and great painting, can we return to a painting and find
something new to become interested in? Can we still remain interested in
the same old things, but in some new kind of way? That's the power of
Balthus.
Besides, as mdeli points out, Balthus' composition is primitive, at
best. Random and haphazard. These faults are all hidden under a sort of
pseudo-classical, highly-refined veneer. As far as I can see, he's just
another fancy-dancy Paris pretender. They're a dime a dozen around St.
Germaine.
_I don't find anything random or haphazard about a Balthus painting.
Maybe you're still responding to his slightly unsettling, off balance
compositions. He's using classical means but he doesn't adhere to them
in any kind of slavish way, he breaks all kinds of rules, that's what
separates him from those other Paris pretenders. If you want to talk
pretenders then lets talk about Modigliani instead. But Balthus' forms
are studied, and complete. As I've pointed out before, his painting owes
a lot to the ancients and the renaissance painters. If we've got to put
a name on this how about Neuvo-Classicism, not that old Pseudo stuff.
Pseudo implies a certain falseness, a fraudulent copy for instance. But
B's got something new to say too, why else would he paint?
-cm
br...@wralaw.com
>HC: The intention of an illustrator is to depict, whereas the
> intention of a painter is more acurately described as disigning. >
If in your mind it all comes down to intention aren't there illustrators
who are painters and vice versa?
In my mind and experience Illustrator is mainly a cut on painters who
are better than other artists in the most simplistic sense, and the
term "Illustrator" as a poisonous category, to try to remove the
obvious from art criticism. Show me one simularity in the de facto
subject matter of Bougereau, Dali, and Estes... and I will admit
that the categorical imperative of "ignorant technician" is even
slightly relevant.
br...@wralaw.com
Right there with Joe Stockholder and co.
> work of the past centuries
> modern art is crap
And vice versa
> post-modern art is even worse crap
> Picasso, Matisse had no talent
Picasso a little, Matisse considerably less...
> Bougereau was great
Only talented
> If you can get a conversation going on one well-known
> contemporary painter it would be a revolution.
> Good luck!
Audrey Flack? Why has the PC elite ignored a Woman who invented
a new genre of high-skill art?
Tooloose Lowtec
problem with opposing points of view.
But after having read your 'arguments' with others in this group I noticed
that it was like watching someone trying to carry on a dialogue with one
of those dolls where one pulls a string and the doll speaks a series of
pre-recorded phrases. Nothing the person says makes the *slightest*
difference as the doll keeps repeating the same 10 or 12 inane phrases.
Boring, pointless, waste of time, energy & bandwidth.
I just don't want to do it. I'm not here for that, I'm here for the
dialogue.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
mdeli
>mdeli ranted:
>>
>> Artzy fartzies like his work because his drawing is mediocre. They
>> hate to see good drawing because it makes them feel guilty. The rarety
>> of good drawing and technique in the modern sections of museums allows
>> them to imagine that Balthus has these qualities.
>>
>
>
>One of the problems with your shoot-from-the-hip generalized insults is
>that like all polarized black & white 'thinking' it ignores the grey
>zones.
Grey zones?
>I, for instance have Modernist/Post-Modernist sensibilities,
Very impressive. Where do you keep them?
> BUT
>I CAN DRAW. Go figure huh? I've drawn from the figure at least once a
>week, and often as much as three times a week for the last six years.
Anyone who draws the figure that much and says I CAN DRAW really knows
what he is talking about. Of course whether the drawings are any good
is another matter.
>Drawing is central to my paintings. I might use distortion, or play a
>finished area off a raw expressive one, but it is BY CHOICE.
BY CHOICE, very impressive! What other reason could be possible?
>
>So what do you do with artists who don't fit into your reductive agenda?
The same thing you do with those that don't fit your's, only I can
articulate the reasons.
> Integrate them into your thinking? (I'd br shocked) ignore them? or
>find other grounds on which to insult them?
Have you tried that with Norman Rockwell?
br...@wralaw.com
Tooloos...@DeleteThisnetscape.net wrote:
> lake wrote:
> > Better to focus
> > on one or two or three contemporary painters, and see what the
> > responses are to them. I say, let's have nominations for three of
our
> > most successful peers - living painters mind you, not dead ones -
and
> > whose work is available to view, albeit in a limited sense, on the
> > internet.
Ourselves I suspect?
> > Each person would be able to nominate one painter - my own choice
would
> > be Sigmar Polke -
I didn't really believe your parents named you Lake Mr Poke!
Alison A Raimes
<dik...@aol.com> writes
>She is getting better and better. At any rate she is much more interesting than
>Freud.
Its six years since Jenny Saville's paintings were snapped up by Charles
Saatchi shortly after her graduation from art school. I was just
starting my own art studies and remember thinking how wonderful it must
be to become famous immediately. Six years on I have very different
ideas about that, and about what being an artist means.
Jenny's paintings have been compared to Lucian Freud's, although the
words *grotesque*, *excessive* and *gargantuan* have also been used. The
scale and *shock* off being confronted by vast canvases of blubber and
rolling flesh could easily detract from the wonderful painterly freedom
and fresh approach to the human figure. To those who want to cross the
border between reality and our notions of beauty, these paintings are a
perfect spring board.
Since Saatchi bought up her paintings six years ago, there has been very
little sight of Saville in London, except as part of that now famous
show, *Sensation*. When I was in New York last October I was delighted
to stumble across her show at the Gasgosian gallery in downtown New
York, and even more delighted to see the obvious development and
maturity in her work. My gut feeling had been that such early notoriety
would seriously affect any development. On this occasion it was a great
feeling to be wrong.
Saville paints from photographs and describes her work nearer to Francis
Bacon than to Lucien Freud. Her use of photography and her desire to use
paint to *behave like the sensation of the body itself* is intriguing.
Never has there been a time where paint, in its raw physical sense, been
a way to create sensation than it is being used by artists today.
In the interview in the Telegraph magazine 15th April, she speaks with
such passion about her work and her lack of interest in her inclusion in
the British art world, I finished convinced that she is indeed a *real*
artist. This is one young British Artist I feel very comfortable about
raising my hat to.
More on this discussion at Artlives. To subscribe please send an Email
to
subscribe...@egroups.com
Alison A Raimes
Marilyn Welch
> "Dik F. Liu" wrote:
> >
> > In article <38F16D6D...@netscape.net>, Tooloose Lowtec
> > <Tooloos...@netscape.net> writes:
> >
> > >Jenny Saville - HUGE corpulent nudes<
> >
> > She is getting better and better. At any rate she is much more interesting than
> > Freud.
>
> Bravura on a *MONUMENTAL* scale. How she can do what she does ON THAT
> SCALE is incomprehensible to me.
>
Perhaps she employs a few studio assistants?
>
> >
> > >Richard Diebenkorn<
> >
> > Elevator music.
>
> C'mon, Dik. Quiet perhaps, but certainly more character than *that*.
>
Diebenkorn rocks!
>
> --
> Tooloose Lowtec
>
> painting a blue streak
streaks like Barnett Newman?
Marilyn
humbert_...@my-deja.com
I never said that intention is the be all end all and I realy feel its only
one element amoungst many that is important in creating art. So read a
little more carefully.As for illustrators I have a lot of freinds who are
illustrators and when I got out of school I did a lot of this work to get by
until more serious gallery art was what paid the bills as well as teaching.
Having been a professional illustrator I can assure you the only thing people
care about in illustration is depiction. A good illustrator is one who can
also design well.As for intention:If you try to draw a square and screw up
and it ends up looking like a triangle what is it? A failure because you
cant draw a square. But what if its the nicest triangle ever created? I
think a lot of people working today simply play off their inabilities with a
lot of argumentations. This is something that Mani Deli boy has been trying
to get across but he ignors the design element in th
Carol Es
guess it has been said to be contemporary. Well, it *is* contemporary.
It may be a lot of other things as well.
I guess I want to put my butt on the line & ask you fine people what
you might think of my work in terms of this discussion.
You can view it here:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:46:49 -0700, lake
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>You'right Marilyn, more discussions on contemporary artists would be
>great. And why not start with Jessica Stockholder? I don't like her
>work at all. It exists in that fashionable hybrid-area between
>painting, sculpture and set-design which I find particularly
>un-appealing. It's neither this nor that, neither here nor there.
>Instead of augmenting, or blending several disciplines, it fails in all
>of them.
>
>A more awkward and un-beautiful installation than the one in Venice
>would be hard to imagine.2x4 and plywood in a 17th century drawing room
>- is that supposed to provide some sort of modernist epiphany? If so,
>why decorate it with all those silly colors?
>
>The rest of her work is more or less along the same lines - awkward,
>clunky shapes sprawling on a pristine gallery floor, painted with great
>attention to detail, to no apparent purpose. This kind of work, if you
>separate it even slightly from it's high-art, gallery context, loses
>all semblance of meaning.
>
>- Lake
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
I am Carol Es, Self-taught, Los Angeles Pop Artist.
http://esart.com <--Click on the hammer for current Ebay auctions.
Dik F. Liu
(Carol Es) writes:
>>I guess I want to put my butt on the line & ask you fine people what you
might think of my work in terms of this discussion.<<
How long have you been married to Jasper Johns and Picasso?
Dik
lake
more people like her work than like mine, and surely that is one of
success's criteria. All I'm saying is, I can't stand it, & am trying to
explain why. It's not only her work I am railing against, but also a
generic type of work, or tendency - you see it again and again - where
a painting sort of meanders off the wall and sprawls willy-nilly across
the floor. The ONLY place it sort of works, either visually or
socially, is in a gallery setting.
lake
much high art in today's world. But only within a specific context,
namely, the art gallery.
and what does it matter what I think of "postmodern art", since nobody
knows what it means anyway?
lake
eloquent. I haven't the heart to refute it.
On another thread, we were talking about "bad" art, and I denied its
existence - this is a perfect example. To me, Balthus' paintings are
deficient (I've already explained why) but to you they are
inspirational! One of us may be wrong and one of us may be right, but I
doubt it. At least, not in an absolute sense. It's more like a
tug-of-war for the soul and direction of a culture.
mdeli
>Having been a professional illustrator I can assure you the only thing people
>care about in illustration is depiction.
So what's depiction. Was Cezanne an illustrator because he depicted an
apple?
> A good illustrator is one who can
>also design well.
What about a good artist?
>As for intention:If you try to draw a square and screw up
>and it ends up looking like a triangle what is it?
Does this happened to you often?
> A failure because you
>cant draw a square. But what if its the nicest triangle ever created?
Sounds like art school stupidity doesn't it?
I
>think a lot of people working today simply play off their inabilities with a
>lot of argumentations.
... like the three stooges of Modern Academic Art, Rothko Pollock and
de Kooning
>This is something that Mani Deli boy has been trying
>to get across but he ignors the design element in th
Anyone who considers drawing as elemental immediately leads artzy
fartzies like you to conclude that they take nothing else into
consideration,
This idea is basic in art schools today because they don't teach
students how to draw.
I refer the anti-illustration maven to the fact that the finest
religious paintings were commissioned as little more than advertising
for religious myths in order to enhance priestly power. The whole
imaginary vision of Christianity comes from the iconography of
artists. What religious characters looked like and did when visually
portrayed is a figment an artist's imagination ultimately created for
money.
Most of the finest artwork ever done was illustration.
Sinhue
who altered the figure with creative liscence. I think he wants to know
why you say it's OK for Ingres but you trash Balthus for the same thing?
Miles
In order to move forward, one must learn to disregard their own death,
moving boldly and without hesitation. Only then shall they attain
enlightenment. This is the way of the Samurai.
mdeli
wrote:
>I think what Humbert was getting at was that Ingres was a great designer
>who altered the figure with creative liscence. I think he wants to know
>why you say it's OK for Ingres but you trash Balthus for the same thing?
>
>Miles
>
Humbert can't tell the difference between altering an image and
mediocre drawing. Balthus didn't alter much of anything.
Lest I give the wrong impression, Balthus could draw, just not
particularly well. If you want to see really horrible drawing by a
modern master who couldn't draw check out Matisse's flat flipper hands
and feet and some Cezanne.
Art schools teach that terrible drawing can be excused by saying,
its distortion and I wanted it that way, I'm experimenting.
Most any idiot can sense terrible drawing. It takes a lot of Artspeak
to convince him otherwise.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> My list left out one of my all time favourites:
>
> Landon MacKenzie, Canadian
>
> She is presently teaching at Emily Carr College, formerly
> from the prairies. Your mention of maps brings her work
> to mind. She does monumental paintings incorporating
> maps, and words, and layers of paint. She has some
> work at Vancouver Art Gallery, Concordia U. Montreal.
> It would be nice if we could write monographs on
> each artist but that would take a lot of time. As it is,
> I'm just pointing the way off the top of my head,
> letting people who are interested judge for themselves,
> since there is so much information already available
> on the internet. (One thing you will have to admit,
> I'm pretty good at making excuses.)
> Marilyn
Yes, I saw a very large piece by MacKenzie a couple of years ago at
VAG. It was their "Topologies" or "Topographies" (or something like
that) show. And I thought it as best thing in the show. Deeply
layered imagery and glazes, writing... She works with them stretched out
on the floor of her studio - she must sit or lie right on them; "when I
am in the painting" as Pollock said. I think that the way they are
built up over their own history, by accretion, they end up being a
metaphor for memory. Very impressive work. Very beautiful too.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> You'right Marilyn, more discussions on contemporary artists would be
> great. And why not start with Jessica Stockholder? I don't like her
> work at all. It exists in that fashionable hybrid-area between
> painting, sculpture and set-design which I find particularly
[snip]
> This kind of work, if you
> separate it even slightly from it's high-art, gallery context, loses
> all semblance of meaning.
>
Ah, but in art _context_is_everything_. Duchamp made this very clear
when he 'recontextualized' everyday objects by placing them in a gallery
& giving them new meaning.
Anyway, what's wrong with art that can only exist in a gallery context?
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> Well I'm not gonna give you any flack for a list so full of genius as
> that. Except to say that it's too long to admit of detailed discussion.
> I just wanted to second your nomination of Giacometti as a PAINTER. His
> sculpture is so astoundingly fabulous that it's easy to overlook his
> heart-wrenchingly beautiful paintings.
You almost never see the paintings. They were a real revelation to me.
A testament to 'faith in process'. Have you read any accounts of the
tortuous means by which they were created? Sitting after sitting after
sitting with Giacometti working away, saying things like "this is
terrible... I will never get it... I'm going to quit painting
forever..." with the occasional "oh, maybe there is hope yet" and then
back to "this is terrible... I will never get it... I'm going to quit
painting forever..." Working with the dim natural light in his dirt
floor studio until the light was SO dim the sitters would wonder if he
could see at all - only to obliterate it all and do it all again the
next day. The fact that each piece exists at all, in its final state is
a small miracle. It's no wonder the existentialists adopted him.
For instance, compare a
> Giacometti portrait to a Warhol portrait, and what do you get?
>
Well there really _is_ no comparison, as you know.
Sinhue
I think what Humbert was getting at was that Ingres was a great designer
who altered the figure with creative liscence. I think he wants to know
why you say it's OK for Ingres but you trash Balthus for the same thing?
Miles
Balthus didn't alter much of anything.
*You said that he broke a womans neck in one of his paintings. Now you
say he didn't alter much. Once more you are contradicting yourself.
Lest I give the wrong impression, Balthus could draw, just not
particularly well.
*When you say drawing, I think you must mean rendering instead of design
because you have not talked about anything other than rendering ability.
What about composition and colour range? There are other elements upon
which to base our judgments of art.
Art schools teach that terrible drawing can be excused by saying, its
distortion and I wanted it that way, I'm experimenting.
*I can draw verry realisticaly, as could Balthus. There is a difference
however between a person who can draw (render) very well and chooses not
to, and one who cant draw and passes off their inability as style. I
don't see anything in Balthus to suggest he could not draw realistically
at all and I have seen many of his drawings and he can render the hell
out of a figure.
It takes a lot of Artspeak to convince him otherwise.
*Humbert has already mentioned in one of his posts that he does not like
the artsy fartsies and I think you are simply reacting to the fact that
he called you on some good points.
*Also, You never answered my question.
Why is it OK for Ingres to break bones on a figure to get them into the
position he wants and not for Balthus.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
[...]
>
> *I can draw verry realisticaly, as could Balthus. There is a difference
> however between a person who can draw (render) very well and chooses not
> to, and one who cant draw and passes off their inability as style.
Miles, I have attempted to make this point myself, & it got glossed
over: Just because you are capable of painstakingly getting all the
anatomical details right, does that mean you HAVE to? Do you have to
limit yourself to that kind of drawing just to prove, over & over again
that you can do it? I don't think so. I certainly don't want to. Might
as well use a camera.
There is a realism that is possible in art, a subjective realism that
has nothing to do with how a camera sees the world. That's the sort of
realism that is of interest to me.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> x no archive: yes
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Tooloose Lowtec wrote:
>
> > Forgot to mention:
> >
> > If you get, or have access to _Art in America_ the March 2000 issue
> > (with an amazing Jenny Saville double portrait on the cover. 9'x12'!!)
> > has an almost full page reproduction of a Tony Scherman encaustic about
> > 20 pages in (no numbers). It is in the context of an ad for a book being
> > published about his work. The book is called _Chasing Napoleon_. When
> > you look at the reproduction imagine a canvas 6'x6' or larger. The blur
> > above the 'CH' in 'Chasing' is an area where he has taken a hot knife
> > (or similar object) and sliced away a section of the encaustic, exposing
> > the built up layers.
> >
> > --
> > Tooloose Lowtec
> >
> > painting a green streak
> >
> >
> Thanks I can access Art in America. I had turned against that
> rag, but I hear it has improved. Now I'm wondering if Jenny
> Saville is the artist who paints imaginary portraits, made-up
> people. Will check it out. I'm preparing for a show downtown.
> We have one or two main intersections which we call downtown.
How did the show go? Which gallery?
>
> Tar paintings, you were not wrong, some have actually fallen
> of their ground onto the gallery floor, just as some heavily
> laden acrylic paintings have done. Why do these artists
> ignore physics?
I asked an artist friend once if she wasn't concerned about the
printer's inks on some collage bits she'd used fading in time & reply
was "Every piece of art has a life of its own." She went on to explain
that she'd been careful to adhere them with acrylic medium so the the
piece would maintain structural integrity, but was unconcerned about
things like colour shift etc.
Were you able to check out Saville or Scherman btw?
>
> Marilyn
lake
in art. Yet I see in his urinals something of a CRITIQUE of the gallery
context.
I'm not sure why I dislike so much, art that only functions within a
gallery context. It's an instinct, a gut-response, and a strong one. I
see the gallery-context as being ephemeral, almost frivolous. It
doesn't have any meaning which is deep enough to serve as a basis for
serious art. Artists who use the pristine walls & spaces of the gallery
as part of the foundation for their work, are building on sand.
In today's world, a good painting should travel well. Or, if it is
site-specific, then the site should have more meaning than a typical
art gallery.
Carol Es
>>>I guess I want to put my butt on the line & ask you fine people what you
>might think of my work in terms of this discussion.<<
>
>How long have you been married to Jasper Johns and Picasso?
>
>Dik
How long have you been a Dik?