Art Masterpieces
diesel
The character, Kate purchased fine art masterpieces by Degas, Monet,
and Picasso. They showed these on screen. These are real master-
works that exist in both Art text/ reference books. They exist in the
real world. They did not go down with the Titanic, as far as I know.
Foxzphile
Someone said they could've been copies, but I'm not sure that was really done
that much at the time. I mean, why make copies of something some starving
artist did? Not many people took to Monet, since painting landscapes was some
revolutionary ideal in the day. But still, it was a movie, and it was just a
way to get a laugh at Idiot Cal cause he said Monet, Picasso and the like
wouldn't amount to anything.
Fox
Hugh1959
I am not an art expert, but I think the Picasso paintings shown were not right
for the period. I thought that Picasso did not start painting in that abstract
manner until much later in his career.
I asked a friend who is an artist (but who has not seen the movie) and she
agreed with me.
Any comments?
Maura and Matthew Greig
jstelma...@pelican.talon.net wrote:
> recognize many of those paintings. If they went down with the ship,
> then no one would have ever seen them. I guess Monet and Picasso
> could have realized that the ship sank with the painting and redid
> them. Or, they could have made multiple copies of each painting, then
> they would not be worth so much today. This is one scene that could
> have been changed a little.
Some people have suggested that the paintings in the movie were meant to
be "studies" for some of the major works of these artists. I'm not sure
I'm right but, the waterlilies by Monet in the movie looks a bit lighter
than the famous one. The impressionists were known to do a series of
landscapes of the same subject at various times of day.
Maura
--
Matthew and Maura Greig <<magik...@pacbell.net>>
Remove SPAM before replying
jstelma...@pelican.talon.net
Foxzphile
>> On 24 Feb 1998 23:10:04 GMT, hugh...@aol.com (Hugh1959) wrote:
>>
>> >I am not an art expert, but I think the Picasso paintings shown were not
>right
>> >for the period. I thought that Picasso did not start painting in that
>abstract
>> >manner until much later in his career.
All the Picasso paintings which are abstract in nature I've studied are dated
in the 1930's. I think he did some stuff in the late teens, but I'm not too
sure. I'll have to take it up with my instructor at class tomorrow.
Fox
Tziper
we have gone over this before
the art only looks like the real thing, but if you look closly enough you will
realize that they are in fact not the real paintings. They contain the
stylistic hallmarks to help us i.d. them to the said artists.
the Picasso painting may look familiar, it bears a stricking resemblance to
"Les Demoiselles D'Avigon" painted in 1907.
It of course is not that painting because it hangs today in MOMA and is over 8'
by 8' large, to big to cary under ones arn let alone keep in even the lagest of
Titanics passenger cabins.
An itntersting note about that painting. Rose is at first shocked to discover
that Jacks models were prostitutes. Clearly she was not aware that Picasso
also used prostitutes as his models as the women in Les Demoiselles are.
chip
Foxzphile
Rose just didn't plain understand art at all, I think. She didn't get the
subject matter I guess. But the theme in the Picasso painting was exactly
reflecting Rose and her condition at the time.
Of course she's gonna get them and bring them aboard (cause it was in the
script) just so we can laugh at whatta moron Cal is because he said Degas,
Picasso and Monet wouldn't amount to anything.
Fox