Janson's History of Art
christopher moss
recently? Everything being discssed here in this group is covered by
Janson before he gets to page 22. Seems kinda funny to me since the book
is almost 1,000 pages long. I'm not sure if that says more about the
text or this group. (both?)
I guess that's not realy a question, more an observation, but perhaps it
can lead to some interesting discssion.
take care,
-cm
humbert_...@my-deja.com
I beleive I left the next posed question up to you when last we met, but as
yet I havent seen one. If you wish to discuss artists in particular who do
you suggest? Perhaps everyone should throw down some of their favorites eh?
HUMBERT
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
christopher moss
how a list of favorites can hurt.
_Here are some painters I've been looking at a lot lately, I'll try to
charge some of the statements so maybe we can get some dialogue going.
In no particular order.
1. Joan Miro, not sure what to say here, I haven't put a finger on
exactly what makes his paintings go boom! I have only recently started
looking at him.
2. Giovanni Belinni, some passages in his paintings have recently lead
me to state that "I would like to think the masters of the past would
find something great in the art of the present". I know I said something
like this in another post.
3. Giotto's Arena Chapel Frescoes, just amazing, I've got a real taste
for his sort of clunkyness, largish forms interacting with many smaller
forms, all dancing some forgotten rite, a leftover of early pagan
ritual.
4. The Mystery Villa frescoes at Pompeii, artist unknown. It amazes me
the level of painting that has been uncovered there. Proof positive that
high culture matching or even exceeding our own existed under Roman
rule.
5. Louisa Matthiasdottir, an artist from Iceland who lived and worked
there and in NYC. She mainly worked still lifes but some of her early
landscape with figure paintings moved me a great deal recently. It's
hard to find repos. of her work right now but I'm sure we'll hear a lot
about her in the next few years.
6. Balthus, If not the greatest living painter then I don't know who is.
Unlike some artists I admire, B. has this power to floor me almost every
time he picks up a brush.
7. George Braque, his brutish forms dance around the canvas with the
surprising grace of an elephant in a tutu.
8. Eugene Leroy, I recently saw some of his work in an exhibition
curated by an ex teacher of mine. It took me a long time to see what his
power was, I'm still not sure how great I think he is but I can't get
him out of my head right now. Gotta go back and look some more.
9. Don Van Vliet, (aka Captain Beefhart) also in that exhibition, I was
taken aback by his clunky forms and directness. Again, I'm not sure if
he's got staying power, but I was real impressed with how his paintings
communicated ideas originally developed in his very raw brand of music.
10. Paul Klee, I know he's an easy one to like but that's ok sometimes.
One of the only original responses to cubism, he certainly understood
how to make a picture better than most artists at that time.
-cm
humbert_...@my-deja.com
SS_Po...@webtv.net (christopher moss) wrote:
> _I'm not too good at coming up with questions to discuss but I don't see
> how a list of favorites can hurt.
> _Here are some painters I've been looking at a lot lately, I'll try to
> charge some of the statements so maybe we can get some dialogue going.
> In no particular order.
> 1. Joan Miro, not sure what to say here, I haven't put a finger on
> exactly what makes his paintings go boom! I have only recently started
> looking at him.
Miro doesn't thrill me. I think he was verry talented and had a wonderfully
bold technique but he sort of bores me right now. Someone I will return to
down the road perhaps?
> 2. Giovanni Belinni, some passages in his paintings have recently lead
> me to state that "I would like to think the masters of the past would
> find something great in the art of the present". I know I said something
> like this in another post.
It's been a few years since I say any Belini's but MAN can that jerk paint.
This is a man who establishes this wonderfully melodic harmony in each and
every composition he throws down.
> 3. Giotto's Arena Chapel Frescoes, just amazing, I've got a real taste
> for his sort of clunkyness, largish forms interacting with many smaller
> forms, all dancing some forgotten rite, a leftover of early pagan
> ritual.
I was actually fortunate to visit the chappel a few years ago and I was
devastated by it. Giotto's name came up a lot in my art history classes when
I was a student but I had to meet the man through his painting to realy
appreciate him.
> 4. The Mystery Villa frescoes at Pompeii, artist unknown. It amazes me
> the level of painting that has been uncovered there. Proof positive that
> high culture matching or even exceeding our own existed under Roman
> rule.
A lot of people are amazed by the fact that realy advanced well executed
painting was going on "back in the day." I went to a great show at the Met
just recently of Encaustic paintings from ancient egypt. There was a guy
there talking to his buddy about how he never thought this sort of thing was
going on back then. It has never surprised me though. Perhaps because of my
knowledge of how societies evolve and have grown. It just seems natural that
these things would grow up and die out and on and on. . .
> 5. Louisa Matthiasdottir, an artist from Iceland who lived and worked
> there and in NYC. She mainly worked still lifes but some of her early
> landscape with figure paintings moved me a great deal recently. It's
> hard to find repos. of her work right now but I'm sure we'll hear a lot
> about her in the next few years.
> 6. Balthus, If not the greatest living painter then I don't know who is.
> Unlike some artists I admire, B. has this power to floor me almost every
> time he picks up a brush.
Let's face it. #'s 5 and 6 realy deserve their own post. I was going to
throw one out about Balthus but why don't I leave that one to you.
> 7. George Braque, his brutish forms dance around the canvas with the
> surprising grace of an elephant in a tutu.
Hell of a lot better than Picasso.
> 8. Eugene Leroy, I recently saw some of his work in an exhibition
> curated by an ex teacher of mine. It took me a long time to see what his
> power was, I'm still not sure how great I think he is but I can't get
> him out of my head right now. Gotta go back and look some more.
Never heard the name before.
Interesting.
> 9. Don Van Vliet, (aka Captain Beefhart) also in that exhibition, I was
> taken aback by his clunky forms and directness. Again, I'm not sure if
> he's got staying power, but I was real impressed with how his paintings
> communicated ideas originally developed in his very raw brand of music.
Oooooooooh K. Well Im not much of a music guy so I cant say too much on
this. I havent seen any of his paintings although I had heard of his woking
in that medium but the whole Zappa Beafheart thing kind of puts me off. They
are good and important but they just get on my nerves. Im leary to think
what BH's paintings must look like.
> 10. Paul Klee, I know he's an easy one to like but that's ok sometimes.
> One of the only original responses to cubism, he certainly understood
> how to make a picture better than most artists at that time.
Nice list. Im waiting on another post I put out to throw mine down, but
maybe I shouldn't wait too long.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
[Snipped...]
> 8. Eugene Leroy, I recently saw some of his work in an exhibition
> curated by an ex teacher of mine. It took me a long time to see what his
> power was, I'm still not sure how great I think he is but I can't get
> him out of my head right now. Gotta go back and look some more.
Leroy is a brave choice. I find his work extraordinarily rich &
resonant, but not many people would be able to see the beauty in it. In
fact when I did a websearch on him some time ago I ran across this
article: http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_02.11.99/art/leroy.html
written by
someone *so upset* with his work that he suggested that Leroy was a
fraud being perpetrated by the artworld preying on the gullible.
Phrases like "hideous paintings" and "provokes a harder look at the
farcical cycles of hype and calculation that fuel the art market" etc.
> 9. Don Van Vliet, (aka Captain Beefhart) also in that exhibition, I was
> taken aback by his clunky forms and directness. Again, I'm not sure if
> he's got staying power, but I was real impressed with how his paintings
> communicated ideas originally developed in his very raw brand of music.
I was somewhat disappointed in Van Vliet's paintings given the mature of
his music I was expecting far more real WEIRDNESS in the work. It
actually seems pretty tame and limited, next to his music. And the site
itself, I was really surprised by the commercial tone - f'rinstance the
subhead for the gallery section reads: Welcome to an exhibition of the
finest abstract paintings you're
likely to see, all by Don Van Vliet. Huh? Are we missing the point
here? You'd think he'd do better with a site that was more
authentically Beefheart - weird grotty juxtapositions of image & phrase
etc. This site is likely to alienate the very people it is trying to
market to. Doesn't feel like he's really behind this. Tho' ultimately
he's surely given it the nod of approval. WHY? - Bucks? Anyway, check it
out for yourself:
Run Paint Run Run
The Don Van Vliet Paintings Gallery
http://www.beefheart.com/runpaint/index.html
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a weird streak
christopher moss
what I saw at school, in fact the whole show is quite fascinating. The
premise behind the curation of the show is "Nature: Contemporary Art and
the Natural World". That in itself may leave one clueless as to the
show's actual content. Questions like "how do Per Kirkeby, Susan
Rothenberg, Don Van Vliet, Milton Resnick, Maya Lin, Pat Steir and
others fit into a show about nature". (those are some of the people
included) The answer being that we're talking about Nature beyond the
pretty trees and nice flowers. The idea was to address a certain
primitive rawness, a real nature of being quality that these artists
share.
Leroy, I've learned, wasn't "discovered" until he was in his 80's. This
lends an interesting aspect to his work, it's not just some art school
garbage done by some punk ass kid. It resonates, as you say, there is no
hard edge to grab onto, just a field of paint that comes alive as you
stare into it. About nature, I think Leroy exudes in his work a kind of
nature that gets to the bare bones of being, he's after more than just
superficial artifice, he's a part of nature. His work is more a
bi-product of being than anything else. I can see how it may be easy to
dismiss him though, I did the first time I saw his stuff.
Van Vliet travels along much the same path, though I'm not sure he's as
good as Leroy, there is something raw there. It's something that's got
to be seen in person as internet thumbnails don't have the "presence" of
paint on a canvas. I believe Vliet's paintings are connected to his
music, it's not such a break as you think. Listen to the primitiveness
of his own music, it sounds "weird" but I think that's only a
superficiality, a surface texture, if you will. His music aimed to
getting at some deeply rooted primacy, the guts of what makes up the
world. I use the word "primal" a lot because that's what I feel is at
the root of the work in the show I'm going on about and because I think
all the painters are addressing this issue, to varying degrees. They're
creating out of that human connectedness to all things, the "primordial
ooze" if you want to call it that. And also they're creating out of that
human need to create, something I know all artists have felt (as well as
some non-artists who just feel the urge to 'make things').
-cm