Contemporary Art/Who's Doing It?
Mike Stengl
somewhat recently living artists that turn you on??
I've listed a couple I like in a previous post:
Michael Sowa, for lack of a better sight, this one:
http://www.postershop.co.uk/Sowa-Michael-p.html
Charles Bragg
Noumenon
> Who are you favorite living or somewhat recently living artists
there are many nice CONTEMPORARY artists
- Michael Parkes, most of the works;
- Gil Bruvel, some (http://www.bruvel.com);
- Ernst Fuchs, many;
- Siegfid Zademack, some (http://www.zademack.com);
etc
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Seagull Manager
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:3F1499D1...@Concentric.Net...
> > Who is making good art right now?
> > Who are you favorite living or somewhat recently living artists
>
>
> there are many nice CONTEMPORARY artists
>
> - Michael Parkes, most of the works;
> - Gil Bruvel, some (http://www.bruvel.com);
> - Ernst Fuchs, many;
> - Siegfid Zademack, some (http://www.zademack.com);
I admire Ernst Fuchs' work, but it is scarce both on the web and in print.
Thanks for the Zademack - an interesting link.
Mani Deli
>> Who is making good art right now?
>> Who are you favorite living or somewhat recently living artists
>
>
>there are many nice CONTEMPORARY artists
>
>- Michael Parkes, most of the works;
>- Gil Bruvel, some (http://www.bruvel.com);
>- Ernst Fuchs, many;
>- Siegfid Zademack, some (http://www.zademack.com);
Check out:
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Living_Masters/masters1.asp
Some much finer than others. I don't care for most of the subject
matter but the best is superb.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
Fuch's early work is great I think he got lazy and his later stuff is
a big come-down.
Mike Stengl
> > Who are you favorite living or somewhat recently living artists
>
>
> there are many nice CONTEMPORARY artists
>
> - Michael Parkes, most of the works;
> - Gil Bruvel, some (http://www.bruvel.com);
> - Ernst Fuchs, many;
> - Siegfid Zademack, some (http://www.zademack.com);
Thanks. Of the four I was only familiar with Parkes. Interesting, Mani
also suggested Bruvel. I would like very much to see more. Who else
will step up here?
à-la-votre
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>
>Who is making good art right now? Who are you favorite living or
>somewhat recently living artists that turn you on??
You're kidding, right???
Now we're going to argue again about what
constitutes 'good art' to say nothing of
what 'contemporary art' means. If you
really need to know the answer to these
questions, I recommend subscribing to a
few of the 'contemporary' art magazines.
I know of no better way of keeping abreast
of 'current' art trends. Or you can simply
spend some time in your local library with
those art magazines they subscribe to and
save yourself the price of the subscription.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>> - Michael Parkes, most of the works;
>> - Gil Bruvel, some (http://www.bruvel.com);
>> - Ernst Fuchs, many;
>> - Siegfid Zademack, some (http://www.zademack.com);
>
>Thanks. Of the four I was only familiar with Parkes. Interesting, Mani
>also suggested Bruvel. I would like very much to see more. Who else
>will step up here?
>>
Also check the Illustrators Annual at the library. Although much is
average the best is included .l
Mani Deli
Voisins) wrote:
>xIn article <45dd5dd.03071...@posting.google.com>,
>eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>>
>>Who is making good art right now? Who are you favorite living or
>>somewhat recently living artists that turn you on??
>
>You're kidding, right???
>
>Now we're going to argue again about what
>constitutes 'good art' to say nothing of
>what 'contemporary art' means.
and what does 'contemporary art' mean?
>If you
>really need to know the answer to these
>questions, I recommend subscribing to a
>few of the 'contemporary' art magazines.
>I know of no better way of keeping abreast
>of 'current' art trends.
My favorite piece of stupidity along that line is "Artforum." Its the
main artzy fartzy Artspeak yak sheet. I look at all the issues. I also
look at about 25 mags a month. Most don't reach its height of
stupidity.
Seagull Manager
<à-la-votre @dontemailme.com (Bonjour Voisins)> wrote in message
news:3f15...@news.zianet.com...
> xIn article <45dd5dd.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
> >
> >Who is making good art right now? Who are you favorite living or
> >somewhat recently living artists that turn you on??
>
> constitutes 'good art' to say nothing of
> what 'contemporary art' means. If you
> really need to know the answer to these
> questions, I recommend subscribing to a
> few of the 'contemporary' art magazines.
That just tells you what the editors of those magazines think is good - not
what people posting here think is good.
> I know of no better way of keeping abreast
> of 'current' art trends.
But that's not the question, is it? The questions are about who's doing good
stuff in the opinions of the people posting here. Or perhaps you think that
all must share exactly the views of those magazines?
à-la-votre
says...
>My favorite piece of stupidity along that line is "Artforum." Its the
>main artzy fartzy Artspeak yak sheet. I look at all the issues. I also
>look at about 25 mags a month. Most don't reach its height of
>stupidity.
My suggestion to you (wasted before I even
type it) is to cancel ALL of your subscriptions
and only subscribe to Artist's Magazine or
one with similar focus (how to acquire 'skills').
Mike Stengl
> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
> >
> >Who is making good art right now? Who are you favorite living or
> >somewhat recently living artists that turn you on??
>
> You're kidding, right???
>
> Now we're going to argue again about what
> constitutes 'good art' to say nothing of
> what 'contemporary art' means.
You're getting caught up in words. I simply tire of people bickering
the relative merits or otherwise of dead people. I thought it would be
far more interesting for a change to see/hear of some artists that
people were excited about/inspired by what they were doing NOW. Of
course this opens the door to more mud throwing but that wasn't the
idea. So, who do you like?
Mike Stengl
PRECISELY!
Mani Deli
Voisins) wrote:
I won't pay a cent for crappy mags. The art school art library carries
them all. You can see the result in the crap produced by the students.
Gud Nabor
seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk says...
>That just tells you what the editors of those magazines think is good
That's absolute bullshit! How many 'art' magazines
do you read a month? What the magazines do is
give a person who cannot make it all over the world
to the various art venues a chance to see what is
showing any given month around the world. You can
filter as you like what is written about the artist's
exhibitions, but how else can a person come to
know what's what without the paid advertising and
un-paid reviews of various arts event?!
Gud Nabor
>So, who do you like?
You make my point for me - WHO CARES WHO I LIKE?!
It's like asking someone their favorite color,
food, smell, taste, etc. To each his/her own!!!
Gud Nabor
says...
>I won't pay a cent for crappy mags. The art school art library carries
>them all. You can see the result in the crap produced by the students.
Aw cum on sport. Just admit you're such a
cheapskate you won't fork over the money
for your very own keepsake copies of those
'how to' magazines that involve discussions
of 'skill' in art. Sooo, do you use the
library's duplicating machine to copy articles
of your favorite 'skilled' artists, or are
you to cheap to even spend the money for
the copies? Don't answer - I know the answer...
Seagull Manager
news:3f1875e4$1...@news.zianet.com...
> In article <bf5qt7$6u0$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk says...
>
>
> >That just tells you what the editors of those magazines think is good
>
> That's absolute bullshit!
There's no need for that.
How many 'art' magazines
> do you read a month?
Enough.
> What the magazines do is
> give a person who cannot make it all over the world
> to the various art venues a chance to see what is
> showing any given month around the world.
Different art magazines do different things. Some (quite a few) have an
agenda to promote particular art, according to the publisher's or
editor-in-chief's taste. Some are a bit more catholic, in which case we can
say that they reflect the contributors' tastes (but usually the contributors
to a particular magazine tend to have similar backgrounds and tastes). Few,
if any, are totally catholic. Some just give market news or gossip about who
was seen at what opening, etc.
> You can
> filter as you like what is written about the artist's
> exhibitions, but how else can a person come to
> know what's what without the paid advertising and
> un-paid reviews of various arts event?!
You can walk into a few galleries. That often works.
Gud Nabor
seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk says...
>Different art magazines do different things. Some (quite a few) have an
>agenda to promote particular art, according to the publisher's or
>editor-in-chief's taste.
You are writing from somewhere
other than the USA, so it's difficult for
us to make comparisons. Where I live
there isn't a magazine published that
will turn down advertising money, regardless of
"what" art is being advertised. The downside
of most art magazines sold today in the USA is
that they depend entirely on advertising income
to survive. The upside is that subscribers don't
have to pay thousands of dollars for their
subscriptions in order for the magazine to continue
to publish.
The fact that a magazine tends to focus on
"Southwest Art" or be a "How To" publication,
will dictate where the advertiser chooses to
place their ads, so in that sense you are
correct. And the magazines I choose to subscribe
to are those that tend to focus on the BIG
PICTURE, not regional or narrowly-focused art.
And as for your last point; "You can walk into
a few galleries. That often works." Wouldn't
it be wonderful if we all lived in some major
metropolis like London or NYC where we could
choose the art venue from a wealth of venues,
plus have the time to visit them on a regular
basis. And wouldn't it be wonderful if the USA
were as small as the UK so that I could hop
on a train and be in a gallery and back home
again in a day if I lived 'up country.'
In the meantime, I have the wonderfully
illustrated art magazines to keep me, and
others like me, informed.
Mike Stengl
I began this thread because there was a plethora of threads about how
good or bad a particular famous artist was. What I thought would be a
nice change was a list of contemporary artists/painters that inspired
people. Personally I wanted to check out other people's
(recent)influences. So, I care...
Flying_Naked_People
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
> I began this thread because there was a plethora of threads about how
> good or bad a particular famous artist was. What I thought would be a
> nice change was a list of contemporary artists/painters that inspired
> people. Personally I wanted to check out other people's
> (recent)influences. So, I care...
>
To be honest, I really don't look at that much art. What little art I do see,
I don't even look to see who made it unless the artwork is mind boggling in a
*good* way - or - in an extraordinarily beautiful way.
So only three (types of) artists come to mind: Surrealists and Escher. Oh, and
the Renaissance masters (the ones who were skillfully accurate).
I think these artists will "influence" the direction I hope to go in some day
should I manage to remind myself. I'm really leaning towards the idea of
incorporating surrealistic tricks and optical illusions in my future work.
Visual puzzles.
Shame on me for being "name-less."
Gud Nabor
>I began this thread because there was a plethora of threads about how
>good or bad a particular famous artist was.
The reason there is such a plethora of threads
is because there is such a plethora of tastes.
For me to stop and compare and contrast all of
the contemporary artists I admire and then come up
with a 'top ten' list would, for me at least,
be a daunting task. And I suspect when I was
finished with my list YOU might not recognize a
single name, just as I don't recognize MOST of
the names others have already posted in this
thread.
Mike Stengl
> In article <45dd5dd.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>
>
> >I began this thread because there was a plethora of threads about how
> >good or bad a particular famous artist was.
>
> The reason there is such a plethora of threads
> is because there is such a plethora of tastes.
correct
> For me to stop and compare and contrast all of
> the contemporary artists I admire and then come up
> with a 'top ten' list would, for me at least,
> be a daunting task.
don't do this then. how bout list the first 3 that come to mind.
And I suspect when I was
> finished with my list YOU might not recognize a
> single name,
THAT'S THE POINT. Because I might not have seen the painters you list
I would LIKE to have the opportunity to do so. find something new, see
something I otherwise would not. it's a sharing thing and of course
it's completely selfish and for my own advantage. unless others also
enjoy checking out the painters some else has been motivated to
list...
>just as I don't recognize MOST of
> the names others have already posted in this
> thread.
so, did you bother to check out any of the artists others listed that
you didn't recognize?
Mike Stengl
> In article <45dd5dd.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
> > I began this thread because there was a plethora of threads about how
> > good or bad a particular famous artist was. What I thought would be a
> > nice change was a list of contemporary artists/painters that inspired
> > people. Personally I wanted to check out other people's
> > (recent)influences. So, I care...
> >
>
> To be honest, I really don't look at that much art. What little art I do see,
> I don't even look to see who made it unless the artwork is mind boggling in a
> *good* way - or - in an extraordinarily beautiful way.
for the most part me too. i have had crummy luck trying to find much
of anything I like on the internet when i do look.
>
> So only three (types of) artists come to mind: Surrealists and Escher. Oh, and
> the Renaissance masters (the ones who were skillfully accurate).
i would imagine you would like many of the painters listed in the
first couple of threads.
>
> I think these artists will "influence" the direction I hope to go in some day
> should I manage to remind myself. I'm really leaning towards the idea of
> incorporating surrealistic tricks and optical illusions in my future work.
> Visual puzzles.
>
> Shame on me for being "name-less."
not at all...
Flying_Naked_People
> i would imagine you would like many of the painters listed in the
> first couple of threads.
>
You know, I don't.
I can appreciate the *effort* of all of these artists, and I can observe that
their paintings/drawings/etc. have been shoved in everyone's face,... but that
doesn't mean I think their work is great.
I'm afraid that people who have been repeatedly exposed to the same images are
under the impression that the images are great. Take Michelangelo's painting
of [God] touching [Adam's] finger. That picture is on the side of public buses
for pete's sake... so because it's "everywhere," people assume it's great. A
theory similar to advertising - the more times a person is exposed to an
product's ad, the more likely s/he will <ahem> BUY (into) it.
You see, my concern is *never* with who *likes* who (as the Google archives
will show). My concern is that certain artists are being hailed as Masters,
when their work is flawed. Yes, I *do* regard the work of a Master as a
standard. (Everyone can't win 1st place.)
So I won't be manipulated into accepting Van Gogh - a horrible floral painter
- as a "great" artist simply because his paintings are on placemats, or
because people pay millions to own his work. The monetary value of his work
(in this context) is irrelevant, and a whole different ballgame. The quality
of his work is Butt-Ugly - And so is the work of some of the artists already
listed.
Don't believe me? Take the time to look at it WITHOUT the name. I know that
will be hard, but imagine that Gan Vogh joined this newsgroup with his florals
and asked for criticism. What kind of responses do you think you would see?
Lol.
This is not a rant.
Marc Sabatella
> Don't believe me? Take the time to look at it WITHOUT the name. I know
that
> will be hard, but imagine that Gan Vogh joined this newsgroup with his
florals
> and asked for criticism. What kind of responses do you think you would
see?
Insults from you and one or two others, praise from practically everyone
else.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Gud Nabor
>so, did you bother to check out any of the artists others listed that
>you didn't recognize?
Yes, and I found most to be trite.
Three of my all-time favorites and ones
with international reputations are, in
no particular order, and OFF THE TOP OF
MY HEAD...
Jim Dine, Alfred Leslie, and early Odd Nerdrum
(Leslie may be deceased now)
To be fair to the fair sex, here are three:
Deborah Butterfield, Cindy Sherman, Janet Fish
Gud Nabor
says...
>Don't believe me? Take the time to look at it WITHOUT the name. I know that
>will be hard, but imagine that Gan Vogh joined this newsgroup with his florals
>and asked for criticism. What kind of responses do you think you would see?
>Lol.
>
>This is not a rant.
You're surely kidding?!
If you're basing your remarks on direct observation after
seeing a retrospective of his works, or after
having seen MANY of his works in person, then
I accept your opinion as being informed.
If you've only seen reproductions
and never had a chance to see the real thing,
then you should be ashamed of yourself for
taking such liberties...
Flying_Naked_People
I don't need to see these "in person":
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0491.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0763.htm
Roob
> In article <3f1d3d5e$1...@news.zianet.com>, ho...@dontemailme.com says...
> > >Don't believe me? Take the time to look at it WITHOUT the name. I know that
> > >will be hard, but imagine that Gan Vogh joined this newsgroup with his
> florals
> > >and asked for criticism. What kind of responses do you think you would see?
> > >Lol.
> > >
> > >This is not a rant.
> >
> > You're surely kidding?!
> > If you're basing your remarks on direct observation after
> > seeing a retrospective of his works, or after
> > having seen MANY of his works in person, then
> > I accept your opinion as being informed.
> > If you've only seen reproductions
> > and never had a chance to see the real thing,
> > then you should be ashamed of yourself for
> > taking such liberties...
> >
>
> I don't need to see these "in person":
Yo, van gogh doodled around like every other artist and sometimes he
didn't finish his paintings. plus he used shitty paints for some
stuff. why don't we take your best work, and put it up against one of
van gogh's decent, minor works:
It easily smashes your entire oeuvre; it smashes it down to the ground
like a bag of dirt. his composition is so tight, not even michael
jordan could pass it, yo. only an ass would try to defame van gogh by
pointing out one of his doodles. only an ass would claim that "without
the name" his paintings would be bad.
the fact is that van gogh is underrated. no one's reputation survives
a hundred years with mediocre paintings, and you have yet to realize
that.
you shouldn't so easily slight someone that is infinitely better than
you at what you do:
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/drawings/p_1708r.htm
conclusion: van gogh dominates you even though he started painting in
his late twenties and you've been "drawing before [you were] walking".
if you weren't so ignorant, you would be able to learn from your
masters. EVEN MANI RESPECTS SOME OLD MASTERS.
Flying_Naked_People
library_...@hotmail.com says...
This painting is -clearly- the influence for the landscapes in Dr. Suess
books. (Notice the trees mommy points to when she reads his books to you?) No
wonder you like it. But of course, you and Van Gogh must share the same mental
disease - that's why you admire these:
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0779.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0800.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0819.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0816.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0787.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0783.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0772.htm
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0815.htm
This website has over 100 terrible paintings just like these. You should go
there Rube - you might find a friend - and the meaning behind your screenname.
Flying_Naked_People
>
As if that's supposed to mean something. Look, if you want to ride Mani's ass,
take it to e-mail, and let him know. I don't think your indirect flirtations
are getting through to him... he's not responding.
Gud Nabor
says...
>I don't need to see these "in person":
>
>http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0491.htm
>http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0763.htm
I hesitate to continue responding in this
thread since I don't want to be assailed
as another ROOB. But Roob did say what I
am going to, only in a slightly less polite
manner.
There is an old saying that goes something
like, "An artist has to produce umpteen
bad paintings in order to produce one masterpiece."
That is no less true of Van Gogh. For you to
pick some of his "worst works" as examples of
his "best work" simply does NOT work!
As for letting Van Gogh speak for himself,
he has done that superbly by having his
works sell at auction in recent years for
record-setting prices for paintings. I don't
recall what the highest paid was - but it
was something like 83 MILLION USA DOLLARS!
Not bad for a painting that you could say
sold for about 4 million per square inch!
And I have no idea what his "worst works"
would go for at auction, but I feel sure we
could all live out our lives comfortably
on what the "worst of the worst" would sell
for. And no, don't even go there - equating
"good art" to market value. That theme has
been beaten to death already here.
Flying_Naked_People
> There is an old saying that goes something
> like, "An artist has to produce umpteen
> bad paintings in order to produce one masterpiece."
That's a myth. Many artists produce multiple artworks of high quality. For
you to say otherwise belittles the serious efforts of successful artists and
questions what they've been doing their entire lives.
> That is no less true of Van Gogh. For you to
> pick some of his "worst works" as examples of
> his "best work" simply does NOT work!
Disappointing that you said that - it reveals that you didn't bother to check
out the hundreds of pictures by Van Gogh at that site. Had you DONE that, you
would have observed that the BULK of his work is worse than the well-known
art. You can not rationally call this artist "a master" when he produces 90
horror pictures, and 10 tolerable paintings.
If his life's work were a homework assignment, he would have earned a "F-".
And his parents, would be questioning why he is on the "honor role".
> As for letting Van Gogh speak for himself,
> he has done that superbly by having his
> works sell at auction in recent years for
> record-setting prices for paintings.
> I don't recall what the highest paid was - but it
> was something like 83 MILLION USA DOLLARS!
> Not bad for a painting that you could say
> sold for about 4 million per square inch!
Irrelevant really. The art market is a game. Van Gogh is merely one of the
squares on the game board.
Roob
His worst paintings go for around fifty thousand us dollars.
Seagull Manager
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:C2wTa.216$G85...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> Hope it has nothing to do with ear slicing or madness.
> Thur
It is mostly about ear slicing and madness. Van Gogh was not especially
well-known until a biographical novel, "Lust for Life", by Irving Stone was
published. The book was a bestseller, and suddenly Van Gogh was a great
master, and everyone wanted to see his paintings. The novel was turned into
an Oscar-winning movie starring Kirk Douglas in 1956, further enhancing the
guy's reputation, and the movie was followed up shortly thereafter by a
blockbuster touring exhibition. The title is a clue to how Van Gogh's life
is portrayed.
Seagull Manager
>
> There is an old saying that goes something
> like, "An artist has to produce umpteen
> bad paintings in order to produce one masterpiece."
Yeah, but in the old days, they threw the crap ones away in the trash, and
made sure the public didn't get to see them. (Or maybe you can point me to
some of Raphael's failures?) What's annoying is when museums buy the bad
ones. WHY?
The situation with Van Gogh is that he started painting in his late
twenties, and killed himself in his mid thirties, so MOST of his paintings
are what can be called student work (except that he was temperamentally
unable to be a proper student, so he didn't stay with a tutor for very
long). And it shows.
Compare that to someone like Raphael or Velasquez. They started painting at
around age ten, and by around 19 they were producing masterpieces. None of
their unsuccessful "student" work survives.
Marc Sabatella
> > There is an old saying that goes something
> > like, "An artist has to produce umpteen
> > bad paintings in order to produce one masterpiece."
>
> That's a myth. Many artists produce multiple artworks of high quality.
Well of course they do. But they also produce umpteen bad paintings.
The claim wasn't that an artist can only produce one masterpiece, just
that there will be bad ones too.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> > > There is an old saying that goes something
> > > like, "An artist has to produce umpteen
> > > bad paintings in order to produce one masterpiece."
> >
> > That's a myth. Many artists produce multiple artworks of high quality.
>
> Well of course they do. But they also produce umpteen bad paintings.
> The claim wasn't that an artist can only produce one masterpiece, just
> that there will be bad ones too.
>
I like Richard (cool_a...@z.com)'s explanation best:
"That's just what people who suck say." ...and...
"Crappy artists have to paint more paintings to get one good one or
what they think is a good one. Since they suck, they rely on luck and
accident to make one of their better paintings. Great artists can make
a saleable painting every time."
Roob
made him a popular one; this doesn't change the quality of the work.
the quality is always the same.
> Yeah, but in the old days, they threw the crap ones away in the trash, and
> made sure the public didn't get to see them. (Or maybe you can point me to
> some of Raphael's failures?)
I can't believe you would just say something like that. That's the
most ridiculous thing I've heard of. No one threw their bad work out
because paper and canvas were so valuable. they kept it and drew on
the side for practice and on the back and kept everything. One reason
why you might not see their early work is because it is so much like
other bad paintings that they can't tell the difference between them
and other workshop students' work. Or this work is so similar to the
masters' works they have a hard time identifying the painter. This is
why people sometimes don't know if a work is by leonardo or verrochio,
or someone else in that workshop. Plus the students do dumb stuff on a
master's painting, until they can go on their own.
raphael had a lot of bad work:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/r/raphael/2firenze/1/21knight.html
http://www.johnmitchell.org/stgeorge.htm
or his first fresco at s. severo in perugia, which i couldnt find a
picture of.
> What's annoying is when museums buy the bad
> ones. WHY?
because it's interesting on many levels. and sometimes it's donated by
other people.
> The situation with Van Gogh is that he started painting in his late
> twenties, and killed himself in his mid thirties, so MOST of his paintings
> are what can be called student work (except that he was temperamentally
> unable to be a proper student, so he didn't stay with a tutor for very
> long). And it shows.
Student work:
1880
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/drawings/p_0878.htm
Master Draftsman:
1882
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/drawings/p_0937.htm
Nothing shows except that van gogh rules.
> Compare that to someone like Raphael or Velasquez. They started painting at
> around age ten, and by around 19 they were producing masterpieces. None of
> their unsuccessful "student" work survives.
a lot of their shitty paintings survive. some people like nerdgerl
don't know the difference between good and bad, though.
Roob
>
> "That's just what people who suck say." ...and...
>
> "Crappy artists have to paint more paintings to get one good one or
> what they think is a good one. Since they suck, they rely on luck and
> accident to make one of their better paintings. Great artists can make
> a saleable painting every time."
You like it because it makes you feel comfortable that good artists
are the ones that sell their paintings during their life, but it just
means that your work is molded by bourgeoise mentality. you sacrifice
meaning and genuineness for marketability.
the saddest thing isn't your lack of skill, it is your adherence to
kitsch and your ignorant defense of it.
i'm not going to respond here anymore, but i just would like to say
that a lot of people here often have no idea what they're talking
about; they haven't studied painting enough--both the people defending
and attacking my main man, vincent van gogh. these people do not
understand the agenda behind the paintings, they want to see a pretty
painting, and some like it and some don't.
i'm not saying i'm an authority, but i do know that you are wrong in
this case.
and besides, nerdgerl, your voice holds no credibility because your
work does not back anything up. i know for a fact that your work
sucks. for you to say that anybody sucks would make you a retard.
you don't know anything about painting. my advice to you is to go to a
library, read about some artists; go to a museum, look at some
paintings; study some techniques or something, and hopefully, you can
improve the quality of your work.
i want everyone who paints or draws to become good, and it excites me
when i see people get better at it. so i hope that you will learn a
little, and become a master yourself.
best of luck to you all,
Ruben(s)
becca
> questions, I recommend subscribing to a
> few of the 'contemporary' art magazines.
> I know of no better way of keeping abreast
> of 'current' art trends.
Hi All,
I'm new here but couldn't resist responding to this (quote above). I
hate most art magazines I see but I do think that Asian Art Review is
consistantly good... hard to find, but worth it!
as for who is making good, contemporary art...?
My favorites are Rocio Rodriguez and Ralph Gilbert
Thanks for the moment.
becca
Neil Maxwell
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>I like Richard (cool_a...@z.com)'s explanation best:
>
>"That's just what people who suck say." ...and...
>
>"Crappy artists have to paint more paintings to get one good one or
>what they think is a good one. Since they suck, they rely on luck and
>accident to make one of their better paintings. Great artists can make
>a saleable painting every time."
While Richard was always interesting to read, it wasn't because of his
in-depth expertise in the art world. As I recall, he had more
projects and "mad skillz" in the mill than most people can hope to
master in a lifetime. Sculpture, watercolors, acrylics, woodworking -
and him not even out of art school yet. Did he ever make that
Victorian sideboard, or even the bitchin' pencil box? He seems to
have dropped out of sight...
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Seagull Manager
"Roob" <library_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1783836.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Even if van gogh wasn't popular he would be a good artist. The movie
> made him a popular one; this doesn't change the quality of the work.
Since he was copying Japanese prints a lot of the time, and Japanese prints
were made to have popular appeal, it would have been hard for him to succeed
and be unpopular.
Maybe his gloomy realist paintings could have been unpopular but good -
unfortunately, they weren't all that good. His later, bright landscapes and
still-lifes were popular straight away. He had three exhibitions at the end
of his life, and failed to receive the negative reviews he expected. In
fact, one writer has gone so far as to suggest Van Gogh shot himself because
he got a favourable review!
> the quality is always the same.
No, it isn't. Many of his paintings are characterless and dull. Many others
are extremely bad. Some have strong, instant appeal. Some are along the
lines of Daumier drawings, but uglier. Those ones are not too popular.
> > Yeah, but in the old days, they threw the crap ones away in the trash,
and
> > made sure the public didn't get to see them. (Or maybe you can point me
to
> > some of Raphael's failures?)
>
> I can't believe you would just say something like that. That's the
> most ridiculous thing I've heard of.
Don't be ridiculous. It isn't.
> No one threw their bad work out
> because paper and canvas were so valuable. they kept it and drew on
> the side for practice and on the back and kept everything.
Yes, and/or painted over things, and/or scraped a painting off a panel and
started again, and/or reworked the darned thing until it was good, or
carefully erased a chalk drawing. Generally, in effect, made sure that
anything that was truly awful didn't come on to the market.
> One reason
> why you might not see their early work is because it is so much like
> other bad paintings that they can't tell the difference between them
> and other workshop students' work.
You're still talking about non-signature work by teenaged pupils/assistants,
possibly lifted to a professional standard by input from a master.
> Or this work is so similar to the
> masters' works they have a hard time identifying the painter.
So, if its indistinguishable from what the previous generation would count
as a masterpiece, it can't be all that bad, then, can it?
> This is
> why people sometimes don't know if a work is by leonardo or verrochio,
> or someone else in that workshop.
What a terrible painter Verrochio was, eh?
> Plus the students do dumb stuff on a
> master's painting, until they can go on their own.
Which they did at around the age of twenty, whereas nowadays, we get artists
in their thirties and forties still learning their craft, and selling what
are, in effect, student pieces. Look at John Currin and Eric Fischl for fine
examples of an artist who is steadily improving technically *after* having
made a reputation on the market.
> raphael had a lot of bad work:
>
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/r/raphael/2firenze/1/21knight.html
>
> http://www.johnmitchell.org/stgeorge.htm
If you call that bad, who am I to disagree, but Van Gogh did worse.
> > What's annoying is when museums buy the bad
> > ones. WHY?
>
> because it's interesting on many levels. and sometimes it's donated by
> other people.
Depends on the price. A bad painting by a well-known artist purchased for
half a million has an opportunity cost of, say, five or ten commissions of
new art by good new artists. Or several good paintings by less well-known
artists, which could be of equal historical interest, though from a
different viewpoint. Let private collectors buy those bad paintings by
famous artists.
> > The situation with Van Gogh is that he started painting in his late
> > twenties, and killed himself in his mid thirties, so MOST of his
paintings
> > are what can be called student work (except that he was temperamentally
> > unable to be a proper student, so he didn't stay with a tutor for very
> > long). And it shows.
>
> Student work:
> 1880
>
> http://www.vangoghgallery.com/drawings/p_0878.htm
>
> Master Draftsman:
> 1882
>
> http://www.vangoghgallery.com/drawings/p_0937.htm
By 2003 standards, you might call that a masterpiece, but by nineteenth
century standards, it is a thoroughly mediocre sketch, and still deserves to
be called a student work. Recently there was a festival of drawing in
London, with several galleries in the Cork street area bringing out their
old master drawings for all to see. That Van Gogh drawing would have looked
clumsy and crude compared to not just the best-known Victorian draughtsmen,
but even to the work of artists whom neither you nor I, nor in some cases,
the dealers themselves, have ever heard of before.
> Nothing shows except that van gogh rules.
If you insist.
> > Compare that to someone like Raphael or Velasquez. They started painting
at
> > around age ten, and by around 19 they were producing masterpieces. None
of
> > their unsuccessful "student" work survives.
>
> a lot of their shitty paintings survive.
*Relatively*, compared to the to the best work of the day, perhaps, but not
shitty in comparison to Van Gogh's output.
> some people like nerdgerl
> don't know the difference between good and bad, though.
Perhaps you would want to consider adding yourself to the list.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bfscep$cqu$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> Since he was copying Japanese prints a lot of the time, and Japanese
prints
> were made to have popular appeal, it would have been hard for him to
succeed
> and be unpopular.
>
They are charmingly clumsy. This, of course, misses the point of the
Japanese paintings altogether - part of their essential nature is delicacy.
--
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde
Seagull Manager
> >
> > "That's just what people who suck say." ...and...
> >
> > "Crappy artists have to paint more paintings to get one good one or
> > what they think is a good one. Since they suck, they rely on luck and
> > accident to make one of their better paintings. Great artists can make
> > a saleable painting every time."
>
> You like it because it makes you feel comfortable that good artists
> are the ones that sell their paintings during their life,
Nearly all the great artists were good at selling/getting commissions during
their own lifetime. Sure, there are artists who were commercially successful
but are not currently highly rated - mainly from the 19th century on, but
some of those artists are underrated for political reasons (e.g., many of
the best Victorian painters, whose work was deplored by modernists even
though it was perfectly good, because it represented "establishment" taste).
> but it just
> means that your work is molded by bourgeoise mentality. you sacrifice
> meaning and genuineness for marketability.
When it comes to commodities, which is what good paintings either are, or
are destined to become, bourgeois mentality is the only mentality that makes
sense. If you hate the bourgeoisie and their mentality, why become a
painter, when that involves becoming a small business specializing in the
manufacture of luxury goods? Can there be anything more bourgeois than that?
> the saddest thing isn't your lack of skill, it is your adherence to
> kitsch and your ignorant defense of it.
The fear of kitsch is the biggest factor preventing the creation of good art
in current times. Shakespeare was not afraid of producing kitsch, nor was
Dickens, nor was Mozart, nor was Vermeer, nor was Ruysdael. The fact that
their work often verges on (or is?) kitsch is part of why they are so darned
good, and so long lasting.
Come to think of it, Van Gogh wasn't afraid of producing kitsch, either.
Marc Sabatella
> "Crappy artists have to paint more paintings to get one good one or
> what they think is a good one. Since they suck, they rely on luck and
> accident to make one of their better paintings. Great artists can make
> a saleable painting every time."
Sure - once they reach a certain level of consistency. But how many
terrible paintings did they create while developing thier skills?
Gud Nabor
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
<He seems to
>have dropped out of sight...
Thank goodness! But you gotta wonder,
maybe he's just busily working 7/24 to complete
all the projects he mentioned...