Your favourite artists
BJ
Who are your favourite artists?
Two of mine are Hans Holbein the Younger; & Mary Cassatt.
BJ.
RSDC/White Crow
Cezanne and de Kooning
Takeitdown
robert rauschenberg, egon schiele
ryan masuga
For what it's worth:
Euan Uglow, Chuck Close, and Gerhard Richter.
--
ryan masuga
West MI, USA
~~~~~~~~~~~
If I love you,
what business is it of yours?
-Goethe
Takeitdown
oh yeah i forgot about Richter for a minute... and who cares anyway is
this some kind of poll?
David Brooks
In article <01bbfc30$9d66a440$298a...@rground.tpgi.com.au>,
"BJ" <rgr...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>Who are your favourite artists?
>Two of mine are Hans Holbein the Younger; & Mary Cassatt.
>BJ.
Vincent van Gogh. No question.
http://www.interlog.com/~suzu/d_vince.htm
Bonnie Miller
Singer Sargent, Corot and Jacquin Sorolla.
Bonnyvil
James C. Maxted
DuChamp (the bride) and Giacometti
...little j
deni
Anselm Keifer
--
deni moore
Katy Odell
El Greco and Sargent
CATSCANS
Sargent, Bouguereau, Sorolla, Zorn.........
CAT
Howdy19
Bosch and Manet.
Tracy
Dan Fox
Favorites? DeKooning, Picasso, Matisse, Giacometti, Twombly
Hartmut Fetz
On 7 Jan 1997 01:14:37 GMT, "BJ" <rgr...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>Who are your favourite artists?
FRANK FRAZETTA rules!
No question for me! Best artist ever on this earth....
ryan masuga
It amazes me that there are hardly any "favorites" that are outside the covers
of an art history book. I take that back...it doesn't really amaze me at all.
Walter Gentala
Rauol Dufy and Winslow Homer.
BJ <rgr...@tpgi.com.au> wrote in article
<01bbfc30$9d66a440$298a...@rground.tpgi.com.au>...
> Who are your favourite artists?
pame...@aol.com
RC Gorman
AARD1VARK
Good point. When asked mt fav artist, I automatically tend to think
historically. See NEW post.
Stanley Beck
Maybe it is because everyone's favorites are picked for the covers.
--
Stanley Beck
Empty Buckets make the most noise !
mailto:sbec...@aol.com, mailto:sbec...@earthlink.net
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
Daniel Lee
----------------------------------------
BJ (rgr...@tpgi.com.au) writes:
>Who are your favourite artists?
>Two of mine are Hans Holbein the Younger; & Mary Cassatt.
>BJ.
Edward Hopper
Edouard Manet
Dan Lee
dl...@omnifest.uwm.edu
RSDC/White Crow
deni wrote:
>
> Anselm Keifer
> --
> deni moore
agree.
amos
Bob Speel
Rossetti of course, Burne-Jones, and their ilk
bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Speel b...@speel.demon.co.uk
http://www.speel.demon.co.uk
"ignorant but never silent"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Duffy
Maggi Hambling, Francis Bacon & Sickert.
Gaynor
--
Gaynor & Mike Duffy: well.f...@zetnet.co.uk
www.users.zetnet.co.uk/wfurlong/
'Yes, every day's my birthday, often twice a day due to art': Gulley
Jimson from 'The Horse's Mouth' film.
IBShar
Hieronimous Bosch, Cindy Sherman, Robert Heiniken.
jim
without a doubt DA VINCI
then Titian, Gainsbourogh
dekooning, rothko, vaserely, keifer, oldenberg, stella, christo,
brislly,whiterhead,hirst,
John McGullicutty
My favorite artis (right now anyway) is Lucian Freud. Does anybody have an
opinion about Freud?
John Guillory
jo...@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu
Louisiana State University
ryan masuga
>
>
> No question for me! Best artist ever on this earth....
I believe he goes in the ILLUSTRATOR category.
--
ryan masuga
NYC USA
~~~~~~~~~~
Great spirits always encounter
violent opposition from mediocre minds.
- Albert Einstein
Deirdre
You guys are such posers. Frazetta is better than many, "illustrator" or no.
OK, how about Thomas Kinkade? You can't say he's an illustrator because he
isn't.
_Deirdre
In article <32DB27...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
wrote:
> Hartmut Fetz wrote:
> > FRANK FRAZETTA rules!
> I believe he goes in the ILLUSTRATOR category.
ryan masuga
John McGullicutty wrote:
>
> My favorite artis (right now anyway) is Lucian Freud. Does anybody have an
> opinion about Freud?
>
functional.
julia h
Andy Goldsworthy
David Nash
Brett Whitely
Jim Dine
D.D.Barton
ryan masuga wrote:
>
> Hartmut Fetz wrote:
> >
> > On 7 Jan 1997 01:14:37 GMT, "BJ" <rgr...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Who are your favourite artists?
> >
Diane
Froilan Vispo
I agree as well on Anselm Kiefer. His _High Princess_ bowls me over.
For various reasons, my other favourites include:
Bronzino
Jan van Eyck
Jan Vermeer
Marcel Duchamp
Mark Rothko
Joseph Beuys
Titian
Fra Angelico
Botticelli
Correggio
Rogier van der Weyden
Parmigianino
JAD Ingres
Degas
Vera Frankl
Manet
Jacques Louis David
Degas
Michelangelo
Selected Picassos and Matisses
Sheesh - what don't I like?
Froilan
vis...@epo.gov.on.ca
---
I go on writing so that I will always have something to read.
Jeanette Winterson, _The Passion_
ryan masuga
Deirdre wrote:
>
> You guys are such posers. Frazetta is better than many, "illustrator" or no.
>
do that with enough study. But to actually say something with, or about,
humans...why...there's an alien concept!! That's why his work is not "art" and
will be forgotten, despite how well he does it.
If you like it, hey, more power to you.
And I'm not slighting you, or anybody. Just being technical.
Teemu Lahteenmaki
: > > On 7 Jan 1997 01:14:37 GMT, "BJ" <rgr...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
: > >
: > > >Who are your favourite artists?
Visual ones:
David
Poussin
Lempica
Stimulating ones:
Pollock
Duchamp
Hopper
Klee
--
Teemu Lahteenmaki
to...@tukki.jyu.fi, http://www.jyu.fi/~tola/ (also vrml)
Student of digital media, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
David Brooks
>For various reasons, my other favourites include:
>
>Bronzino
>Jan van Eyck
>Jan Vermeer
>Marcel Duchamp
>Mark Rothko
>Joseph Beuys
>Titian
>Fra Angelico
>Botticelli
>Correggio
>Rogier van der Weyden
>Parmigianino
>JAD Ingres
>Degas
>Vera Frankl
>Manet
>Jacques Louis David
>Degas
>Michelangelo
>Selected Picassos and Matisses
>
his works are *never* discussed in this newsgroup. It's too bad. Are there
any other newsgroups out there where his works are discussed?
DB
Bruce Attah
In article <32DC7C...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
wrote:
> Deirdre wrote:
> >
> > You guys are such posers. Frazetta is better than many, "illustrator" or no.
> >
> Better than many at WHAT? Painting the human figure? Big whoop, anybody can
> do that with enough study.
That's what some of you keep saying, but have you noticed how many
thousands of imitators Frank Frazetta has, how many millions of man-hours
are spent by these people collectively aiming to emulate him, and how few
of those imitators do indeed achieve the Frazetta's degree of facility in
figure drawing?
The plain truth is, and it is very easy to see, that NOT everyone can draw
the figure as well as Frazetta, even after YEARS of study.
What's so terrible about admitting that someone is genuinely good at what
they do?
Bruce Attah.
dean rookes
Howard Terpning, who also, coincidentally, did the original movie poster
for "Gone With the Wind" at the start of his career.
Tom Hill, BRILLIANT WATERCOLORS!!!
Nicoli Fetchin.....(I believe I have spelt wrong)
All illustators at Walt Disney Productions ;)
and of course Harley Brown (unbiased judgment of course)
cheers, and still lurking
L.Rookes
(not an artist)
ryan masuga
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <32DC7C...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Deirdre wrote:
> > >
> > > You guys are such posers. Frazetta is better than many, "illustrator" or no.
> > >
> > Better than many at WHAT? Painting the human figure? Big whoop, anybody
> > can do that with enough study.
>
> That's what some of you keep saying, but have you noticed how many
> thousands of imitators Frank Frazetta has, how many millions of man-hours
> are spent by these people collectively aiming to emulate him, and how few
> of those imitators do indeed achieve the Frazetta's degree of facility in
> figure drawing?
Who are these deluded folks? (tongue 'n cheek)
I mentioned nothing about the "degree of facility", but meant only that it can be
done competently with enough STUDY - not the posing, or false wrinkling of the
brow that I have been a witness to in life drawing classes and such. My point
was that Frazetta doesn't SAY anything. Barbarians posing - voluptuous women -
whatever. He does them well, that's for sure. But he is more interested in WHAT
he is depicting, rather than HOW he is depicting what he is depicting, or even
WHY. *whew* I mean, I've seen guys who can airbrush the hell out of a t-shirt -
Frazetta style - and what is that?
I have no problem "admitting" that Frazetta is good. I simply had a problem with
saying he was an "artist" rather than what I seem to think is the more
appropriate term, "illustrator." And it's my problem then, eh?!
--
ryan masuga
NYC USA
~~~~~~~~~~
Boogah, boogah.
Deirdre
While I defended him, I'm not particularly a Frazetta fan even though his
model is built something like I was when I was thinner. :D And I
appreciate the use of non-anorectic models.
The only particular problem I have with illustrators is that those works
they do AS illustrations usually have a somewhat odd composition due to
the requirements of book/magazine covers (e.g. leave space for the title,
don't make the color changes in the top 1/4 too extreme and, if it's a
wraparound cover, don't make the left half too interesting because we're
gonna put a blurb there). A good example of this problem can be found at
http://members.aol.com/riyan2/white.htm which is Whelan's cover for The
White Dragon. Some illustrators, including Frazetta (but not Whelan), once
out of that box can't manage to *think* out of the box.
In illustration, my taste runs more to Whelan and Rowena and sf
illustrators like Chesley Bonestell. The last piece I bought was from
Whelan called Leavetaking http://members.aol.com/riyan2/leave2.jpg which I
bought after the death of my husband (which puts another context on the
piece). It'll be a companion piece to an old Parrish print my husband had
had for years.
I suspect Frazetta's imitators are largely emulating him because his style
is more distinct than the more "realistic" (well, since they're doing
unreal subjects, it's hard to come up with the right word here) fantasy
painters like Whelan and quite probably Frazetta is more easy to imitate.
You might also argue that because Chuck Jones is an oft-emulated
cartoonist, that therefore his work is great as art. It's great as
entertainment, but....
Technically, I think Rowena is better than Frazetta even though their
styles have similarities.
_Deirdre
In article
<Bruce.Attah-17...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> That's what some of you keep saying, but have you noticed how
> many thousands of imitators Frank Frazetta has, how many
> millions of man-hours are spent by these people collectively
> aiming to emulate him, and how few of those imitators do indeed
> achieve the Frazetta's degree of facility in figure drawing?
Stephen B. Kimble
For various reasons, my favourites include selected works of:
Georgia O'Keefe
Edward Munch "the Scream"
Watteau
Renoir
Marta Kremer, WV, USA
Erte
"September Morn"
"Starry Night"
"some of the Dutch Masters" eg. "The Lacemaker
There are others whose names will not come, but I can see their paintings.
One was a young girl's Christmas/holiday card in a Boston or Met museum catalog several
years ago of a reindeer.
Sincerely,
Jane
ryan masuga
Stephen B. Kimble wrote:
>
> For various reasons, my favourites include selected works of:
>
> Georgia O'Keefe
> Edward Munch "the Scream"
> Jane
Munch's "Puberty" is a pretty haunting piece. I'm not a big fan of his, but that
painting sticks with me.
--
ryan masuga
Oaxaca, Mexico
Deirdre
> Don't you like Vincent van Gogh? So far I'm the only one to mention
> him and his works are *never* discussed in this newsgroup. It's too
> bad. Are there any other newsgroups out there where his works are
> discussed?
Unfortunately, art seems to be underrepresented in topics on usenet. Not
quite as badly as classical literature, but almost.
As for Van Gogh, I like some of his pieces, but not what most people would
think of when they thought of his name. In other words, I don't personally
care for his style regardless of how much his paintings sell for. Same
goes for Picasso.
The one Mondrian poster I have isn't one of his geometrics either, but is
of an Amaryllis against a blue background.
I also share some of Froilan Vispo's favorites but would have added Giotto
and Bosch in the Late Gothic to Renaissance periods.
_Deirdre
Deirdre
In article <32E067...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
wrote:
> Who are these deluded folks? (tongue 'n cheek)
<g>
> I mentioned nothing about the "degree of facility", but meant only that
> it can be done competently with enough STUDY - not the posing, or false
> wrinkling of the brow that I have been a witness to in life drawing
> classes and such. My point was that Frazetta doesn't SAY anything.
> Barbarians posing - voluptuous women - whatever. He does them well,
> that's for sure. But he is more interested in WHAT he is depicting,
> rather than HOW he is depicting what he is depicting, or even WHY.
Are you so sure about Frazetta's internal processes? If so, why?
> I have no problem "admitting" that Frazetta is good. I simply had a
> problem with saying he was an "artist" rather than what I seem to
> think is the more appropriate term, "illustrator." And it's my
> problem then, eh?!
I tend to prefer to divide the work as "illustrations" or not rather than
done by illustrators vs. artists as you do. Why? Because ALL artists have
done illustration. And, by illustration, I mean a work done where the
quality of art is secondary to its purpose (e.g. showing the muscles of
the leg, depicting a story out of the bible, a book cover).
Technically speaking, the Sistine Chapel is illustration rather than fine
art. It was done to depict something where the art was secondary to the
purpose. It is not "art for art's sake."
Until relatively recently, most works were commissioned. They were most
commonly either portraits or religious pieces. In both cases, the subject
and sometimes much more, was determined by the person with the wallet. Yet
many of these people you would probably consider fine artists even though
you'd consider their modern equivalent illustrators.
Now I can certainly understand categorizing pieces originally intended as
throwaways (e.g. magazine covers a la Rockwell) as illustration. I can
even understand it for artwork done as a part of a book (e.g. Lewis
Carroll's illustrations for Alice in Wonderland). But I can't see why you
would categorically call *all* works by that person illustration (the
implication of calling the artisan an illustrator as opposed to an
artist).
And again, I ask: where would you put Thomas Kinkade? And why?
_Deirdre
Fabrizio Bartolomucci
In article <32E1CE...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
wrote:
Stephen B. Kimble wrote:
>
> For various reasons, my favourites include selected works of:
>
> Georgia O'Keefe
> Edward Munch "the Scream"
> Sincerely,
> Jane
Salvatore Provino
Luigi Del Sal
Renato Guerrini
Alice Gombacci
Ennio Calabria
Enrico Baj
Ugo Nespolo
Mdeli
I have read some requests saying I never mention my favorite artists. I have
about a thousand. Here is a chart which indicates the flavor of my opinions.
Anyone who knows some art history can probably correctly infer what my tastes
are in these matters.
I would welcome any criticism, lampoon or otherwise about my
particular vote. Make your own chart it can save a lot of talk.
(rated between 0 and 100)
ARTIST INIMITABILITY TALENT SKILL KNOWLEDGE HYPE
=================================================================
AGE 6 CHILD 10 3 5 1 10
ALBERS 10 20 10 25 95
ART SCHOOL INMATE 10 10 10 30 5
BOUGUEREAU 98 90 100 50 0
CARTOONIST AVERAGE 50 45 50 30 10
CARTOONIST FINE 60 70 70 80 4
CHAGAL 20 10 12 10 90
COMIC BOOK ART AVERAGE 45 50 50 30 5
COMIC BOOK ART FINE 60 70 70 80 5
DALI 85 90 95 85 80
DE KOONING 15 6 4 10 98
DISNEY 85 90 85 85 10
DUCHAMP 50 35 60 60 92
DURER 95 100 90 90 0
GRAD STUDENT AVER. 8 5 8 8 5
GRAD STUDENT BETTER 15 30 30 30 20
HAT DESIGNER 40 30 30 30 30
ILLUSTRATOR AVERAGE 40 50 50 30 20
INGRES 98 100 90 85 0
KLEE 35 50 50 30 60
KLEIN 1 2 1 4 96
KOKOSHKA 25 16 12 20 70
LEONARDO 95 100 100 100 0
LEYNDECKER 80 85 75 70 15
M.A. CRITIC 15 80 80 40 90
MALEVICH 3 4 4 12 20
MATISSE 25 8 8 6 98
MONDRIAN 0 2 1 10 100
NO SKILL REALIST 0 10 15 15 20
PICASSO 40 40 30 30 80
POLLOCK 8 4 1 5 99
RAPHAEL 90 100 85 80 0
RIVERS 12 5 8 10 90
ROCKWELL 75 90 80 80 10
ROTHKO 0 5 5 5 95
SCHLOCK PAINTER-AVERAGE 14 20 14 5 2
SCHLOCK PAINTER-FINE 60 40 50 25 10
TEXTILE DESIGNER 40 30 30 30 0
VAN EYKE 95 100 95 80 0
VERMEER 95 100 100 90 0
WARHOL 15 20 18 25 98
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
Deirdre
In article <falkE4D...@netcom.com>, fa...@netcom.com (David Falk) wrote:
> Deirdre (dei...@sover.net) wrote:
> : Technically speaking, the Sistine Chapel is illustration rather than
> : fine art. It was done to depict something where the art was secondary
> : to the purpose. It is not "art for art's sake."
> "Art for art's sake" is too often an excuse for lazy artists to
> create art of little or no intrinsic value. When it comes right
> down it, and once we strip away all the artistic double-talk, what
> does that statement really mean anyway? The truth is very little.
> Does art have something to lose if we fail strip away everything
> objective so that all we have left is the "art"?
I think by grasping for a phrase I might have picked unintentionally a hot
button (and quite possibly the wrong phrase <g>).
I meant it simply as a piece done "on spec" that is not done as a toss-off
piece but is done with some study and thought to technique.
> The artistic world has taken the path of reductionism before, and
> has seen the absurdity it brings.
I can't disagree, though I have been spared a fair amount of bad art by
skipping a lot of galleries <g>. As a kid, I did see an awful lot of at
best marginal art.
> Well, I know it's currently very popular in the arts to
> view "money" as a dirty word, but lets grab a bit of reality. All
> artists like to eat. At least, I know I like to eat. And the way
> they eat is by selling their work.
I personally have no problem with artists getting very rich and famous.
> And people won't buy your work unless there is some quality about
> it which they like. Some people like a particular style such as
> cubism. Others like a particular artist. While yet others like
> a particular quality like discord or asthetics. And it is my honest
> opinion, that an illustrator is appealing to the buying community
> by the same means as the fine artist by providing something that the
> buyer wishes to purchase whether that buyer is an art collector, a
> magazine publisher, or an advertising agency.
I can certainly understand disliking or liking things based on preference
(I have, for example, very strong preferences for strong, clear colors,
preferably midtones in the cool range).
But I certainly wouldn't denigrate the works of Jan Van Eyck (an example I
can think of offhand) because I don't care for his palette.
OTOH, I am completely at a loss to explain why, other than he was
interesting to watch, Bob Ross has the popularity he has/had. Other than
producing a lot of art that I consider bad and encouraging others to do
same. I was amazed, btw, at what a high %age of the nearest art store's
supplies were Bob Ross or Paint-by-Number kits. ::sigh::
_Deirdre
--
http://www.sover.net/~deirdre
First alien says to the second alien, who is looking at an apparently empty pedestal in an art gallery, "Yes, I know it's invisible. But Is It Art?" -- Martin Young
David Falk
Deirdre (dei...@sover.net) wrote:
: In article <32E067...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
: wrote:
: I tend to prefer to divide the work as "illustrations" or not rather than
: done by illustrators vs. artists as you do. Why? Because ALL artists have
: done illustration. And, by illustration, I mean a work done where the
: quality of art is secondary to its purpose (e.g. showing the muscles of
: the leg, depicting a story out of the bible, a book cover).
I quite agree with you.
: Technically speaking, the Sistine Chapel is illustration rather than fine
: art. It was done to depict something where the art was secondary to the
: purpose. It is not "art for art's sake."
"Art for art's sake" is too often an excuse for lazy artists to
create art of little or no intrinsic value. When it comes right
down it, and once we strip away all the artistic double-talk, what
does that statement really mean anyway? The truth is very little. Does
art have something to lose if we fail strip away everything objective
so that all we have left is the "art"? The artistic world has taken
the path of reductionism before, and has seen the absurdity it brings.
You cannot separate art from its purpose anymore than you can separate
time from space. The two are inter-dependant and inseparable.
If you remove that "purpose" from the "art", then the "art"
becomes the "purpose". The whole concept is ultimately circular, and
completely meaningless.
: Until relatively recently, most works were commissioned. They were most
: commonly either portraits or religious pieces. In both cases, the subject
: and sometimes much more, was determined by the person with the wallet. Yet
: many of these people you would probably consider fine artists even though
: you'd consider their modern equivalent illustrators.
Well, I know it's currently very popular in the arts to
view "money" as a dirty word, but lets grab a bit of reality. All
artists like to eat. At least, I know I like to eat. And the way
they eat is by selling their work. And people won't buy your work
unless there is some quality about it which they like. Some people
like a particular style such as cubism. Others like a particular
artist. While yet others like a particular quality like discord or
asthetics. And it is my honest opinion, that an illustrator is
appealing to the buying community by the same means as the fine artist
by providing something that the buyer wishes to purchase whether that
buyer is an art collector, a magazine publisher, or an advertising
agency.
: Now I can certainly understand categorizing pieces originally intended as
: throwaways (e.g. magazine covers a la Rockwell) as illustration. I can
: even understand it for artwork done as a part of a book (e.g. Lewis
: Carroll's illustrations for Alice in Wonderland). But I can't see why you
: would categorically call *all* works by that person illustration (the
: implication of calling the artisan an illustrator as opposed to an
: artist).
Good point...
BTW, I like, in no particular order and by no means an exhaustive list,
Faberge, Vermeer, Rubin, Matisse, Rafael, and El Greco.
Talk to you later....
Dave.
--
David Falk URL file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/sp/sparrow/sparrow.html
(fa...@netcom.com) Sparrow Arts Gallery
(sparro...@netcom.com) "The candle, the mirror, the sword."
Jeweler, Artist, Bladesmith, Philosopher, SysAdmin, Danzan Ryu - Rokyu
Deirdre
> I would welcome any criticism, lampoon or otherwise about my
> particular vote. Make your own chart it can save a lot of talk.
Good idea! <g>
I'd like to see a few more reference points on your chart, mostly fairly
recent people. Specifically Escher, Monet, Van Gogh.
There are several artists on your list I'm not familiar with, so I'll
reserve comment until I've familiarized myself with their work. I think
you've overrated textile design (in general, though some examples are
quite fine).
I would also give Mondrian a little more talent and skill (given his
atypical work) but that's me. I even like his geometrics though I think
they're overrated. Some knitters have used his works as templates for
making some very interesting sweaters and tote bags (same goes for
Matisse), which is perhaps a more appropriate use.
ryan masuga
David Falk wrote:
>The artistic world has taken
> the path of reductionism before, and has seen the absurdity it brings.
> You cannot separate art from its purpose anymore than you can separate
> time from space. The two are inter-dependant and inseparable.
> If you remove that "purpose" from the "art", then the "art"
> becomes the "purpose". The whole concept is ultimately circular, and
> completely meaningless.
And what, pray tell, O enlightened one, is art's "purpose?"
--
ryan masuga
Stuttgart, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ryan masuga
Deirdre wrote:
> OTOH, I am completely at a loss to explain why, other than he was
> interesting to watch, Bob Ross has the popularity he has/had. Other than
> producing a lot of art that I consider bad and encouraging others to do
> same. I was amazed, btw, at what a high %age of the nearest art store's
> supplies were Bob Ross or Paint-by-Number kits. ::sigh::
Oh, come on, D.
Bob Ross was THE KING! That hair! That subtle, rumbling voice... Here was a man
who could create mountains, nay, WORLDS with one swipe of the palette brush!
I can only dream of having the marketing savvy he had; I mean, his own TV
show, paint sets, T-shirts.
--
ryan masuga
"...a bird is one egg's way of becoming other eggs." - Alan Watts
deni
In article <5c0j9d$p...@news.interlog.com>, Mdeli
<hu...@interlog.com> writes
>I have read some requests saying I never mention my favorite artists. I have
>about a thousand. Here is a chart which indicates the flavor of my opinions.
>Anyone who knows some art history can probably correctly infer what my
>tastes
>are in these matters.
>
I said it, I admit it, I accused you of not contributing to this thread.
You surpassed yourself, this is excellent, I love it, a chart! its brilliant.
>I would welcome any criticism, lampoon or otherwise about my
>particular vote. Make your own chart it can save a lot of talk.
>
>
--
deni moore
Mdeli
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>I'd like to see a few more reference points on your chart, mostly fairly
>recent people. Specifically Escher, Monet, Van Gogh.
My opinion:
Escher is very interesting. He was long ignored by Modern Academics. However his
popularity made the MOMA exhibit more than one print after ignoring him for
years. There is no Hype in Eschers work. He rarely fails to attract the viewer
whether or not he understands anything about the underlying mathematics. His
abstractions and realism is unique.
Monet though a good artist is over-rated. There were far better landscape
painters during this period who are also well liked. Hudson River School is one
example. When these artists are shown the don’t get the hype reserved for
impressionism. The are carefully kept away from where impressionist painting is
hung, lest people compare. Impressionism involves big money. Public criticism is
somewhat suppressed. Impressionism according to art historical myth supposedly
changed the world even more than electricity.
I find Monet’s Haystacks a bore. The only really interesting about the "Pond" at
the MOMA is its size and its power as an example for comparison, as a rather
competent version of Abstract Impressionism. Monet-Hype-50
Van Gogh gets my higher marks. On the negative side I believe his life story
influenced modern artistic asceticism and the historical myth that great artists
were unrecognized paupers. His biography gives lame solace to an army of
failures who lost in their bid to win Modern Academic Art lottery. Few realize
that Van Gogh was a sick neurotic who at the end of his life was invited to show
his work. Had he done so and lived, he would have eclipsed Monet.
>I would also give Mondrian a little more talent and skill (given his
>atypical work) but that's me. I even like his geometrics though I think
>they're overrated. Some knitters have used his works as templates for
>making some very interesting sweaters and tote bags (same goes for
>Matisse), which is perhaps a more appropriate use.
Mondrian is a total phony. All hype. Matisse is the world’s worst when it comes
to drawing. Few great no-skill-realists can equal his incompetence no matter how
hard they try. In my book Matisse is a prize winner for incompetence. If Modern
Academic art were a contest he would outflank all for the booby-prize.
Mani DeLi
---no skill no art
David Falk
ryan masuga (mas...@novagate.com) wrote:
Ryan,
I think you missed the point, which is that art always has a
purpose whatever that purpose may be. There is no such thing
as art devoid of purpose. The two are inseparable. Whether
your purpose is to create a photo-realistic image of a
chair, create a mood through impression, or simply to express
nothingness with a color field, the purpose is still extant
even if it isn't directly obvious through the representation.
Talk to you later...
Mdeli
deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5c0j9d$p...@news.interlog.com>, Mdeli
><hu...@interlog.com> writes
>>I have read some requests saying I never mention my favorite artists. I have
>>about a thousand. Here is a chart which indicates the flavor of my opinions.
>>Anyone who knows some art history can probably correctly infer what my
>>tastes
>>are in these matters.
>>
>LOL
>I said it, I admit it, I accused you of not contributing to this thread.
>You surpassed yourself, this is excellent, I love it, a chart! its brilliant.
If you want to see a more interesting chart, look at the one in Dali’s "50
Secrets of magic craftsmanship" That’s where the idea comes from.
And if you should go to the library check out "Dali on Modern Art", the best
critical lampoon of Modern Academic Art. Very funny. Very cynical.
MD
Deirdre
In article <32E710...@novagate.com>, ryan masuga <mas...@novagate.com>
wrote:
> Oh, come on, D.
> Bob Ross was THE KING! That hair!
He did have big hair, I'll grant you that. And he could be amusing to
watch with his "happy little trees." "There are no mistakes, only 'happy
accidents.'" Ahem. I actually prefer Alice Starmore's (a knitwear designer
living in the Hebrides) version, which is more accurate: "There are no
mistakes, only misplaced design elements."
> That subtle, rumbling voice... Here was a man who could create
> mountains, nay, WORLDS with one swipe of the palette brush!
> I can only dream of having the marketing savvy he had; I mean,
> his own TV show, paint sets, T-shirts.
And, even after his death (unless I'm misinformed), a whole legion of
certified instructors and a web site! (http://bobross.com) That I wouldn't
know about unless another post mentioned it.
'Tis true he did have a lot of marketing savvy.
Deirdre
> I can only dream of having the marketing savvy he had; I mean, his
> own TV show, paint sets, T-shirts.
Oh, and as for T-shirts, serigraphy isn't too hard to learn and you can
use any permanent acrylic paint (the kind in jars vs. that in tubes) for a
reasonably permanent T-shirt. :D
wsp
Mdeli wrote:
>
> I have read some requests saying I never mention my favorite artists. I have
> about a thousand.
It seems you barely have a dozen. BTW, when you do mention them, that is
ALL you do.
I have elimated all the artists in the chart below that scored below 50%
in all categories (except your hyped "hype" category). That would mean,
I eliminated the artists you gave "no" votes (less than 50%) in EACH of
your categories.
As you can see your "taste" (collected aesthetic habits) is rather
boring. SIX of these remaining artists are great, no doubt, but those
aren't enough to keep anybody alive in the present.
Your extremist denial of new developments in art (known as the twentieth
century to other people), backs you into a tiny corner. If I were in
that corner I'd kill myself.
> (rated between 0 and 100)
> ARTIST INIMITABILITY TALENT SKILL KNOWLEDGE HYPE
> =================================================================
> BOUGUEREAU 98 90 100 50 0
> CARTOONIST FINE 60 70 70 80 4
> COMIC BOOK ART FINE 60 70 70 80 5
> DISNEY 85 90 85 85 10
> DURER 95 100 90 90 0
> INGRES 98 100 90 85 0
> LEONARDO 95 100 100 100 0
> LEYNDECKER 80 85 75 70 15
> RAPHAEL 90 100 85 80 0
> ROCKWELL 75 90 80 80 10
> VAN EYKE 95 100 95 80 0
ShyNola
You have many panel painters on your list.
I love the old masters..particularly Flemish and German.
I would add Van Cleve, Girard David, de Cocke, Bosch, Savery, Henri met de
Bleu, Joos De Momper II Durer, Lucas Cronach, the elder and many more.
DB asked you if any one likes van Gogh. I view Momper as the first
impressionalist. Early in the 16th century, artists didn't understand
perspective as it relates to a "vanishing point". Jan van Eyck, David, van
der Weyden, Gassel, Durer, and most artist of the time painted distance as
miniture. To achieve distant scenes they had to rise up. The distant
horizon was frequently above the heads of central subjects. David staged
his subjects on hill tops and looked down on them. A second 'school' of
thought characterized by Met de Bleu defined distance with gradations of
color. Patiner, Bosch, de Cocke likewise. But Joos de Momper was unique.
While he viewed landscapes from hill tops overlooking rolling valleys
surrounded by sharply rising mountains and employed bands of color, he
presented distance as impressionists later would.
De Momper expressed distance as an emotion. The viewer is drawn to it. At
first it seems as though physical shape is leading us back, deeper into
the scene. But then our gaze is lifted up off the ground and we find
ourselves staring at a "blank" sky. We are drawn to a distant point that
may exploed into a warm evening sun or turn cold and grey. The viewer
becomes transfixed. The deeper into the scene we stare, the more we sense
the artist's emotion. Figures and activities are secondary to the feeling
one gets from the landscape. His pictures leave you with an impression --
a sense of what the day was like.
Mdeli
shy...@aol.com (ShyNola) wrote:
>You have many panel painters on your list.
>I love the old masters..particularly Flemish and German.
>I would add Van Cleve, Girard David, de Cocke, Bosch, Savery, Henri met de
>Bleu, Joos De Momper II Durer, Lucas Cronach, the elder and many more.
I could certainly add these and perhaps most 17th century Dutch painters, my
favorite impressionist landscape painter Canaletto, Lucas van Leyden, Cravelli,
Gerome, Vargas, R. Crumb and about a thousand other painters from all centuries
including this one. But then my list would reach to the floor. My intention was
to give an impression of what I like and dislike. Why not supply us with a list
of your own.
>DB asked you if any one likes van Gogh. I view Momper as the first
>impressionalist. Early in the 16th century, artists didn't understand
>perspective as it relates to a "vanishing point". Jan van Eyck, David, van
>der Weyden, Gassel, Durer, and most artist of the time painted distance as
>miniture.
"distance as miniture." ?
Some Van Eyck and other Flemish paintings are based on hexagonal rather than
rectilinear tiling. They are earlier than the first prospectively correct
Italian works. This has always lead me to believe that correct perspective was
really discovered in the north rather than Italy.
Most Flemish painters show complete perspective knowledge in their work. Durer
wrote a drawing manual which shows complete understanding.
Mani DeLi
Mdeli
I received several Email msgs asking me to repost this message. OK.
I have read some requests saying I never mention my favorite artists. I have
about a thousand. Here is a chart which indicates the flavor of my opinions.
Anyone who knows some art history can probably correctly infer what my tastes
are in these matters.
I would welcome any criticism, lampoon or otherwise about my
particular vote. Make your own chart it can save a lot of talk.
(rated between 0 and 100)
ARTIST INIMITABILITY TALENT SKILL KNOWLEDGE HYPE
=================================================================
AGE 6 CHILD 10 3 5 1 10
ALBERS 10 20 10 25 95
ART SCHOOL INMATE 10 10 10 30 5
BOUGUEREAU 98 90 100 50 0
CARTOONIST AVERAGE 50 45 50 30 10
CARTOONIST FINE 60 70 70 80 4
CHAGAL 20 10 12 10 90
COMIC BOOK ART AVERAGE 45 50 50 30 5
COMIC BOOK ART FINE 60 70 70 80 5
DALI 85 90 95 85 80
DE KOONING 15 6 4 10 98
DISNEY 85 90 85 85 10
DUCHAMP 50 35 60 60 92
DURER 95 100 90 90 0
GRAD STUDENT AVER. 8 5 8 8 5
GRAD STUDENT BETTER 15 30 30 30 20
HAT DESIGNER 40 30 30 30 30
ILLUSTRATOR AVERAGE 40 50 50 30 20
INGRES 98 100 90 85 0
KLEE 35 50 50 30 60
KLEIN 1 2 1 4 96
KOKOSHKA 25 16 12 20 70
LEONARDO 95 100 100 100 0
LEYNDECKER 80 85 75 70 15
M.A. CRITIC 15 80 80 40 90
MALEVICH 3 4 4 12 20
MATISSE 25 8 8 6 98
MONDRIAN 0 2 1 10 100
NO SKILL REALIST 0 10 15 15 20
PICASSO 40 40 30 30 80
POLLOCK 8 4 1 5 99
RAPHAEL 90 100 85 80 0
RIVERS 12 5 8 10 90
ROCKWELL 75 90 80 80 10
ROTHKO 0 5 5 5 95
SCHLOCK PAINTER-AVERAGE 14 20 14 5 2
SCHLOCK PAINTER-FINE 60 40 50 25 10
TEXTILE DESIGNER 40 30 30 30 0
VAN EYKE 95 100 95 80 0
VERMEER 95 100 100 90 0
ShyNola
Mani,
Your comments are interesting..... I also believe that "correct
perspective" was developed in the North. I think it was the aided by a
cross fetization that occured during the time when many northern artists
(such as Durer) visited Italy. In my mind it wasn't until the artists of
Venice, (many of whom were transplated northerners) developed their art
that landscape perspective was achieved in Italy.
I don't believe Durer understood perspective as we now look at it. I am
familiar with parts of his manual. I see it more as labratory notes than a
guide. I feel he was stuck on the perspective of the shape rather than the
relationship of the figure in a landscape. (Which was my perspective on
the subject.)
In my mind, Durer is an example of the miniturist. Look at the height of
the horizon in his works and compare them to those of a 17th Dutch
landscape painter. Perhaps it is the nature of the lowland countries, but
as artists became more skilled, landscapes became more open and the
horizon was often low in the bottom quarter of the picture. Even in the
crowded market place gentra scenes, the horizon fequently can be found
near the waist of central figures. The stylized, mountainous scenes of
Patiner and similar artists that had been so popular completely ended.
I had hoped somebody might have an opinion regarding Joos de Momper and
his worth as an artist. Although he was a comtemporary of the Brueghals
and some historians claim he was the most popular artist of his time in
his region, I have never seen him asigned any value in art history.
Mdeli
shy...@aol.com (ShyNola) wrote:
>Mani,
>Your comments are interesting..... I also believe that "correct
>perspective" was developed in the North. I think it was the aided by a
>cross fetization that occured during the time when many northern artists
>(such as Durer) visited Italy. In my mind it wasn't until the artists of
>Venice, (many of whom were transplated northerners) developed their art
>that landscape perspective was achieved in Italy.
Correct perspective is already somewhat evident at about 1350. By very early
1400s gothic stuff (hexagonal) is done correctly. However the first written
geometrically correct stuff appeared around 1470. The math behind pespective was
not fully understood until the 19th century. I agree that perspective was a
vastly colaborative effort which effected science as well as art. There isn't
much disagreement on this point.
>I don't believe Durer understood perspective as we now look at it. I am
>familiar with parts of his manual. I see it more as labratory notes than a
>guide. I feel he was stuck on the perspective of the shape rather than the
>relationship of the figure in a landscape. (Which was my perspective on
>the subject.)
Durer has combinations of figures with architecture. They look to me a as
exhibiting correct perspective. His books are instruction manuals. They cover
mechanical drawing, rudiments of perspective and proportion. Interesting Durer
never knew that a circle in perspective is an ellipse.
>In my mind, Durer is an example of the miniturist. Look at the height of
>the horizon in his works and compare them to those of a 17th Dutch
>landscape painter.
I avoid labels where possible. The Interior-St. Jerome is looks altogether
correct.
>Perhaps it is the nature of the lowland countries, but
>as artists became more skilled, landscapes became more open and the
>horizon was often low in the bottom quarter of the picture. Even in the
>crowded market place gentra scenes, the horizon fequently can be found
>near the waist of central figures. The stylized, mountainous scenes of
>Patiner and similar artists that had been so popular completely ended.
>I had hoped somebody might have an opinion regarding Joos de Momper and
>his worth as an artist. Although he was a comtemporary of the Brueghals
>and some historians claim he was the most popular artist of his time in
>his region, I have never seen him asigned any value in art history.
Don't know his work except fo some Engravings?+
MD
David Brooks
In article <5cj873$5...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
Sheesh! A number of artists I've never even heard of and STILL no mention of
Vincent van Gogh. Does this newsgroup have it in for van Gogh or something?
Dave Brooks
Toronto, Canada
http://www.interlog.com/~suzu/d_vince.htm
>I received several Email msgs asking me to repost this message. OK.
>(rated between 0 and 100)
Richard Pierce
David Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <5cj873$5...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
>
> Sheesh! A number of artists I've never even heard of and STILL no mention of
> Vincent van Gogh. Does this newsgroup have it in for van Gogh or something?
>
David
My problem is that everything you say to Vince goes in one ear!
Later
Dick
Bah!
John Singer Sargent. Hands down. I have lots of favorites, but only one
absolute favorite. It's Sargent. Then all tied for second place are Edward
Hopper, Winslow Homer, Thomas Moran, Diego Velasquez, Vincent Van Gogh,
and The last one I'm having a mental block on. The landscape guy. You
know, big, dramatic very realistic paintings of breathtaking scenery.
American, late 19th century. It'll come to me and I'll slap my forehead in
easpiration. But my most favorite painting of all time is The Raft of the
Medusa by Théodore Géricault.
Regiment's Hobby Shop
I, too, am a great Sargent fan. I could never understand why he isn't
considered up there with the French Impressionists. Maybe you have to be
poor and stuggling to have soul.... Could you be thinking of Bierdstadt
(spelling ukn) for the landscape artist?
AT
Marilyn Welch
Regiment's Hobby Shop wrote:
> =
> 0 (Bah!) wrote:
> >John Singer Sargent. Hands down. I have lots of favorites, but only one
> >absolute favorite. It's Sargent. Then all tied for second place are Edwa=
rd
> >Hopper, Winslow Homer, Thomas Moran, Diego Velasquez, Vincent Van Gogh,
> >and The last one I'm having a mental block on. The landscape guy. You
> >know, big, dramatic very realistic paintings of breathtaking scenery.
> >American, late 19th century. It'll come to me and I'll slap my forehead =
in
> >easpiration. But my most favorite painting of all time is The Raft of th=
e
> >Medusa by Th=E9odore G=E9ricault.
> ----------
> =
> I, too, am a great Sargent fan. I could never understand why he isn't
> considered up there with the French Impressionists. Maybe you have to be=
> poor and stuggling to have soul.... Could you be thinking of Bierdstadt
> (spelling ukn) for the landscape artist?
> =
> AT
It is easy to understand why JS Sargeant is not included as a master
painter among the impressionists. He was not a master painter.
What you might consider to be impressionistic is just his sloppy way of =
slapping on paint. So sorry to attack your sacred cow.
MW
R/L Davis
Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> Regiment's Hobby Shop wrote:
> >
> > 0 (Bah!) wrote:
> > >John Singer Sargent. Hands down. I have lots of favorites, but only one
> > >Hopper, Winslow Homer, Thomas Moran, Diego Velasquez, Vincent Van Gogh,
> > >and The last one I'm having a mental block on. The landscape guy. You
> > >know, big, dramatic very realistic paintings of breathtaking scenery.
> > >easpiration. But my most favorite painting of all time is The Raft of the
> > >Medusa by Théodore Géricault.
> > ----------
> >
> > considered up there with the French Impressionists. Maybe you have to be
> > (spelling ukn) for the landscape artist?
> >
>
> It is easy to understand why JS Sargeant is not included as a master
> painter among the impressionists. He was not a master painter.
> What you might consider to be impressionistic is just his sloppy way of
>
> MW
The more I look at those Impressionists lately the more I feel your description of
Sargent fits them more closely. They were certainly not "master painters", just
slapping on paint. (Felt like sitting on a cow myself.)
Richard
Marilyn
R/L Davis wrote:
> > > >Medusa by Th=E9odore G=E9ricault.
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > I, too, am a great Sargent fan. I could never understand why he isn't=
> > > considered up there with the French Impressionists. Maybe you have =
> >
> > It is easy to understand why JS Sargeant is not included as a master
> > painter among the impressionists. He was not a master painter.
> > What you might consider to be impressionistic is just his sloppy way of=
> > slapping on paint. So sorry to attack your sacred cow.
> >
> > MW
> =
> The more I look at those Impressionists lately the more I feel your descr=
iption of
> Sargent fits them more closely. They were certainly not "master painters=
", just
> slapping on paint. (Felt like sitting on a cow myself.)
> Richard
I don't think Sargent can come close to any of the Impressionists.
He is considered to be a sloppy painter, have a good look at his
work. It really annoys me. =
The Impressionists were master painters, but we must move on...
m
R/L Davis
Marilyn wrote:
>
> R/L Davis wrote:
>
> > > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > I, too, am a great Sargent fan. I could never understand why he isn't
> > >
> > > painter among the impressionists. He was not a master painter.
> > > What you might consider to be impressionistic is just his sloppy way of
> > >
> > > MW
> >
> > Sargent fits them more closely. They were certainly not "master painters", just
> > slapping on paint. (Felt like sitting on a cow myself.)
> > Richard
>
> I don't think Sargent can come close to any of the Impressionists.
> He is considered to be a sloppy painter, have a good look at his
> work. It really annoys me.
>
Oh. Well, whatever...
r
Mdeli
Marilyn Welch <sy...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>It is easy to understand why JS Sargeant is not included as a master
>painter among the impressionists. He was not a master painter.
>What you might consider to be impressionistic is just his sloppy way of =
>slapping on paint.
Unlike de Kooning, Kline, Matisse, Picasso, Twombly, etc. etc.
MD
D.D.Barton
Looking for ANY information on Malcolm T Liepke!!
Thank You
Diane D Barton