[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Whether or not the artist intended any sort of social satire - art is subjective. In today's world, the painting can have a very different meaning than the artist's original intent back in 1930. I believe that the popularity of the painting in modern America, as well as it's simplistic style greatly add to any satirical interpretations.

I'm probably just talking out of my ass here...
but again.. only my opinion.

[joe11121]

Originally Posted by Sonic Youth 37

 

Originally Posted by phoenix

 

I like these 2 a lot.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

I believe that the popularity of the painting in modern America, as well as it's simplistic style greatly add to any satirical interpretations.

That's along the lines of what I was saying. I dont believe the piece has any real merrit itself, only fame, really.Fame for reasons which had nothing to do with the artists original intent.. just because its kitschy.

[!@#$%!]

there is a very simple courtyard picture by jan de hooch that somehow felt more real than the very accomplished vermeers around it: it was its emotiona texture, not its technical achievement, even though it was accomplished in itself, though not in such historical scale-- and the fact that it was in such good company lent a warmer eye to it.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

there is a very simple courtyard picture by jan de hooch that somehow felt more real than the very accomplished vermeers around it: it was its emotiona texture, not its technical achievement, even though it was accomplished in itself, though not in such historical scale-- and the fact that it was in such good company lent a warmer eye to it.

would you like to post a picture?

do you mean Pieter De Hooch, Jan was the first name of Vermeer.. There are a few paintings depicting courtyards, which one are you talking about here?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by phoenix

would you like to post a picture?

do you mean Pieter De Hooch, Jan was the first name of Vermeer.. There are a few paintings depicting courtyards, which one are you talking about here?

yes pieter-- it is at the national art gallery in wdc.

sorry for the excess of beer, but that stuff happens.

lets see

i dont have time for a better online pic:

 

someone online is offering "reproductions" of this.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I think whether you allow yourself to enjoy contemporary scultpure more than classical or not, has not much to do with which is 'better?"

what is wrong with whitereads work? I don't personally enjoy her more recent ones, but the internal space sculptures are quite wondreful to experience..

I really like Whiteread's work, have done for a while now. The point I was making is that I think half of the struggle with a gallery is how to set the art. The experience I had in Rome was the (representational) sculpture was treated with quite a degree of respect, well-considered, and would generally be in-and-amoungst other sculpture of a similar period. Britain, or London at least, seems to just plonk a sculpture anywhere, ideally next to a painting under perspex with bright lights shining on it so you can't qutie see the painting properly.

Which is to say, I get very kneejerk-y when people decry 'contemporary' or 'modern' art, so I can understand why you've written the above.

[nicfit]

some favs (one is not enough, and I hope they qualify even if there's not proper "paint"? )

 

 

 

 

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Glice

I think half of the struggle with a gallery is how to set the art.

Britain, or London at least, seems to just plonk a sculpture anywhere, ideally next to a painting under perspex with bright lights shining on it so you can't qutie see the painting properly.

Unfortunately I can't really say much about the way sculpture is curated for galleries in the UK as all I see of it is bits and peices in magazines. When I was in London a few years ago I went to the Tate/modern and somewhere else I cannot recall. But that is as far as my experience goes.

lol where exactly are you visiting that they have incorrect lighting angles with covered paintings? I'm not sure I've come across that anywhere aside from perhaps in a museum *head bangs glass while getting too close* Something like that(the bad hanging/lighting) is more clumsyness or incompitence surely than not allowing a sculpture some space.

But.... again.. if you are comparing a piece that is on display in a gallery for 3 to 6 weeks, to one which lives in the same spot, for a hundred years.. and draws in people and money with which to pay for the 'grounds' which surround it... So, then which do you think will have the more majestic location/presentation..

I can see what you are saying of course.. but.. I'm sure there are logical though not necessarily correct, reasons for it being the way it is.

[Bertrand]

 

William Bouguereau.

[nicfit]

some more

 

 

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yes pieter-- it is at the national art gallery in wdc.

sorry for the excess of beer, but that stuff happens.

yr forgiven.

from what I know of vermeer, I appreciate, yet don't exactly 'like' his work. It's beautiful and wonderfully well done technically, and I understand the math and formulae and hardwork etcetcetc. But.. yes.. I dont know.. It is.. not my thing.

This one of de hooch you suggest does the same for me. I can appreciate, totally, but it doesnt turn on my arty side :P

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by nicfit

some more

 

one of if not my favourite magritte

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by phoenix

yr forgiven.

from what I know of vermeer, I appreciate, yet don't exactly 'like' his work. It's beautiful and wonderfully well done technically, and I understand the math and formulae and hardwork etcetcetc. But.. yes.. I dont know.. It is.. not my thing.

This one of de hooch you suggest does the same for me. I can appreciate, totally, but it doesnt turn on my arty side :P

it sounds like I think vermeer/de hooch is shit... I dont at all. hopefully what I wrote is kind of understandable. :|

[Glice]

Originally Posted by phoenix

But.... again.. if you are comparing a piece that is on display in a gallery for 3 to 6 weeks, to one which lives in the same spot, for a hundred years.. and draws in people and money with which to pay for the 'grounds' which surround it... So, then which do you think will have the more majestic location/presentation..

Yeah, there's always a lot to be said for the context - as you say, a short-term thing doesn't need to be perfect. But it's things like the National Portrait Gallery is so busy... it almost feels like a teenager's bedroom, every available space plastered with picture. I mentioned Whiteread before because I think she's one of the few people to do something with the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern. Potentially such a brilliant space, but fucking impossible for anything with much of a degree of subtlety. The Twombly exhibition at the same was great, but the Richter pieces felt very much like they were plonked in a room (and they were meant to be first-time showings).

But, having said that, I'm really not the greatest appreciator of art, I don't seem to manage one gallery a month nowadays.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Bertrand

 

William Bouguereau.

saucy!

[Satan]

 

by sigmar polke

i also love that bouguereau painting, it's beautiful

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Glice

Yeah, there's always a lot to be said for the context - as you say, a short-term thing doesn't need to be perfect. But it's things like the National Portrait Gallery is so busy... it almost feels like a teenager's bedroom, every available space plastered with picture. I mentioned Whiteread before because I think she's one of the few people to do something with the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern. Potentially such a brilliant space, but fucking impossible for anything with much of a degree of subtlety. The Twombly exhibition at the same was great, but the Richter pieces felt very much like they were plonked in a room (and they were meant to be first-time showings).

But, having said that, I'm really not the greatest appreciator of art, I don't seem to manage one gallery a month nowadays.

I've never seen any Twombly irl, I get the impression I would like his work a lot more in person than I do from books. In books, it just gives me a 'so so' to 'enjoyable'.

HA, I think.. (at a guess) that for the National Portrait Gallery.. to justify public arts spending you need to have as much of your work on display to the public as possible. Not even only for the locals, but to draw the tourist visit and dollar. Unfortunately for us art lovers, not all tax payers are happy to have their dollars spent on 'fuddy duddy' which will sit in a back room and only come out once a year or so..

As for anywhere else... who knows.

[Glice]

Twombly makes much more sense 'in person', as it were. Similarly, I never could see the appeal of Warhol for years until I saw some of the large-scale stuff in Berlin a few years ago. I still don't really like Warhol, but the magnitude makes me dislike him less.

[demonrail666]