# Art > Art & Art History >  The Visual Arts: Exploring the History of "Fine Art" and Beyond

## stlukesguild

Well... I've set about to revive the thread on art in consideration of all the discussion of art that has taken place recently. Hopefully any off-topic posts... such as attempts to hijack the thread and use it as a means of psycho-analyzing artists or using art as a means to "prove" the illnesses of society as a whole will be rapidly dealt with so that we can avoid another locked thread. For those interested, here is a link to the locked Art Thread:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...The-Art-Thread

I thought I would begin this second attempt at an art thread by exploring the concept of "fine art" vs "commercial art" or illustration. Back in 1991, the Museum of Modern Art made an attempt to confront the divide between so-called "fine art" vs "commercial" or "applied art" and illustration in an exhibition entitled *High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture*. 

Until the invention of photography, nearly all painters could also be called "illustrators". They recorded for posterity the people, places, and things of the world around them... and of the world of their imagination. It would not be stretching things to suggest that this was a masterpiece of both "commercial art" and "illustration":



The artist was commissioned... hired to produce a painting to help sell a given product... in this instance Christianity... specifically Catholicism. This was to be achieved through the illustration of the great Biblical narratives for an audience that was largely illiterate. 

Around the same time that Michelangelo was painting the Sistine, Europe saw the birth of the "mass media" through the innovation of print... and especially Johannes Gutenberg's movable type press. The movable type would revolutionize book production and the dissemination of written text and information leading to the spread of ideas, challenges to the Church and the Aristocracy, and eventually the Enlightenment and the spread of democratic and egalitarian government.

Print and the ability to mechanically reproduce images also led to the first notions of creating art for the masses as opposed to the single wealthy patron. In Europe it was the Germans who led the way with printed images as they did with printed text. While the technologies of engraving and wood block printing were known in Italy and France, the Germans made the greatest use of the media. This may be owed to the German penchant for the almost-Gothic use of line which was ideally suited to the graphic arts. Artists such as Martin Schongauer:



Hans Sebald Beham:



Hans Baldung Grien:



and of course Albrecht Dürer:



In spite of the exemplary works of graphic art, print remained in the shadows of painting almost until 19th century. Most of the finest print works were produced by painters such as Lucas van Leyden:



Rembrandt:



Goya:



and Delacroix:



But printed images were also embraced as a means of reproducing paintings, illustrating books... and increasingly as a means of political/social satire and and satire... as can be found in the works of William Hogarth:



Thomas Rowlandson:



and Honore Daumier:



Sometime around the end of the 19th century is considered the starting point of the "Golden Age of Illustration" (which continued through the 1960s). At the same time... with the Impressionists... we find the birth of Modernism. Many of the early Modernists were masters of the graphic arts, creating marvelous book illustrations and posters. 

As Modernism evolved... and eventually became institutionalized... a fissure developed between artists and "illustrators" and "commercial artists". In order to defend and champion new ideals and standards of artistic quality and maintain an air of artistic/cultural superiority, the older ideals and standards needed to be swept aside. Modernism had involved an abandonment of the artists' role as illustrator of the people, places, and things of the era and Modernist critics and theorists developed a dismissive attitude toward any art employing "realist"... let alone "illustrative" elements. The terms "illustrative", "literary", and "narrative" became insults. Any artists who continued to work in a realistic or illustrative manner were dismissed as dated, archaic, low brow, and kitsch. Even an artists as good as Edward Hopper...



and Andrew Wyeth...



... were brushed aside as inconsequential and illustrative. The dominant critic of Abstract Expressionism, Clement Greenberg, recognized Hopper's genius... but couldn't accept a painter who challenged his theory of the superiority of abstraction, and went on to suggest that Hopper really couldn't be considered a painter at all... but something else altogether... some sort of "debased" branch of literature.

Driving a greater wedge between the painters who prided themselves as being "fine artists" and the lowly "illustrators" and "commercial artists" was the realization of the increasing gap between the larger audience and contemporary painting... and ultimately the increasing irrelevance of contemporary painting and "fine art". Looking back over the 20th century, one cannot help but recognize that along with photography, it was the illustrators and "archaic" "illustrative" painters such as Hopper, Wyeth, and Grant Wood who produced many of the most iconic images of the century... images which spoke of the people, places, and things of the era:




















































































Over the course of this thread I hope to explore a number of artists... "fine artists" and "illustrators"... initially focusing on artists from the "Golden Age of Illustration" who I feel have long been been underestimated and undervalued... if not outright ignored.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm glad to see this thread revived.

----------


## Pierre Menard

> I'm glad to see this thread revived.



Yes same! Look forward to furthering my knowledge in all things visual art.

----------


## ftil

I have found a few painters on Alchemy website.

Intriguing indeed. 


* Siegfried Zademack, Gravity drive Angel Engel*  # 146 in Galery

http://www.zademack.com/html/00index.htm


More of his paintings

http://www.tuttartpitturasculturapoe...2-germany.html



*Heide Proksch, GARTEN DER DREI LICHTER* 


http://www.fantastic-art.at/tapis/framesetwerkee.htm



*Peter Proksch, Das Grab Des Osiris*

http://www.fantastic-art.at/fantasti...hmalerei5e.htm



*Natalia Gerasimenko*

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/gerasimenko.html

----------


## mona amon

New art thread - Yay!  :Hurray:

----------


## stlukesguild

I thought I start this thread off properly by exploring the work of the artist/illustrator, *Alphonse Mucha*:

*Alphonse Mucha*
(24 July 1860 – 14 July 1939)

_"Now it seems to me, some fine things 
Have been laid upon your table 
But you only want the ones that you can't get"_ 

from the Eagles, _Desperado_

There are always those individuals who fail to recognize their own talents... or are even resentful of them. Within the realm of literature, I immediately think of Arthur Conan Doyle who grew to so despise his brilliant character invention, Sherlock Holmes, that he eventually killed off the character in order to never have to write another Holmes tale. In December 1893, in order to dedicate more of his time to what he considered his *more important works* (his historical novels), Conan Doyle had Holmes and Professor Moriarty apparently plunge to their deaths together down the Reichenbach Falls in the story "The Final Problem". Public outcry, however, led him to bring the character back in 1901, in _The Hound of the Baskervilles_, and in 1903, Conan Doyle published his first Holmes short story in ten years, "The Adventure of the Empty House", in which it was explained that only Moriarty had fallen; but since Holmes had other dangerous enemies—especially Colonel Sebastian Moran—he had arranged to also be perceived as dead.

In the realm of classical music, we have the German composer, Engelbert Humperdinck (not to be confused with the schmaltzy lounge-lizard singer of the same name) who composed the brilliant opera, _Hänsel und Gretel_, composed at the urging of his sister to her libretto, intended a a children's play based upon the Brothers Grimm's classic tale. The composer was not immediately thrilled with the request... after all, as a sworn Wagnerian and a protege of the great master, he took a lofty view of the operatic calling. What would Wagner think!? 

Hänsel und Gretel is almost a magical achievement in its seeming simplicity... its child-like joy... its folk-like melodies... and its spontaneity... in spite of the sophistication of the work: the mature, adult sub-texts, the sensuality and complexity of the orchestration... built heavily upon Wagner's Lohengrin and Parsifal with its spiritually uplifting moments of grace and benediction. Even the melodies that resonate with the honest simplicity of true folk music are largely Humperdinck's originals... masterful pastiches.

The work not only impressed Richard Strauss, who called it "a masterpiece of the highest quality... all of it original, new, and so authentically German," it also proved a smash hit. In London crowds flocked to Daily's Theater for the biggest show of the Christmas season, 1884. Gustav Mahler, then head of the Hamburg Opera, also proclaimed Hänsel und Gretel to be a "masterpiece". Hänsel und Gretel holds the distinction of having been the first opera performed in its entirety on the radio in Europe (on the BBC) in 1923, and in the United States in 1931. In spite of the popularity of the work, Humperdinck almost resented that he had composed it, desiring nothing more than to be recognized for his later, more "serious" musical efforts.

*Alphonse Mucha* is perhaps the artist most intimately associated with the art and culture of _fin de siecle_ Paris and the entire movement eventually known as _art nouveau_. Unfortunately, the common narrative of Art History has tended to divide the visual arts into the realm of "Fine Art" on one side, and the "Applied Arts", "Decorative Arts", and/or "Commercial Arts" on the other... with a clear inference that one is of far more merit than the other. As a result, most Art Historical surveys of this period center upon the work of the Impressionists (Manet, Monet, Renoir, Degas) and Post-Impressionists (Gauguin, Van Gogh, Cezanne, Seurat, Bonnard, and Vuillard) but largely ignore Mucha. Mucha himself struggled with this concept of artistic hierarchy... desiring nothing so much as to abandon his success in fields of decorative/commercial art and illustration... and to be recognized for his efforts as a "serious" "Fine Artist."

Mucha was born in Moravia in the present Czech Republic. He had been obsessed with drawing since childhood, and he was first employed in painting theatrical scenery for a theater in Moravia. In 1879, he relocated to Vienna to work for a major Viennese theatrical design company, while taking his first formal courses in art education. When fire destroyed the theater, he returned to Moravia, to do freelance decorative and portrait painting. Count Karl Khuen of Mikulov hired Mucha to decorate Hrušovany Emmahof Castle with murals, and was so impressed with Mucha's work that he offered to sponsor Mucha's formal training at the Munich Academy of Fine Arts. Following his studies in Munich, Count Khuen offered to further support Mucha's artistic training in either Paris or Rome. Mucha chose Paris... feeling intimidated by the grandiose reputation of Rome. He continued his studies at Académie Julian and Académie Colarossi. 

When Mucha arrived in Paris in 1887, the French capital was the cultural center of the Western world. With his tuition paid and a monthly stipend from his patron, Count Khuen, the 27-year-old Mucha was able to fully enjoy the brilliance of Paris like few other students. He was able to expose himself to the latest paintings of the Impressionists... and the Post-Impressionists such as Seurat and Gauguin, dine in the cafés and coffee shops where he could listen to the debates among artists and poets, and read the latest novels and poetry by Flaubert, Zola, Verlaine, Mallarmé, etc...

His circumstances took a sudden turn for the worse in 1889 when Mucha received a communiqué from Count Khuen announcing that all financial patronage from the Count was to cease immediately. The Count had not counted on a life-long student with Mucha and called on him to begin to make his way into the realm of professional artists. While the artist would later thank the Count for pushing him into the "real world" of art, Mucha was initially faced with the reality of just how to survive in Paris in the dead of winter without any means of financial support. The artist could no longer afford the luxury of attending the Académie Colarossi, and so he promptly dropped out. He was also forced to immediately cease dining in the Parisian cafés and coffee shops, and move to far more humble living quarters where he had little heat or food. Mucha set about seeking work as an illustrator with any number of the flourishing publication firms in Paris. 

Soon he began to earn a little income as an illustrator and he moved into a small studio room above Madame Charlotte's _crèmerie_. Madame Charlotte's café-restaurant was one of the small but important gathering places for artists in Paris. Madame Charlotte often fed any number of penniless Parisian art students, and the walls of her establishment were covered in paintings and drawings accepted in lieu of payment. Students and teachers and working artists gathered in the café and talked of William Morris and the burgeoning Arts and Crafts Movement, Impressionism and the Post-Impressionists, and especially Japanese art. The interest in Japanese art had exploded in Europe following the trade agreement between Japan and the US of 1854 which opened up Japan to trade with the West. Japanese goods and arts flooded the European market, and the Japanese style, or _Japonisme_ would become all the rage among artists, and especially a major influence upon Art Nouveau. 

Mucha's career took a major turn for the better late in the year 1894 as the result of true luck. One evening just before Christmas, the artist was going over proofs with the printer Lemercier. There was a phone-call from the Théâtre de la Renaissance. The internationally-known actress, Sarah Bernhardt was displeased with the poster for her latest play, _Gismonda_, and demanded a new poster design ready to be hung in a little more than a week. Most of Lemercier's artists and designers had left Paris for the holiday, and no one could be found willing to take on this rush order from a demanding client. Aware of Mucha's abilities as an illustrator and draftsman, Lemercier offered him the job. Mucha realized the potential impact of this particular commission, and produced a poster that was truly a work of art:



Rejecting the usual poster format, Mucha elected a tall, narrow composition allowing him to present a near-life-size image of Sarah Bernhardt. The artist also rejected a focus upon naturalism and the modern world, and instead drew heavily from a unique mix of art historical sources:

The tall, narrow format was clearly inspired by the panels of Japanese screen paintings as well as the works of artists such as Edward Burne-Jones... well-known from William Morris Arts and Crafts Movement:



The emphasis upon flat pattern rooted in natural forms and the overall organic/linear design was again inspired in part by the Arts and Crafts Movement...



... and ultimately might be traced back to the works of William Blake:



Archaic elements such as the use of the halo and the textures suggestive of mosaics were inspired by Byzantine mosaics and icons.



At a time in which color lithographic printing was undergoing major innovations and print artists were taking full advantage of the availability of the most brilliant colors in their designs, Mucha elected to employ a far more subtle and subdued pastel color palette. This may be owed in part to his admiration of Japanese Uliyo-e print masters such as Utamaro:



The poster design for _Gismonda_ did not at all impress or please Lemercier. The work was clearly unconventional... even outrageously innovative. Sarah Bernhardt, however, was highly enthusiastic... as were the Parisian public when the poster hit the streets. Bernhardt offered Mucha a multi-year contract and over the next decade the artist was to produce a series of equally brilliant posters for the actress which helped to establish the artist... and the Mucha Style... which essentially became recognized as the epitome of the fashionable Art Nouveau style:











Mucha rapidly became _the_ artist/illustrator/designer in demand. His designs were employed to sell products ranging from foods...





to bicycles...



to chocolate...







to cigarettes...



to travel and tourism...



to champagne:





Of course... no matter what product was being marketed... what Mucha was really selling was an image of _fin de siecle_ Paris: a world of beautiful women wearing equally beautiful (and often revealing) clothing; perfume, champagne, flowers, the theater and nightclubs.

The demand for Mucha's work was so high that the artist became one of the first to utilize the relatively new technology of photography in the production of his images. He would stage and photograph his models:



These photographs were then "gridded-off" in the same manner in which Renaissance painters gridded-off original drawings alowing them to transfer the works to a far larger surface (canvas or plaster in the case of fresco). Mucha then transferred the figures to his lithographic stone allowing him to rapidly establish the proper proportions and gesture. He would then adjust the contours to suite his desired elegant flow and build up the decorative elements around the figure.

As the "Mucha Style"... which became known as Art Nouveau... grew in popularity with the public, the artist turned his attention to a broad array of decorative commercial endeavors:

Book Illustration:





Calenders:



Carpet, tapestry, and furniture design:



Jewelry:





... even ceramic and cast metal sculptural Bric-à-brac:



The design for Mucha's poster images was so high (people were stealing them off the streets) that the artist began to produce a series of purely decorative "poster/prints" that could be hung in the home like any "fine art" print or painting. These images were often released in series... on themes such as Flowers:





The Muses:









The Four Seasons:



Precious Stones:









and the Stars:



In order to meet the ever-increasing demand the artist produced a printed and bound folio of designs, known as the _Documents Decoratifs_ that might be used by other artists and craftsmen as well as a means of passing on his knowledge to younger artists:





Mucha's work and its influence spread throughout the major cultural centers of Europe and to the Americas. The extent of his impact could be best seen at the Exposition Universelle of 1900 in Paris. At this exposition, which featured such innovations and achievements as the Eiffel Tower, Ferris wheels, Campbell's Soup, Diesel engines, talking films, and the Telegraphone (the precursor to modern day sound recording), Mucha's designs could be found throughout. Mucha participated in a committee of artists, designers, and architects involved in discussions on replacing the Eiffel Tower (which had been constructed in 1888 with the intention of being but a temporary structure) with another symbol for France. He designed the decor for the Bosnia-Herzegovina Pavillion, and perhaps in response to the success of his 1897 solo exhibition in Austria, _Ausstellung Alfons Mucha_, the artist was asked to contribute a couple of sculptural works and the poster promoting the Austrian contribution to the Exposition Universelle:



It was at this point... at the peak of his career... while his Mucha Style/Art Nouveau was being imitated across Europe and the Americas, that Mucha attempted to disassociate himself from his fame and his commercial/decorative achievements. He always insisted that rather than maintaining any fashionable Parisian stylistic form, his paintings were entirely a product of himself and Czech art and that art existed only to communicate a spiritual message, and nothing more... hence his frustration at the fame he had gained by his commercial art when he most wanted to concentrate on "serious" artistic projects... especially a celebration of Slavic history which he had held in his thoughts for a good many years.

Mucha married Maruška Chytilová on 10 June 1906, in Prague. The couple visited and spent extended periods of time living the U.S. from 1906 to 1910, during which time their daughter, Jaroslava, was born in New York City. In the U.S., Mucha hoped to leave his reputation as a commercial artist behind, and expected to earn money to fund his nationalistic projects to demonstrate to Czechs that he had forgotten his homeland through the production of "serious" art. The artist offered his services as a portraitist to wealthy American patrons. Unfortunately, Mucha was not highly experienced in the use of oil paints and not only did he struggle with the media, but he found himself up against serious competition in the like of master-portraitists such as John Singer Sargent:



It also became rapidly obvious that the American audience were well aware of and every bit as enthusiastic about Mucha's commerical works with the images of beautiful women, flowers, and flowing designs.



Mucha was soon churning out more advertisments for bicycles:



baby carriages:



and food products:



Mucha's efforts in America at portraiture and "serious art" were not without some degree of success. The artist made the acquanitence of millionaire Charles R. Crane, who used his fortune to help promote revolutions and, after meeting Thomas Masaryk, Slavic nationalism. Crane agreed to help fund Mucha's proposed cycle of mural-sized paintings in celebration of Czech history eventually entitled _Slovanská epopej_ (The Slav Epic). Mucha worked on this project in Prague from 1910-1928...



...and considered it to be his life's fine art masterpiece. He bestowed it upon the city of Prague in 1928, and since 1963 the series of 20 huge paintings has been on display in the chateau in Moravský Krumlov the South Moravian Region in the Czech Republic. The artist contributed further to his homeland through the production of designs for money, posters...



... designs for various government documents, and paintings in various government offices. 

The rising tide of fascism during the late 1930s resulted in Mucha's works, as well as his Slavic nationalism, being denounced in the press as 'reactionary'. When Nazi troops moved into Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1939, Mucha was among the first persons to be arrested by the Gestapo. During his interrogation, the aging artist became ill with pneumonia. Though released eventually, he was weakened by this experience, and died in Prague on 14 July 1939. The occupation German forces forbid any public gathering, but reportedly over 100,000 Czechs paid their respects.

*****

In spite of the merits of the paintings of the Slav Epic...



... and it's admiration among the Czech population, the paintings were clearly dated in style... essentially 19th century history painting. Mucha's commercial efforts... the work that he had become famous and wealthy for having produced... were clearly wholly of their time. His elegant Art Nouveau posters... had a profound impact upon other artists, and in spite of the artist's own thoughts and the commercial purpose of the work, they were most certainly every bit "serious" art... worthy of his efforts and the popularity they garnered. Any number of Mucha's contemporaries were inspired by his organic, flowing style:







The big boom of classic psychedelic Rock posters from the 1960s were equally inspired by Mucha's work:







Current commercial artists and poster-designers continue to draw ideas from Mucha:















Even Disney has been inspired by Mucha:



I must admit to having been influenced myself. While I tend to avoid Mucha's organic curve-linear design and pattern leaning toward the geometric hard-edged... the tall, narrow format with the single isolated figure surely owes much to Mucha as well as Klimt (who was clearly influenced by Mucha). I have also been recently intrigued with his elegant stylization and use of the halo.

Mucha received the "ultimate" posthumous recognition when on 24 July 2010, he was honored with a "Google Doodle"
in memory of his 150th birthday.



Mucha's commercial efforts and posters remain beloved because they truly were his "serious art". They continue to speak of a now-long-gone (an perhaps largely imaginary) image of fin de siecle Paris... a glittering world of beautiful women in long flowing gowns, bubbling champagne, flowers, and elegant ballrooms filled with dancers. "Serious Art" need not always be tragic and death-laden. And "serious art" need not be limited to painting and sculpture.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

Thanks for putting that together, well composed and informative. 

I was not familiar with Mucha which surprised me seeing how prolific he was. Your images reminded me of a book I have titled The Modern Poster, (MOMA publication) which begins in the late 19th century coinciding with the Art Nouveau movement as you described. I just now revisited the book and discovered a couple of posters by Mucha including this cigarette add; _Job_ 1897:



Your images also brought to mind the Scottish architect and artist; Charles Rennie Mackintosh, a major player in the Arts and Crafts and Art Nouveau movements in the UK. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rennie_Mackintosh

The book mentioned above includes this poster by Mackintosh



Other Mackintosh contributions
The Glasgow School of Art









Another Illustrator/ Artist that caught my eye is Carlos Schwabe.
This poster image is in my book:






Following internet search I found a couple more examples by Schwabe I thought were interesting:

Gravedigger Meets Death:



Pain




Coincidentally, the Dallas Museum of Art is currently exhibiting Posters of Paris: Toulouse-Lautrec and His Contemporaries 

http://www.dallasmuseumofart.org/Vie...ons/dma_442782

I hevan't seen it...yet.

----------


## ftil

And more of Carlos Schwabe's paintings.



*Carlos Schwabe - Occultist Symbolism II*

----------


## stlukesguild

As I mentioned at the start of this thread I plan to explore a number of artists who fall outside the traditional confines of art history. The artist I am offering up for examination today produced one of the most iconic images of the 20th century and his own face, I will dare suggest, has been seen by more people than even Andy Warhol:





What?! You say you have never seen this man before in your life. Ah, but I assure you... you most certainly have. You just don't realize it.

James Montgomery Flagg

James Montgomery Flagg was born in 1877 in New York. He had a passion for drawing from the very earliest that he could remember... and as a result he developed into something of a prodigy. By age 12 he had already had drawings accepted for publication by several magazines. By age 14 he a a regular contributing artist to _Life_ magazine, and by the following year he was on the staff of another magazine, _Judge_. From 1894-98 he undertook formal art studies at the *Art Students League of New York*. After completion of these studies he spent two years in further studies in London and Paris.

Returning to the US, Flagg began working again as an illustrator, contributing works to several magazines for publication. His earliest works tended to be pen and ink drawings rooted in the manner of Charles Dana Gibson, famous for the "Gibson Girl"...



... the personification of the feminine ideal of American beauty in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Gibson Girl was essentially the first mass-produced "pin-up".











Most of Flagg's pen and ink drawings focused upon social dramas between men and women... and usually centered upon the well-dressed, idealized upper-classes. 

While Flagg's medium of choice in the early years of his career was pen and ink, he developed a fluency with a broad variety of media. Magazine covers were printed in color and Flagg often employed a combination of pen and ink and watercolor for these assignments:







Some commissions... such as this cover for the magazine _The Bookman_, allowed for the artist to break away from his usual style not only through the use of color ink but also through his adoption of the Art Nouveau style suggestive of the graphic work of Aubrey Beardsley:



Watercolor, gouache, and ink wash increasingly became Flagg's media of choice bringing a greater fluidity and animation to his work:















Flagg also began to employ charcoal, allowing him to create dark, smoldering atmospheres suggestive of the theatrical lighting of movies.



The impact of Hollywood films upon the work of artists and illustrators shouldn't come as a surprise at a time when film was becoming the art and entertainment form of the century. This is especially true of Flagg. Flagg was a born rebel and highly flamboyant. He loved traveling around the world and partying with the "jet set" of his day. He spent a great deal of time in Hollywood where he spent his time socializing with colorful characters such as film writers, directors, and actors. He was a long-time close friend to John Barrymore, and was afforded the opportunity for intimate portrait sittings with many Hollywood actors and actresses:

Gayle Mellott:



Gloria Swanson:



Linda Darnell:



Hedy Lamar:



Marlene Dietrich:



Gretta Garbo:



Flagg with Jayne Russell:



Portrait of Ethel Barrymore:



Flagg's efforts on behalf of Hollywood even included posters for films:



James Montgomery Flagg's greatest... or at least most famous contribution to art and illustration... if not American culture as a whole... can be found among his efforts on behalf of the nation at war. Flagg designed and painted any number of iconic war posters... for both world wars:














The most famous and iconic image painted by Flagg was the classic "Uncle Sam" "I Want You" poster which was created to spur enlistment during the First World War, but was revived for the Second World War:



Rushed... and not wanting to go through the time and trouble to arrange for a model... Flagg used his own face for that of Uncle Sam...



The artist produced any number of variations on the Uncle Sam poster:

















Flagg's "jet set" lifestyle included an obsession with beautiful women, and the artist was never short of attractive mistresses. Along with many of his colleagues in New York, Flagg had membership in a number of private men's clubs, including the famous Dutch Treat Club. Burlesque dancers, strippers, and prostitutes were frequent "features" of the parties held in these clubs, and the drawings and posters produced for the clubs were quite often on the risqué side:







Any number of these works number among the first true examples of the modern American pin-up:











Indeed, the 1930 image of a beautiful young woman sensually applying her lipstick became one of the artist's most famous and most reproduced paintings establishing an ideal for glamour and pin-up paintings:



Flagg was a close friend and mentor to a number of other key American illustrators. At his peak, he was reported to have been the highest paid magazine illustrator in America. Over four million copies of his "I Want You"/Uncle Sam poster had been printed during the First World War... and even more during the Second. Following the Second World War, Flagg continued to produce the occasional illustration, but largely withdrew from the limelight. In 1946 he published his autobiography, Roses and Buckshot, which revealed a dark and sometimes ugly underside to a man who had spent his career obsessed with beauty.

_"I have never had any slight interest in homely ladies," he said, "no matter how charming and intelligent they are reputed to be. They do not exist for me."_ 

And even if a woman satisfied his standards for beauty, she'd better not nag or be jealous about his many infidelities:

_"If I ran the world...I'd have my FBI corral all the ugly people and all nagging and jealous women,...and take them out to Death Valley and drop an atomic bomb on them."_

Flagg had a sour and lonely old age. He said at the end of his life,

_"I can't stand the look of my present age. All my life I have been a worshipper of that beauty of the human form you see in some men and women....Is it any wonder that I don't like to look at the physical mess and mental dullness that has set in for me? As far back as I can remember, I have been in the limelight; now I'd rather be dead than be passed by, ignored."_

Part of Flagg's attitude, no doubt, was owed to his failings in love. Although he had had no shortage of beautiful lovers, only toward the end of his life was he able to recognize that...

_"A roll in the bed with honey isn't love. And the tragic part of it is that you never learn this until you're past the age for it to happen to you again."_

His one real chance at love occurred late in his career when Flagg fell head over heels in love with the beautiful young model and photographer, Ilse Hoffmann:



Their affair lasted some three years, but eventually Ilse expected Flagg to marry her and the artist had no desire to be "tied down" and find his options limited... and so Ilse moved on... and eventually married another man. Flagg was bitter... and clueless:

_"I was saturated with disgust for Ilse...I said to myself: 'I truly loved Ilse. No other woman has meant a thing to me-- from the moment I saw her.' Eventually she married this young man, who was some sort of stock market runner. Yes, she was a married woman. She'd got what she desired. A wedding ring."_

Flagg's final self portrait is haunted by the painting of Ilse over his shoulder, and the life that might have been...



Flagg died in New York City in 1960.

*****

Aaaack!! I forgot that that Photobucket... the site I was using to host my images... is patrolled by a pack of vigilant Sunday School Teachers... the sort who petition the pastor to remove all the "dirty bits" from the Bible such as that "nekkid" Adam and Eve and the Song of Solomon. Their abhorrence of the human body would be all well and fine if they could keep it to themselves... but the need to impose their standards upon the rest of the civilized world. Already three of the images from Flagg were censored, so I've had to repost them... the hard way... through Flickr. I'm waiting until the harmless Mucha images are treated to the same censorship. :Crazy:

----------


## Buh4Bee

I do know many of these prints. He lived as a true artist, true to himself, and died alone. Thanks for the post. Hope you are warm.

----------


## ftil

After spending some time with occult artists, I have watched Ana's paintings with joy.  :Smile5: 






> *Anna Razumovskaya* is a graduate of the Russian State University For Arts, where she was awarded the distinction of high-class artist in 1991. Subsequently, she studied art in Germany, Belgium and Holland. She has solo exhibitions in New York, Paris, Toronto, Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Berlin. She traveled around Europe absorbing the influences of artists past and present, and finally settled in Canada which she now feels to be her true home. 
> 
> A painting of fluid tranquility, expressed in the form of an elegant and graceful woman in repose with her instrument, brings to the viewer both an impression of the lingering notes in the air, and the sensual beckoning of female strength and vulnerability. This is the allure of Anna’s work: she is at the heart, an artist who loves to explore juxtapositions of art and emotion, strength and fragility, sensuality and innocence. “But, I am not so serious as that!” she laughs. “I love to paint things that are beautiful – things that make me happy.”
> http://silvanagallery.com/Artists/Pa...ya/AR_bio.html

----------


## cacian

I find certain postures in painting rather intriguing.
The painted looking the other way is an interesting one.
My avatar painting for example. There is something quite telling about it almost innocent.
Whenever I look at a painting I think about the person who painted it.
I find some arts I can relate to like Cezanne because the evidence of clothing is too apparent.
I find nude painting unappealing but I do prefer looking at a human form in its glory clothes and textures I am drawn to.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *cacian*
> 
> I find certain postures in painting rather intriguing.
> The painted looking the other way is an interesting one.
> My avatar painting for example. There is something quite telling about it almost innocent.
> Whenever I look at a painting I think about the person who painted it.
> I find some arts I can relate to like Cezanne because the evidence of clothing is too apparent.
> I find nude painting unappealing but I do prefer looking at a human form in its glory clothes and textures I am drawn to.



I agree. The human body is beautiful, however, when overdosed it becomes boring. Second, in modern art, women are fragmented as it is the emphasis on sexuality or even worse on the part of the female body. Very distorted view of women. Women are much more than that. 



Emily Carr (December 13, 1871  March 2, 1945) was a Canadian artist and the first painters in Canada to adopt a modernist and post-impressionist painting style, Carr did not receive widespread recognition for her work until later in her life.Her contact with the Group of Seven in 1930 resurrected her interest in art, and throughout the 1930s she specialized in scenes from the lives and rituals of Native Americans
The Canadian Encyclopedia describes her as a "Canadian icon"

----------


## stlukesguild

I agree. The human body is beautiful, however, when overdosed it becomes boring. 

How does one discern what is or is not an "overdose"? Michelangelo painted nothing but the human body. Are his works boring? By the same standard... Turner and Monet painted landscapes almost exclusively. Do they amount to a boring overdose?

Second, in modern art, women are fragmented as it is the emphasis on sexuality or even worse on the part of the female body. 

Outside of Cubism and Expressionism I don't see a lot of fragmented images of women... or anything else... among Modernism. As for the emphasis upon "sexuality"... do you imagine that this is a uniquely modern concern? Perhaps you imagine that these are not about sexuality:































How's that for a 19th century fragmentation?

Very distorted view of women. Women are much more than that. 

That's just a sophomoric Feminist view that suggests an absolute ignorance of art. All art is an "abstraction"... a "distortion" if you will. No painting can possibly convey all that a human being is. This, for example, is a stunning portrait:



But is certainly does not convey all that Castiglione was. He was much more than is conveyed in this portrait. The artist, Raphael, focused upon that which he found visually interesting.

Art is first and foremost visual. Artists focus upon that which they find visually attractive... intriguing... interesting. As such, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that beautiful women... the female body... sexually attractive women (or in the case of homosexual artists such as Michelangelo, Donatello, Caravaggio, etc... beautiful men... sexually attractive males bodies) are among the most painted subjects in the whole of art. Sexuality... Eros... the "erotic"... is one of the central themes of all art. If there is a difference in Modern art it is that artists have no longer needed to mask... or "perfume" the erotic/sexual content... to justify it by presenting it in the guise of a Biblical narrative (such as Adam and Eve or Bathsheba) or a Greco-Roman narrative such as Venus and Adonis, Danae, or Diana and Acteon.

----------


## ftil

> How does one discern what is or is not an "overdose"? Michelangelo painted nothing but the human body. Are his works boring? By the same standard... Turner and Monet painted landscapes almost exclusively. Do they amount to a boring overdose?


I was clear when I said modern art. Your comment doesn't apply to modern art.




> Outside of Cubism and Expressionism I don't see a lot of fragmented images of women... or anything else... among Modernism. As for the emphasis upon "sexuality"... do you imagine that this is a uniquely modern concern? Perhaps you imagine that these are not about sexuality:


Well, I see that you grab any chance to post nudity. Actually, the paintings you posted are mythology themes. Those paintings are not modern art either. I may reiterate what I said that women are fragmented with the emphasis on sexuality or the body parts. I am not going to waste hours and hours to prove my point by posting modern artists. 

BTW, I have spent lots of time with mythology themes and I definitely feel bored when I see paintings I saw hundreds of times. I definitely overdosed.  :FRlol:  But I enjoy looking at mythology paintings I haven't seen before.

----------


## stlukesguild

I was clear when I said modern art. Your comment doesn't apply to modern art.

So your comment about "boring" nudes only applies to Modern art? How does that make any sense beyond you personal dislike of Modernism?

Well, I see that you grab any chance to post nudity. Actually, the paintings you posted are mythology themes. Those paintings are not modern art either. I may reiterate what I said that women are fragmented with the emphasis on sexuality or the body parts. I am not going to waste hours and hours to prove my point by posting modern artists. 

Your point seems to be that you don't like Modern art. As for "proving your point"... it's not that you are unwilling, but rather unable to prove that Modern art is somehow inherently different in its approach to the nude and sexuality.

Considering that you don't like Modernism... and you are bored or turned off by the nudes I have posted... I have to question why you feel the need to hijack the art threads I have started as opposed to starting your own.

----------


## ftil

> So your comment about "boring" nudes only applies to Modern art? How does that make any sense beyond you personal dislike of Modernism?



Hey, where did I say that I dislike modern art? There are many modern painters I appreciate. I was talking about women in modern art.




> As for "proving your point"... it's not that you are unwilling, but rather unable to prove that Modern art is somehow inherently different in its approach to the nude and sexuality.


Well, I am not going to prove it. A few years ago, I explored women in modern art. I had 20 pages of modern art and I barely scratched the tip of the iceberg. I would need at least 100 pages more but I got bored.





> I have to question why you feel the need to hijack the art threads I have started as opposed to starting your own.


I dont hijack your thread, I have responded to cacians post and you felt the need to respond to mine. I was polite to answer your post. Projection can be fun.  :Wink5: 

To be honest, I must say thank you as your threads inspire me in many ways.  :Smile5:

----------


## ftil

> I find certain postures in painting rather intriguing.
> The painted looking the other way is an interesting one.
> My avatar painting for example. There is something quite telling about it almost innocent.
> Whenever I look at a painting I think about the person who painted it.
> I find some arts I can relate to like Cezanne because the evidence of clothing is too apparent.
> I find nude painting unappealing but I do prefer looking at a human form in its glory clothes and textures I am drawn to.


I have forgotten the name of the painter of your avatar. It is Andre Kohn. 

More of his paintings.

http://www.howardmandville.com/pages...ages/kohn.html

----------


## stlukesguild

I was recently searching the internet for images on the theme of Mermaids, Nereids, and/or Sea Nymphs for some ideas relating to a painting I am currently plotting out. Unfortunately the vast majority of the images that I came upon were either of the sickly-sweet "Little Mermaid" variety...



... or one of the equally kitsch adolescent sci-fi/fantasy portrayals of an overly sexualized mermaid or sea nymph (as in nympho) pin-up rendered in airbrush or CGI:





What I was thinking was something a bit more more sophisticated... especially something along the lines of Gustav Klimt's _Water Serpents_...



Among the few paintings of any real merit, there was Herbert Draper's _Sea Nymphs_...



... and _Icarus' Lament_:



There was also Gennady Spirin's _Little Mermaid_...



... with the shimmering brushwork that reminds me of the paintings of the 19th century French Symbolist, Henri Fantin-Latour:





Unfortunately, the face of the drowned sailor in Spirin's painting lacks Fantin-Latour's classicism. Instead it has something of the cheesy look of of Japanese anime.

Another fascinating image was that of _Mermaid_ by Adrian Borda:



The idea of the mermaid hung upside down like the latest catch at the fish market is quite unique. The cross from which she is hung suggests Christ... an allusion reinforced by the fish image, although one might also think of St. Peter, the "fisher of men" whose martyrdom involved being crucified upside-down. The arrow is at once phallic... but also suggests still another martyrdom: that of St. Sebastian. Unfortunately, much of the strength of this painting is undermined by the juvenile obsession with perfect surgically enhanced boobs and the fashion model's face. 

One of the most interesting images I happened upon was that of a painting of a _Mermaid_ by the Indian artist, Ashok Bhowmick:



Many of Bhowmick's paintings are rooted in Middle-Eastern and Indian mythology, and looking at this painting in particular, I cannot help but think of the famous Babylonian sculpture of Istar, the Goddess of Fertility, Love, War and Sex:



The most fortuitous discovery during this entire search, however, was that of this Mermaid by Enoki Toshiyuki:



It isn't that this particular painting of a mermaid is something truly outstanding (it isn't)... nor even the fact that Toshiyuki painted more than a single image of the theme:



No... rather it is that delving deeper into Toshiyuki's work I discovered a truly marvelous painter and illustrator hitherto unknown to me.

Enoki Toshiyuki



Most of the information available on Toshiyuki on the internet is in Japanese. What I have been able to uncover concerning his biography is quite minimal. He was born in 1961 in Tokyo. He earned both a Bachelors and Masters of Arts degree from the Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music, and continued on with a post-graduate fellowship at the same institution. Since 2001 he has taught design at the school and worked as an artist and illustrator. His training... and subsequent work has involved employing both traditional Japanese and Western painting methods. He favors using old worn brushes and a palette of colors that suggest something at once weathered and antique... as well as new. His light, often transparent touch and his use of gold leaf dispersed throughout the paintings creates a magical atmospheric effect. 

Toshiyuki can be a marvelous portraitist:



He has done a number of quite lovely self-portraits:







His painting of a young girl in traditional Japanese folk garb is quite beautiful:



However, it is his reveries... daydreams... nocturnes... fantasies that are the most intriguing among his figurative work:











The ethereal and tenuous nature of these paintings owe much to the artist's use of traditional Japanese methods of painting with dry pigment, while there are also elements suggestive more of the Momoyama period Japanese screen paintings with their bold, flat, graphic imagery and use of gold leaf. Toshiyuki also claims influences from Western artists such as Gustav Klimt and late 19th century illustrators such as Arthur Rackham.

The artist spent a deal of time working at a zoo, and this experience helped to inspire a fascination with animals that has fueled many of his paintings:










A great many of Toshiyuki's paintings involve the exploration of mythological themes... Eastern and Western. His interest in animals carries over into this exploration of mythology with images of a variety of mythological beasts:





Among the mythological beasts that Toshiyuki has repeatedly explored in his work we find the traditional Asian dragon...







And the peacock/Phoenix/Firebird:















The decorative nature of these paintings... and the manner in which they are seen as part of an entire architectural space suggests the famous "Peacock Room" of James Whistler:





This may be a case of the cyclical nature of cultural influence, as Whistler was profoundly inspired by Japanese art and design.

Toshiyuki has also explored Western mythological themes... such as Eve and the garden of Eden:



... or even the Western folk-tale of _Little Red Riding Hood_:



In this marvelous painting, Toshiyuki employs a disjointed space that owes both to Asian concepts of tilted space, and Western post-Cubist ideas. In the top right we see a delicious still-life/landscape detail: catfish swimming in a small pond... while directly to the left our view changes and we are looking up at birds in the spiraling sky. Below, Red Riding Hood seemingly lies on the grass... taking a break on her trek to grandma's house... while almost hidden beneath the foliage at the bottom right the wolf peers out hungrily. 

Nature... and the landscape... common traditional obsessions of Japanese art are major themes for Toshiyuki. This is true whether he is exploring images of human beings confronted by the overwhelming nature of the cosmos...



... or the deep, dark secrets of the forests at night:



Then he can turn around and explore the beauty of a waterfall with a Zen-like simplicity... and near abstraction:



Perhaps the most intriguing painting by Toshiyuki (of that which I've seen) is his triptych: _Rainy Forest; Water's Edge; Story Teller_



This work combines several of Toshiyuki's thematic obsessions: landscape, mythology, and animals.

In the left panel, _Rainy Forest_, the title say it all... as we are presented with an image of a tropical rain forest... spider monkeys in the trees above... and a tarantula on the ground below:



In the center panel, _Water's Edge_ (River's Head) we are presented with another view of nature... this one being more suggestive of traditional Japanese and Chinese landscape painting with the image stacked up vertically, a view of a waterfall, and a vines twisting and turning in an almost calligraphic manner. 



In the final painting, _Story Teller_, two figures (are they human or ape?) sit on a mountain top looking up at the stars which are seen as a shimmer of scattered gold dust. The title suggests that the elder figure is telling stories of the nature of the stars... creation... the gods... and the cosmos. As a result, the stars begin to take form... in the manner of the Western astrological symbols:



Toshiyuki is certainly an artist I will be keeping my eye upon. It seems that I am not alone in this as this last triptych was recently sold for a decent sum of money at a Christie's auction of Modern and Contemporary Asian Art.

----------


## stlukesguild

Phoebe Anna Traquair (1852-1936)


I stumbled upon another artist of real interest today. Actually I have known one work of hers for some time now: _The Progress of the Soul_... a stunning four-panel tapestry which was wrongly attributed on the website from which I had originally downloaded the image (No wonder I couldn't find any other works of a similar nature by this marvelous artist :Skep:  :Frown5: ).

Phoebe Anna Traquair was a multi-talented artist and participant in the Celtic Revival/Scottish Renaissance in Arts and Crafts which occurred in the late 19th into the early twentieth century. Although she was considered a Scottish artist, Traquair was actually born in Dublin. She attended the School of Design in Dublin before moving to Edinburgh in 1874 after her marriage to Dr Ramsay Traquair, who was later appointed "Keeper of Natural History" at Edinburgh's Museum of Science and Art in 1874. 

Phoebe was influenced by the Pre-Raphaelites, William Morris and the Arts and Crafts Movement, William Blake, and the Italian painters of the early Italian Renaissance (the period from which the "PreRaphaelites"... before Raphael... took their name). She was a correspondent of John Ruskin, a friend of William Holman Hunt and pursued a successful career as an artist, designer, and craft worker eventually achieving national and international recognition. 

Among the staggering body of work completed over the course of her career, Traquair produced a good number of traditional paintings on canvas or panel: 





As a lover of literature, Phoebe created several illuminated manuscripts... including this marvelous work, illustrating the _Sonnets from the Portuguese_ of Elizabeth Barrett Browning:



Among her decorative paintings, one of the finest examples is the Grand Piano for the Great Hall at Lympne Castle, Kent:





An incredibly skilled embroiderer, Traquair produced a body of stunning tapestries, including the _Salvation of Mankind_:





In a letter to her nephew, Traquair writes: _"To the artist, be he the poet, painter or musician, the world is a great treasure house, stored with endless material for him to use, teach yourself to match the beauty of red-lipped buds, sunlight through green leaves, the yellow gorse on the hill, the song of the wild birds, so on, step by step, the world opens out. This is life. This is to live, the perfection comes when one's own life is in harmony with this beauty"_ 

This sentiment clearly echoes those of Walter Pater, the great writer and critic and champion of the _art pour l'art_ movement:

The service of philosophy, of speculative culture, towards the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life of constant and eager observation. Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,  for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch...

-Walter Pater from the _Conclusion_ to _The Renaissance; Studies in Art and Poetry_

The work by Traquair that I first stumbled upon... and which I still consider to be her singular masterpiece... is the four-panel tapestry, _The progress of the Soul_, the imagery of which was based upon the short story by Walter Pater, _Denys l'Auxerrois_. The work is a heady mixture of Christian and Pagan imagery and was begun as as 'homage' to the memory of Pater who had died a year before Traquair started the panels... though at the time, the family tried to downplay the embroidered panels. 







This tapestry... brilliantly colored and woven with metallic thread... reminds me of the paintings of various Post-Impressionists... including the Nabis and Gauguin... as well as William Morris, William Blake, and Medieval tapestries:







It is Traquair's mural work, however, that has most served to assure her place in the history of art. The artist painted a number of murals for various religious and charitable institutions. Kellie Castle in Fife dates from as early as the 14th century and has magnificent plaster ceilings, painted paneling and fine furniture designed by Sir Robert Lorimer, a close friend of Traquair. The castle also includes one of the artist's first murals... clearly inspired by the works of Botticelli and Fra Filippo Lippi:



In the only mural project by Traquair realized outside of Scotland, the artist painted a series of images in St Peters Church, Clayworth, Nottinghamshire:









Traquair painted the interiors of four Edinburgh buildings between 1885 and 1901. The song school of St Mary's Cathedral (188892) earned Traquair a degree of national recognition. Within a tunnel-vaulted interior, the east wall depicts the cathedral clergy and choir. The south wall depicts Traquair's admired contemporaries such as Dante Gabriel Rosetti, William Holman Hunt, and George Frederic Watts. On the north wall birds and choristers sing together, and the west wall shows the four beasts singing the Sanctus. The Song School is still used daily for practice by the Choristers:









Traquair's masterpiece, however, is in the vast former Catholic Apostolic Church (18931901) which has been called by some "Edinburghs Sistine Chapel", and "a jewelled crown". It was this work which helped to confirm her international recognition. The deconsecrated church is now known as the "Mansfield Traquair Centre". The marvelous collection of murals is not overly well-known to tourists due to limited access. The building is only open to the public one Sunday afternoon per month. Traquair spent eight years on these murals, making few preparatory drawings before sketching the figures directly onto the walls. This is a particularly stunning achievement given the curved surfaces of the chapel ceiling. The Catholic Apostolic Church, founded in 1835, basically cherry-picked their favorite bits from the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox traditions. As such, one attending a Catholic Apostolic service
would find vividly colored vestments and incense, but but no crucifixes (why dwell on Christ's suffering when you can celebrate his resurrection?). Nor would one find any Last Judgment scenes with demons dragging damned souls down into hell... again, the Last Judgment was to be portrayed as a day of celebration. Traquair's imagery mirrors these religious values or beliefs:































As an artist, I cannot help but envy the artist who need not deal with gallery directors, the whims of collectors, and the games of the contemporary art world... but instead was given the opportunity to spend an extended period of time employed upon a work worthy of her talents and ambitions... and a work of such a scale and purpose as to inspire the artist to rise to the challenge. 

Because Traquair refused to accept the traditional boundaries of "fine" and "applied" art she was refused membership of the Royal Scottish Academy, and it was not until 1920 that she was elected an honorary member.

Traquair died in Edinburgh on August 4, 1936 and was buried at Colinton parish church.

----------


## mona amon

Just coming out of lurking to say how much I enjoyed the Mucha section. I'd never heard of him before. Love decorative art.

I also liked Toshiyuki, especially the mythological beasts. Haven't digested Traquair yet, but I was impressed by the tapestries. I suppose she must have had assistants to do the actual embroidering? I was interested in embroidery at one time but gave it up because it was such a slog!

----------


## stlukesguild

Traquair, from what I read, was a masterful embroiderer, and spent the years 1895-1902 working on the four-panel tapestries, _The Progress of the Soul_. There was no suggestion of the use of assistants... which are rarely employed by more modern artists (at least until artists such as Warhol, Koons, and Hirst). The work was described as presenting the image of the human soul, here an ideal young man dressed in animal skin and in harmony with the natural world around him, as he travels through four stages of life. In _The Entrance_, he is full of hope and enthusiasm, blissfully ignorant of lifes realities. The panels follow him through _The Stress and Despair_ to _The Victory_, the last embroidery in the series. The figure was based on the character of Denys lAuxerrois from _Imaginary Portraits_ by English critic and writer Water Pater.

Delving deeper into the iconography, I have found that this brief description misses a lot. It straightforwardly identifies the central character as a young man, though hes sufficiently androgynous, feminized in appearance... typical of the influence of the female figures in early Pre-Raphaelite painting... but also the ideal beautiful males of Renaissance painting (as in the St. Matthew in DaVinci's Last Supper, which Dan Brown ignorantly argued was Mary Magdalene). You could easily take the figure to be female as well as male... and I admit to having looked at the work both ways. 

The beautiful, golden-haired, beardless young man with a lyre immediately draws to mind both Apollo... and his brother/compliment: Dionysus, the God of wine, passion, and ecstasy. One might even imagine him as Orpheus, the legendary musician known for his lyre, who was torn to pieces by the Bacchants, adherents of the cult of Dionysus. The link with Dionysus may have been inspired in part by Titian's masterpiece, _Bacchus and Ariadne_, housed in the National Gallery of Art, London. Further iconography: the grape vines and the leopard skin reinforces the connection with Dionysus.

It is impossible... and probably wrong-headed to attempt to read any specific, clear, linear narrative to the tapestry. What we can make out is that in the first panel we are presented with an Apollo/Dionysus/Orpheus/Christ-like figure in an Edenic land of natural splendour. This figure travels through a series of challenges, is tested, and eventually emerges triumphant. 



In the second panel a serpent (Python, the earth-dragon of Delphi, and Apollos enemy in the underworld) encircles Apollos feet, while disembodied hands grasp at at pluck the flowers, the birds, the lyre, his animal skin, and the grapevine. The grape vine is broken, flowers plucked, birds killed... and a swan... a bird once sacred to Apollo... savagely bloodies and kills the rabbit from the first panel.



In the third panel we are presented with a tragic view of the aftermath of Apollo/Dionysus/Orpheus/Christ's travails: his leopard skin cloak is torn; Python (now doubled in size) encircles his exhausted body; his hair has become dark as the mood; the grape vines are contrasted with briers and thorns at his feet, the birds look down sadly from above... and his lyre... the instrument of his artistic creation... is now broken.



In the final panel he is presented victorious... in a moment of apotheosis... his feet placed upon a rainbow above the Python. His head encircled in a crown of grape leaves he is embraced, held aloft, and kissed by an angel. But one questions is this a victory through death? Is it an expression of the misunderstood artist... the lover of beauty... attacked by those disembodied hands? The outcome of the Victory is not that they went on to live happily ever after. Quite to the contrary: several critics understand the Victory to be a passionate union in death. And then there are the unmistakable homoerotic undercurrents. As a result of Oscar Wilde's very public trial and sentencing, Walter Pater was placed under a good deal of scrutiny, and was the target of much criticism and hate. 



(The reproductions of the individual panels here link to very large scans of the work allowing you to see the actual surface embroidery)

----------


## ftil

I didnt know Traquairs art. I have found a bigger images of The Progress of a Soul.

*The Progress of a Soul: The Entrance*

https://www.artfinder.com/work/the-p...anna-traquair/



*The Progress of a Soul: The Stress* 

https://www.artfinder.com/work/the-p...anna-traquair/



*The Progress of a Soul: Despair*

https://www.artfinder.com/work/the-p...anna-traquair/



*The Progress of a Soul: The Victory*

https://www.artfinder.com/work/the-p...anna-traquair/






> The beautiful, golden-haired, beardless young man with a lyre immediately draws to mind both Apollo... and his brother/compliment: Dionysus, the God of wine, passion, and ecstasy.



Well, Dionysus was not a brother of Apollo. His is not his compliment either as both myth are very different.
BTW, you have forgotten that Dionysus was god of madness & hallucination, homosexuality & effeminacy as well as reincarnation and afterlife.






> One might even imagine him as Orpheus, the legendary musician known for his lyre, who was torn to pieces by the Bacchants, adherents of the cult of Dionysus.


The myth of Apollo and Orpheus are distinct myths. Orpheus is not mentioned in Homer or Hesiod. The slaying of the serpent Python which guarded the oracular shrine of Delphi by Apollo is one of the famous myth of Apollo. The only connection of Apollo with Orpheus is the lyre and the legend of Orpheus as a founder of the cults to Apollo and Dionysus cults.




> and a swan... a bird once sacred to Apollo


Where did you find that? Apollos attributes include: a wreath and branch of laurel; bow and quiver; raven; and lyre. 




> The link with Dionysus may have been inspired in part by Titian's masterpiece, Bacchus and Ariadne, housed in the National Gallery of Art, London. Further iconography: the grape vines and the leopard skin reinforces the connection with Dionysus.


The grape vine and the leopard skin may connect us with Dionysus but I dont see any connection with the myth of Ariadne and Bacchus.




> What we can make out is that in the first panel we are presented with an Apollo/Dionysus/Orpheus/Christ-like figure in an Edenic land of natural splendour.


Is it the painters words or educated guesswork? Mixing mythology with Christianity reminds me about poor attempt that of Joseph Campbell.

----------


## stlukesguild

I didnt know Traquairs art. I have found a bigger images of The Progress of a Soul.

Actually... if you clicked on my links in the second post on Traquair you'd find that the reproductions are much larger than the ones you've posted here... and these are shrunk down a good deal from the originals which were some 5000+ pixels tall... much bigger than the computer screen

_The beautiful, golden-haired, beardless young man with a lyre immediately draws to mind both Apollo... and his brother/compliment: Dionysus, the God of wine, passion, and ecstasy._

Well, Dionysus was not a brother of Apollo. 

Dionysus, according to Greek mythology, is the son of Zeus and the mortal Semele. Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto. That would seemingly make them half-brothers.

His is not his compliment either as both myth are very different.

Considering that we are talking of mythology and characters that have been employed by a range of writers, there is no single authoritative myth or narrative for either. Apollo and Dionysus, however, have been employed quite often as representing contrasting drives. "Apollonian and Dionysian" are frequently employed as a dichotomy of reason (Apollo) vs passion/emotion (Dionysus) or even light vs dark. Wiki has a brief overview of the Apollo/Dionysus dichotomy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian

_One might even imagine him as Orpheus, the legendary musician known for his lyre, who was torn to pieces by the Bacchants, adherents of the cult of Dionysus._

The myth of Apollo and Orpheus are distinct myths. Orpheus is not mentioned in Homer or Hesiod... The only connection of Apollo with Orpheus is the lyre 

You're assuming that Traquair intended to illustrate a specific mythological narrative. Most modern artists are more apt to employ a personal, open-ended approach to mythology. Rilke, in his _Sonnets to Orpheus_, presents Orpheus as the Apollonian artist... singer of songs of light and reason... which angers the Bacchants resulting in his death. 

"Traditionally, Orpheus was the son of a Muse (probably Calliope, the patron of epic poetry) and Oeagrus, a king of Thrace (other versions give Apollo). According to some legends, Apollo gave Orpheus his first lyre."

-Encyclopedia Britannica 

"According to a Late Antique summary of Aeschylus's lost play Bassarids, Orpheus at the end of his life disdained the worship of all gods save the sun, whom he called Apollo. One early morning he went to the oracle of Dionysus at Mount Pangaion[42] to salute his god at dawn, but was ripped to shreds by Thracian Maenads for not honoring his previous patron (Dionysus)..."

-Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus

"Medieval folkore put additional spin on the story: in Albrecht Dürer's drawing of Orpheus' death, a ribbon high in the tree above him is lettered Orfeus der erst puseran ("Orpheus, the first sodomite") an interpretation of the passage in Ovid where Orpheus is said to have been "the first of the Thracian people to transfer his love to young boys."

-Wikipedia

This last bit on Orpheus ties in with the homoerotic content relating to Walter Pater.

_...and a swan... a bird once sacred to Apollo_

Where did you find that? Apollos attributes include: a wreath and branch of laurel; bow and quiver; raven; and lyre. 

_"Sacred to Apollo are the swan (one legend says that Apollo flew on the back of a swan to the land of the Hyperboreans, he would spend the winter months among them), the wolf and the dolphin."_

-Encyclopedia Mythica: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/apollo.html



-Apollo with his swan, from a Greek vase in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts.



-Apollo allows his friend Hyakinthos ride the oceans on a swan.

_The link with Dionysus may have been inspired in part by Titian's masterpiece, Bacchus and Ariadne, housed in the National Gallery of Art, London. Further iconography: the grape vines and the leopard skin reinforces the connection with Dionysus._

The grape vine and the leopard skin may connect us with Dionysus but I dont see any connection with the myth of Ariadne and Bacchus.

You are thinking in literary terms... in terms of the mythological narrative... whereas artists think first and foremost in visual terms. The Titian painting, _Bacchus (Dionysus) and Ariadne_ would have likely been well-known to Traquair, housed as it was in the National Gallery of London...



... The painting portrays Bacchus as a muscular male nude, leaping through forth from his chariot. One cannot help but recognize the visual similarities with Apollo and his chariot... albeit Dionysus' chariot is here pulled by a pair of leopards. Of course it is all supposition... I cannot say where Traquair drew her visual inspiration. One suspects, however, that this painting... one of four great Titian paintings in Great Britain... the others being Diana and Acteon, The Death of Acteon, and Diana and Callisto... may have been of particular interest to any artist living in Edinburgh where the other three paintings were housed at the time. 

_What we can make out is that in the first panel we are presented with an Apollo/Dionysus/Orpheus/Christ-like figure in an Edenic land of natural splendour._

Is it the painters words or educated guesswork? Mixing mythology with Christianity reminds me about poor attempt that of Joseph Campbell.

Again you are mistaking the thinking of a mythologist with that of an artist. Throughout the whole of art history Apollo and Christ have been figures blurred together. Michelangelo's Christ in the Last Judgment was clearly modeled on images of Apollo. The very concept of the innocent creator/artist made to undergo a series of trials and tribulations, the serpent/Satan, the vines ("I am the true vine"), the briers/thorns, the exhausted/dying figure hung from a tree, and the image of the apotheosis/resurrection complete with the haloed angel all suggest Christian mythology as well as the Greco-Roman legends of Apollo and Dionysus.

----------


## mona amon

> Traquair, from what I read, was a masterful embroiderer, and spent the years 1895-1902 working on the four-panel tapestries, The Progress of the Soul. There was no suggestion of the use of assistants... which are rarely employed by more modern artists (at least until artists such as Warhol, Koons, and Hirst).- *StLukes*


I also found out that each panel is about 180 X 70 cm - that's quite big. To build up that with tiny little stitches she would have really needed those 7 years and a lot of patience.  :Crazy:

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Actually... if you clicked on my links in the second post on Traquair you'd find that the reproductions are much larger than the ones you've posted here... and these are shrunk down a good deal from the originals which were some 5000+ pixels tall... much bigger than the computer screen



You have mentioned the link but it doesn’t work.




> Dionysus, according to Greek mythology, is the son of Zeus and the mortal Semele. Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto. That would seemingly make them half-brothers.


We may say that they are half- brothers but we may get lost counting divine and mortal offsprings of Zeus.




> Considering that we are talking of mythology and characters that have been employed by a range of writers, there is no single authoritative myth or narrative for either. Apollo and Dionysus, however, have been employed quite often as representing contrasting drives. "Apollonian and Dionysian" are frequently employed as a dichotomy of reason (Apollo) vs passion/emotion (Dionysus) or even light vs dark. Wiki has a brief overview of the Apollo/Dionysus dichotomy.


I agree that there is no single myth that is consistent as myths have been changing through centuries.
But I prefer to stay with ancient historians regarding mythology not as a philosophical and literary concept. 




> You're assuming that Traquair intended to illustrate a specific mythological narrative. Most modern artists are more apt to employ a personal, open-ended approach to mythology. Rilke, in his Sonnets to Orpheus, presents Orpheus as the Apollonian artist... singer of songs of light and reason... which angers the Bacchants resulting in his death.


No, I don’t assume anything. I don’t sit in Traquair’s head and I don’t know her intentions. I was talking about myth and not about the artist interpretation.





> "Sacred to Apollo are the swan (one legend says that Apollo flew on the back of a swan to the land of the Hyperboreans, he would spend the winter months among them), the wolf and the dolphin."


As I said, I didn’t know about it. Too bad that Encyclopedia Mythica doesn’t provide reference so that I could check it out. 




> You are thinking in literary terms... in terms of the mythological narrative... whereas artists think first and foremost in visual terms. The Titian painting, Bacchus (Dionysus) and Ariadne would have likely been well-known to Traquair, housed as it was in the National Gallery of London...


But the myth of Ariadne and Bacchus attracted the attention of many painters. I was quite surprised by the number of paintings of Ariadne and Bacchus. Did the painter acknowledge that Titian’s painting was her inspiration?




> Again you are mistaking the thinking of a mythologist with that of an artist. Throughout the whole of art history Apollo and Christ have been figures blurred together. Michelangelo's Christ in the Last Judgment was clearly modeled on images of Apollo. The very concept of the innocent creator/artist made to undergo a series of trials and tribulations, the serpent/Satan, the vines ("I am the true vine"), the briers/thorns, the exhausted/dying figure hung from a tree, and the image of the apotheosis/resurrection complete with the haloed angel all suggest Christian mythology as well as the Greco-Roman legends of Apollo and Dionysus.


Again, I don’t sit in her head and I don’t sit in Michelangelo’s head either. But I have noticed that The Last Judgment has a mix of catholic and mythology themes. Well, we may ask why Popes or bishops were fascinated with Greek mythology……but I don’t expect an honest answer.  :FRlol:

----------


## Pierre Menard

Really enjoyed those Toshiyuki pieces. I traveled to Japan earlier in the year and had an absolute blast, so I'm still all things Japanese. 

Are there any other Japanese artists you're particularly fond of, Stlukes?

----------


## stlukesguild

ftil- You have mentioned the link but it doesn’t work.

The link works fine for me. Click on the thumbnails in my second Traquair post.

I agree that there is no single myth that is consistent as myths have been changing through centuries.
But I prefer to stay with ancient historians regarding mythology not as a philosophical and literary concept. 

Yet your preferences may not be at all relevant to what the artist is building upon.

But the myth of Ariadne and Bacchus attracted the attention of many painters. I was quite surprised by the number of paintings of Ariadne and Bacchus. Did the painter acknowledge that Titian’s painting was her inspiration?

What I am suggesting is that artists, from my experience, don't tend to seek out paintings based upon a specific subject matter or mythological narrative, but rather because of the artist. Ariadne and Bacchus by Titian is one of 4 great paintings by the Renaissance master housed in collections in Great Britain. During Traquair's lifetime three of these four were to be found in Edinburgh where Traquair was actively working. These paintings have been known and admired for generations by artists and art lovers and counted among the greatest Renaissance paintings outside of Italy. It seems more than likely that an artist living in Edinburgh and an artist deeply enamored of Renaissance art would seek out the 4th great Titian during any visit to London. I certainly know that all four of these paintings would be on my itinerary during any visit to Britain. Is there any irrefutable evidence that Traquair was inspired by the Titian painting. Well I can't say that I have had the opportunity to read through her journals, diaries, letters etc... Of course the field of art history is laden with suppositions with regard to influence. Lacking clear documentary evidence one usually makes it clear that such suppositions are not hard fact which I believe I made clear in my original post: "The link with Dionysus may have been inspired in part by Titian's masterpiece, _Bacchus and Ariadne_..."

Again, I don’t sit in her head and I don’t sit in Michelangelo’s head either. But I have noticed that The Last Judgment has a mix of catholic and mythology themes. Well, we may ask why Popes or bishops were fascinated with Greek mythology……but I don’t expect an honest answer. 

There is a lot more accessible information concerning Michelangelo and the Sistine frescoes (as well as the Renaissance and the Popes) than there is concerning Traquair. 

During the Renaissance there was an increasing interest in the art, literature, and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Cosimo de' Medici, of the great banking family and ruler of Florence, and his intellectual circle were fascinated with Greco-Roman culture and thought and began an earnest translation and study of classical texts. He also began a serious collection of Greco-Roman art... even financing archaeological digs. Michelangelo attended the Humanist academy which the Lorenzo de' Medici (Cosimo's grandson) had founded along Neo Platonic lines. At the academy, Michelangelo was influenced by many of the leading Neo-Platonic philosophers and writers of the day including Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola and Poliziano, as well as exposed to original examples of classical-era art. 

The Roman Catholic Church and Rome itself during Michelangelo's youth were rather weak and ineffective in contrast to wealthy and powerful city-states such as Florence, Venice, and Milan, to say nothing of France. A great deal of the reasoning behind the Church's embrace of Neo-Platonism and their interest in Greco-Roman culture was due to the desire to legitimize the Church... and Rome... as the rightful heir of the Roman Empire and classical Greece. 

The famous Roman sculpture of Apollo known as the _Apollo Belvedere_...



... was discovered in the 15th century and eventually transferred to the Vatican. During the Renaissance it was considered the single most important example of Roman sculpture. Endless artists made drawings of the work... including Michelangelo. Albrect Durer even based his Adam in the engraving _Adam and Eve_ upon the work:





From the earliest days of Christian art there was a link between Apollo and Christ. The first Christian artists needed to create an entire new iconography to convey the Christian narratives. As such, they often built upon Greco-Roman examples. There were many links between Christ and Apollo:

Christ and Apollo were both the son of God (Yahweh and Zeus)

Both were bringers of light, healers, and teachers.

Like Christ, as Apollo Virotutis, Apollo was worshiped as the benefactor of all mankind.

Christ and Apollo both had the gift of the visionary... the ability to divine the future.

Apollo was quite often portrayed as a shepherd:





This image was transformed into Christ as "The Good Shepherd" by early Christian artists:





Apollo, as the sun god, was often portrayed resplendent... with glowing halo... expressive of his power:



Images of Christ, especially those commonly referred to as "Christ in Majesty", borrowed this same iconography from the Greco-Roman works:



Most of the images of Christ from the early Christian period on through the Byzantine portrayed him as beautiful, muscular, beardless young man... often with his arm raised in address... or in judgment. By the late Middle Ages (Romanesque and Gothic) on through the early Renaissance, Christ was commonly portrayed in the manner more familiar to us today... as the bearded, long-haired figure:



Michelangelo... inspired by Neo-Platonic concepts and enamored of Roman art returned his portrayal to Christ to that based upon Apollo. Working during the period in which the Greco-Roman art, literature, philosophy, etc... was undergoing a revival... in which Neo-Platonic scholars and philosophers attempted to rationalize and validate the merits of Greco-Roman thought and achievement with that of Christianity, Michelangelo returns to the image of Christ rooted in classical models. Not only does he employ elements of the Apollo Belvedere, but he also draws upon the recently unearthed _Laocoön_:



Michelangelo's Christ is a handsome, muscular, clean-shaven, curly (albeit short-) haired youth. He strides forward asserting his power and raises his arm in unwavering judgment. His own mother, Mary, averts her eyes as the Apollo-like Christ glows with holy fury as he condemns the sinners. The undeniable strength of this Christ in judgment spoke to the power or the aspirations of power of the "true" Church.

----------


## ftil

> The link works fine for me. Click on the thumbnails in my second Traquair post.


Thank you. 




> Yet your preferences may not be at all relevant to what the artist is building upon.


True. But at the same token, we don’t know what inspired the artist and I am very far to make assumptions. 




> There is a lot more accessible information concerning Michelangelo and the Sistine frescoes (as well as the Renaissance and the Popes) than there is concerning Traquair. 
> 
> During the Renaissance there was an increasing interest in the art, literature, and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Cosimo de' Medici, of the great banking family and ruler of Florence, and his intellectual circle were fascinated with Greco-Roman culture and thought and began an earnest translation and study of classical texts. He also began a serious collection of Greco-Roman art... even financing archaeological digs. Michelangelo attended the Humanist academy which the Lorenzo de' Medici (Cosimo's grandson) had founded along Neo Platonic lines. At the academy, Michelangelo was influenced by many of the leading Neo-Platonic philosophers and writers of the day including Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola and Poliziano, as well as exposed to original examples of classical-era art. 
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church and Rome itself during Michelangelo's youth were rather weak and ineffective in contrast to wealthy and powerful city-states such as Florence, Venice, and Milan, to say nothing of France. A great deal of the reasoning behind the Church's embrace of Neo-Platonism and their interest in Greco-Roman culture was due to the desire to legitimize the Church... and Rome... as the rightful heir of the Roman Empire and classical Greece.


I didn’t think about Traquair when I mentioned Popes and bishops. I know that Medici hired M. Ficino, renaissance magician and occultist to translate Corpus Hermeticum. Ficino’s work was an inspiration for G. Bruno, occultist and magician to study occult. Bruno’s De vinculis in genere is considered a cornerstone of modern political thought. In fact, many Anglo Saxon and Middle European historians and intellectuals consider De vinculis in genere modernity’s most intelligent and insightful political work. 
The first to recognize the importance of Bruno’s text were the Rosicrucians, as indicated in the texts of P. Arnold and F. A. Yates on the movement’s history.

Anyway, I have 2 posts on Mythology and Religion in Art thread about Popes and religion in Rome. I have barely scratched the surface but it is enough to raise many questions about a strange fascination of Popes about Greek mythology. 




> From the earliest days of Christian art there was a link between Apollo and Christ. The first Christian artists needed to create an entire new iconography to convey the Christian narratives. As such, they often built upon Greco-Roman examples. There were many links between Christ and Apollo.


Of course, there are connections. Greek/Roman cults or the cults of Isis and Serapis were a part of religious practices for centuries. Roman Empire couldn’t change the state religion overnight. We may see on many paintings connections with mythology. One of the example is the Crucifixion of the Christ and god Apollo with his chariot and goddess Diana on the top of the paintings or the head of Apollo and Diana we may see below.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...i,_550_ca..JPG

More examples at website of Diego Cuoghi, art historian. 
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm


The same is happening today as New Age religion has been pushed hard to replace Christianity. It didn’t happen overnight but the preparation to change belief system has started several decades ago. Today we are heavily indoctrinated into occult without our awareness and consent….until we start thinking critically again and get serious about doing research.

BTW, you have made my point. 




> Both were bringers of light, healers, and teachers.



Well, Lucifer is a bringer of light. According to occult, of course. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophical Society was very clear as she said:

Excerpt from *The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky — Vol. 2*





> *VOL. 2, PAGE 233 HOLY SATAN.*
> 
> The true esoteric view about “Satan,” the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.” No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —
> 
> “1. And on the seventh day (seventh creation of the Hindus),* there went forth from the presence of God a mighty Angel, full of wrath and consuming, and God gave him the dominion of the outermost sphere.†
> 
> 2. “Eternity brought forth Time; the Boundless gave birth to Limit; Being descended into generation.”‡
> 
> 4. “Among the Gods is none like unto him, into whose hands are committed the kingdoms, the power and the glory of the worlds:”
> ...



I better go back to my reading and I will visit your thread to learn about painters. I don’t want to derail your thread and I have already broken my rule not to discuss mythology or religion.  :Wink5:

----------


## cacian

Here is one abstract art fact I found earlier.

A painting by abstract artist Mark Rothko has fetched $75.1 million (£47.2m) at an auction in New York.

_64129537_rothko.jpg

Is that a fine art worthy of the money?

----------


## stlukesguild

Art is "worth" whatever somebody is willing to pay. Are the professional athletes paid millions to throw a ball around "worth it"... especially in comparison to the pitiful salaries paid to police officers, firemen, soldiers, nurses, teachers, etc...?

----------


## ftil

I have noticed that stlukesguild has made a post today but I can't see it posted here.. I looked at his posts.......and I found that he indeed has made a post.






> Art is "worth" whatever somebody is willing to pay. Are the professional athletes paid millions to throw a ball around "worth it"... especially in comparison to the pitiful salaries paid to police...



Strange indeed...... :Biggrin: 


I have noticed that after I posted .........his post appeared....... :FRlol:

----------


## Emil Miller

> Here is one abstract art fact I found earlier.
> 
> A painting by abstract artist Mark Rothko has fetched $75.1 million (£47.2m) at an auction in New York.
> 
> Attachment 8466
> 
> Is that a fine art worthy of the money?


As Stlukes has said, art is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it, i.e. it's about money. Now let's imagine a scenario in which artists, art critics and auctioneers tacitly decide to deceive the gullible into believing that a black square painted onto a yellow square, choose your combination of colours, is worth millions of dollars/pounds/yen/euro ...choose your own currency, according to who has either been deceived into buying or is part of the scheme to sell nonsense to a sucker: who may not be a sucker because he realises what is going on and will recoup his outlay when he sells the painting to another 'sucker' who, in turn, will sell it at at an increased price. I believe the word racket is what the ignorant uncultured masses might apply to what is really a laughable attempt to sell unsubstantiated, except by ingenuous or compromised art critics, rubbish on the basis of what cannot be readily understood must contain some mystical quality known only to the initiated.

----------


## stlukesguild

As Stlukes has said, art is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it, i.e. it's about money. Now let's imagine a scenario in which artists, art critics and auctioneers tacitly decide to deceive the gullible into believing that a black square painted onto a yellow square, choose your combination of colours, is worth millions of dollars/pounds/yen/euro ...choose your own currency...

The reality is that there are elements of collusion, conflict of interest, fraud, hyperbole, etc... rampant in the art industry... but I doubt these are unknown in other fields of marketing. Major works of art dating prior to Impressionism still in private hands are a rarity. Thus, as the number of millionaires and billionaires... and art collectors increases, the price of major modern works has also increased. Combine this with the reality that many collectors buy only for investment purposes... and many collectors have no real eye for art, or grasp for art history... and you are presented with a scenario in which a fool and his money are soon parted. 

The problem with your scenario, however, is that it would assume a collaboration worthy of the most fantastic James Bond narratives. The reality is that Mark Rothko has withstood some 70 years of history and remains a central figure to a major 20th century artistic development: Abstract Expressionism. You may see little of merit to this artistic development... (and honestly, it's not my favorite)... just as you may see nothing of merit to jazz or blues music... but that does not make it inherently a fraud. I have seen the entire group of Rothko's Seagram's paintings together, and I found that they resonated the sort of feeling one might take from a Japanese Zen garden. Is this worth $75 Million US? I could think of far better things to spend such money on... even far better art... but it's not my money. I'm not the one who's spending it. I'm far more offended by cities offering tax abatements in the millions... or spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stadiums built for overpaid football players because this is public money... money that could be spent on the schools, and road repair, and proper police and fire protection, etc... 

I believe the word racket is what the ignorant uncultured masses might apply to what is really a laughable attempt to sell unsubstantiated, except by ingenuous or compromised art critics, rubbish on the basis of what cannot be readily understood must contain some mystical quality known only to the initiated.

Ultimately, the monetary value of all art cannot be substantiated except by the "experts": art critics, art historians, curators, dealers, collectors, art lovers, and artists. The fact that the masses cannot "get" why Rothko can demand such a high price is meaningless. Neither can the masses grasp why Vermeer is infinitely superior to hundreds of other "Little Dutch Masters", nor can they grasp why Shakespeare, Donne, Keats, and Coleridge are preferable to William Congreve, Thomas Nashe, Colley Cibber, or James MacPherson.

----------


## ftil

I have been looking at contemporary surreal art. 





> Michael Hussar has been featured in Metamorphosis 2 (beinArt Publishing).
> The Metamorphosis series provides exposure for *artists who express themselves imaginatively with exceptional technique and uncompromised individuality.*
> 
> Driven by love, hate, sin, redemption and death, Michael Hussar's oil paintings present the viewer with a contextual maturity that is both confrontational and evocative. Hussar describes his work as "*a voyeuristic snapshot of perceived humanity, complete with freaks and fakery;* a gothic wonderland illuminating the gray area between truths and lies." Hussar's attachment to his paintings runs deep; each piece is a journal of sorts, allowing him to come face to face with his demons and exorcising them with each new stroke of the brush. Hussar's paintings are in the private collections of Warren Beatty, Francis Ford Coppolla and Leonardo Di Caprio.
> http://beinart.org/artists/michael-h...ry/paintings/#



Well, one of the ugliest paintings I have ever seen. Because they are so ugly, they deserve attention. 
Unfortunately, he is not alone.


Michael Hussar gallery

http://www.michaelhussar.biz/pages/main_menu_pg.html


More of his paintings at BeinArt International Surreal Art

http://beinart.org/artists/michael-h...ry/paintings/#

----------


## stlukesguild

Michael Hussar is a representative of an artistic movement commonly termed "Pop Surrealism", "Neo Surrealism" or "Lowbrow Art". I have a degree of empathy... even admiration for the movement because I am quite in agreement with Pablo Picasso's suggestion that art is best produced in the same manner in which the Aristocrats of the Renaissance produced their children: a merger of the low-born and the high-born. Picasso went on to further suggest that either culture... the high or the "low"/popular culture... left on its own, was prone to degenerate and/or stagnate. Looking at some of the artistic developments since WWII, one cannot help but sense that Picasso was quite on the mark. I cannot imagine the development of Minimalism...






or Conceptual Art...



... outside of the insulated world of academia. 

Pop Art in the 1960s rejected the excessively high-minded "seriousness" and "purity" of Abstract Expressionism...

]





... and drew their attention from popular culture: advertising, Hollywood movies and celebrities, pop and rock music, television, pin-ups, etc... "Pop Surrealism" or "Lowbrow Art" builds upon this tradition. They draw imagery from the same sources: Hollywood, rock music, film and television, popular celebrities, popular literature (Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, etc...) fairy tales, pin-ups and pornography. This later movement, however, tends to be more intentionally sarcastic and satirical... a lot "darker"... and at a time when the dominant "Art World" of New York and London is really controlled by a few super-rich dealers and collectors, these artists have little interest in appealing to or being taken seriously by this market. Just as the Impressionists openly embraced the term intended as an insult and staged their own exhibitions (the Salon des Refusés), so the Pop Surrealists freely embrace the term "Low Brow Artists".
What I especially admire is that the artists make an attempt to deal with the culture in which they live, and to engage with a larger audience. 

Having said this much... I find most of the work of the Pop Surrealists to be mediocre at best... but then again, 90%+ of all art is mediocre at best. Personally, I find Michael Hussar's paintings juvenile and over-the-top in their effort to shock.





They strike me as an equivalent of illustrated covers to heavy metal albums or cheap "slasher" horror films. There are far better alternatives to Hussar IMO.

----------


## ftil

Thank you for your introduction.

I have found his art ugly. I dont make any comment about his artistic talent but I look what feelings the paintings evoke and whether they uplift my spirit with beauty or I pick up very dark and disturbing energy. I have brought his art here because an occultist posted his paintings on another forum. I didnt know his art except of a few his paintings. Lots of occult symbolism.

Anyway, the king of the most ugly and disturbing art is HR Giger, and of course, a favorite of occultists.


*Tribute To HR Giger - Dark Surrealist Art*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFEdTOdjM-E

----------


## stlukesguild

I used to participate in a game on the art site that I frequent which involved identifying a mystery painting posted by another member. The game largely dies out after the development of reverse image search programs such as TinEye allowed anyone to cheat. While I personally have a broad and deep background in Art History, having done honors work and independent study in the field as well as tutored other students and worked as a research assistant to a couple of art historians during my art school days... and having continued to study the field since then... there were still those works of art that completely left me baffled... and I would spend hours on Google searching from every imaginable direction. Beyond the "thrill of the hunt" I greatly valued the experience because of the sheer number of interesting artists that I would stumble upon who were unknown to me up to that point.

I don't stumble upon as many artists who are "new" to me today... except when I have been spending a good deal of time looking around on Google for ideas or reference images for a new painting. Just this week I came upon two fascinating painters that I had never heard of before. Both employ ideas and visual elements that I find quite intriguing... and that may possibly lead me to some ideas for my own work. Surprisingly... both of the artists are women. I'd like to offer a look at the work of these two painters... starting with the more "quirky" of the pair: Tabitha Vevers.

Tabitha Vevers 

Tabitha Vevers is the daughter of Tony Vevers, an artist, curator, critic who was active in the Provincetown, Massachusetts arts community. She studied art at Yale where she took a BA _cum laude_ in painting in 1978. She also did a post-graduate residency at the Skowhegan School of Painting, Maine. Among her professional work, she has been a visiting artist at Provincetown Art Association, the Art Institute of Boston, the New England School of Art and Design, and the Massachusetts College of Art. She has won numerous awards, her paintings are in any number of collections, private and public, including several museums, and she has been given frequent one-person exhibitions since 1983.

Vevers' work builds upon several art historical sources. She is clearly inspired by early Italian Renaissance painting by artists such as Giovanni di Paolo, Fra Angelico, and Duccio, among others:







Like these early Renaissance painters, Vevers prefers to work on small panels and has a penchant for gold leaf. She also frequently employs fantastic mythological imagery and a suggested or implied (yet open-ended) narrative:


Eden-Eveandadam


Eden-Expulsion


Eden-Gynandromorph


Eden-Intelligent Design


Eden-Limbo


Eden-Mammaesupial


_Eden-The Three Graces_

Her paintings often clearly reference Christian and classical Greco-Roman narratives common to painting: Adam and Eve, the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Christ in Limbo, St. Jerome and the Lion, and the Three Graces. Vevers, however, often metamorphoses these narratives... and the characters in her paintings... in a manner suggestive of Surrealism. The painting, _Eden-Limbo_, alludes at once to Christ in Limbo and St. Jerome in the Wilderness with his lion... except that man and lion have now become one. In _Eden-The Three Graces_ the subject matter that historically portrayed three nude graces admired for their fine breasts and derrière are now reduced even more so to mere body parts... yet in a most unsettling manner.


Lion-Aftermath


Lioness-What?


Lioness-Dehibernation


Lioness-Quieting the Night


Remorse

The morphing of Human and Lion is a favorite theme in Vevers' work. _Eden-Expulsion_, _Remorse_, and _Lion-Aftermath_ give the phrase "dragging his tail between his legs" and entirely new, yet pertinent, meaning. In _Lioness-Dehibernation_ it is now a human/lion as opposed to a wolf raising two Romulus and Remus-like infants who hang from her tail like monkey-bars... while she stares back over her shoulder at the viewer with an expression and pose laden with potential erotic meaning.


Amoebayouba


_Amoebayouba at Dusk_


_Trouble in Paradise_

Vevers' morphed or mutated humanoids allude to her concerns for the environment and her thoughts of a post-apocalyptic world. Among the humanoid creatures she imagines a new being that combines both male and female... thus eliminating the tensions and warfare between the sexes. 


Double Escape


Flying Dream-Irene


Flying Dream-Levitation


Flying Dream-Marja


Flying Dream-Anonymous


Flying Dream-Claire


Flying Dream-In the Dunes


_Flying Dream-Mary_


_Flying Dream-Norris_


_Flying Dream-Suzanne_


_Flying Dream-The Bakery_


Flying Dream-The Lesson


Flying Dream-The Professor


Flying Dream-Water Ballet

Vevers' created a series of paintings based upon dreams of flying that she collected from some 200 interested individuals. She often added written narratives of the dreams to her paintings. The dream narratives vary in setting and detail, but the majority involve nudity... and intimation of sexuality or eroticism... which is true of the whole of Vevers' oeuvre.


Bananaman to the Rescue


Bananaman-Transported

Building upon the cycle of flying dreams, Vevers' offers a satirical look at the tradition of flying male superheroes in the form of Bananaman.


A Parable for Our Time-Big Fish Eat Small Fish


Seaweed Collector


Shell Boat


Untitled

Growing along the Atlantic Ocean, Vevers was long attracted to nautical themes. She began painting on shells in the same manner in which fisherman and sailors often painted and carved on shells, whale bone, and other sea-related objects.


Rapture


Rapture


Rapture


Reunion


Shell Love


Wild Ride

Perhaps the most intriguing... and certainly the most unsettling... of these shell paintings is a series of images of women sexually cavorting with various sea-creatures: squid, lobster, seal, etc... The poses often allude to Japanese and Indian erotic paintings... and the theme of women sexually pleasured by sea-creatures such as squid or octopus owes its inspiration to Japanese Shunga prints and erotic carvings:





This theme of the woman pleasured by the octopus is so often repeated in Japanese art as to amount to a genre of erotica. The subject continues to intrigue artists... high and low... today:





Vevers' continued to explore the theme of women involved erotically with various sea-creatures in more traditional painting formats... combining elements drawn from various non-Western mythological/religious narratives:


Shiva-Exodus


Shiva-Fire and Ice


Shiva-The Art of Survival

Another body of work by Vevers is a series of paintings of "Lover's Eyes"... all alluding to eyes drawn from art history:


Lover's Eye after Bronzino


Lover's Eye-Judith, after Cranach


Lover's Eye-Magdalena, after Titian


_Lover's Eye After Benvenuto_


The Pearlmaker

Personally, I find Vevers' paintings quite compelling. The imagery is quite suggestive... and yet open-ended... leaving the viewer to offer up his or her own interpretation. Her technique is quite exquisite... building on examples of early Italian Renaissance painting, the fantastic narratives of Bosch and Bruegel, and the Surrealism of Dali and Rene Magritte.

----------


## stlukesguild

I promised a second female painter, and I have finally gotten around to having enough time to follow through. 

In spite of the thinking of many hard-core Modernists, a good majority of artists are inspired by more than the art of the immediate past. Indeed, a good many artists and entire movements rejected the art of the immediate past. Of course there are "dangers" to building ones art upon past styles. An art built upon a single past era often comes across as little more than a pastiche which is one reason that artists drawing from the past tend to pick an choose from across the entire spectrum of the art history... like choosing at a buffet. But there are pastiches... and there are pastiches. Without a doubt... this was a pastiche:



Following the almost total destruction due to burning in the 19th century, the Houses of Parliament were rebuild after the design by Charles Barry in a pseudo-Gothic style. The historical-style in which modern buildings mimicked the look of various historical styles was quite popular in the late 19th century... especially in architecture... but it can also be seen in the works of painters such as the Pre-Raphaelites and the Nazarenes of Germany. Most major European and American cities can boast of banks, churchs, cathedrals, and college/university buildings that are essentially pastiches of historical styles such as the Gothic and Greek & Roman Classicism. Not far from where I live stands a lovely Neo-Romanesque cathedral: St. Ignatius of Antioch:



While the building is clearly a pastiche of a dated style... it is also a marvelously beautiful work of art.

This brings me to my artist in question... the painter Catherine Abel:





Catherine Abel was born in 1966. She developed a passion for the art of the early 20th century: Art Deco, Futurism, Cubism, and the work of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. She began her professional career in 2000. She spent three years living in Paris and San Francisco and making repeated visits to Italy where she studied the techniques of the "old masters" and honed her abilities. Since3 then, she has returned to her home in Australia where she has become a highly successful painter.

Abel works in a number of genre. Her still-life paintings commonly draw upon the work of painters such as Fernand Léger, the Futurists, and the Cubists...


-Fernand Henri Léger


-Maiden Voyage


-Still Life with Teapot

She also frequently paints floral still life paintings... drawing upon the exotic and tropical flora common in the paintings of Diego Rivera:


-Diego Rivera


-Palm Leaves


-Deux Lllies

Abel is also appreciated for her city-scapes and images of machines and forms of travel that clearly build upon the pre-WWI ideals of the city and the machine age:


-Ships in the Harbour


-Bon Voyage

Abel's images of modern travel by ship are clearly rooted in Art Deco era images of ships and travel:



Her views of the city are just as much rooted in a fantastic idea that owes more to the art of the 1920 than it does to any reality of the urban landscape:



A painting such as _The Beauty of Her_ (above) speaks as much of an idealized beauty of the American City... of New York... as it does of an idealized beauty of women.


-La Rive Gauche

Abel's view of the modern city, lacks any of the undercurrent of darkness that one might find in the work of Max Beckmann, for example:


-Max Beckmann: View of the Harbour, Genoa

Yet there are undeniable stylistic similarities... such as the use of bold, graphic, simplified forms. Abel has made it clear that her interest is not at all in portraying the seamy underside or ugliness of reality... her interest is "beauty"... and first and foremost is an attempt to convey an idealized feminine beauty that owes to various Renaissance masters such as Raphael... but more than anything else, is rooted in the paintings of Tamara de Lempicka:





Abel's paintings of women include clothed and nude figures, allegorical figures, and portraits. In these paintings of women the artist is able to explore all of the other interests already mentioned: still-life, the city, travel, flora, etc...

Abel's portraits... or those paintings of women based upon observation of real women or models are among her strongest works:


-Willow


-Tea, Late Afternoon


-Evening Primrose


-Reflections of Grace


-Olive, Satin Dress


-Girl with Scarab Ring

This may owe to the inherent tension between the real human being... painted from direct observation... and the invented/fantastic setting. Paintings such as _Olive, Satin Dress_ (above) and Chez Suzy (below) come closest to conveying something of a dark side... rooted as they are in the paintings of the German Expressionist movement known as the New Objectivity... especially the work of Christian Schad:




-Christian Schad


-Christian Schad



Of course Schad, for all his similar mannerisms, could be far more brutally honest... and real.

One of Abel's most exquisitely beautiful paintings is the portrait, _Belle du jour_:



Here Abel has captured a little melancholia... something that verges on the bitterweet.

Abel's nudes are among her finest paintings. Whether focusing upon the nude in "nature"...


-Bird of Paradise


-Renoir's Garden


-Kiki Among the Poppies


-Eden


-Opium Dreamer

... or whether the nude is seen in a more "modern" setting:


-Sun Worshipers


-Red Scarf



... Abel's nudes are ever artificial... idealized fantasies... and ever beautifully decorative. Such criticisms would be seen my many tied-in-the-wool Modernists as damning... but I am not of that strain of thought. While I don't find paintings such as Abel's to be profoundly moving or emotionally charged... I don't think that all art must edgy or have a dark side. For what they are... beautiful decorative bon-bons... Abel's paintings are quite good... and sometimes that's enough.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

Amazing. 
This artist appeals to me, particularly those with Cubist elements.
Thanks

----------


## stlukesguild

I thought I'd cross-post this here on the art thread:

Anselm Kiefer is quite likely the strongest artist (painter/sculptor) since the 1970s. He was born in Germany in the last days of the Second World War, and history... particularly German history... has been the primary focus of his work. Kiefer studied with the conceptual artist, Joseph Beuys and the painter Peter Dreher. His sources of inspiration include Abstract Expressionism, German Romanticism, Abstract Expressionism, Richard Wagner, German History, the Kabbalah and Hebrew mysticism, poets Paul Celan and Ingeborg Bachmann, the Bible, the Nazis and their interest in the occult, Nazi architecture, Velimir Khlebnikov, Robert Fludd, etc...

I'll offer you a look at a few of his works:

*Margarethe* is an early work of Kiefer's mature style:



The painting is clearly rooted in the tradition of American Abstract Expressionism... especially Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles:



Where Pollock's painting was all paint, Kiefer employs collage elements... in particular, straw. The painting alludes primarily to Paul Celan's poem, _Death Fugue_:

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at sundown
we drink it at noon in the morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink it
we dig a grave in the breezes there one lies unconfined
A man lives in the house he plays with the serpents he writes
he writes when dusk falls to Germany your golden hair Margarete
he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are flashing he whistles his pack out
he whistles his Jews out in earth has them dig for a grave
he commands us strike up for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink in the morning at noon we drink you at sundown
we drink and we drink you
A man lives in the house he plays with the serpents he writes
he writes when dusk falls to Germany your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith we dig a grave in the breezes there one lies unconfined.

He calls out jab deeper into the earth you lot you others sing now and play
he grabs at the iron in his belt he waves it his eyes are blue
jab deeper you lot with your spades you others play on for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at noon in the morning we drink you at sundown
we drink you and we drink you
a man lives in the house your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith he plays with the serpents

He calls out more sweetly play death death is a master from Germany
he calls out more darkly now stroke your strings then as smoke you will rise into air
then a grave you will have in the clouds there one lies unconfined

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at noon death is a master from Germany
we drink you at sundown and in the morning we drink and we drink you
death is a master from Germany his eyes are blue
he strikes you with leaden bullets his aim is true
a man lives in the house your golden hair Margarete
he sets his pack on to us he grants us a grave in the air
he plays with the serpents and daydreams death is a master from Germany
your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith 

-Trans. Michael Hamburger

Celan contrasts the blonde Germanic Margarethe (from Geothe's _Faust_) with the "ashen haired" Shulamith, from the Hebrew _Song of Songs_:

_I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me..._

Not only does the term "ashen hair" suggest the dark hair of the Hebrew lover... but it also conveys... horribly... the hair of the Jews turned to ashes in the crematoria of Auschwitz. 

Kiefer's painting suggests a German Romantic landscape... strewn with straw by farmers. But the straw is also hair... the blonde hair of Margarethe... the "ashen hair" of Shulamith burnt by a blow torch in the lower regions of the painting... topped with a flame. It also suggests the hair shaved from the victims at the death camps. All of Kiefer's paintings are layered with such multiple allusions. 

German philosophy, literature, painting and music all came of age during the period of Romanticism. The landscape was the subject matter of choice... conveying the German love of the land... 

Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn,
Im dunkeln Laub die Gold-Orangen glühn,
Ein sanfter Wind vom blauen Himmel weht, 
Die Myrte still und hoch der Lorbeer steht? 
Kennst du es wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Möcht ich mit dir, o mein Geliebter, ziehn.

Kennst du das Haus? Auf Säulen ruht sein Dach.
Es glänzt der Saal, es schimmert das Gemach,
Und Marmorbilder stehn und sehn mich an:
Was hat man dir, du armes Kind, getan?
Kennst du es wohl? 
Dahin! dahin
Möcht ich mit dir, o mein Beschützer, ziehn.

Kennst du den Berg und seinen Wolkensteg?
Das Maultier sucht im Nebel seinen Weg;
In Höhlen wohnt der Drachen alte Brut;
Es stürzt der Fels und über ihn die Flut! 
Kennst du ihn wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Geht unser Weg! O Vater, laß uns ziehn!

(Do you know the land where the lemon trees blossom? 
Among dark leaves the golden oranges glow. 
A gentle breeze from blue skies drifts. 
The myrtle is still, and the laurel stands high. 
Do you know it well? 
There, there 
would I go with you, my beloved.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X9-Qd7JA9w

The landscape also conveyed a sense of the sublime... and the infinite:



In Kiefer's mature paintings, his metaphor of choice was the "Wasteland"... the landscape now burnt and charred and forever sullied by the horrors of WWII. One of the finest of such paintings resides in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The work is entitled, *Lot's Wife*:



In J.M.W. Turner's great landscapes or the Romantic era, it is nature... the blinding light of the sun... that devours humanity:



In Kiefer's paintings... which certainly owe much to Turner... it is mankind and history that devour nature. The landscape becomes a wasteland. 

In _Lot's Wife_ the surface of the painting is encrusted in mud and clay and putty and paint suggesting the very land itself... a mire. Train-tracks cut their way through this landscape like the train-tracks cutting across Poland on the way to Auschwitz. The painting itself is on lead as opposed to canvas. Kiefer repeatedly employed lead in an allusion to alchemy and the desire to turn lead to gold... just as the artist struggles equally in vain to convert the leaden history into a golden ideal. The cloud hovering above the charred wasteland is made of salt... which clearly alludes to the story of Lot's Wife... who was told... like the German population... "Don't look back".

A later landscape that continues the "Wasteland" theme is entitled: *Velimir Chlebnikov*



Velimir Chlebnikov was a Russian Futurist poet (1885-1922) active in the avant-garde before and after the 1917 revolution. Chlebnikov was a mystical theorist, and among his odd ideas was the notion that climactic naval battles occurring every 317 years had cosmic significance for the course of human affairs. He also put forth ideas suggestive of modern TV, Radio and the internet. Kiefer envisions this "future" as a charred landscape choked with brambles and briers of razor-wire

Kiefer is almost even more powerful when he breaks from painting. One of the first images to have grabbed my attention by this artist was the huge woodblock print, *Grane*:



The form of this work is deceptively simple. Kiefer employs the woodblock... again alluding to the great achievements of German culture: Gutenberg's movable type, and the German tradition of print-making from Durer's Knight, Death, and the Devil (with its similar iconic use of the horse)...



... through the great German Expressionist woodblock prints of the early 20th century... a literal Renaissance of German art brought to an end by the rise of Hitler:


-E.L. Kirchner


-Kathe Kollwitz

Kiefer's print takes the scale and the cruciform shape of an altarpiece. The subject, Grane, is the horse belonging to Brunhilde in Wagner's epic operatic cycle, _Der Ring des Nibelungen_. Wagner was Hitler's favorite composer. He reveled in the Ring's great Teutonic narrative. But of course Hitler failed to grasp the meaning of the Ring's final opera, _Götterdämmerung_... the "Twilight of the Gods" in which all comes crashing down on the rulers of Valhalla due to greed and avarice. This collapse is presaged by the famous Immolation Scene in which Brünnhilde is to place her dead lover, Siegfried. She then rides her horse into the flames which flare up and catch fire to the halls of Vahalla signalling the death of the Gods. Undoubtedly, Kiefer grasped the link between the _Götterdämmerung_ and the final days of the Nazis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0PpTPvbr-4

Kiefer is well-known for his huge, lead books... which often refer to various occult and hermetic writings:



One of the most powerful works that I have seen in person involving books is *Shevirat Ha-Kelim*:



The piece alludes to a dominant part of Kabbalistic and Hassidic thought formulated by Safed Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-72). The term means "The breaking of the vessels" and tells of a notion that the Divine Light of God was once held on earth by 10 containers... vessels... or books. The upheavals and evils of mankind resulted in the vessels shattering... and the name and Divine attributes of God being forever scattered. Kiefer imagines the Light of God in the form of transparent glass pages fallen from the bindings of leaden books... shattered across the floor. Of course the link with Kristalnacht and the burning of books cannot be ignored.

Another powerful work employing elements of the book is *West-Eastern Divan*. 







The title is taken from a collection of poems by Goethe influenced by Muslim poets and poetry. Writing in German, he set out to capture the spirit of the East through sensual descriptions of flowers and plants. Kiefers interpretation is based on all these sources. 54 identically sized paintings are sited on two facing walls... each presenting delicate configurations of branches, seeds and pressed flowers set against a background of cracked earth and lead. Some panels include white floating shifts, like lost souls. The coloration is dissonant, conjuring up storms or fires, or just a pale or dark void.

The last painting I'll look at is entitled *Andromeda*:



Here Kiefer returns to the landscapes of Romanticism and away from the references to WWII. This vast canvas places the viewer, much like Caspar David Friedrich's _Monk by the Sea_ (above, near top) standing before the vast expanses of sea and sky... or space. In the sky we are presented with two contrasting forms of mankind's attempt to understand the unimaginable infinite spaces above... both equally doomed to failure. Kiefer has delineated the astrological system of Andromeda... and contrast these with numbers... assigned by NASA... to identify the stars. Like Andromeda we are chained to this rock before the vast expanses of infinity... a sacrifice to our own kind's hubris.

----------


## mortalterror

Bad art that alludes to good art is still bad art, and all those layers of meaning, though they may delight the critic, just make it very intelligent bad art.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

After scrolling though your images, there was something familiar in the media, technique, ashes, fire, plants, and then I recalled the Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth. Last year I dropped by the museum and was captivated by Kiefer's _Ashenblume_ and not so much by _A Book With Wings_

A not so good photo I took of _Aschenblume_:



^Note the large inverted sunflower stalk the roots of which extend above the top edge.
Other materials used include clay, ash and dirt. Heres the blurb from the museum website:

http://themodern.org/collection/aschenblume/913


_A Book With Wings_ (photo from museum website):
A book taking flight on wings made of lead




http://themodern.org/collection/book-with-wings/915


_ Pope Alexander VI: The Golden Bull_ (photo from museum website)



http://themodern.org/collection/paps...olden-bull/914

The resemblance to Nohoch Mul Mayan pyramid is uncanny:




lastly _Quaternity_ (from museum website)

http://themodern.org/collection/quaternity/912

----------


## stlukesguild

Bad art that alludes to good art is still bad art, and all those layers of meaning, though they may delight the critic, just make it very intelligent bad art.

Thus its probably a good thing that the judgments concerning what is good or bad in art don't rely upon individuals lacking any real grasp of visual art.

----------


## Cioran

> Here is one abstract art fact I found earlier.
> 
> A painting by abstract artist Mark Rothko has fetched $75.1 million (£47.2m) at an auction in New York.
> 
> Attachment 8466
> 
> Is that a fine art worthy of the money?


This is a meaningless question.

Rothko's art, like all art, exists in a broader context: the rest of the art that he created, the climate of the times, politics, economics, trends, visions. 

All art is contextual. Abstract art, which I prefer to call non-representational art since all art is abstract, no matter how realistic, had its roots in the mid-ninteenth century rebellion against a stifling classicism. It's worth reading about the travails of the Impressionists and especially Van Gogh, who was not an impressionist but a majority of one, to see how hard it was to break the dead hand of tradition in art.

As irony would have it, by the 1950s the abstract expressionists had become just as dictatorial as the classicists of the mid-19th century, declaring that all art that even hinted of the figure or of "literary" or "real-life" concerns was to be abjured. A new art church had developed with its own dogmas and its own way of excommunicating heretics.

Happily, that too is history, and in post-modern art anything goes. We'll see how long that lasts. 

The pictorial arts, like all arts, cannot be classified. You might as well try to nail a blob of mercury to the wall. Art always eludes our classificatory schemes.

ETA: Er, why is this thread in "General Movies, Music and Television"?

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Thus its probably a good thing that the judgments concerning what is good or bad in art don't rely upon individuals lacking any real grasp of visual art.


I just cant believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that cant be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them. Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create. repeaters. But not everybody want to be a repeater.  :FRlol: 

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind. 

Bruno, renaissance magician and occultist, explained this with such clarity.





> *Thirdly, the bondings arising from vision*
> 
> The spirit is also bonded through vision, as has been said frequently above, when various forms are observed by the eyes. As a result, active and passive items of interest pass out from the eyes and enter into the eyes. As the adage says, I do not know whose eyes make lambs tender for me.
> 
> Beautiful sights arouse feelings of love, and contrary sights bring feelings of disgrace and hate. And the emotions of the soul and spirit bring something additional to the body itself, which exists under the control of the soul and the direction of the spirit. There are also other types of feelings which come through the eyes and immediately aﬀect the body for some reason: sad expressions in other people make us sad and compassionate and sorry for obvious reasons. 
> 
> There are also worse impressions which enter the soul and the body, but it is not evident how this happens and we are unable to judge the issue. Nevertheless, they act very powerfully through various things which are in us, that is, through a multitude of spirits and souls. Although one soul lives in the whole body, and all the bodys members are controlled by one soul, still the whole body and the whole soul and the parts of the universe are viviﬁed by a certain total spirit.
> 
> Hence, the explanation of many spiritual feelings must be found in something else which lives and is conscious in us, and which is aﬀected and disturbed by things which do not aﬀect or disturb us. *And sometimes we are touched and injured more signiﬁcantly by those things whose assaults we are not aware of than we are by things which we do perceive. As a result, many things which are seen, and forms which are absorbed through the eyes, do not arouse any consciousness in our direct and external sensory powers. Nevertheless, they do penetrate more deeply and lethally, so that the internal spirit is immediately conscious of them, as if it were a foreign sense or living thing.* Thus, it would not be easy to refute some of the Platonists and all of the Pythagoreans, who believe that one human person of himself lives in many animals, and when one of these animals dies, even the most important one, the others survive for a long time. 
> ...

----------


## Cioran

> I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them. Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters. But not everybody want to be a repeater. 
> 
> Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.


By modern art, do you mean modernism, which movement began to end or change around the early 1960s, or merely contemporary art, the art of today, which is a post-modern proliferation of styles and concerns that includes the increasing use of the computer?

Your response tends to reinforce stlukesguild's point, and undercut your own, I'm afraid. If he doesn't get to decide that a visual education is needed to appreciate art, why do you get to decide that modern art (whatever you mean by that) "kills sensitivity to beauty"? Maybe that's true for you, but not for everyone else (and certainly not for me). In essence, you are trying to be as absolutist and normative as you accuse stlukesguild of being.

Your sweeping generalization really does bring out the point that ought to be made: eyes can be educated or uneducated. A visual education can be had, or not had, just like any other kind of education. If one does have a visual education, one can at least appreciate the goals and intentions behind art that one may not like on a visceral level. That is, one who is visually edicated can understand why a piece is appreciated as art even if one doesn't like the work himself.

I don't much care personally for the works of Renoir, but I certainly understand what makes those works great art.

----------


## stlukesguild

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them.

Art is a language. Like all languages it is something that must be learned. One learns through experience. This can be had formally through schooling... and/or it can be self-taught. A great deal of of visual sensitivity is self-taught... learned in response to the visual stimuli that are continually around us. But visual artists employ a vocabulary that goes beyond what we might deem as "reality" and uses elements of abstractions, symbols, conventions and traditions of formal structures that are not inherently understood. We all employ the language spoken by our nation and culture and people around us. In my case this is English... yet this does not mean that I could inherently grasp Shakespeare or Donne or Spenser without any prior experience. The language of art is not always the same as the everyday language around us.

Visual Art is first and foremost a visual language. The narratives, the mythology, the occult references, the subject matter are all secondary to the visual form. When an artist looks at a painting the first thing they are looking at is the logic... the aesthetic "beauty" of the artist's organization and manipulation of visual elements: line, color, shape, texture, transparency and opacity... the brushwork, etc... Oscar Wilde put it well in stating "Art finds her own perfection within, and not outside of, herself. She is not to be judged by any external standard of resemblance." 

You speak of sensitivity to "beauty", and yet many of the painters you continue to offer up suggest a lack of sensitivity to the difference between aesthetic "beauty", which includes the sublime... even the horrific... and the interpretation of "beauty" as merely that which is "pretty". There is nothing wrong with art that embraces traditional notions of "beauty" offering up images of gorgeous landscapes, flowers, animals, beautiful women, and exquisite still-life objects... but "beauty" is not so limited.

Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters.

In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part? 

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.
Bruno, renaissance magician and occultist, explained this with such clarity.

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

----------


## mortalterror

> Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.


Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

----------


## Cioran

> Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.


And if you don't study any maths, then a page full of numbers and symbols is apt to strike you as gibberish and you won't like trying to figure it out. But in that case, you can always say that the mathematician likes the stuff because it makes him feel smarter than you.  :Idea:

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> You speak of sensitivity to "beauty", and yet many of the painters you continue to offer up suggest a lack of sensitivity to the difference between aesthetic "beauty", which includes the sublime... even the horrific... and the interpretation of "beauty" as merely that which is "pretty". There is nothing wrong with art that embraces traditional notions of "beauty" offering up images of gorgeous landscapes, flowers, animals, beautiful women, and exquisite still-life objects... but "beauty" is not so limited.


Where did I say that I like paintings I have discussed on your Art Thread, for example? My criticism was very obvious and it cant be misunderstood. Did I say that I like a few painters involved in occult I posted here? Absolutely not. Did I say that I like paintings I posted on my thread? I was very clear why I posted them. How directed do I need to be so that you will not misinterpret my words? BTW, You dont have any idea what painters I like. 




> Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.


 Ridiculous and wholly irrelevant, eh? You repeat it again. It reminds me about Joseph Goebbels, If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.  :FRlol:  Have you forgotten what I wrote on Voyeurism in Sex thread? BTW, you have never responded to my post.





> Argue with prof. Dahrendorf, prof. Eliade and his disciple prof. Couliano, who are just the latest scholars who considered De vinculis in genere as a masterpiece of political manipulation. Please dont forget that the first to recognize the importance of Brunos text were the Rosicrucians, as indicated in the texts of P. Arnold and F. A. Yates on the movements history.....You would have to reject more people then.
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...m-in-Sex/page5



I have also shared my experience why I have become curious about the power of images upon our minds and emotional states. 




> A few years ago, I spent a few hours looking at mythology paintings. After, I felt totally depleted and emotionally drained. I wanted to uplift my spirit and to look at different paintings. I spent a few seconds to think what art I wanted to see. I was shocked when I wanted to see Hieronymus Bosh. Well, it took 1 day to look at different art until I have returned to the same emotional state. I knew the power of art and its healing qualities but I didnt know at that time that art can be used to enslave or to entrap our minds.



My experience encouraged me to do intense research how images affect our emotional and mental states and I wanted to know from where C. Jung got the idea about using art in therapy. Luckily, there are many scholars who studied in depth G. Brunos work and considered his work as a cornerstone of political thought and mass manipulation. None of the art theory programs teaches that. They teach the theory of Freud and Jung.I have never taken seriously Freud but I didnt like Jungs theory either. My research helped me to understand why I felt uncomfortable about his theory.

----------


## stlukesguild

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

I'll chance being a "repeater" and say again: "In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate most Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?"

----------


## stlukesguild

Ridiculous and wholly irrelevant, eh? You repeat it again. It reminds me about Joseph Goebbels, If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Have you forgotten what I wrote on Voyeurism in Sex thread? BTW, you have never responded to my post.

Yes... largely irrelevant. As more members that myself have noted, Bruno is a minor figure largely of interest only to those interested in the philosophy, theology, and theories of the Italian Renaissance. I have stumbled upon his name once of twice... far less than you have referenced him. He is rarely mentioned in any major works of literature, philosophy, art history, or art theory... but you continue put him forth as someone that ought to be considered a major player within the discussion of art.

Argue with prof. Dahrendorf, prof. Eliade and his disciple prof. Couliano, who are just the latest scholars who considered De vinculis in genere as a masterpiece of political manipulation. Please dont forget that the first to recognize the importance of Brunos text were the Rosicrucians...

None of your professors... nor the Rosicrucians... have the least relevance to art. You are obsessed with the use of art in political manipulation... and while the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the American Government of the "cold war" era attempted to employ art to their political goals, there was little real success for the simple reason that in most instances the artists of any real merit didn't buy into the program being sold.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I love this thread. I love being an artist, especially now. Art is no longer funded in the public schools where I live. I had to teach myself. I am still and always learning. When I'm not sculpting, painting, or sketching, I am looking at art. As much as I can. People can be very judgmental. Some choose a genre, or an era, or a style that they like or tolerate the most and proclaim everything else to be rubbish. I don't suffer from such an affliction. I want all of it. I want to be it. I don't care how people categorize anything that I do. At least I'm contributing to a precious human tradition and feeding my consciousness.

I love the pictures and information you post, stlukesguild. I feel like I should pay you or something.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Yes... largely irrelevant. As more members that myself have noted, Bruno is a minor figure largely of interest only to those interested in the philosophy, theology, and theories of the Italian Renaissance. I have stumbled upon his name once of twice... far less than you have referenced him. He is rarely mentioned in any major works of literature, philosophy, art history, or art theory... but you continue put him forth as someone that ought to be considered a major player within the discussion of art.


Of course, he is not often mentioned. He is not even mentioned in art therapy programs.  :FRlol:  Dont you think that it is quite strange considering the fact that Carl Jung got his idea from the occult?

But there are number of brilliant scholars who realized the importance of his work, calling it a most intelligent work of political manipulation. Do you really think that they would teach us at school how we have been manipulated and controlled? It would be too dangerous to keep in line people who think for themselves. 





> None of your professors... nor the Rosicrucians... have the least relevance to art. You are obsessed with the use of art in political manipulation... and while the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the American Government of the "cold war" era attempted to employ art to their political goals, there was little real success for the simple reason that in most instances the artists of any real merit didn't buy into the program being sold.


Oh, St. Luke. It has relevance to art. Art is a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control. 
Hmm.. do you call being obsessed my curiosity to find out how images affect our mental and emotional states? I dont look at art just for pleasure. Actually, masons and occultists helped me tremendouslyby deleting my posts or closing threads. I must say thank you to those who couldnt control anxiety as they gave me many clues......perhaps unintentionally.  :Wink:  

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called authority says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but authority put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

----------


## mortalterror

> Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.
> 
> I'll chance being a "repeater" and say again: "In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate most Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?"


I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.

As it seems that you find my appreciation of Anselm Kiefer to be one example of such "muddled" thinking, how much have you actually looked at Kiefer? How many paintings or sculptures by him have you seen in person? I know, you assume that is irrelevant, but it really isn't. It's hard to gain a grasp of a 20 or 30 foot wide painting from a 4 inch image on the computer screen. In spite of the fact that you would have us believe that Kiefer is an example of "bad" and "esoteric" art, his work is admired by a broad range of curators, art historians, and art critics... including a number that might be deemed "conservative" in their opinions: Robert Hughes, Donald Kuspit, and Hilton Kramer among them. One might also consider the fact that Kiefer demands some of the highest prices per painting or sculpture of any living artist... in spite of the fact that he is largely unknown to the general public, lacking the shock value that makes Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, or Jeff Koons overpriced art stars.

----------


## stlukesguild

Of course, he is not often mentioned. He is not even mentioned in art therapy programs. Don’t you think that it is quite strange considering the fact that Carl Jung got his idea from the occult?

Well... you quite know my thoughts on Art Therapy... which even were I to grant it any worth, has absolutely nothing to do with art made by professional artists. 

But there are number of brilliant scholars who realized the importance of his work, calling it a most intelligent work of political manipulation. Do you really think that they would teach us at school how we have been manipulated and controlled? It would be too dangerous to keep in line people who think for themselves. 

Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power. Appreciation of the traditional... the "fine arts" (?)... have long been relegated to a limited "elite" audience. In the past, this was a social and economic elite: the church, high-ranking clergy, the aristocracy, and the very wealthy. Today this is an "elite" I might term as being of an elective affinity: a group who make the conscious choice that the fine arts are something that interests and concerns them... something they are passionate enough about to invest the time and effort... and in some circumstances... the money to appreciate. There were surely examples of "public art" employed as a means of reinforcing the hold of the church and the aristocracy. The medieval cathedrals might be seen as the greatest... surely the most successful examples of such... but when art shifted from being produced primarily on demand for wealthy patrons to being produced as a product sold on the open market (and this occurred in the 1600s with the Dutch) art lost much of its impact or ability to be employed for political aims.

The shift from public art to art as luxury object created a great and increasing divide between the larger public and the artists. It is for this reason that the Romantics developed their notions of the artists (themselves) as visionaries and prophets... removed from the base concerns of the middle-class. Regardless of any explicit socio-political aims of individual artists, this gap between the larger audience and the artists has remained... and only increased. With the late 19th/early 20th century we had the stereotype of the Bohemian artists and the Bourgeois. The Bourgeois couldn't fathom the experiments of the Bohemian artists... and thus painting and sculpture became increasingly irrelevant within the larger culture. At the same time, the artists realized that the Bourgeois audience was largely irrelevant to their career... and so they continued in increasingly esoteric experiments... thumbing their noses at the larger audience and playing to the wealthy collectors... and the small "elite" audience of art lovers who are willing to put forth the effort demanded to understand new visual languages.

Film, television, the internet, the radio, arguably recorded music... and possibly still books have a relevance within the larger culture today and a socio-political impact... but to suggest that a painting does is wishful thinking. Most artists since at least the 1960s... if not earlier... have lived with this realization. There are certainly artists who continue to make socio-political statements... but they are largely preaching to the choir. Without a sizable presence of public art, traditional painting/sculpture/etc... is largely impotent to effect any of the socio-political manipulations you obsess over. The last real period in which such might have been possible was under the WPA when artists were paid by the government to create great murals in post-offices, banks, town-halls, libraries, etc... across the nation. Many of these paintings had an explicit socio-political content... glorifying the efforts of the common man in the creation of the nation. If such art had any real impact, it most certainly was that of the great muralists of Mexico: Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros, José Clemente Orozco, etc... whose efforts to establish an equivalent of the great murals of Italy coincided with Mexico's efforts to estblish itself as a nation in the shadow of the US.

It has relevance to art. Art is a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control. 

To be a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control, the art must reach a mass audience and have a relevance to that audience. This is not at all the reality of painting or sculpture or most of your traditional visual arts.

Hmm….. do you call being obsessed my curiosity to find out how images affect our mental and emotional states? 

The problem is that there is no universal response to a work of art. What one person finds profoundly moving, another may find utterly boring. The emotional content or "meaning" of a work of art is something the individual brings to the work.

I don’t look at art just for pleasure. Actually, masons and occultists helped me tremendously……by deleting my posts or closing threads. I must say thank you to those who couldn’t control anxiety as they gave me many clues......perhaps unintentionally. 

What is with LitNet and its ability to attract those obsessed with Masons and Occultists... and let's not forget the Rosicrucians, Templars, Pagans and Neo-Pagans, adherents of the Kabballah and Gnosticism, and surely the Jesuits? Does anyone remember member Musicology?

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

You have yet to give us the name of these many painters and makers of ugly art now placed on a pedestal who were occultists and Masons. Nor have you defined "ugly art"... beyond that which you don't like.

----------


## Cioran

> Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called authority says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but authority put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.


Are you talking about abstract, non-representational art?

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Well... you quite know my thoughts on Art Therapy... which even were I to grant it any worth, has absolutely nothing to do with art made by professional artists.


Well, art therapy is therapy. Dont confuse art making process for healing with making art by professional artists. I cant look at art without being aware of the impact of art upon our mental and emotional states. There are so many painters whose paintings raise a question of their state of mind.
Very disturb indeed. Even tough I dont give a damn about C. Jung, godfather of art therapy, I appreciate the knowledge I got as well as the fact that it led me to deeper research. Everything is so bloody crystal clear when we dig deep enough.





> Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power.



How many times I should list scholars who studied Brunos work so that you see that it is not my theory. Anybody who reads Brunos work can see clearly that it is a masterpiece of mass manipulation. It is not only used in art but in images that are used in advertisement or subliminals in movies or video clips.

It is very interesting how much energy you invest to deny it.I have bad news for youpeople are waking up. Perhaps it happens because people are mind controlled as they have never been before and human mind can only hold illusions and lies only for a certain period of time. 






> You have yet to give us the name of these many painters and makers of ugly art now placed on a pedestal who were occultists and Masons. Nor have you defined "ugly art"... beyond that which you don't like.


Have you forgotten the painters I discussed on you Art thread? I was very clear about that and it was very interesting to see how they were connected with each other.  :FRlol:

----------


## Cioran

Well, it appears ftil is not interested in discussing anything beyond what look to be old grudges from some other thread. His/her posts also sound somewhat like a call to censor art (art no doubt that ftil dislikes or cannot understand).

Maybe ftil will get around to letting us newcomers know what "ugly art placed on a pedestal by occultists and Masons" refers to.

----------


## ftil

> Well, it appears ftil is not interested in discussing anything beyond what look to be old grudges from some other thread. His/her posts also sound somewhat like a call to censor art (art no doubt that ftil dislikes or cannot understand).
> 
> Maybe ftil will get around to letting us newcomers know what "ugly art placed on a pedestal by occultists and Masons" refers to.



Well, I have read your first response to my postYou need to find somebody else to have conversation. I dont have time for that.

If you are a newcomer , you better take time to read previous posts rather than demanding the answer.
You better get used to the fact that people choose when they want to be engaged in conversation and with whom.  :FRlol: 

Enjoy LitNet.

----------


## Cioran

> Well, I have read your first response to my postYou need to find somebody else to have conversation. I dont have time for that.
> 
> If you are a newcomer , you better take time to read previous posts rather than demanding the answer.
> You better get used to the fact that people choose when they want to be engaged in conversation and with whom. 
> 
> Enjoy LitNet.


Yes, I understand you don't have time to define what you mean by "modern art" (today's art? the art of modernism, which is a 20th century movement? Or?) and you don't have time to defend your idiotic statement that such art is somehow ugly and destroys the soul, or some such. I just asked a question, and of course you are not obligated to answer it. In fact, that is probably best for you. It is better for you to remain silent and be thought a fool, after all, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Well, it appears ftil is not interested in discussing anything beyond what look to be old grudges from some other thread. His/her posts also sound somewhat like a call to censor art (art no doubt that ftil dislikes or cannot understand).
> 
> Maybe ftil will get around to letting us newcomers know what "ugly art placed on a pedestal by occultists and Masons" refers to.


I was wondering the same thing.

----------


## ftil

I just cant believe it......the same pattern again that has happened on St.Lukes The Art Thread and my Mythology and religion in artbefore threads were closed.  :Reddevil: 

Time to go back to art. Franz Richard Unterberger's paintings may help reduce anxiety for a few.  :FRlol: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ogq8toN4A

----------


## Cioran

If you want a different pattern, maybe you should post in a different way, and drop the defensiveness and antagonism. Why don't you just tell us what you dislike about Modern Art (I assume you mean nonrepresentational art) and why?

----------


## ftil

*BBC's "British Masters" -**Wyndham Lewis*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZs6tmievRw

More of his paintings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpainti...s/slideshow#/0

----------


## Cioran

So, you like Wyndham Lewis, who is positively steeped in modernism, but you don't like modern art? Or ... ?  :Confused5: 

If you don't want to answer questions from others, or discuss anything, why are you at a discussion board?

----------


## Cioran

Oh, wait, I think I get it. You offered up Unterberger, and then put "air quotes" around "British Masters" for Lewis. Gotcha! 

Unterberger's paintings are technically accomplished and fine for his time, but of no real import in the history of art. Lewis's work is vastly superior.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *Cioran*
> 
> So, you like Wyndham Lewis, who is positively steeped in modernism, but you don't like modern art? Or ... ? 
> 
> If you don't want to answer questions from others, or discuss anything, why are you at a discussion board?


I had feelings that you wrote in response to my post even though I was clear in my response to your post. Have you heard about ignore list?  :FRlol: 
You are in.....You may put me there too...you wouldn't be tempted. 

Don't forget that it is art thread....you don't want this thread be closed do you?  :Reddevil: 

Enjoy LitNet.

----------


## Cioran

> I had feelings that you wrote in response to my post even though I was clear in my response to your post. Have you heard about ignore list? 
> You are in.....You may put me there too...you wouldn't be tempted. 
> 
> Don't forget that it is art thread....you don't want this thread be closed do you? 
> 
> Enjoy LitNet.


I am not doing anything to close it. That would be you, if anyone. I have no idea why you are so hostile and antagonistic.

You were not clear in response to my post, and I doubt others here have any idea of what you are on about. But you don't like Wyndham Lewis and do like Unterberger, right? Unterberger is insipid, though OK by the unenlightened standards of that time. Lewis was a much better artist. You have a very provincial and narrow view of art, no doubt because you are visually uneducated. Have you ever tried to make art, to see what it is all about?

----------


## Cioran

Actually, the more I read what you write, the more I am convinced that you are off your beam. I gather you got one of stlukesguild's earlier threads closed with your tantrums; I hope that doesn't happen here. He has done remarkable work.

----------


## stlukesguild

Well, art therapy is therapy. Dont confuse art making process for healing with making art by professional artists. I cant look at art without being aware of the impact of art upon our mental and emotional states. There are so many painters whose paintings raise a question of their state of mind.

You are saying one thing... and doing the exact opposite. You agree that one should not confuse art therapy with art... and then you turn about and look at art from a purely sociological/psychological point of view... seeing art merely for its impact upon our emotions and questioning the mental state of the artists.

Very disturb(ed) indeed. Even tough I dont give a damn about C. Jung, godfather of art therapy, I appreciate the knowledge I got as well as the fact that it led me to deeper research. Everything is so bloody crystal clear when we dig deep enough.

Clear as mud.

_Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power._

How many times I should list scholars who studied Brunos work so that you see that it is not my theory. Anybody who reads Brunos work can see clearly that it is a masterpiece of mass manipulation. It is not only used in art but in images that are used in advertisement or subliminals in movies or video clips.

Regardless of where the theory originates, you have sidestepped the issue that the traditional arts lack any of the power of manipulation and influence on the masses that you suggest. 

It is very interesting how much energy you invest to deny it.I have bad news for youpeople are waking up. Perhaps it happens because people are mind controlled as they have never been before and human mind can only hold illusions and lies only for a certain period of time. 

I think many would read this as sounding like the thinking of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> You are saying one thing... and doing the exact opposite. You agree that one should not confuse art therapy with art... and then you turn about and look at art from a purely sociological/psychological point of view... seeing art merely for its impact upon our emotions and questioning the mental state of the artists.


No, I dont. You just dont know what art therapy is. 
I am on forum and I am curious about emotional and mental state of artists as I pick up a quite dark energy from their paintings. I bet anybody who picks up such feelings would ask those questions.  :FRlol: 




> Clear as mud.


LOL! It is bloody crystal clear!




> Regardless of where the theory originates, you have sidestepped the issue that the traditional arts lack any of the power of manipulation and influence on the masses that you suggest.


No, I didnt sidestepped the issue. I have shared my experience with art and how it left me depleted and drained after watching for a few hours. Are you surprised that I started to research how and why art has such a deep and negative impact? 




> I think many would read this as sounding like the thinking of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.


Oh, are you saying that you dont know anything about mind control? I bet you think that US government is also involved in conspiracy theory. Are you denying using subliminal in movie and music video? You should read Steven Jacobsons Mind Control in America. He worked in Hollywood in early 80s, editing movies. If you know a little about movie production as you claimed, you would know what I am talking about.




> *Project MKUltra is the code name for a covert research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans (mind control) through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division.* The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and "officially halted" in 1973. The program engaged in many illegal activities; in particular it used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy. MKUltra involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate people's individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra



Can we go back to art now? There are so many painters...... :Wink:

----------


## Cioran

Might it be possible to have an interesting discussion about art without it being derailed by ftil's rants?

----------


## Cioran

> No, I didn’t sidestepped the issue. I have shared my experience with art and how it left me depleted and drained after watching for a few hours. Are you surprised that I started to research how and why art has such a deep and negative impact?


I'm sorry art has had a deep and negative impact on you (unless it's banal and insipid art, I guess, in which case it's OK) but the main point is that while this might be true for you, it is untrue for practically everyone else. You shouldn't confuse your personal experiences with general experiences.

----------


## ftil

*Michel Parkes*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcD7LCWoM8

----------


## Cioran

> *Michel Parkes*
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcD7LCWoM8


Yep, totally insipid paintings, of no significance, but thanks for "sharing," as it were.

I should say a few of them are OK, the ones that tend to be more concerned with abstraction rather than banal literary content.

----------


## ftil

Oh, Cioran you cant give up.even though you know that you are on my ignore list.  :FRlol: 

It is a Christmas gift for your persistence.....You are going you like it. 

*Wojtek Siudmak and L'Infranchissable Obstacle (The Impassable obstacles)*


http://theromanticqueryletter.blogsp...log-chain.html

----------


## Cioran

If I am on your ignore list, why are you reading and answering my posts?  :FRlol: 

BTW, the paintings that you like are insipid, and of no consequence.  :Smile:

----------


## stlukesguild

...totally insipid paintings, of no significance...

Of course the same can be said of the vast majority of the Modern/Post-Modern/Conceptual crap churned out by art school grads.

I should say a few of them are OK, the ones that tend to be more concerned with abstraction rather than banal literary content.

I'm a little wary of any sweeping dismissal of art based upon terms such as "literary" or "narrative". When I attended art school Greenbergian formalism was still the dominant theory and "literary", "narrative" and "illustrative" were virtually the worst insults that could be directed at your work. The result was that not only were works of unrepentant kitsch (such as Thomas Kinkade) vilified... but also artists of real merit: Andrew Wyeth, Lucian Freud, Odd Nerdrum... even the whole of Pop Art. I think the pendulum has begun to swing the other direction... at least toward a recognition that there is no great single monolithic "art world" but rather a great many smaller "art worlds" with different audiences, values, and standards. 

Having said that... I agree that Parkes' work is largely kitsch... although very skillful kitsch. 

Now... if I were to offer up some art works as Christmas gifts I think I would include the following:



Giorgione's (Bellini's) _Adoration of the Shepherds_ is one of the most exquisite paintings ever. I never fail to spend a good many minutes before it whenever I visit Washington. The composition is almost Baroque... brilliantly structured... yet in such an organic... natural manner (not unlike Titian and later Rubens) that one might almost imagine it just fell together. The figures are equally natural and real. The landscape is one of the most marvelous... especially from this early period when nature and the landscape were not idealized as they were to the Romantics. And then the color! The painting glows... like stained glass. 



Fra Filippo Lippi is one of those painters who should be far more known. His _Holy Family_ is simply a brilliant little painting. Like his masterful student, Sandro Botticelli, Lippi employs the linear elements to such an elegant use. Line simply weaves and dances throughout this painting. I love the many little exquisite details: the manner in which the Virgin breaks from the painted frame (an idea Michelangelo will later put to a far more forceful and expressive use) and the clever framing of the second angel who looks out at us from between the arms and legs of the Christ child and the praying hands of the Virgin. 

Another marvelous painting appropriate to the holiday was produced by the combined efforts of Fra Angelico and Fra Filippo Lippi. The _Adoration of the Magi_ (tondo)...



is another of favorite paintings in the National Gallery, Washington. The composition of this painting brilliantly leads our eyes around the painting... from the farthest distances... as the crowds rush to view the spectacle. In the distance (on the left) we see collapsing white architecture and figures in robes symbolizing the collapse of the old Greco-Roman Pagan world. Hovering over the Virgin on the roof of the humble stable is a peacock... symbol of the Queen of Heaven. This painting always reminds me of another favorite "Adoration":



Gentile da Fabriano's Adoration of the Magi is one of the most resplendent paintings of the period and the style that became known as the "International Gothic". As a result of the horrors of the "Black Death" there was a shift toward a greater conservatism which reached its peak with Girolamo Savonarola and the "bonfire of the vanities". The International Gothic was epitomized by a shift away from Renaissance innovations in terms of "realism" and classicism, back toward an art rooted in the Gothic with an emphasis upon decorative pattern and such artificial elements as the shaped panel and a radiant use of gold leaf. Elements of the International Gothic continued through the work of Botticelli, who became a follower of Savonarola. Ironically, the paintings of the International Gothic are far more lavish and luxurious... far more expressive of vanity... than the more "modern" Renaissance paintings. 

Gentile da Fabriano's _Adoration of the Magi_ again portrays crowds coming to witness the miracle from afar. In this instance, the scene takes place at night with the figures literally glowing by the light of the halos and the Star of Bethlehem (immediately above Joseph's head). This glowing effect is further heightened as a result of the contrast with the warm and sumptuous gold framing. 

Perhaps the greatest painting of the International Gothic, after Duccio's _Maestà_ (which was really a collection of multiple paintings), was Simone Martini's _Annunciation_...



The painting portrays the Angel of the Annunciation, Gabriel, as he informs Mary that she has become the chosen one... mother of God. Mary recoils and clutches her cloak as the angel's words etched into the gold leaf ("Ave Maria, gratia plena, dominus tecum...") move toward her. The central narrative is flanked by two saints: Ansanus, the patron saint of Sienna, and St. Giulitta. Sienna was heart of the International Gothic style. 

The last painting I'll offer up for the holidays is a single illuminated page from the Limbourg Brothers' _Très riches heures du Duc de Berry_... one of the finest illuminated books ever produced... literally an equivalent of the Sistine Ceiling in book form. 



This particular is from a series of plates illustrating the months. In this case we are presented with the Month of February. The Limbourg Brothers were active in France and Burgundy at around the same period as Simone Martini and Gentile da Fabriano. The _Très riches heures du Duc de Berry_ dates from the early 1400s and like the nearly contemporaneous writer, Chaucer, the Limbourg Brothers were masters at portraying all the details of the late Medieval/early Renaissance world. We are presented with an image of a farmer chopping down trees for firewood... and a farmer and his wife and a visiting lady of some rank gathered the fireplace in the farmhouse. Note how the lady daintily raises her skirts... but only so far... to warm her legs... while the farmer and his wife have no such thoughts of modestly as they hike their clothes up in an effort to warm their... "cockles". 

Happy Holidays!

----------


## Cioran

> I'm a little wary of any sweeping dismissal of art based upon terms such as "literary" or "narrative". When I attended art school Greenbergian formalism was still the dominant theory and "literary", "narrative" and "illustrative" were virtually the worst insults that could be directed at your work. The result was that not only were works of unrepentant kitsch (such as Thomas Kinkade) vilified... but also artists of real merit: Andrew Wyeth, Lucian Freud, Odd Nerdrum... even the whole of Pop Art. I think the pendulum has begun to swing the other direction... at least toward a recognition that there is no great single monolithic "art world" but rather a great many smaller "art worlds" with different audiences, values, and standards.


I couldn't agree more.

This was the point that I made earlier about how the Abstract Expressionists had founded their own Church of Art, in which all figurative and literary elements were to be ruthlessly expunged on pain of excommunication. Thankfully all that has gone by, just as have the the strictures of a century before the abstract expressionists, when it was claimed that all art must be done in an insipid classicist figurative style. Those strictures were exploded by the arrival of the Impressionists and especially by the arrival of Van Gogh and Cezanne. The latter prefigured the great Picasso.

I wasn't making a sweeping dismissal of all art that is based on "literary" or "narrative" terms, just the particular art that ftil was putting forth.

There is, was, and always will be, some wonderful figurative, literary, realistic art. Some of it is currently on display in Washington, D.C., paintings and photos of the Civil War/Reconstruction era, including some real beauties by the great Winslow Homer. Highly recommended!

Keep up the good work, sir!  :Smile: 

Ah, you mentioned Lucian Freud. What a wonderful artist!

Check out the online studio of Clifford Wilton, with whom years ago I was once honored to share art studio space.

http://www.cliffordwilton.com/Artist...&Akey=7T557WEJ

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Having said that... I agree that Parkes' work is largely kitsch... although very skillful kitsch.


Of course, it is kitsch even though very skilful kitsch. But it was not the reason that I posted it. 
His work is full of occult symbolism and from that point of view..interesting.

----------


## ftil

If I were to choose some art works as Christmas gifts it would include the following:



*Rembrandt, Aristotle contemplating a bust of Homer*

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/r...stotl.jpg.html



*Salvator Rosa, Diogenes Casting away his Cup* 

http://baroqueart.tumblr.com/post/32...-salvator-rosa



* Raffaello Sanzi, Woman with a Veil (La Donna Velata)*

http://www.china-art-discount.com/Ar...3/03velata.jpg



*Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, Basket of Peaches* 

http://www.jean-baptiste-simeon-char...768-large.html



*Willem Claesz Heda, Still Life* 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-_WGA11244.jpg



And especially for St. Luke.  :Wink5: 


*Tamara de Lempicka, Women Bathing*

http://www.tamara-de-lempicka.org/Wo...929-large.html


*Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, La Grande Odalisque*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Je...sque,_1814.jpg



*John Maler Collier, Lilith*

http://www.john-collier.org/Lilith,-1887-large.html


*Andrew Atroshenko*

http://pinterest.com/pin/254383078923061722/

----------


## stlukesguild

The Rembrandt...



The Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino)...



and the Ingres...



... are all especially fine paintings... although I don't see that they have much connection with the Holidays or the Season. Of all the paintings you offered, I think the Raphael would be my personal favorite. Andrew Atroshenko's paintings, on the other hand, are just pure schlock.

----------


## ftil

> ... are all especially fine paintings... although I don't see that they have much connection with the Holidays or the Season. Of all the paintings you offered, I think the Raphael would be my personal favorite. Andrew Atroshenko's paintings, on the other hand, are just pure schlock.



No, they dont have connections. If you received a red convertible for a Christmas gift, would you complain that it has nothing to do with the Holiday Season?  :FRlol: 

You may call Atroshenko's paintings pure schlock. I like this painting as I appreciate beauty. She is very different than that of Egon Schiele that I cant stand.

----------


## stlukesguild

I thought I'd offer up a few more works of art appropriate for the season:

Bruegel's _Hunters in the Snow_ is one of the paintings from his series known as the "Seasons" (perhaps originally 12 paintings... one for each month)...



One might almost proclaim Bruegel to have been the first great landscape painter. I can think of no one else at this early age with as astute of an eye for capturing details of the landscape... the color... the atmosphere... the sense of space... We can almost sense the noise and excitement of the dogs barking as they enter from the left silhouetted against the snow, along with their masters, the hunters. The dark greenish-gray sky is mirrored in the frozen ponds below where tiny people skate upon the ice. The trees... silhouetted against the snow and sky... lead our eye... like four great notes in a symphony... toward the distant recesses of space... in an era before the Netherlandish painters have mastered the technique of linear perspective.

Gerard David was one of the lesser known painters of the Netherlandish Renaissance... but a painter of some truly exquisite works... including _The Holy Family: Rest on the Flight into Egypt_:



This painting has an almost classical sense of simplicity and clarity of form and an almost Impressionistic sensitivity to touch and brush-work. The painting is organized upon a harmony of primary colors: limpid blues, golden and greenish yellows, and a few perfectly placed accents of rose. In spite of the simplicity of the painting, there are the most delicious details: the delicately rendered basket, the flora in the foreground, the bunch of grapes the Virgin feeds to her child, and Joseph in the distance engaged in an effort to gather nuts from the trees.

Perhaps an even less-known painting of the Netherlandish Renaissance is Geetgen Tot Sint Jans. Sint Jans was a painter from the Northern regions of what were the Netherlands... that area which would later become Holland. A vast majority of the paintings from this area and era were lost as a result of the iconoclastic upheavals including burning and looting of Catholic churches that resulted in response to the brutal anti-Protestant crackdown by the Duke of Alba and the Spanish against the predominantly Protestant states of the Western Netherlands. Geertgen Tot Sint Jans is known for but a scant few paintings... but they are absolute jewels. One of the most marvelous is surely the _Nativity_ or _Adoration of the Shepherds_:



Sint Jans offers one of the first truly believable night-time Nativity scenes. The Virgin and the delicious tiny doll-like angels are illuminated by the glow emanating from the little Christ-child. Looming in the shadows we see the cattle, Joseph... and in the distance, the tiny angel Gabriel announcing the miraculous birth to the shepherds. The entire scene has a magical, child-like wonder to it that I find utterly charming and irresistible. 

Its quite easy to find paintings appropriate to the Christmas season by the "old masters"... but what of "modern artists"?... what of art from the late 19th century to the present? This has proved a bit more of a challenge. Sure, there are plenty of schlock paintings that are little more than pastiches of dated styles... but what of paintings of real merit? I dug around a bit and found a number of interesting works which I shall post tomorrow.

 :Seeya:

----------


## ftil

> Its quite easy to find paintings appropriate to the Christmas season by the "old masters"... but what of "modern artists"?... what of art from the late 19th century to the present? This has proved a bit more of a challenge. Sure, there are plenty of schlock paintings that are little more than pastiches of dated styles... but what of paintings of real merit? I dug around a bit and found a number of interesting works which I shall post tomorrow.


We can't forget about Edward Burne-Jones's intriguing painting. Dark angel or just light-bearer?  :FRlol: 


*Sir Edward Burne-Jones, The Star of Bethlehem*

http://www.pre-raphaelite-brotherhoo...-91-large.html

----------


## mortalterror

> I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.
> 
> As it seems that you find my appreciation of Anselm Kiefer to be one example of such "muddled" thinking, how much have you actually looked at Kiefer? How many paintings or sculptures by him have you seen in person? I know, you assume that is irrelevant, but it really isn't. It's hard to gain a grasp of a 20 or 30 foot wide painting from a 4 inch image on the computer screen. In spite of the fact that you would have us believe that Kiefer is an example of "bad" and "esoteric" art, his work is admired by a broad range of curators, art historians, and art critics... including a number that might be deemed "conservative" in their opinions: Robert Hughes, Donald Kuspit, and Hilton Kramer among them. One might also consider the fact that Kiefer demands some of the highest prices per painting or sculpture of any living artist... in spite of the fact that he is largely unknown to the general public, lacking the shock value that makes Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, or Jeff Koons overpriced art stars.


You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a radical paradigm shift coming in the art world that would devalue much of the art of the last sixty or seventy years.

----------


## Cioran

> You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a radical paradigm shift coming in the art world that would devalue much of the art of the last sixty or seventy years.


There is no reason to think this. Quite the opposite is likely to be the case. With the increasing use of computers in the visual arts, and the possibility of, say, combining video animation with paint on canvas, the visual arts will become more free, radial and creative than ever.

The problem in rejecting modernism I think lies in lack of visual education. Many people are stuck with the idea that pictures must be _of_ something in reality, and must be done as realistically as possible. Visual art certainly can be that, but the point is it does not have to be that. The hold of realism and story-telling on the visual arts began to vanish with the introduction of photography, and it's not coming back.

----------


## Cioran

> We can't forget about Edward Burne-Jones's intriguing painting. Dark angel or just light-bearer? 
> 
> 
> *Sir Edward Burne-Jones, The Star of Bethlehem*
> 
> http://www.pre-raphaelite-brotherhoo...-91-large.html


Ah, yes, the reactionary pre-Raphaelites.

----------


## stlukesguild

In some ways I think the ideas of the Pre-Raphaelites and their subsequent influence far outstripped the actual achievements of their work... although the Kelscott Chaucer was surely a brilliant example of "book arts". The idea of rejecting the art of the recent past (academic realism) and looking toward the art before Raphael... the art of the Middle Ages... is surely linked with directions taken by painters such as Gauguin, Van Gogh, Bonnard, Vuillard etc... who began to explore the notion of flat decorative images and the use of artificial patterns and forms as opposed to the illusion of realistic for. The Pre-Raphaelites also provided a link between William Blake and the Arts and Crafts movement (which was itself linked with Art Nouveau, Art Deco, and the Bauhaus). All sought to challenge the notion of the hierarchy of art: placing painting and sculpture above "decorative arts"... and all suggested that there was a certain moral value in art and beauty that was of the greatest worth to a mankind trapped within the increasingly ugly and massed produced/industrial culture.

I also think we need to acknowledge that the Pre-Raphaelites were one element in the growing admiration of the Medieval (other examples would include poetry of Browning and Tennyson, Wagner's operas, etc...). I see a definite impact upon subsequent illustration... especially that of science fiction and the fantastic. 

Unfortunately, for the most part the Pre-Raphaelites weren't the most brilliant painters and they were indeed quite reactionary... or rather quite mannered. While Gauguin and the Nabis all drew heavily from rather archaic sources, they also brought something quite Modern in terms of both imagery and their sensual love of paint.

----------


## mortalterror

> There is no reason to think this. Quite the opposite is likely to be the case. With the increasing use of computers in the visual arts, and the possibility of, say, combining video animation with paint on canvas, the visual arts will become more free, radial and creative than ever.
> 
> The problem in rejecting modernism I think lies in lack of visual education. Many people are stuck with the idea that pictures must be _of_ something in reality, and must be done as realistically as possible. Visual art certainly can be that, but the point is it does not have to be that. The hold of realism and story-telling on the visual arts began to vanish with the introduction of photography, and it's not coming back.


No reason to think that? How about because it's happened numerous times before? The shift from Greco-Roman styles to the Gothic medieval styles lasted for centuries. Then for centuries the medieval art was considered primitive, amateurish, and ugly, until being once more re-evaluated. Neo-classicism held sway for more than a century, and many of the major artists of the period are now no more than footnotes. The history of art criticism is one of constant re-evaluation and revision with the experts teeter tottering one way then another.

Do I dare	
Disturb the universe?	
In a minute there is time	
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
-The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S. Eliot

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Unfortunately, for the most part the Pre-Raphaelites weren't the most brilliant painters and they were indeed quite reactionary... or rather quite mannered. While Gauguin and the Nabis all drew heavily from rather archaic sources, they also brought something quite Modern in terms of both imagery and their sensual love of paint.


I dont have any idea why you said that Pre-Raphaelites were quite reactionary. If we look at themes, we may see themes from Greek/Roman mythology . Evelyn de Morgan was involved in occult and her art is quite intriguing.

I would rather say that they were precursors of modern art and return to pagan religion. You compared Zeus to Jehovah and Jesus to Apollo which is absolutely outrages for those who studied Greek/Roman mythology.

I am curious what modern art you have found that relates to Holiday seasons. I have found overwhelming modern art relating to mythology and demons.

A few paintings.

*HUGUES GILLET*

http://www.artofimagination.org/Page...etDetail1.html


*HUGUES GILLET*

http://fer1972.tumblr.com/post/19958.../hugues-gillet


*Drazenka Kimpel*

http://picky.cgsociety.org/gallery/857550/


*Drazenka Kimpel*

http://elfpix.com/graphics/artworks-...ka-kimpel.html



*H. R. Giger*

http://artmight.com/Artists/H.R.Gige...m-183283p.html

* Demons art*

http://art-of-fantasy.org/pics/imagelist/16/9

----------


## Cioran

> No reason to think that? How about because it's happened numerous times before? The shift from Greco-Roman styles to the Gothic medieval styles lasted for centuries. Then for centuries the medieval art was considered primitive, amateurish, and ugly, until being once more re-evaluated. Neo-classicism held sway for more than a century, and many of the major artists of the period are now no more than footnotes. The history of art criticism is one of constant re-evaluation and revision with the experts teeter tottering one way then another.
> 
> Do I dare	
> Disturb the universe?	
> In a minute there is time	
> For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
> -The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S. Eliot


It has happened before, but what is different now is that art is accpeted as pluralistic. This is one of the legacies of post-modernism. Over-arching meta-narratives in the visual arts, as well as literature and other fields, are rejected. There are so many influences, so much cross-fertilization in art, that it seems highly unlikely that entire canons of art will be rejected in favor of a new Art Church, the kind of thing that happened with abstract expressionism (banish all figuratism as heretical) and before that earlier schools of art that banished all hints of what would become modernism.

----------


## mortalterror

> It has happened before, but what is different now is that art is accpeted as pluralistic. This is one of the legacies of post-modernism. Over-arching meta-narratives in the visual arts, as well as literature and other fields, are rejected. There are so many influences, so much cross-fertilization in art, that it seems highly unlikely that entire canons of art will be rejected in favor of a new Art Church, the kind of thing that happened with abstract expressionism (banish all figuratism as heretical) and before that earlier schools of art that banished all hints of what would become modernism.


And maybe we'll all join hands and sing Kumbaya. No, the pendulum is already in motion, and change is afoot. It's one thing to describe the art world in terms of a plurality, and to a certain extent that's even true, but it is still not a unified or equal plurality. There will always be greater and lesser trends, even if they continue to tolerate each other.

----------


## stlukesguild

Its quite easy to find paintings appropriate to the Christmas season by the "old masters"... but what of "modern artists"?... what of art from the late 19th century to the present? This has proved a bit more of a challenge. Sure, there are plenty of schlock paintings that are little more than pastiches of dated styles... but what of paintings of real merit? I dug around a bit through my files and initially I was a bit shocked at just how little I was able to find. I almost felt as if after nearly 2000 years in which the Biblical narratives lay at the heart of Western art, artists had suddenly abandoned these great tales. But as a looked more carefully, I realized that this wasn't so. While paintings relating to Christmas were few and far between, the great Hebrew and Christian narratives continued to flourish in Modern Art. Considering that the history of the 20th century offered up two world wars, the Holocaust, the genocides of Stalin and Mao, and the threat of nuclear annihilation, it is perhaps not surprising that artists leaned more toward the tales of Job, Moses, Abraham, the Exodus, and of course the Passion and Crucifixion as more relevant narratives for our time.

Nevertheless... I was able to find more than a few "modern" paintings appropriate to the season: 



Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859-1937) was the first African-American artist to gain an international reputation. Thwarted and disillusioned by racism in America, he spent much of his career living and working in France. Tanner became best known for his religious paintings, including the splendid _Annunciation_. Like many of his paintings, the _Annunciation_ presents a contrast between realism and a theatrical and an atmospheric and poetic use of light. There's nothing idealized in the representation of the Virgin Mary, her clothes, and the setting. The Angel of the Annunciation, however, is seen as a brilliant and all-devouring light... not unlike that employed by J.M.W. Turner. 

In contrast to Tanner, the French painter, Maurice Denis, offers an Annunciation that is far removed from any concerns for external visual reality...



Denis was a Post-Impressionist, Symbolist artist... and a member of Les Nabis. The Nabis, or "prophets" saw themselves as prophets of modern art. They were profoundly indebted to the innovations of the Impressionists, but wholly rejected the Impressionist notion that modern art needed to be rooted in the artist's perceptions of visual reality. Art could just as well be rooted in the artist's perceptions of music, literature, other art... as well as ideas, emotions, and feelings. The Nabis were greatly inspired by Paul Gauguin and the manner in which his paintings employed the artificial outlines and brilliant colors as well as flat shapes and decorative patterns of early Renaissance and Medieval art. They were especially fascinated with stained glass and tapestries. Maurice Denis formulated the idea that would become central to virtually the whole of Modernism: _"Remember that a painting - before it is a battle horse, a nude model, or some anecdote - is essentially a flat surface covered with colours assembled in a certain order."_ This statement echoes Oscar Wilde's quote: _"Art finds her own perfection within, and not outside of, herself. She is not to be judged by any external standard of resemblance,"_ and points the way toward Clement Greenberg's obsession with the "flatness of the pciture plane" that dominated art theory in the mid-20th century.

Denis' _Annunciation_ employs many of the elements familiar from the earlier Renaissance portrayals: the Lilies (signifying purity), the Angel of the Annunciation, and the open book of prayers. Mary is seen in a convent-like dwelling room with small single bed (no room for a lover). Unlike many Renaissance portrayals, she doesn't recoil... but rather seems contently drawn into herself with a reserved expression of joy. The single modern element to be seen is the landscape which suggest the sort of suburban landscapes of Paris common to so many paintings by Monet and others.

Émile Henri Bernard (1868-1941) was another Post-Impressionist/Symbolist painter. He was friends with Gauguin, Van Gogh, Toulouse-Latrec, Odilon Redon and Ferdinand Hodler. His work displayed the same use of pattern and flat shapes heavily outlined (a style known as _cloisonnism_ because it evoked the technique of _cloisonné_ used in enamels, in which metal wire separates areas of color much like the black leading in stained glass). His _Annunciation_...



... is even more "modern" is its use of brilliant colors employed for expressive purposes.

Paul Gauguin's _Nativity_ offers perhaps the strongest example of a Post-Impressionist take upon the Christmas narratives:



Gauguin presents an everyday image of a humble birth in Tahiti portrayed in a manner so as to allude to the Christian Nativity. The result is to suggest a universal relevance of the Biblical narratives... the idea that every birth is akin to the Nativity... all lovers like Adam and Eve... every death like the Passion.

One of the most stunningly unconventional and visionary explorations of the narratives related to Christmas is to be found in the pastel painting, _Clouds_, by Odilon Redon:



Redon offers up an image of the Holy Family in a small sail boat. is this perhaps a twist upon the theme of the "Flight into Egypt"? Are the clouds "threatening?" Is this a storm looming in the distance? Regardless, the painting is absolutely stunning. The clouds burst forth in a dazzling display of incandescent colors... like a field of flowers in bloom... or the most scintillating display of the Northern Lights.

Some of the finest images relating to the Holidays and the Winter Season can be found in work intended as illustration. In spite of his reputation for decadent and erotic prints, Aubrey Beardsley also produced a rather lovely print of the Madonna and Child as a Christmas card:



His work displays many of the same elements found in the art of the Pre-Raphaelites, the Nabis, and other early Modernists... especially the flat shapes and patterns that evoke Medieval art and tapestries.

William Ladd Taylor (1854-1926) was an illustrator educated in New York, Boston, and Paris best known for his book illustrations on the American pioneers, Longfellow, the Psalms, American literature, and the Bible. 





Taylor's _A Star in the East_ and _The Nativity: And She Wrapped Him in Swaddling Clothes..._ are both beautiful atmospheric paintings employing a monochromatic palette to convey the sense of mood

The last artist I will look at in this post is the well-known American illustrator/decorative painter, Maxfield Parrish (1870- 1966). Parrish's art features dazzlingly luminous colors; the color "Parrish Blue" was named in acknowledgement. He achieved the results by means of the technique known as glazing in which bright layers of transparent oil colorare applied alternately over a base monochromatic rendering. Parrish was also one of the first artists/illustrators to make extensive use of photography. 





His paintings, _Christmas Morning_ and _Evening_ both evoke the still atmosphere in which the greenish light suggests the sun just rising (or having set) over the horizon. The only suggestion of human activity in either painting is conveyed by the light emanating from a single room in the farm house in the distance... all else is quiet... "silent night."

And maybe we'll all join hands and sing Kumbaya. No, the pendulum is already in motion, and change is afoot.

And you know this based upon...? Your profound grasp of the art of the last 50-75 years? Your experience with what is happening in the galleries and museums? Your knowledge of what is being taught in the art schools today?

----------


## Cioran

> And maybe we'll all join hands and sing Kumbaya. No, the pendulum is already in motion, and change is afoot. It's one thing to describe the art world in terms of a plurality, and to a certain extent that's even true, but it is still not a unified or equal plurality. There will always be greater and lesser trends, even if they continue to tolerate each other.


What penduleum, and what trend? What do you mean, speficially? Are you talking about non-representational art being rejected or devalued in favor of ...?

Trends do not mean that previous art is devalued. On the contrary, we can see the good, from the vantage point of today, in all the art of yesterday, no matter how varied in style and form and content they are. As to non-representational art, it used to be a dogma of modernism that the figurative was banished from serious fine arts. If you talking about a pendulum moving away from that, you're more than three decades too late. The figurative had meaningfully re-entered serious modern art by 1980.

----------


## mortalterror

> And maybe we'll all join hands and sing Kumbaya. No, the pendulum is already in motion, and change is afoot.
> 
> And you know this based upon...? Your profound grasp of the art of the last 50-75 years? Your experience with what is happening in the galleries and museums? Your knowledge of what is being taught in the art schools today?


I have both eyes to see and ears to hear.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

_Taylor's A Star in the East and The Nativity: And She Wrapped Him in Swaddling Clothes... are both beautiful atmospheric paintings employing a monochromatic palette to convey the sense of mood_

You definately need to click on the thumbnail for "The Nativity...", or you might overlook the face peeking out from the swaddling.

_Parrish was also one of the first artists/illustrators to make extensive use of photography._

I'm assuming photographs were used in the examples you posted, is that correct?
They certainly have a clarity suggestive of a photograph.

----------


## Cioran

> I have both eyes to see and ears to hear.


Except that really doesn't answer the question. What, specifically, do you mean?

Anyone who thinks abstract, non-representational art is going away, no matter how much they may wish for that to happen merely because they, personally, don't "like" or "understand" such art, is in for big disappointment, I'm afraid.

----------


## ftil

St. Luke, 

I dont know what annunciation has to do with holiday season. But if you think that it does, we cant miss Bradley Platzs The Announciation.  :FRlol: 


http://www.bradleyplatz.com/#!the-an...c1mf/image10bv

And a few more of his paintings.



*The golden Calf*

http://www.bradleyplatz.com/#!the-go.../cee5/imagei9c



*Sophia (The Birth of the Demiurge)*

http://www.bradleyplatz.com/#!sophia...c1mf/image1ggy


Bradley Platzs website

http://www.bradleyplatz.com/#!2007/c1mf



Odilon Redons Flower Clouds and Holiday season? No clue....... His art is full of mythology and a few intriguing paintings.

We have a dark angel again.


*Angel In Chains*

http://www.odilon-redon.org/Angel-In-Chains-large.html



*Aged Angel*

http://www.odilon-redon.org/Aged-Angel-large.html


It reminds me about another symbolist painter - Franz von Stuck - lot's of mythology and of course dark angel.


*The angel of the Court*

http://www.repfineart.com/reproducti...ck/angel-court


*The Guardian of Paradise*

http://www.canvasreplicas.com/Stuck101.htm





Another intriguing painting of Odilon Redons. *Oannès (Christ et Serpent)* 

http://www.odilon-redon.org/Oann%C3%...%29-large.html




> Oannes in Armenian) was the name given by the Babylonian writer Berossus in the 3rd century BCE to a mythical being who taught mankind wisdom. Berossus describes Oannes as having the body of a fish but underneath the figure of a man. He is described as dwelling in the Persian Gulf, and rising out of the waters in the daytime and furnishing mankind instruction in writing, the arts and the various sciences.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oannes#As_Oannes




I am not surprised that you have brought Aubrey Beardsley. Your favorite, eh?
A few more angels.  :FRlol: 


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ey_Lampito.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Puderquast.jpg

And more of Aubrey Beardsley - Lysistrata. 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ca...y_-_Lysistrata

----------


## Cioran

Redons Angel in Chains is a work clearly in the modernist impulse, the form of the angel seemingly hewn from the rock on which it sits. And notice the radical simplifications, like the circular breast , and arms almost like tubes, calling to mind the figurative simplifications of Cezanne and Picasso. Another aspect that makes this work so modern is the sumptuous appreciation, and application, of paint as an end in itself, as opposed to a medium to imitate what is before ones eyes. Look at all the subtle color variations in the both the lighted and shadow regions of the rock, and the way impasto strokes of paint delineate the volume of the rock in the lighted area and bring it more forward to the eye. He could in fact have made a canvass just of that rock, and it would have been monumental.

Compare "Angel in Chains" with an early Picasso Cubist conception:

----------


## JCamilo

> Except that really doesn't answer the question. What, specifically, do you mean?
> 
> Anyone who thinks abstract, non-representational art is going away, no matter how much they may wish for that to happen merely because they, personally, don't "like" or "understand" such art, is in for big disappointment, I'm afraid.


I do not know if this is a tendency, does not matter. Tendencies or movements, are a way we look the past. But some of most popular visual artworks are less modernists or abstract and have a classical touch... comic books and video games. Develuation of art movements is a need even for the art movement strength. They will be reborn latter, with more strength and significance. Nothing stops.

----------


## Cioran

> I do not know if this is a tendency, does not matter. Tendencies or movements, are a way we look the past. But some of most popular visual artworks are less modernists or abstract and have a classical touch... comic books and video games. Develuation of art movements is a need even for the art movement strength. They will be reborn latter, with more strength and significance. Nothing stops.


What today is called post-modernist art is clearly quite different from modernism, contains a good deal of figuratism as well as an air of irony, detachment, self-referential parody and other characteristics not found in modernism. My point, however, is to contest the notion that these kind of changes somehow _devalue_ modernism.

A Mondrian that seems to fit the season:

----------


## stlukesguild

I dont have any idea why you said that Pre-Raphaelites were quite reactionary. If we look at themes, we may see themes from Greek/Roman mythology . Evelyn de Morgan was involved in occult and her art is quite intriguing.

The dominant strains in art as from the late 1700s through the early/mid-1800s were Neo-Classicism and Romanticism. Neo-Classicism was rooted in the philosophy of the Enlightenment and stressed reason and logic over all. In visual terms this meant an art rooted in the paintings of the Renaissance and the art of Classical Greece and Rome stressing clarity of form, line, and rational composition based in mathematics. The subject matter tended to be that which glorified nobility of character, heroic deeds, military and political achievements, etc... The best example of the Neo-Classical painter was Jacques Louis David:



Romanticism stressed "realism" over "the ideal"; the "exotic" worlds of the Middle-Ages, Persia and the Middle-East, and the wild, unspoiled landscapes of America over Greece and Rome and the Florentine Renaissance; emotion and unbridled passion over logic and reason; atmosphere and color over line and form; and the overwhelming power of nature as opposed to the achievements of man. Among the leading Romantics, we should include:

Goya:



Caspar David Friedrich:



J.M.W. Turner:



As the century progressed, the boundaries between Romanticism and Neo-Classicism became increasingly blurred. The most important artist to truly straddle the line was undoubtedly Ingres. Ingres merged the linear clarity and immaculate, polished form of Neo-Classicism with the exoticism and eroticism and rich color of Romanticism:



As with every artistic style, Romanticism and Neo-Classicism became academic and mannered. The "masters" of the French and British academies were masterful technicians... but their paintings lacked the originality, the energy, and the passion of the original Neo-Classicists and Romantics.

The cutting edge in art shifted toward "Realism". The leading "Realists" included:

Gustave Courbet:



Millet:



Early Degas:



Early Manet:



Daumier:



Winslow Homer:



and George Bellows:



The aim of all these artists was to capture the honest truth with regard to the world that they loved in... whether the urban landscapes of Paris or New York... or the rural life... as they were seen by the artists. 

Impressionism, by far the most important and influential movement of the latter 19th century continued in this direction... focusing upon the artist's visual perception of the play of light and color upon the landscapes... or upon the urban scenes of Degas and Manet.

The "reactionary" nature of the Pre-Raphaelites has to do with the fact that for all the revolutionary political fervor, as painters they were quite conservative. 



Their paintings were clearly rooted in the Romanticism of William Blake, Medievalism, and the techniques and appropriate subject matter of painting as then taught in academia. 

The question of whether an artist is reactionary or revolutionary, of course, is not an immediate measure of artistic merit. William Blake was both reactionary and revolutionary and has had far more impact upon artists into the 20th century than he did upon his immediate peers or successors. Giorgio Morandis simple gray and earth-toned paintings of still-life objects seemed completely out of tune with the work of his era... especially the grand-scaled, heroic, and explosive works of Abstract Expressionism. Today, however, he is one of the most admired painters of the Post-War era... a true "painter's painter."

----------


## Cioran

> [. Giorgio Morandis simple gray and earth-toned paintings of still-life objects seemed completely out of tune with the work of his era... especially the grand-scaled, heroic, and explosive works of Abstract Expressionism. Today, however, he is one of the most admired painters of the Post-War era... a true "painter's painter."


 :Smile: 



Among the artists wanting to capture the honest truth of their world one must pre-eminently include Van Gogh, and his "social realist" period culminated in The Potato Eaters. But then he transcended realism with the discovery of color, and its expressive possibilities.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Their paintings were clearly rooted in the Romanticism of William Blake, Medievalism, and the techniques and appropriate subject matter of painting as then taught in academia. 
> 
> The question of whether an artist is reactionary or revolutionary, of course, is not an immediate measure of artistic merit. William Blake was both reactionary and revolutionary and has had far more impact upon artists into the 20th century than he did upon his immediate peers or successors. Giorgio Morandis simple gray and earth-toned paintings of still-life objects seemed completely out of tune with the work of his era... especially the grand-scaled, heroic, and explosive works of Abstract Expressionism. Today, however, he is one of the most admired painters of the Post-War era... a true "painter's painter."


Well, we may create many theories. I am very far from that but I prefer to look at paintings and the themes. For example, I have found the same themes in painters involved in occult. Second, Greek/Roman mythology themes were painted through centuries. Today, we find strange fascination with demons. Well, not only in paintings but in music.

As a one of example is Qlimax That gathers 30.000 young people indoctrinated into demons and dark side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArVnBOqSD3Q




We even have Adamu: Luciferian Tantra and Sex Magick written by Micheal Ford.

http://www.amazon.com/Adamu-Luciferi.../dp/1411690656



But dark angels that I posted on my previous post is quite intriguing. With dark angel goes angel of death. 




> The Book of Abramelin tells the story of an Egyptian mage named Abramelin, or Abra-Melin, who taught a system of magic to Abraham of Worms, a German Jew presumed to have lived from c.1362c.1458. The system of magic from this book regained popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries due to the efforts of Mathers'' translation, The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage, its import within the Hermetic Order of the Golden Down, and later within the mystical system of Thelema (created in 1904 by Aleister Crowley).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Crown_Princes_of_Hell


In the literature,kabbalistic symbol of Leviathan Samael (the angel of death, prosecutor, seducer, the spirit of destruction), who would be killed in the future.

Knowledge of this angel is derived from Talmudic, Kabbalistic and Gnostic literature.

----------


## Cioran

Apparently for ftil, everything to do with the visual arts (and probably all other arts as well) has to do with the occult. This a terribly limited and tedious way of "understanding" art.

----------


## ftil

I thought about different theories that try to explain art. Interestingly enough, when I look at paintings and the interpretation there is such a contradiction as words don't match with the paintings. Well, I strongly believe that art is not a left brain activity..... Renaissance magicians agree, particularly Bruno and Ficino that art can't be understood by rational mind.

A short review of prof. Ioan P. Culianos, Eros and Magic in the Renaissance may explain it.




> Ficino, the most prominent of the Renaissance magicians, employed a
> curious synthesis of astrology, divination and Kabbalah in his work-keeping
> allegiance with the humanist ethos of his day. According to Culiano, Marcilio
> also seemed to be a precursor of modern day psychologists, being fully aware of
> such things as Freudian projection, the Jungian concept of anima/animus
> (female and male counterparts in our psyches) and more importantly how images
> impress upon the unconscious mind, thus altering the behavior of the
> individual, often times against their will. When images enter through the eye
> and into the soul of a person, according to Ficino, they are changed into
> ...



Ficino in his Book of Life explained three monsters to our intellect. Food, sleep, and sex but he called sex the first monster. It is common knowledge what alcohol or lack of seep do to our mind but I have never thought about sex. A very clever way to keep people dumb.





> The first monster is sexual intercourse, especially if it proceeds even a little beyond one's strength; for indeed it suddenly drains the spirits, especially the more subtle ones, it weakens the brain, and it ruins the stomach and the heart no evil can be worse for one's intelligence. For why did Hippocrates judge sexual intercourse to be like epilepsy, if not because it strikes the mind, which is sacred;' and it is so harmful that Avicenna has said in his book De animali-bus: "If any sperm should flow away through intercourse beyond that which nature tolerates, it is more harmful than if forty times as much blood should pour forth."~o it was with good reason that the ancients held the Muses and Minerva to be virgins. That Platonic saying has relevance here: When Venus threatened the Muses that, unless they celebrated the rites of love, she would send her son armed against them, "the Muses answered,
> 'Venus, threaten Mars with such things, your Cupid does not fly among us.'
> "
> Finally, nature has placed no sense farther from intelligence than touch.

----------


## JCamilo

> What today is called post-modernist art is clearly quite different from modernism, contains a good deal of figuratism as well as an air of irony, detachment, self-referential parody and other characteristics not found in modernism. My point, however, is to contest the notion that these kind of changes somehow _devalue_ modernism.
> 
> A Mondrian that seems to fit the season:


I do not think Mortal is saying post-modernism - purely an chronological accident - will devalue modernism. I think he is saying all XX century art will be devalued and then "selected" by an aesthetic shift. Which is pretty much natural.

----------


## stlukesguild

Apparently for ftil, everything to do with the visual arts (and probably all other arts as well) has to do with the occult. This a terribly limited and tedious way of "understanding" art.

It also ignores the fact that a deep interest in the occult is a rarity among major artists. Most of the figures that ftil has put forth, including:

Carlos Schwabe:



Anna Razumovskaya:



Wojtek Siudmak:



Andrew Atroschenko:



Michael Hussar:



H.R. Giger:



Vladimir Kush:



Jean-Baptiste Valadie:



Ferdinand Knopff:



Bradley Platz:



Emile Fabry:



Alexandre Seon:



Elihu Vedder:



Jean Deville:



... are very minor figures within the tradition of Western Art History. You cannot engage in a dialog in which you make sweeping statements about the proliferation of the imagery drawn from the occult, Masons, Gnosticism, the Templars, the Illuminati, or what have you and then attempt to illustrate of prove your point by employing nothing other that obscure and minor figures. I have some 120,000+ files or images of paintings saved to my hard-drive... and yet with the exception of Deville, Schwabe, and Knopff, I had to go on line for images of all the painters you have listed. You could "prove" nearly any far-out theory by employing a similar methodology. I could "prove" that Western Art was dominated by homo-eroticism simply by entering "homo-erotic art" into a Google image search. And hell, my theory would hold up better than your notion of the predominance of the occult on art (and the use of art in the manipulation of the masses). I'd at least have Michelangelo, Leonardo, Caravaggio, and Francis Bacon... some major painters... to reinforce my point. Most of the artists you have cited (above) are minor figures having had little or no impact upon the tradition of art... or illustrators/low-brow painters. Admittedly, I have stated that I am intrigued with the so-called "low-brow artists"... but largely because they offer a challenge to the increasingly pretentious, esoteric, and inaccessible art championed by certain circles of the "art world." Most "Low Brow Artists" (like artists in any other realm) are mediocre at best. A good many, like Michael Hussar and H.R. Giger are little more than kitsch illustrators for an audience with a passion for the darker side of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre. 

I prefer to look at paintings and the themes.

That is fine for you. A good many look at art first and foremost for the subject matter. When asked what sort of art they like, they might respond "landscapes" or "religious paintings" or "mythological paintings". You, however, are making assumptions about artists and their intentions and it may serve you well to come to some understanding of how artists look at art. While the formal university art degree demands that the art student be somewhat well-read as well as knowledgeable of art and art history, this was not always so. The Renaissance ideal of the artist who is also well-read, knowledgeable of literature, poetry, history, mathematics, science, philosophy, theology, religion, etc... is quite rare. Even in the instance when an artist fits this Renaissance ideal, in most instances the artist is first and foremost a visual being. Artists are looking... at the visual world around them and at the tradition of Art History in which they labor. Most artists I know are not researching esoteric religions, Gnosticism and the occult. I doubt that Michael Hussar was researching anything more than the images on heavy metal record albums and science fiction and horror books and films.

----------


## stlukesguild

I do not think Mortal is saying post-modernism - purely an chronological accident - will devalue modernism. I think he is saying all XX century art will be devalued and then "selected" by an aesthetic shift. Which is pretty much natural.

But I think that Mortal does assume that the vast majority of the most admired masters of Modernism and Post-Modernism are little more than a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. The majority of all art is mediocre and undoubtedly time will begin to sort things out... and perhaps in ways that we, living now, would not have imagined. Abstract Expressionism, which was virtually unassailable 20 or 30 years ago has now undergone a degree of re-evaluation. Most critics will now admit that a lot of the glowing praise that surrounded the movement was overblown hyperbole. I doubt few today would suggest that Pollock or Rothko or Motherwell were equals to... let alone greater than Picasso or Matisse. At the same time, we now recognize that there were other artists at that time including Morandi, Giacometti, Francis Bacon, Dubuffet, and Andrew Wyeth that were producing a stunning body of work that was sadly ignored then. Hell, who in the 1930s or 1940s could have even imagined that Duchamp would be seriously placed alongside Picasso and Matisse by the late 20th century? But the rise of Conceptual Art led to a need for a founding father... and Duchamp was the clear choice. 

Having said this... it's easy to make a vague statement like "the pendulum in is motion and change is afoot." Art will always involve change and evolution... but how do you assume which direction this change will take us? Those who predicted a return to figurative art at the height of Abstract Expressionism were quite right... but I doubt that they imagined that this return to figurative art would look like Pop Art. Right now there are many pushing for what is being loosely called the "New Old-Masterism". A great many private ateliers are springing up where students can develop the traditional skills of drawing and painting. I suspect much of this is in response to the obscene costs of a university art degree that often ends in the students having learned let alone mastered almost no marketable skills let alone the ability to draw or paint (or sculpt, etc...) as they desire. But will this lead to a new "realism" akin to that of the 19th century French and British academies? Undoubtedly some will take this route... but others will recognize that we don't live in the 19th century... that the visual world around us is market by different light sources, different colors, different fashions, different objects, etc...

----------


## JCamilo

Well, a pendullum can only go back and forth. I guess Mortal feels or wants a return of classicism or at least more traditional style. I do not know, but then, it makes sense if we consider Mortal preferences. 

Yes, as you saw by my examples - comic books and video games (I should have added movies too) - i do think a tendecy for classical style is reflected on market. The question "this is art" or "what is art" seems exausted, probally as much the romantics felt the enlightment model was exausted. 

Since i consider modernism and even know, a romantic decline, yet, romanticism, i guess we are closing a cicle towards classicism again. Usually classical artist organize multiple cultures in one, the fragmentaded, multi-cultural society of today seems to be needing this kind of solution.

But of course, it Mortal guess is a good as any. You know, in 100 years, they may say you two are from the same movement, like Voltaire and Rousseau.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> It also ignores the fact that a deep interest in the occult is a rarity among major artists. Most of the figures that ftil has put forth, including:


LOL! Nice try to misinterpret my posts. I guess you are out of ammunition.  :FRlol: 

I think that I have already posted Carlos Schwabe and Belgian occult symbolism video here. 
For your convincence.

*Carlos Schwabe - Occultist Symbolism II* 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_X4dCtMuFY


*Jean Deville - Belgian Occultist Symbolism I*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54IeQWD7QHI


*Emile Fabry - Belgian Occultist Symbolism IV and last.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNnN2PtW1bg




> Jean Delville (19 January 1867, Leuven  1953) was a Belgian *symbolist painter, writer, and occultist*. In 1896, he founded the *Salon dArt Idealiste, which is considered the Belgian equivalent to the Parisian Rose & Cross Salon and the Pre-Raphaelite movement in London.*
> 
> Delville became committed to spiritual and esoteric subjects during his early twenties. In 1887 or 1888 he spent a period in Paris, where he met *Sâr Joséphin Péladan, an eccentric mystic and occultist*, who defined himself as a modern Rosicrucian, descended from the Persian Magi.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Delville



Alexandre Seon, Elihu Vedder and Fernand Khnopff were members of Rose &Cross Salon.

*Fernand Khnopff - Belgian Occultist Symbolism III* 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b81TYTQva0g

But you have forgotten about a few painters I have posted. 





> *Siegfried Zademack, Gravity drive Angel Engel # 146 in Galery
> *
> http://www.zademack.com/html/00index.htm
> 
> 
> More of his paintings
> 
> http://www.tuttartpitturasculturapoe...2-germany.html
> 
> ...





> You, however, are making assumptions about artists and their intentions and it may serve you well to come to some understanding of how artists look at art.


Shaw me where I make assumptions about artists and their intentions! How many times I need to repeat that I dont make assumptions. I also never make interpretations. Please dont confuse me with your own postsfull of interpretations.




> I doubt that Michael Hussar was researching anything more than the images on heavy metal record albums and science fiction and horror books and films.


LOL! His art is full of occult symbolism.......he put unintentionally.

----------


## stlukesguild

But of course, it Mortal guess is a good as any. You know, in 100 years, they may say you two are from the same movement, like Voltaire and Rousseau.

I get to be Rousseau! :Smilewinkgrin:

----------


## stlukesguild

LOL! Nice try to misinterpret my posts. I guess you are out of ammunition.

My point was that you are using certain artists to illustrate your ideas about the proliferation of the occult in modern art... but the artists you have cited are all minor figures at best. Pull out the standard texts on the history of Western Art and you are not going to find any of the artists you have listed. Simply posting more images of Deville, Schwabe, and Fabry is not going to change that fact.

----------


## Cioran

My own view is that painterly art is increasingly going to be informed by, and to some extent merge with, technology. Already for years one has been able to use applications like Photshop to create stunning art (and also mediocre art). I can foresee (as mentioned earlier) video merging with paint. I can see immersive 3D virtual reality environments -- some of them creating aritifical worlds, others, perhaps, making 3D recreations (perhaps even with sound, movement and other interaction) of the great works of the past, like the Sistine Chapel.

There is also the rise of 3D printing. Amazingly enough, in the sad era of Newtown and the deranged NRA, it is now possible to use a 3D printer _to print a gun that fires real bullets._ Happily, I can foresee other, more benign uses of this technology, such as the merger of painting with sculpture, and the merger of both of them with virtual reality.

As time goes be, easel painting may come to be seen as entirely passe, an old "luddite" art form that has outlived its usefulness. Should that happen, it may inspire a backlash among the Luddite Easel Painters Alliance, who not only will insist on preserving the obsolete art form, but perhaps taking it back to its pre-photographic roots -- to a more realistic, classicist conception, and leaving the razzmatazz to the techno-artists. So ironically painting may come full circle but for unexcpected reasons. 

All of the above are speculations, of course, but they do not seem too implausible.

----------


## Cioran

> LOL! His art is full of occult symbolism.......he put unintentionally.


There you go. Fitl's next tactic will be to claim that occultism informs ALL art, _whether the artist knows it or not._ It may be unintentional, but it's there!

Ftil evidently believes occultism is the key to reality. How boring.

----------


## ftil

> LOL! Nice try to misinterpret my posts. I guess you are out of ammunition.
> 
> My point was that you are using certain artists to illustrate your ideas about the proliferation of the occult in modern art... but the artists you have cited are all minor figures at best. Pull out the standard texts on the history of Western Art and you are not going to find any of the artists you have listed. Simply posting more images of Deville, Schwabe, and Fabry is not going to change that fact.



You have absolutely no idea why I posted occult painters. It is not good to try to sit in somebodys head.  :FRlol: 


I remember that you didnt like Andrew Atroschenko but what about this painting.

Robert Coombs, Almost Sundown.

----------


## Cioran

Trite.

----------


## Cioran

In addition to real or imagined occult symbolism, fitl seems to prize in the visual arts a refined, academic technique; prettiness (or is that pettiness?) and cheap, saccharine sentimentality. There is plenty of kitsch art around to satisfy those sugar cravings; others of us crave something more substantial.

----------


## mortalterror

> I do not think Mortal is saying post-modernism - purely an chronological accident - will devalue modernism. I think he is saying all XX century art will be devalued and then "selected" by an aesthetic shift. Which is pretty much natural.


Thank you, JCamilo. That is sort of what I was saying. There are some overrated and underrated artists right now at the very least, and a great many excesses which will be considered poor taste in future generations. My personal hunch is that Kiefer and Mondrian will not age as well as others. I am hoping that Stanislaw Szukalski will overtake Henry Moore, Jorge Gonzalez Camarena will outpace Mondrian, and Gottfried Helnwein will overtake Anselm Kiefer. Then Edward Hopper for Paul Klee, Tamara de Lempicka for Mark Rothko, Werner Tubke for Jaspar Johns, Franz Marc for Georges Braque, Odd Nerdrum for Sean Scully, etc.

----------


## Cioran

Well, a lot of these pairings are odd. Edward Hopper for Paul Klee? Hopper is already esteemed highly, and his place is secure. Several of his works are timelessly iconic. But his and Klee's art really bear no comparison. Klee's reputation is also secure, and I have no doubt it will continue to be so. Same odd pairing with Jorge Gonzalez Camarena and Mondrian. It seems a real apples-and-oranges comparison. Several others, the same. The reputations of Rothko, Braque (co-inventor with Picasso of Cubism, no less) and Johns are secure. Why is it necessary to think in terms of such competitions, as though art were a race or a sporting event? Particuarly when people like Hopper and Klee were playing different games? It's like asking who would win a game between the New York Yankees and the Boston Celtics.

----------


## stlukesguild

ftil... you seem to like to to look at art through the lens of certain academics... Giordano Bruno and Marsilio Ficino among them... as well as through the filter of Art Therapy. I'll offer you some thoughts by various acadmics/theorists/philosophers with regard to the issue of "beauty".

I personally agree that certain traditional concepts of "beauty" were somewhat eclipsed during the 20th century. Part of this is due, no doubt, to the very real horrors of the 20th century: WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the genocides of Stalin and Mao, the looming threat of nuclear obliteration. Of course one might point out that in past eras there were events just as horrendous, and yet art did not take on an overwhelmingly dark look. The "Black Death" and the Spanish Inquisition, for example, resulted in some bleak and horrific images such as these two paintings of The Triumph of Death...





... still a great majority of the art of thixs period looked more like this:





Logically, much of this is due to the fact that for better or worse, by the mid 19th century it was the artists and not aristocratic of clerical patrons who were dictating the subject matter of painting... and as many of the most influential artists lived through one of more of the horrors of these recent centuries, we should not be surprised that their art was impacted by these events. 

At the same time... there were aesthetic philosophies at play that also impacted the eclipse of traditional "beauty" in Modern art. The art historian, Wendy Steiner, explores these in some detail in her book, _Venus in Exile_. Among the influences touched upon, there is the writing of Edmund Burke and Emmanuel Kant. Burke offered up a theory of two opposite strains of "beauty". On the one side is "beauty"... that which evokes pleasure... the highest being sexual. Thus the beauty of the female body (assuming a male audience at this time) was considered the greatest beauty. On the opposite end of the spectrum is that art which inspires fear... "shock and awe"... the greatest fear being that of death. Art which spoke of this was defined as the art of the "sublime".

Kant built upon this dichotomy. He suggested that those subjects which are inherently beautiful... pretty flowers, a sunset over a lush landscape... and of course a beautiful woman... had the ability to short-circuit the (again male) audience's ability to judge them intellectually on aesthetic terms. The emotions and passions (especially love, desire, and lust) inspired by the image of a beautiful woman... especially the nude... were recognized as likely to overwhelm man's rational thought and ability to judge art as art. 

Theorists who followed Kant pushed the idea further. They linked the rejection of traditional beauty with the misogynistic ideas that were rampant as a result of the increasing demands by women for equal rights as well as the ideas of Freud concerning sex. This was further linked with the Romantic ideas of the artist as an outsider... a visionary... a Bohemian... almost a prophet... in contrast to the Bourgeois and ideas of domesticity... which centered upon women. The architect, Adolf Loos, wrote a manifesto entitled _Ornament and Crime_ in which he dismissed the decorative and the beautiful as only worthy of the lesser thinking of women. His concepts on architecture would impact the Bauhaus and architects such as Mies van der Rohe... and combined with kick-backs from manufacturers, this would result in a lot of the bland, faceless modernist architecture of the latter 20th century. Bauhaus painter, Joseph Albers, would have a similar impact on later American painting through his role as a professor at Yale.

In spite of this, there is plenty of truly traditionally "beautiful" art to be found in the 20th century:

Renoir (active into the 20th century; died 1919)



Matisse:



Modigliani:



Raoul Dufy:



Sonia Delaunay:



Elie Nadelman:



Gustav Klimt:



George Bellows:



John Singer Sargent:



Edouard Vuillard:



Pierre Bonnard:



Claude Monet (active well into the 20th century; produced some of his most influential "water lilies" murals in the 20th century; died 1926)



Edgar Degas (active into the 20th century although declining eye-sight led him to focus mostly on sculpture in his last years; died 1917)



Balthus:



Maillol:



You will notice not a single artist here is a minor or obscure figure.

So let's return to Robert Coombs and Andrew Atroschenko:



Speaking of Atroschenko, who I deemed pure schlock, you responded, "You may call Atroshenko's paintings pure schlock. I like this painting as I appreciate beauty." Believe it or not, I actually appreciate "beauty" as well... and I suspect the others here who have admitted to an admiration for some of the knottier works of Modernism also appreciate "beauty" as well. The debate is about how beauty functions in art. 

My own paintings would likely be recognized by many as quite "beautiful" by traditional standards. I'm a figurative painter, and my figures are accurate to a great extent... based on an understanding of anatomy... but not "realistic" in the academic sense...closer to William Blake or the artists of the early Italian Renaissance. I tend to employ a harmony of bright colors, a great deal of pattern and gold leaf so that the results are unabashedly decorative. My most important influences range from Persian miniatures, Japanese Ukiyo-e prints, Byzantine, Medieval, and early Renaissance painting, tapestries, Ingres, Gauguin, Bonnard, Modigliani, early Picasso, Matisse, Klimt, Alphonse Mucha, Balthus, Beckmann, and Robert Kushner... with an increasing element of Pop and Post-Pop-Art influenced satire and irony. 

My favorite artists of the 20th century, Matisse, Bonnard, Modigliani, and Max Beckmann certainly created some of the most beautiful paintings. Along with these artists, a list of my favorite painters would include Michelangelo, Peter Paul Rubens, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Degas, Raphael, Titian, Veronese, Ingres, Giovanni Bellini, Giorgione, Fra Angelico, Fra Filippo Lippi, Botticelli, and a slew of others who almost anyone would recognize as having produced a wealth of the most "beautiful" paintings. Even if we were to turn to Abstract Expressionism, I would have to admit that my favorite Abstract Expressionist painting is the most sensuous and resplendently colorful painting of the entire era: Arshile Gorky's "The Liver is the ****'s Comb" (The title added after the fact by the French Surrealist poet, Andre Breton):



I say all this to make it clear that I am not "anti-beauty". The problem I have with paintings by Atroschenko is that which Kant feared: the subject may be beautiful... but the art... what the artist brought to the subject is not. The average _Playboy_ centerfold is "beautiful". The girl is likely stunning. The setting and lighting carefully chosen. The satin and lace and velvet fabrics are chosen with the eye of a fashion designer. But the photographer really brings nothing to the subject that leads the viewer to be impressed by the art as much as one is by the subject. Atroschenko, to my eye, handles paint miserably. I am reminded of any number of paintings of Spanish bullfighters and Señoritas sold in bargain furniture stores across the US. His colors are garish and he lacks any sensitivity to touch... let alone originality or sense of composition.

Having said that, let's look at a similar artist, Serge Marshennikov:









The subject matter is no less "trite" ( a pretty girl in pretty clothes) than that employed by Atroschenko... but then many a masterpiece has been produced from the most "trite" subject. Marshennikov, however, has an undeniable facility with paint. Few artists, myself included, wouldn't envy his technical skill. But Marshennikov is more than just a good technician. He has a strong eye for composition and a sensitivity to color harmonies. I'd have no problem with acknowledging that he is a damn good painter... even if his work is not to my taste. The one area in which I find his work lacking is in the realm of what is often referred to as "originality". Marshennikov's paintings lack a unique artist's "voice". They look like paintings by so many other technically skillful, academic realists. I have no problem with the fact that the subject is trite. There is a time and place for visual bon-bons. The greatest artists can bring a unique voice to their bon-bons so that they stand out for the works of everyone else:



-Francois Boucher



-Jean-Honoré Fragonard



-Anders Zorn



-Peter Paul Rubens

When looking at Art... the beauty must lie in the Art... not merely in the subject matter. Quite honestly, there is far more artistic sensitivity and "beauty" in the works of a skillful pin-up artist like Gil Elvgren, than in the paintings by Atroschenko:



(And I cannot help but love the tongue-in-cheek parody of Fragonard)

----------


## stlukesguild

There are some overrated and underrated artists right now at the very least, and a great many excesses which will be considered poor taste in future generations. My personal hunch is that Kiefer and Mondrian will not age as well as others. I am hoping that Stanislaw Szukalski will overtake Henry Moore, Jorge Gonzalez Camarena will outpace Mondrian, and Gottfried Helnwein will overtake Anselm Kiefer. Then Edward Hopper for Paul Klee, Tamara de Lempicka for Mark Rothko, Werner Tubke for Jaspar Johns, Franz Marc for Georges Braque, Odd Nerdrum for Sean Scully, etc. 

Well... we can all play that game. I suspect Duchamp, Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Yue Minjun, and Tracey Emin are all grossly overrated. Jorge Gonzalez Camarena is interesting... but quite honestly, I feel the whole of Latin-American Modernism is grossly undervalued, and the Mexican Muralists... especially Diego Rivera... deserve far more recognition. Franz Marc vs Braque? They strike me as being about equally admired. The same holds true of Nerdrum and Scully. Neither one is struggling. I just don't get Tubke... and haven't seen many others who do... on the other hand, Helnwein's reputation seems to be on the upward swing, yet comparing the Romantic tragedy of Kiefer's battered elegies to Helnwein's polished, photo-realistic satire and irony may prove quite difficult.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> ftil... you seem to like to to look at art through the lens of certain academics... Giordano Bruno and Marsilio Ficino among them... as well as through the filter of Art Therapy.


LOL! I dont. How many times I need to tell you that. Dont try to sit in my headits serious problem. Very serious indeed. :FRlol: 

BTW, your choice of art inspired me to look deeper at painters. Too many ugly paintings. So, blame yourself for bringing such an ugly art. Second, I was very curious why you were fixated on nudity as you posted nude women on many threads. It led me to renaissance magicians and occultists. Thanks to you.  :Smile5: 





> I'll offer you some thoughts by various acadmics/theorists/philosophers with regard to the issue of "beauty"


Hmmyou assuming that I dont appreciate beauty or I dont know what beauty is. I don't want to be sarcastic but don't you think that it is ironic that you want to show me  beauty.

You didnt say anything about Robert Coombs painting I have posted. I am curious what you think.

----------


## Cioran

I already told it her was trite, but then, she has me on Ignore.  :Smilewinkgrin: 

Such wonderful educational work Stlukesguild is doing here, and it is met by sneers and mockery from ftil. A typical Internet message board experience.  :Crazy:

----------


## Cioran

"Too many ugly paintings," ftil says. And there is the point, which I raised earlier: for ftil, beauty in art is _prettiness._ Sorry, pretty is not enough, not for great art.

I wonder what ftil thinks of this:

----------


## Cioran

Atroschenko's stuff is trite squared, and no doubt hugely commercially successful.

----------


## Cioran

> [COLOR="#B22222"] I feel the whole of Latin-American Modernism is grossly undervalued, and the Mexican Muralists... especially Diego Rivera... deserve far more recognition.


My impression is that Diego Rivera has quite a bit of recognition, but I feel you are right about Latin-American modernism in general being grossly undervalued. Some astonishing work there. A whole museum devoted to it in southern California, from which I had a huge book of the paintings in the museum, sent to me as a Christmas present. I lost it on the New York subway.  :Sad:  Not before I had thoroughly immersed myself in it, happily.

----------


## stlukesguild

I don’t know what annunciation has to do with holiday season.

The Christmas Season traditionally involved the telling of the "Life of the Virgin" from her marriage, the Annunciation, the Visitation, on through the Birth of Christ, King Herod, and the Flight into Egypt. This cycle of narratives was a counterpart to the Life of Christ and the Passion which tended to be told during the Easter Season. These two related cycles were often painted as a cycle of paintings.

Having said this... let us return to the Christmas Season themed painting... moving further into the 20th century:

There were a number of artists we might truly define as Christian or Religious Artists. One of the first names to pop into my head when seeking out Modern artists who might have painted the Nativity or other Christmas-related themes was Georges Rouault. Rouault painted a great many paintings on Biblical themes, and even has a painting in the collection of the Vatican. Delving through his work... which often has the appearance of weather-beaten stained glass windows... I found that almost all of his paintings on Biblical themes centered on Christ as the "Man of Sorrows" and the "Passion" and Crucifixion:





The next artist whose name immediately came to mind, was Emil Nolde. Nolde was a personally and politically quite conservative. he grew up on a farm and was raised as a devout Lutheran. He joined and exhibited with both of the radical German Expressionist groups, _Die Brücke_ and _Der Blaue Reiter_ but he was eventually expelled or left both of these groups – foreshadowing of the difficulty Nolde had maintaining relationships with the organizations to which he belonged. His paintings often explored Christian or Germanic myth and legend. Nolde was a supporter of the Nazi party from the early 1920s, having become a member of its Danish section. He expressed negative opinions about Jewish artists, and considered Expressionism to be a distinctively Germanic style. In spite of this Nolde was also one of the first and most audacious of the German Expressionists... and as such he was particularly targeted by Hitler and included in the Degenerate Art exhibition of 1937, despite protests of various high-ranking Nazis, notably Joseph Goebbels. He was forbidden to paint—even in private—after 1941... on penalty of death. Nevertheless, during this period he created hundreds of watercolors (which didn't have the tell-tale odor of oils), which he hid. He called them the "Unpainted Pictures".

One of Nolde's greatest works is a great polyptych or multi-paneled painting... a sort of Expressionist "altarpiece" entitled _The Life of Christ_.



Among the individual panels, is a painting of the _Nativity_ in which Mary joyfully holds the newborn child aloft while Joseph smiles and in the distance the three magi can be seen. The simple forma and brilliant color convey the narrative in a manner as fully accessible as a Medieval sculpture.



In contrast to Nolde's image of the Virgin as joyful mother, we might look at the image of the _Madonna_ as presented by the Norwegian Expressionist, Edvard Munch:



Munch was obsessed with mental illness and death, having witnessed almost all of his siblings die or slip into madness. He declared "I inherited two of mankind's most frightful enemies—the heritage of consumption and insanity." His rather Bohemian sexual appetite and fear of syphilis (combined with his alcoholism and preference for reading darker works of literature) only furthered his fear of women. Munch spoke of his goal as painting the soul just as Leonardo painted the anatomy. His _Madonna_ with her halo clearly alludes to THE Madonna... but this red glowing halo also suggests a bloody red mood. The point of view is that of the male artist looking up at his lover astride him, her head thrown back and eyes closed in orgasmic ecstasy... and yet she appears almost as a Vampire or Succubus... the woman who brings death in the form of Syphilis... or further generations of consumptive and mentally ill children.

The third artist who I immediately thought of in terms of painters of religious subjects, was Marc Chagall. Chagall, a Jewish Russian painter working in France produced an endless array of magical and mystical images drawn from Biblical narratives. As a Jewish artist, most of his paintings, unsurprisingly, centered upon the narratives of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless... Chagall did paint some Christian narratives:



His images of Jewish brides often suggest the Virgin Mary in a landscape populated with animals out of Jewish folk tales that talk and sing and play instruments and fly.



A few other works are clearly based on Christian narratives. The print, _Mystical Crucifixion_ presents a vision of the crucified Christ and the Virgin Mary and Christ child hovering above a Russian Jewish shtetl that might have been little different than the stables at Bethlehem. Flying above all is Yahweh... God the Creator. 



In the painting The Assumption of the Virgin, Mary rises... again from a shtetl into the heavens... to the great joy and acclaim of the Hebrew Angels and attendant farm animals. She is dressed in her wedding gown... and yet holds the baby Christ-child. From directly above her an angel descends to kiss her forehead in a manner merging Jewish and Christian traditions.

Moving into the mid-20th century I found it near impossible to find any paintings of real merit illustrating the Christmas narratives. Then again... "narrative" itself became a anathema at this time in painting. Artists like Mark Rothko suggested that abstraction could have a spiritual nature... but this was removed from the specifics of religion and religious narratives. 

Sean Scully, building on the tradition of Rothko, gave his paintings names that alluded to specific religious/spiritual narratives... such as _Gabriel:_



Interpretation of these paintings in connection with the titles is left open-ended and up to the individual viewer. Does the gray and white allude to the silvery wings and robes of the angel of the annunciation? Doe the brown and black ladder-like panel suggest Jacob's Ladder and the man's wrestling with God? 

And what of _Maestà_?



Duccio's _Maestà_ was the masterpiece of the early Renaissance (International Gothic) in Siena:





The work was a sculptural multi-paneled altarpiece in the round made up of dozens of paintings telling of the Life of Mary and the Life of Christ. The center front panel presents the Virgin Mary as the Madonna... mother of Christ and Queen of Heaven seated in majesty... from which the title derives.

Scully's painting undoubtedly refers more to Duccio's painting than it does to the subject of the Virgin. Considering the title, the black and white stripes of Scully's painting suggest the similar stripes of the cathedral of Siena:





The last... almost contemporary variation on Biblical narratives related to Christmas are admittedly disconcerting. The first is entitled _Adoration of the Magi_.



The painter, the Austrian Gottfried Helnwein offers a disturbing image rooted in Austria's and Germany's not-so-distant past. A beautiful blonde Madonna... the Aryan ideal... holds forth her newborn son who appears quite like an infant Hitler. She is surrounded my the "magi" or high-ranking Nazi officers. One cannot help but recognize the satirical comment upon the almost religious fanaticism that the Nazis inspired. 

Another pair of untitled paintings from 2005 strike me as alluding (even if unintentionally) to the theme of the Annunciation:



In the first painting, a young girl stares out at us as she sits on her bed in a stark cell-like room akin to those often portrayed in paintings of the Annunciation. A raking light enters the room.. not unlike the light that accompanies the entry of Christ as he calls forth Matthew in Caravaggio's Calling of St. Matthew:



... or in Henry Ossawa Tanner's _Annunciation_, which I posted earlier in this thread.

In the second similar painting from this series the young girl is confronted with a vision:



Hers is not the vision of the Angel Gabriel, but rather that of a rather nightmarish rabbit in a general's robe. He glows and seems blurred in a manner suggestive of the flickering images on a TV screen. Are dreams such as these what we have come to?

----------


## stlukesguild

I wonder what ftil thinks of this:

A marvelous Picasso... brutal... almost violent in his handling of paint and clash of colors and jagged lines. And yet incredibly expressive of the fear and horror and suffering of WWII... and ultimately quite beautiful.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> The Christmas Season traditionally involved the telling of the "Life of the Virgin" from her marriage, the Annunciation, the Visitation, on through the Birth of Christ, King Herod, and the Flight into Egypt. This cycle of narratives was a counterpart to the Life of Christ and the Passion which tended to be told during the Easter Season. These two related cycles were often painted as a cycle of paintings.


Hm I didnt know that it involved the telling of the Life of the Virgin. I guess there are so many sects that claim to be Christian and create own versions.  :FRlol:

----------


## Cioran

> Hm I didnt know that it involved the telling of the Life of the Virgin. I guess there are so many sects that claim to be Christian and create own versions.


Wow, stluksguild is giving you, gratis, such an education, and all you can do is sneer like a churl and repeatedly employ your stupid LOL smilie. Sad. And crazy.  :Crazy:

----------


## Cioran

> I wonder what ftil thinks of this:
> 
> A marvelous Picasso... brutal... almost violent in his handling of paint and clash of colors and jagged lines. And yet incredibly expressive of the fear and horror and suffering of WWII... and ultimately quite beautiful.


Yes, exactly. Ftil, unfortunately like so many others, conflates _prettiness_ in the visual arts with _beauty._ But beauty is _not_  prettiness. Beauty is _expressiveness_ and _originality_ and _authenticity._ In the visual arts, true beauty is that which _challenges you_ -- same with all the other arts. The ax the breaks the frozen sea, as Kafka had it. 

Ftil prefers visual wallpaper. Banalities to lull one into insensibility like a stiff drink combined with a tranquilizer. Of course try that combo too many times and you go to sleep for good.

One of the most beautiful paintings ever made is the Potato Eaters. It's just not _pretty._

Thanks for your good work here, stlukesguild, it is a pleasure to read, and I thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge about art.

----------


## JCamilo

Beauty has nothing to do with originality or authenticity. I do not know what you mean by expressiveness, but I am guessing it may not be something that beauty must have. True beauty neither challenges anything. Most beauty is banal and you step over it without even nodding.

----------


## Cioran

> Beauty has nothing to do with originality or authenticity. I do not know what you mean by expressiveness, but I am guessing it may not be something that beauty must have. True beauty neither challenges anything. Most beauty is banal and you step over it without even nodding.


Whatever.  :Yawn: 

Of course, I'm not talking about "beauty" as a general concept. I'm talking about beauty in the visual arts. 

I do not know how I could be clearer, or where your confusion lies. ftil (probably you, too) likes pretty art. Pretty art is wallpaper art, designed to deaden the mind with visual banalities.

I hold, as does stlukesguild, that Picasso's Weeping Woman is _beautiful_ -- even though, like Van Gogh's Potato Eaters, it is also _jarringly ugly._ Can you understand that? Can you understand how something, in the visual arts (also the other arts) can be both beautiful and ugly -- indeed, can be beautiful precisely because it IS ugly? 

I doubt it. But do let me know.

As to expressiveness, see stlukesguild's passage on the personal expression of the artist, the need to put his stamp, his signature, on a work. 

Authenticity: See the early works of Van Gogh, especially, when he was striving to be a social realist painter, a painter of the peasants around him. See, in fact, The Potato Eaters, for a paramount example of _authenticity_ in the visual arts. Van Gogh was reproached, even by his own brother, for this painting, for its titanic ugliness (and also for alleged bad drawing). Contrast this painting with the _prettified idealizations_ of peasant life of other painters, including, to some extent, even Millet, Van Gogh's idol. Authenticity means the artist was trying to express something REAL about his life, and the lives of those around him, and not _idealize_ it. 

I'm baffled I even have to explain this stuff.

----------


## Cioran

Beautiful!

----------


## JCamilo

Sorry, but I have no confusion. It seems to me that you are the one who likes pretty art, except you think you like prettier than ftil. I have no idea where I even said what kind of art I like - yet you just tried to define it. A bit too much assumptions from your part about me. 

Frankly, I find Picasso impressive. He is awesome. I do not need to call him beautifully ugly. This is just the notions that art must be beautiful so what is completely contrary to it, so let's accept it. You are completely missing Picasso if you have to adjust a traditional notion of beauty to explain why his works have such impact. 

Now, let me explain: artists needing to have their personal mark on works, what you call expressiviness, is not beauty. Beauty is not the object, beauty in arts is the impact on the public, on the audience. It is a manifestation. That is where "beauty" manifests. Yet, still very mundane. Beauty in visual arts, in all arts, is the manifestation of the artwork, not the artwork. Artworks can be expressive? Sure. But that is one way, one element of art, not of beauty. 

Authenticy? Again you confuse the artwork - mostly one style of art - with beauty. How silly is to claim authenticy is trying to express something real (all art express something real and about the author life) and how ridiculous is too say Van Gogh does not idealize. You just admire plain realism and if we accept the only art is the kind of representation of the mundane, so what about Michelangelo extremelly idealized heroes? Does he lacks authenticity? An artwork, an artist may need this authenticity, but beauty? Beauty just is. No explantion, no rules, no need to be authentic. Beauty just happpens, all the time, ready to surprise us on the next corner. 

And originality, good luck trying to explain this one. Near Stlukes, who dislikes the naive romantic version of orginality and is a borges's fan. And yet, this is the artwork, beauty can be copied - it is - a hundred times, used, tossed on the ground. Beauty happens everyday. 

Be carefull. You just didn't stop to think that baffled you. Not your explanations (which explained why your romantic notions can be so wrong, only this).

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> [COLOR="#B22222"]...The next artist whose name immediately came to mind, was Emil Nolde. Nolde was a personally and politically quite conservative. he grew up on a farm and was raised as a devout Lutheran. He joined and exhibited with both of the radical German Expressionist groups, _Die Brücke_ and _Der Blaue Reiter_ but he was eventually expelled or left both of these groups  foreshadowing of the difficulty Nolde had maintaining relationships with the organizations to which he belonged. His paintings often explored Christian or Germanic myth and legend. Nolde was a supporter of the Nazi party from the early 1920s, having become a member of its Danish section. He expressed negative opinions about Jewish artists, and considered Expressionism to be a distinctively Germanic style. In spite of this Nolde was also one of the first and most audacious of the German Expressionists... and as such he was particularly targeted by Hitler and included in the Degenerate Art exhibition of 1937, despite protests of various high-ranking Nazis, notably Joseph Goebbels. He was forbidden to painteven in privateafter 1941... on penalty of death. Nevertheless, during this period he created hundreds of watercolors (which didn't have the tell-tale odor of oils), which he hid. He called them the "Unpainted Pictures".
> 
> ....Scully's painting undoubtedly refers more to Duccio's painting than it does to the subject of the Virgin. Considering the title, the black and white stripes of Scully's painting suggest the similar stripes of the cathedral of Siena:



Ha, a couple of days ago I was considering offering up Nolde as an example, but had to do the dishes or some other domestic chore.
Anyhow, Nolde is featured in a book I have on the Vatican Museums. I believe there's another Nolde painting regarding the Adoration of the Magi.

The Duomo of Siena is breathtaking, the moment I entered, my legs became weak and felt the need to immediately sit down for a moment to take it in.


btw- another interesting stop in Siena is the Basilica of San Domenico. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilic...menico_(Siena)

Inside you will find the relic of Saint Catherine, as in... her head!
The head is located in the side chapel dedicated to Saint Catherine.
The chapel includes works by Il Sodoma and Francesco Vanni.


Cioran,

Just a friendly suggestion to a newcomer, be careful with the size of the images you post, otherwise you might get your palms whacked with a 12 inch rule by Sister Mary Catherine.
The standing rule is to use thumbnails.

----------


## Cioran

> Sorry, but I have no confusion. It seems to me that you are the one who likes pretty art, except you think you like prettier than ftil. I have no idea where I even said what kind of art I like - yet you just tried to define it. A bit too much assumptions from your part about me. 
> 
> Frankly, I find Picasso impressive. He is awesome. I do not need to call him beautifully ugly. This is just the notions that art must be beautiful so what is completely contrary to it, so let's accept it. You are completely missing Picasso if you have to adjust a traditional notion of beauty to explain why his works have such impact. 
> 
> Now, let me explain: artists needing to have their personal mark on works, what you call expressiviness, is not beauty. Beauty is not the object, beauty in arts is the impact on the public, on the audience. It is a manifestation. That is where "beauty" manifests. Yet, still very mundane. Beauty in visual arts, in all arts, is the manifestation of the artwork, not the artwork. Artworks can be expressive? Sure. But that is one way, one element of art, not of beauty. 
> 
> Authenticy? Again you confuse the artwork - mostly one style of art - with beauty. How silly is to claim authenticy is trying to express something real (all art express something real and about the author life) and how ridiculous is too say Van Gogh does not idealize. You just admire plain realism and if we accept the only art is the kind of representation of the mundane, so what about Michelangelo extremelly idealized heroes? Does he lacks authenticity? An artwork, an artist may need this authenticity, but beauty? Beauty just is. No explantion, no rules, no need to be authentic. Beauty just happpens, all the time, ready to surprise us on the next corner. 
> 
> And originality, good luck trying to explain this one. Near Stlukes, who dislikes the naive romantic version of orginality and is a borges's fan. And yet, this is the artwork, beauty can be copied - it is - a hundred times, used, tossed on the ground. Beauty happens everyday. 
> ...


This is just such a muddled mess of histrionics that I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

I will say, from what little sense that I can glean from this obtuse rant, that you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Van Gogh and Michelangelo, and of course you misconstrue what I say, either deliberately or out of ignorance, perhaps both. No one was more authentic than Michelangelo. So now I suppose I shall have to explain authenticity in terms of the context of its times. Or ... not. I don't have stlukesguild's estimable patience in suffering fools.

stlukesguild is a fan of Borges? Good for him! Do you find that bad? 

Honestly, not that I care.

BTW, Van Gogh ADORED Michelangelo. As do I.

----------


## ftil

> Ha, a couple of days ago I was considering offering up Nolde as an example, but had to do the dishes or some other domestic chore.
> Anyhow, Nolde is featured in a book I have on the Vatican Museums. I believe there's another Nolde painting regarding the Adoration of the Magi.
> 
> Inside you will find the relic of Saint Catherine, as in... her head!
> The head is located in the side chapel dedicated to Saint Catherine.
> The chapel includes works by Il Sodoma and Francesco Vanni.


The Cathedral of Siena is quite interesting. We may find there Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He..._cathedral.jpg


Or, wheel of fortune.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...la_fortuna.jpg

----------


## Cioran

> The Cathedral of Siena is quite interesting. We may find there Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He..._cathedral.jpg
> 
> 
> Or, wheel of fortune.
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...la_fortuna.jpg


LOL, more idiot occultism. And before that a post by JCamilo which appears to have been typed while under the influence.


Too bad it's so hard to have meaningful discussions on the Internet. They always get hijacked by ... well, I won't even say; probably to do so would break a rule here

----------


## JCamilo

> This is just such a muddled mess of histrionics that I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.


Look, if you are going to hide behind Stlukes, keep quiet. Your attempt to impose vallues such as expressiviness, originality or authenticity as the definition of beauty just because you like them is not the kind of argument he would have here. But if you are going to be obnoxious calling other fools, you better present something useful. "BTW, Van Gogh ADORED Michelangelo. As do I" is just a histerical rant for footballing fans. Of course, someone who just claimed an artist didnt idealize something is just not thinking much of his own muddled mess to even grasp what others are talking.

----------


## miyako73

My God, this thread is active.

Aren't all paintings expressive and authentic if their painters actually paint them? Even if I piss on a canvas and peddle it a painting, it is expressive of my intent and yes, authentic because I use my own piss.

I took several art studies courses, and in each course, I saved my spit by sticking to my mantra: beautiful paintings comfort me amid the ugliness in the world that disturbs, and ugly paintings discomfort me amid the beauty in the world that quiets. Both keep me sane and balanced.

----------


## JCamilo

I suppose one can have an unexpressive pissing, but since it is something real, about your life it is really the authentic pee.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> The Cathedral of Siena is quite interesting. We may find there Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He..._cathedral.jpg
> 
> 
> Or, wheel of fortune.
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...la_fortuna.jpg


Yes; a couple more of many examples of wonderful art within the Cathedral, some of which I do remember (I was there in January of 1998)

Just a minor point of clarification though; the part of my message you quoted regards the other church I referenced that being the Basilica Saint Domenico which is also in Siena. i.e.- Catherine's head is at the Basilica not the Cathedral. 




> LOL, more idiot occultism. And before that a post by JCamilo which appears to have been typed while under the influence.
> Too bad it's so hard to have meaningful discussions on the Internet. They always get hijacked by ... well, I won't even say; probably to do so would break a rule here


In this instance, I chose to take ftil's message as simply pointing out a couple more beautiful works found inside the Cathderal.

Unfortunately I did not see the Piccolomini Library or the Baptistry, if I had it is likely I would have been taken out on a guerney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siena_Cathedral - scroll down about 2/3 of the page.

.

----------


## ftil

> In this instance, I chose to take ftil's message as simply pointing out a couple more beautiful works found inside the Cathderal.




You are free to choose what you think and I would be the last person to convince you otherwise. I wasnt focusing on the art though but on the fact that we may find Hermes Trismegistus and sphinx in catholic cathedral.

----------


## miyako73

another thing:

I thought Postmodernism has successfully blurred the division between high and low art/literature/culture. If it hasn't, many years then have been wasted by scholars in colleges and universities pretending that the meaningful use of the theory as pacifist is applicable.

----------


## JCamilo

The division is blurred and rebuild constantly, I would say. Just see here, the division between more academic members, the snobs, the harry potter fans, the piss in the painting fans, the anti-joyce brigade, the conspiracy terrorists, etc. And in the past, we had academics like Dante breaking the line, but with time, turning into a division by itself.

----------


## miyako73

JC, is there a new theory now (that I don't know) that constructs what has been deconstructed? Or is it simply the attempt to go back to modernism or to the structuralist construction of knowledge?

----------


## JCamilo

I am not on academy (I guess someone like OrphanPip would know), but I do think, beyond the theorical world, there is attempts to recover from the last 50,60 years of artistc challenges. As I said to Stlukes, the question "what is" the dominated the production in the last decades seems to have exausted the capacity of producing anything interesting. I think, guys like Stlukes, who vallue the technique necessary to produce an artwork ahead of the impact caused on the system may lead on. I may be wrong, because prophecy is always closer to failure than success, but high technology that is dominating some fields seems to be leading back to the "art" in artesian in a way.

----------


## stlukesguild

Before addressing some of the issues here, I'll point out that JCamilo is writing with English as a third (?) language after Portuguese (Brazil) and Spanish. 

OK... now let's try to make some sense of this. JCamilo writes: artists need(__) to have their personal mark on works, what you call expressiveness, is not beauty. 

Agreed. And I spoke of this with regard to the painter Serge Marshennikov:



I suggested that his paintings were indeed quite beautiful... but fell short in that they lacked a strong personal voice.

Beauty is not the object, beauty in arts is the impact on the public, on the audience. 

OK... I take this as suggesting that "beauty" is something along the lines of what Oscar Wilde intended when he wrote, "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." Or simply put... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" To a certain degree, I concur. The failure to appreciate James Joyce or Richard Wagner or Picasso... or as I have admitted with regard to myself: Chinese Opera... is not a failing on the part of the artist, but rather a failing on a part of the audience. But is this always so? Is there no good nor bad but thinking makes it so? All judgments in art are subjective... but some judgments are better than others?

When I suggested that Serge Marshennikov's paintings... in spite of their failing in terms of personal style or self-expression or unique artist's voice... were still "beautiful" I suggested that I was speaking of an aesthetic or artistic concept of "beauty". The paintings conveyed a facility... even a mastery of handling paint. The choice of colors were elegant and harmonic. His sense of composition is quite solid. The paintings display an internal logic. Now are we really to suggest there is no possible objective concept of "good" or "bad" when speaking of the structure and form and internal logic of a work of art? Are there not poems that are clearly awkward, disjointed, poorly written? Are there not works of music that strike you as flawless... and yet boring... not because of some failure in form or "beauty"... but because they lack the artist's voice?

It is a manifestation. That is where "beauty" manifests. Yet, still very mundane. Beauty in visual arts, in all arts, is the manifestation of the artwork, not the artwork. Artworks can be expressive? Sure. But that is one way, one element of art, not of beauty. 

OK... I can buy that. "Beauty" is not the goal (or always the goal) of art... but it is an element of art. And if we accept Burke's notion of beauty as that which inspires or evokes pleasure, then "beauty" is a necessary element of art... or rather if we don't find a work of art pleasurable/beautiful we are not likely going to appreciate it. I rarely find Schoenberg beautiful because he rarely gives me pleasure... but I find Berg... and even Tristan Murail and Giacinto Scelsi beautiful/pleasurable. 

In confronting ftil's notions of the lack of beauty in 20th century art, I was attempting to point out that there can be a beauty in that which inspires fear or sadness or angst or other negative emotions when these are given an artistic form: Burke's "Sublime"... but that there remains much in Modern art that is quite "beautiful" in a traditional sense. 

Or such are my thoughts. Defining "beauty" is surely like defining "art". Far better men than we have struggled with the questions... and largely failed.

----------


## miyako73

I find JC's arguments reasonable.

As far as appreciation of visual arts is concerned, everything boils down to the personal taste and interpretation of a viewer. For example, I find the painting above beautiful not because of the colors, forms, sharpness, etc, but due to the narrative I get and the "sub-images"--the ones we do not directly see that can be about the subject or the painter--that pop up in my head. You can question how I see things, but that's me--I see a watermelon as someone's labor.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> In confronting ftil's notions of the lack of beauty in 20th century art, I was attempting to point out that there can be a beauty in that which inspires fear or sadness or angst or other negative emotions when these are given an artistic form: Burke's "Sublime"... but that there remains much in Modern art that is quite "beautiful" in a traditional sense.


Well, paintings evoke feelings and paintings or images can manipulate how we feel. I talked about ugliness in modern art that is pervasive. Do you remember our discussion on your art thread where you tired to convinced me that I didnt understand artthe art that was absolutely ugly. 

Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no. You have shown a few artists on your art thread I have shown a few masters of ugliness here but the list is quite long. 

BTW, you write about Serge Marshennikov's again. 

I have asked you twice what do you think about Robert Coombs' painting I posted. It was not nudity.Is it a reason you have been avoiding it?  :FRlol:

----------


## JCamilo

> I suggested that his paintings were indeed quite beautiful... but fell short in that they lacked a strong personal voice.


Yes. His technique is perfect. I can see how in a world today, it is missing something. It is cold. It is telling so little. Maybe my failure to appreciate, but we can move on. Neither you and me try to define beauty by the authenticity of an artwork. 




> OK... I take this as suggesting that "beauty" is something along the lines of what Oscar Wilde intended when he wrote, "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." Or simply put... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" To a certain degree, I concur. The failure to appreciate James Joyce or Richard Wagner or Picasso... or as I have admitted with regard to myself: Chinese Opera... is not a failing on the part of the artist, but rather a failing on a part of the audience. But is this always so? Is there no good nor bad but thinking makes it so? All judgments in art are subjective... but some judgments are better than others?
> 
> When I suggested that Serge Marshennikov's paintings... in spite of their failing in terms of personal style or self-expression or unique artist's voice... were still "beautiful" I suggested that I was speaking of an aesthetic or artistic concept of "beauty". The paintings conveyed a facility... even a mastery of handling paint. The choice of colors were elegant and harmonic. His sense of composition is quite solid. The paintings display an internal logic. Now are we really to suggest there is no possible objective concept of "good" or "bad" when speaking of the structure and form and internal logic of a work of art? Are there not poems that are clearly awkward, disjointed, poorly written? Are there not works of music that strike you as flawless... and yet boring... not because of some failure in form or "beauty"... but because they lack the artist's voice?


Yes, because we know beauty is one element for art, not all of it. What often happens in the debate is that different artists or movements try to define Beauty by the internal logic of their work. They are not going to be wrong - as the artist needs the notion of what beauty he is doing, but obviously, one rule for Beethoveen another for AC/DC. (As I would say, the it is not a judgment of vallue  :Biggrin:  ). So many fields happened because many have been able to spot the rules that worked so well for them and could not accept it was not universal. It is like there is Beauty and beauty. 

I do not take all from the artist. The artist is trying to tell what is his vision, to give his message. He try to manipulate the audience. But since beauty in art is the result of that aesthetic momment it cannot be anything but the momment when the momment happens. In a way the artist is always there. Not out. I just would not call failures. 




> OK... I can buy that. "Beauty" is not the goal (or always the goal) of art... but it is an element of art. And if we accept Burke's notion of beauty as that which inspires or evokes pleasure, then "beauty" is a necessary element of art... or rather if we don't find a work of art pleasurable/beautiful we are not likely going to appreciate it. I rarely find Schoenberg beautiful because he rarely gives me pleasure... but I find Berg... and even Tristan Murail and Giacinto Scelsi beautiful/pleasurable.


Yes, I would just not use the word pleasure. It is not always it. It can be painful as Miyako suggested. There must be some impact. 




> In confronting ftil's notions of the lack of beauty in 20th century art, I was attempting to point out that there can be a beauty in that which inspires fear or sadness or angst or other negative emotions when these are given an artistic form: Burke's "Sublime"... but that there remains much in Modern art that is quite "beautiful" in a traditional sense.


Yes, obviously. Divinity is both terrible and beautiful. But maybe, the thing is that art objective is too provoke that aesthetic emotion able to persuade us to revive emotions and experiences as if they are real and that was called Beauty. But this Beauty was just confuded with harmnoy, the perfect of forms, the physical beauty, true. Would be better maybe allure. 

I think ftil is doing an mistake: he is too worried with the use of artworks. It is not that is false that artworks were used for political reason. Or occultists. Or shoes salesman. Or doctors. Or Jung. Sure. But that only mean something casual about that artwork. Nothing much important. 




> Or such are my thoughts. Defining "beauty" is surely like defining "art". Far better men than we have struggled with the questions... and largely failed.


Oh, certainly. I am certainly vague enough. I do not think beauty and art - or the world - i meant to be in a dictionary. The discussion of what is art, what is beauty, goes well to a uncertain territory.

----------


## JCamilo

> I find JC's arguments reasonable.


I am reasonable, just not in english  :Biggrin: 




> As far as appreciation of visual arts is concerned, everything boils down to the personal taste and interpretation of a viewer. For example, I find the painting above beautiful not because of the colors, forms, sharpness, etc, but due to the narrative I get and the "sub-images"--the ones we do not directly see that can be about the subject or the painter--that pop up in my head. You can question how I see things, but that's me--I see a watermelon as someone's labor.


Yes, Art is always gambling with the perspective. I guess Stlukes worries is that his view is not the view of an uninteressed viewer, more of a critic, maybe to think where it will go or what he can use. I guess he is not against the watermellon, just wondering if it is sweaty and nutritive.

----------


## stlukesguild

I thought Postmodernism has successfully blurred the division between high and low art/literature/culture. If it hasn't, many years then have been wasted by scholars in colleges and universities pretending that the meaningful use of the theory as pacifist is applicable.

Modernism was blurring the boundaries far before the term Post-Modernism even existed. Picasso suggested that true art was produced in the same manner in which the Aristocrats of the Italian Renaissance produced their children: through a merger of the low-born and the high. Look at this painting:



With Realism and Impressionism in the late 19th century there was already a push toward art which explores "low" culture. 





Degas was looking at the bars, nightclubs, cheap diners and cafes, and even the brothels for subject matter for his paintings.







By the time of the Post-Impressionists, a mass-produced, commercial art form such as the poster was already being recognized as a work of real art.



As were book illustrations.







By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, you could find major "fine artists" working on such commercial ventures as poster design.



With Cubism we find the abandonment of the notion that a painting must be an illusion of visual reality and the recognition that a painting is essentially an organization of colors, shapes, lines, etc... on a flat surface. By this definition, a painting need not even be made wholly of paint. The artist may incorporate elements drawn from the "real world"... even from the world of mass-production and popular culture.





Taken further... the entire image might be made of the detritus of our mass-produced culture.



The German Expressionists often drew inspiration from sleazy nightclubs and jazz music.



George Grosz even employed the techniques of comic books and children's "doodles" in the production of art.





Max Beckmann is one of the most interesting painters, populating hi canvases with an almost surreal mix of "high" and "low": Wagnerian heroes, Greek and Persian warriors, African totems, Biblical references... as well as cigarette girls, jazz performers, acrobats, waiters from high-class Berlin hotels, bellhops, actresses, etc...



With the onset of Pop Art, the line between "high" and "low" became ever more blurred. Robert Rauschenberg built assemblages of the detritus of the urban American streets.









Hollywood, Rock Stars, Pin-Ups and Pornography, Anime... virtually any aspect of popular culture became fair game for art.

But the divide between "high" and "low" still exists. It has little to do with subject matter, imagery, or even the media... and everything to do with the context and perceptions.





There isn't a huge world of difference between R.Crumb's comics... which a critic as esteemed as Robert Hughes compared to Pieter Bruegel... and the late comic-book derived paintings of Philip Guston. They both share the same satirical intentions. But Guston's works are exhibited in major galleries and museums and sell for millions... while Crumb depends upon the mechanization of the mass-media to sell to a large mass audience.





There is even less of a gap between an artist like Andy Warhol and Shepard Fairey. Both employ the technique of mass-production, using silk screens and employing laborers to realize their images. Both employ imagery drawn from popular culture. Warhol's works, however, are marketed within the context of the high-end "fine art" market for very very large sums of money... and Fairey's works are not. 

Within the larger art world there is a growing recognition that great art can rise from anywhere... from the untrained folk artist, from popular culture, from smaller regional art markets... or from the context of the high-end "art world"... but only the latter can demand the astronomical prices... and as such their is a concerted effort to maintain the illusion of a clear separation between "high" and "low".

----------


## miyako73

It can be argued that the "blurring" of boundaries in modernism is actually the mere juxtaposition of binaries that is structuralist. It only compares and contrasts. 

The "blurring" in postmodernism is more of deconstructing. Instead of just placing black and white side-by-side, it aims to construct gray.

----------


## JCamilo

It is not even. Before XX century, the folklorists already melted all. Even before it. Perrault, Fontaine were writing fables and faery tales. Chaucer or Bocaccio came to oral traditions. 

In XX century, Yeats was collecting oral tales. Joyce is low brown with comic books reference and all. Here in Brazil, Heitor-Villa Lobos used the native music to make classic music. I would say, American and Brazilian music melted the boundaries oftenwhile. With Movies, we have Chaplin. 

The thing is politically, in XX century it is important to blur the boundaries. So, much fireworks for something that always happened.

----------


## miyako73

Oh! An eighteenth century poet in my country mixed local oral literature with classical literature (Greek mainly) in his works. I did not see that as a postmodern way of blurring things.

----------


## stlukesguild

Well, paintings evoke feelings and paintings or images can manipulate how we feel. I talked about ugliness in modern art that is pervasive. Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no(t). 

Yes... you have repeatedly made this argument. I have admitted that there are many Modern paintings that art dark or deal with "ugly" or "unpleasant" subject matter. Now unless you wish to look at the world through candy-colored lenses, you should recognize that it is somewhat logical that artists would respond to the various instances of ugliness and even horror with an art that isn't "pretty". _Hamlet_ isn't "pretty". Dante's _Inferno_ has elements that are quite ugly... horrible even. Should artists all turn their eye away from Auschwitz or WWII and simply pretend they didn't occur? I share a studio with an artist who imagines that only tragedy and pain and suffering are worthy themes of art. I find this no less absurd than the notion that only art that evokes "positive" feelings is of any value. 

You have shown a few artists on your art thread I have shown a few masters of ugliness here but the list is quite long. 

The two problems that I have with your argument... that ugliness is pervasive in Modern art... are:

1. Your definition of "ugliness" with regard to art is surely quite different from that of many others (as discussed above).

2. I have illustrated any number of major artists whose works are quite "beautiful" by traditional terms. You have only illustrated the "predominance" or "pervasiveness" of "ugliness" in art with examples primarily of artists of little or no real importance in the history and tradition of art. 

BTW, you write about Serge Marshennikov's again. 

I have asked you twice what do you think about Robert Coombs' painting I posted. It was not nudity.Is it a reason you have been avoiding it?

I mentioned Marshenikov again in context with the concept of art that is "beautiful"... even well painted/composed... yet lacks a strong personal artist's "voice" for the simple reason that I had gone into some detail on this concept earlier using Marshenikov as an example. I might just as well cited Henk Helmantel:







Although, honestly, I'd rather look at a beautiful nude woman than a bunch of still-life objects any day. 

Having said this... Giorgio Morandi is still a better painter than Marshenikov... or Robert Coombs. Coombs is better than Atroshenko... but if you really like work along this line, look at Daniel Gerhartz:









Not to my taste. Too much of a schmaltz-laden pastiche of late 19th century French Academicism... but very well done schmaltz. :FRlol:

----------


## Cioran

> Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no.


You're wrong!  :FRlol: 

Well, that was succinct, anyway, and I got to use fitil's favorite smilie.  :Wink:

----------


## miyako73

Cioran, I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly. Even though I find some disgusting images beautiful, still I cannot question his way of viewing things. The totality of one's experience influences his way of seeing and thinking; thus, his interpretation of a certain painting can be unique and solely his own--unless he hops on the bandwagon.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> I mentioned Marshenikov again in context with the concept of art that is "beautiful"... even well painted/composed... yet lacks a strong personal artist's "voice" for the simple reason that I had gone into some detail on this concept earlier using Marshenikov as an example. I might just as well cited Henk Helmantel:




You still avoid making comments about Robert Coombs' painting. The reason that I have asked your opinion about that painting is the fact that "Almost Sundown" won American National Award of Excellence. To my delight, there are painters who appreciate beauty.

Robert was also awarded the $10,000 Grand Prize at the Raymar's First Annual Fine Art Competition for "First Leaves of Autumn".

When the painting depicts beauty words are absolutely unnecessary. When painting depicts ugliness and evokes disturbing feelings and negative energy....words are necessary to convince the viewer about…… artistic merits.  :FRlol: 

It is nothing else but brainwashing because words don’t math with the paintings.  :Wink: 

* Robert Coombs, Almost Sundown*

http://www.danagallery.com/opa/opa055.html

----------


## Cioran

> Cioran, I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly.


Sure, I can. Just look at her (I believe ftil is female) most recent post.

We know what ftil likes. Kitsch. Pretty pictures. Art that does not challenge, but rather numbs. That's fine as a matter of personal taste. I think it's unfortunate that her taste is so limited, her view of art so blinkered, but perhaps she can't change that. But, in the context of this thread, ktil goes far beyond that and presumes to pass judgement on whole bodies of art as if there were some objective truth about her blinkered, narrow view of art.

----------


## Cioran

> You still avoid making comments about Robert Coombs' painting. The reason that I have asked your opinion about that painting is the fact that "Almost Sundown" won American National Award of Excellence.


Ftil has me on Ignore. We know why. Ftil doesn't like to be challenged by art, and she doesn't like to have her views challenged, either. 

So I invite someone to ask ftil about this "American National Award of Excellence" that she deems so valuable. Who sponsors this award? And -- crucially -- _what is the mission of the sponsoring group?_

I supply a LOL in advance ----->  :FRlol: 

Not that there is anything wrong with a group devoted to "the preservation of representational art." But please, let's not pretend that, say, Coombs' painting was competing for a prize against modernist and post-modernist artists, or non-representational artists, and was deemed to be superior to all those other speciemens, because in fact all those other specimens were _ruled out in advance_ for receving this "award" of "excellence."

I hope someone will point this out to ftil.  :Wink: 

 :FRlol:

----------


## Cioran

About this beauty/ugliness business:

To me, in art and life, beauty is not the opposite of ugly. If ugly has an opposite, at least in the fine arts, it would be the _pretty,_ not the beautiful.

And there's nothing necessarily wrong with pretty pictures, either, like those of Coombs. It's a surgar diet, and everyone enjoys a little sugar from time to time. Unfortunately, if all you like is sugar, your diet is ... wanting.

Picasso's Weeping Woman, which I posted earlier, has a jarring, even cataclysmic effect, upon viewing. It's not pretty. Is it ugly? Is it beautiful? Is it somehow both?

And here is where a little visual education comes in handy. The truth is, whether some people would like to admit it or not, those who have studied art, and who have created art, can see stuff in a painting that others will miss. And in fact there is great technical beauty, great mastery, in the Picasso portrait. Indeed there is a wealth of stuff inside that one painting to study and savor, just for their specifically painterly innovations.

----------


## miyako73

I don't use "pretty" to describe a work of art. I use "beautiful" because I can also use it in relation to the narrative the image conveys.

The most beautiful image to me that has everything in it--culture, sociology, philosophy, poetry, religion, sex or the absence of it, fantasy and illusion, and many more is this by David Nebreda:

tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg

Others will find me and my selection strange. Well, you have to have the same experience I have before you can call it beautiful. Will I question your taste if you don't appreciate the image? NO.

----------


## Cioran

> I don't use "pretty" to describe a work of art. I use "beautiful" because I can also use it in relation to the narrative the image conveys.
> 
> The most beautiful image to me that has everything in it--culture, sociology, philosophy, poetry, religion, sex or the absence of it, fantasy and illusion, and many more is this by David Nebreda:
> 
> tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg
> 
> Others will find me and my selection strange. Well, you have to have the same experience I have before you can call it beautiful. Will I question your taste if you don't appreciate the image? NO.


And, as I just *explicitly stated*, I am NOT questioning anyone's "taste" in art. What I am questioning is ftil's apprent desire to make her personal (limited, blinkered) taste in art an objective value, a normative judgment about what art is or should be. 

I've also noted in a prior post that it's perfectly possible to appreciate the value of art that one does not like. This does not seem to be something ftil is able to do. In my own case, I mentioned Renoir. I appreciate the artistic value of Renoir's work. It's just not work I like looking at, because it's not to my own taste. But one should be able to separate matters of personal taste from objective worth.

----------


## miyako73

Why do you belittle the works of Coombs? I find this painting very impressive. He used texture beautifully to evoke memory and melancholia.

5834_307004m.jpg

----------


## stlukesguild

I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly. Even though I find some disgusting images beautiful, still I cannot question his way of viewing things. The totality of one's experience influences his way of seeing and thinking; thus, his interpretation of a certain painting can be unique and solely his own

What you are arguing for here is a cultural relativism: "Its all relevant. There is no such thing as good or bad art, but thinking makes it so."

Even by such a standard in which we suggest that all opinions concerning art are subjective, some opinions are better than others.

----------


## miyako73

You can call it whatever -ism you have. I'm okay with using logic. Watermelon to a produce vendor is a fruit, but to an African-American activist it is a symbol of racism. This shows experience framing viewing/thinking.

It can be Pavlovian too if I'll use conditioning in my argument.

----------


## stlukesguild

Watermelon to a produce vendor is a fruit, but to an African-American activist it is a symbol of racism. 

Yet it is still a fruit.

This shows experience framing viewing/thinking.

This was Duchamp's argument: context is everything. But ultimately context only proves to be everything to art that is wholly dependent upon said context. Tracey Emin's "Bed" is only a work of art within the context of the gallery system and art public that are willing to believe that A. Emin is an artist and B. Whatever the artist makes or says is art IS art.

Michelangelo's _David_ is still a work of art if it were placed in a parking lot.

----------


## Cioran

> Why do you belittle the works of Coombs? I find this painting very impressive. He used texture beautifully to evoke memory and melancholia.
> 
> 5834_307004m.jpg



Well, what did I actually say about Coombs? That I found his work to be "trite," which I do. Is that belittling his work? I suppose.

But you see, there is a more important issue here. So I will be happy to try to engage with you on it, or anyone else.

You ask me why I belittle the work of Coombs. But belittled relative to what? Is his work good or bad? If so, relative to what?

Suppose this painting you linked to were the only painting ever made. Then I'd be appreciative and a bit awed that for the first time in history, someone had magically used paint to create the face of another human, and gussied it up with some decoration to boot.

But, of course, it's NOT the only painting ever made, is it? Art, like everything, exists in a _context_ -- social, artistic, political, historical.

Before continuing, let me try to frame (heh) this art discussion differently. Suppose someone were to hand another person a random copy of the Readers' Digest and ask, "why do you belittle this?"

Well, does the other person belittle it? If it were the only book ever printed in human history, far from belittling it, I imagine that the other person would treasure it.

But, of course, it's not the only book ever written. We have the Readers' Digest in this corner. In this corner we have the complete works of 'Shakespeare. Now if person A who handed to person B the Reader's Digest were to ask a different question -- how do you rate the Readers' Digest in relation, to say, the complete works of Shakespeare? -- now this IS a different question, and there is likely to be a very different answer.

Surely there is some difference between the random Reader's Digest and the complete works of shakespeare? Or is there? I mean, they're both made of words, they're both printed on paper. Can we find no difference between them then?

----------


## ftil

> Cioran, I don't think you can question ftil's idea of what is beautiful or ugly. Even though I find some disgusting images beautiful, still I cannot question his way of viewing things. The totality of one's experience influences his way of seeing and thinking; thus, his interpretation of a certain painting can be unique and solely his own--unless he hops on the bandwagon.


I am not sure if you mentioned he referring to ftil or somebody else. Just in case if you meant me, I am a female.  :Wink5: 

I never interpret paintings. It is very different to interpret paintings and to try to sit in the artist's head and making assumptions what the painter meant than expressing opinion about the theme of the painting or feelings that the painting evokes.

I am not a painter and I don’t discuss the technique but I appreciate talent. But talent is not enough. There are many talented artist who create disturbing art. I have discussed a few of them on the art thread and my search into their personal lives was quite revealing.

Finally, not everybody is capable of experiencing beauty. It is really sad.

----------


## miyako73

> Watermelon to a produce vendor is a fruit, but to an African-American activist it is a symbol of racism. 
> 
> Yet it is still a fruit.
> 
> This shows experience framing viewing/thinking.
> 
> This was Duchamp's argument: context is everything. But ultimately context only proves to be everything to art that is wholly dependent upon said context. Tracey Emin's "Bed" is only a work of art within the context of the gallery system and art public that are willing to believe that A. Emin is an artist and B. Whatever the artist makes or says is art IS art.
> 
> Michelangelo's _David_ is still a work of art if it were placed in a parking lot.


I saw once a replica of David that pisses water in a garden. It was a water fountain.

Yes, like any painting, a watermelon is still a fruit but it has two different interpretations with two different points of reference.

If you really want to label my thinking as far as art criticism/appreciation is concerned, I'm more interested in Jung's collective unconscious, Frazer's cultural mythology, and Bodkin's archetypal patterns which, I believe, are what we all use in viewing an object. Some may like a painting with a lot of red in it because of their affinity towards the color that is meaningful to them. Others may hate a painting with a lot of black that symbolizes death. I do think archetypal criticism should have a place in visual/art studies, which is a field teeming with symbols, signs, and patterns.

----------


## Cioran

> Finally, not everybody is capable of experiencing beauty. It is really sad.


Such irony. You have revealed yourself to be foreclosed to veritable _continents_ of beauty. I agree, it really is sad. For you.

----------


## miyako73

> Finally, not everybody is capable of experiencing beauty. It is really sad.


Not everybody has the same experience and the same view about beauty, and that's great.

----------


## Cioran

> I saw once a replica of David that pisses water in a garden. It was a water fountain.
> 
> Yes, like any painting, a watermelon is still a fruit but it has two different interpretations with two different points of reference.
> 
> If you really want to label my thinking as far as art criticism/appreciation is concerned, I'm more interested in Jung's collective unconscious, Frazer's cultural mythology, and Bodkin's archetypal patterns which, I believe, are what we all use in viewing an object. Some may like a painting with a lot of red in it because of their affinity towards the color that is meaningful to them. Others may hate a painting with a lot of black that symbolizes death. I do think archetypal criticism should have a place in visual/art studies, which is a field teeming with symbols, signs, and patterns.


But, of course, liking and _evaluating_ a work of art can be two different things, don't you think?

----------


## miyako73

We can use "evaluating" too if you want. Some critics may evaluate an artwork focusing on psychology if they think of red as internal chaos. Others may evaluate an artwork focusing on (existentialist) philosophy if they think of black as existence in the abyss or in the void.

----------


## ftil

> Not everybody has the same experience and the same view about beauty, and that's great.


This is not what I meant but it is a big subject and off topic.

----------


## Cioran

Well, let me get back to Coombs. The problem here, of course, is that it actually is I (and stlukesguild and others) who DO appreciate "beauty" (which term I'll leave loose.) But here, ftil sets herself up as some Godlike arbiter, and with little or no liking or appreciation of much of the 20th century canon, she reproaches _us_ for lacking an understanding of beauty. And what is this beauty we do not understand? The work of Coombs, for example!

But, actually, I do understand the strengths of his painting. No doubt stlukesguild does too. The point, though, is that to suggest that Coombs somehow represents "true beauty" and is in some way _superior_ to so much of the 20th century canon that stlukesguild has reproduced here is the height of absurdity and arrogance. To return to my Reader's Digest analogy: It's not that Coombs's work is bad. Rather, it's that it is in the Reader's Digest domain, the Reader's digest comfort zone. And no further!

The other works that stlukesguild has reproduced and discussed are in the Shakespeare zone. And I believe this fact can be demonstrated fairly objectively.

Coombs's work is OK. It's just nowhere near enough. It stands to the masters as Reader's Digest stands to Shakespeare.

----------


## mortalterror

StLuke, you don't really like Takashi Murakami's work do you? That one you posted has to be his only decent piece. The rest is just garbage. If I needed to pick a Japanese artist working in the last hundred years I'd go with Hasui Kawase, Kasamatsu Shiro, Kobayashi Kiyochika, or Ito Shinsui over that bum. And as 20th century Chinese artists go Yue Minjun is hardly the creme de la creme. That would be Zhang Daqian. Meanwhile, Yuan Yunfu, Yuan Yunshang, and Zhu Danian are all contemporaries of Minjun who's works are modern without being so repetitious. And while we are celebrating art not produced in the United States or Europe in the twentieth century, how about a little love for Mario Toral, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and Josep Renau Berenguer (although technically Berenguer did spend much of his career in Europe, I think it's still safe to classify him stylistically with the Latin Muralists).

----------


## miyako73

This is not what I meant but it is a big subject and off topic.[/QUOTE]

It's not off topic. I'm responding to your myopic view about beauty. As I said, the most beautiful image to me is the image below because of its beautiful/meaningful narrative. As you have your own way of viewing things, I respect that. Do not impose your view. Do you want everyone to have the same view? That must be a one big boring world you have in mind. 


tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg[QUOTE=ftil;1195323]


I've tried staying neutral here, but it seems to me close-mindedness is used to evaluate something that is so open for many interpretations. There is a disconnect, I think.

----------


## Cioran

It may be worth mentioning Norman Rockwell, a great artist who so straddled (or obliterated) that rather arbitrary distinction between illustration and fine art.

Toward the end of his life (or so I have read, I believe in a New York Times article) he said that if he had to do it over again, he would have pursued the art of modernism.

Take it for what it's worth.

----------


## miyako73

> Well, let me get back to Coombs. The problem here, of course, is that it actually is I (and stlukesguild and others) who DO appreciate "beauty" (which term I'll leave loose.) But here, ftil sets herself up as some Godlike arbiter, and with little or no liking or appreciation of much of the 20th century canon, she reproaches _us_ for lacking an understanding of beauty. And what is this beauty we do not understand? The work of Coombs, for example!
> 
> But, actually, I do understand the strengths of his painting. No doubt stlukesguild does too. The point, though, is that to suggest that Coombs somehow represents "true beauty" and is in some way _superior_ to so much of the 20th century canon that stlukesguild has reproduced here is the height of absurdity and arrogance. To return to my Reader's Digest analogy: It's not that Coombs's work is bad. Rather, it's that it is in the Reader's Digest domain, the Reader's digest comfort zone. And no further!
> 
> The other works that stlukesguild has reproduced and discussed are in the Shakespeare zone. And I believe this fact can be demonstrated fairly objectively.
> 
> Coombs's work is OK. It's just nowhere near enough. It stands to the masters as Reader's Digest stands to Shakespeare.


You just proved my view about patterns. Coombs is just okay because it does not really fit within the patterns that are beautiful to you. Others have sets of patterns too lurking in their subconscious. Someone homely may like Coombs because the patterns she has in appreciating images involve womanhood, childhood, and motherhood.

----------


## Cioran

> You just proved my view about patterns. Coombs is just okay because it does not really fit within the patterns that are beautiful to you. Others have sets of patterns too lurking in their subconscious. Someone homely may like Coombs because the patterns she has in appreciating images involve womanhood, childhood, and motherhood.


No, I'm sorry, but this is not right. 

Are you a writer?

So, let me start over. Is there a difference between some random copy of the Reader's Digest and the collected works of Shakespeare? Or is it all just words on a page, and whether one is good or bad is just a matter of personal taste mixed in with patterns lurking from a person's subconscious?

----------


## stlukesguild

We can use "evaluating" too if you want. Some critics may evaluate an artwork focusing on psychology if they think of red as internal chaos. Others may evaluate an artwork focusing on (existentialist) philosophy if they think of black as existence in the abyss or in the void.

And we have others judging art with regard to art therapy, the writings of Giordano Bruno, concerns for the occult, etc... If I were to claim a critical foundation upon which I look at art it would owe most to _art pour l'art_ and Formalism. Formalism... especially Greenbergian Formalism... goes a bit too far, suggesting that a work of art is wholly self-contained. Contrary to the misinterpretation of _"art pour l'art"_ as meaning art solely about art... _"art pour l'art"_ is a concept that suggests value judgments concerning art should be made solely based upon formal artistic elements. In other words... questions of non-art issues such as theology, politics, morality, etc... should not be taken into consideration when judging a work of art. In the past, a work of art might be deemed "bad art" because it conveyed the "wrong" religious ideas or because it was immoral. The idea of _art pour l'art_ does not set about to suggest that we ignore political or social or theological issues raised by a work of art... only that these extra-art or external non-art issues should not have any bearings on the judgment of the artistic merits of a work.

If art exists in a context, the single most important context that it exists in is that of the history and tradition in which the work was created. The judgments that I have offered forth concerning specific works of art have been based first and foremost upon a grasp of art history and the tradition in which a given work of art was created. As Cioran suggests, opinions upon the relative merits of Robert Coombs may indeed differ... based upon experience of the viewer (which establishes a context in which the work is seen). I look at Coombs with the experience of a degree in art/painting including a great deal of formal and informal study of art history and the study of the actual art works in real life. I can tell you which artists he was likely inspired by/what tradition he works in... and as such I am able to make comparisons and value judgments. Within the context of the whole of art history, there are a great many artists... a great many working with similar formal issues/goals/intentions who are quite a bit better. 

T.S. Eliot, in his great essay, _Tradition and the Individual Talent_, argued that any work of art that will enter into the "canon" must struggle to earn this place in comparison with the other works of art. The work of an artist like Robert Coombs is not overly "original"... it clearly fits within a specific tradition and the work will be compared with that of the greatest artists working in that tradition. There is no reason why an artist today could not take it upon themselves to work in the style of Impressionism or Cubism... but they must realize that their work will not be valued as being overly original... and it most certainly will be measured against the finest achievements of the masters of Impressionism and Cubism.

----------


## miyako73

Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare. 

I found what your wrote until "absurdity and arrogance" reasonable. Then you wrote this:

"To return to my Reader's Digest analogy: It's not that Coombs's work is bad. Rather, it's that it is in the Reader's Digest domain, the Reader's digest comfort zone. And no further!

The other works that stlukesguild has reproduced and discussed are in the Shakespeare zone. And I believe this fact can be demonstrated fairly objectively.

Coombs's work is OK. It's just nowhere near enough. It stands to the masters as Reader's Digest stands to Shakespeare."

----------


## Cioran

And what do you find unreasonable about what I wrote?

----------


## JCamilo

> [COLOR="#B22222"]
> 
> If art exists in a context, the single most important context that it exists in is that of the history and tradition in which the work was created.


Well, I think we cannot tell the context will be more important (or if will be one). Iliad and Odissey were never appreciate due the context they were created. Mostly, it was appreciate as a classic of literature and not as a popular oral product that it is. And maybe, we can say the Mona Lisa has a different vallue because the context today is more significative than what Da Vinci planned for it. I would say, context alone is meaningless and great artworks usually carry a history of contexts. Everything has importance, just not the same importance. 

Anyways, I do not think miyako is defending that you do not have better or more important works. Just that something more simple in the lines of beauty appreciation is relative and you just cannot set fixed rankings for what is more beautiful. One about having experience and other about living an experience. Hence, no sharing of the watermellon.

----------


## stlukesguild

StLuke, you don't really like Takashi Murakami's work do you? That one you posted has to be his only decent piece.

Actually that piece is one of a series based on old Japanese screen paintings, Hokusai's "Great Wave" merged with contemporary Japanese anime. I agree that most of the rest is crap... as is the whole of Yue Minjun, whose work is little more than a single one-liner. I merely used these artists as examples of artists straddling the line between "high" and "low" art.

----------


## miyako73

> We can use "evaluating" too if you want. Some critics may evaluate an artwork focusing on psychology if they think of red as internal chaos. Others may evaluate an artwork focusing on (existentialist) philosophy if they think of black as existence in the abyss or in the void.
> 
> And we have others judging art with regard to art therapy, the writings of Giordano Bruno, concerns for the occult, etc... If I were to claim a critical foundation upon which I look at art it would owe most to _art pour l'art_ and Formalism. Formalism... especially Greenbergian Formalism... goes a bit too far, suggesting that a work of art is wholly self-contained. Contrary to the misinterpretation of _"art pour l'art"_ as meaning art solely about art... _"art pour l'art"_ is a concept that suggests value judgments concerning art should be made solely based upon formal artistic elements. In other words... questions of non-art issues such as theology, politics, morality, etc... should not be taken into consideration when judging a work of art. In the past, a work of art might be deemed "bad art" because it conveyed the "wrong" religious ideas or because it was immoral. The idea of _art pour l'art_ does not set about to suggest that we ignore political or social or theological issues raised by a work of art... only that these extra-art or external non-art issues should not have any bearings on the judgment of the artistic merits of a work.
> 
> If art exists in a context, the single most important context that it exists in is that of the history and tradition in which the work was created. The judgments that I have offered forth concerning specific works of art have been based first and foremost upon a grasp of art history and the tradition in which a given work of art was created. As Cioran suggests, opinions upon the relative merits of Robert Coombs may indeed differ... based upon experience of the viewer (which establishes a context in which the work is seen). I look at Coombs with the experience of a degree in art/painting including a great deal of formal and informal study of art history and the study of the actual art works in real life. I can tell you which artists he was likely inspired by/what tradition he works in... and as such I am able to make comparisons and value judgments. Within the context of the whole of art history, there are a great many artists... a great many working with similar formal issues/goals/intentions who are quite a bit better. 
> 
> T.S. Eliot, in his great essay, _Tradition and the Individual Talent_, argued that any work of art that will enter into the "canon" must struggle to earn this place in comparison with the other works of art. The work of an artist like Robert Coombs is not overly "original"... it clearly fits within a specific tradition and the work will be compared with that of the greatest artists working in that tradition. There is no reason why an artist today could not take it upon themselves to work in the style of Impressionism or Cubism... but they must realize that their work will not be valued as being overly original... and it most certainly will be measured against the finest achievements of the masters of Impressionism and Cubism.


I respect that St. Lukes, but you have to respect also why in some circles formalism is viewed as the standard postcolonial analysis must go against. If we use Western art history, movements, forms, theories, analyses, a lot of artists in developing countries will be ignored. Their art histories can only be traced back to modernism that is still either American or European-influenced. 

How will you then classify the Buddhist sculptures of India? If you will just use formalism, will you deny the fact that they have religious, cultural, and social contexts?

----------


## Cioran

Let me try again, though I realize in advance the futility of this. 

I can only say that people need an art education to speak on topics like this. Sorry if that sounds elitist, but anyone would realize the absurdity of discussing mathematics without having studied any math.

Coomb's art is safe, easy, unadventurous, non-original. It replicates a formula that has been used countless times. It takes no chances with form, line or color, it offers us nothing new. It does not challenge us to think. It does not try to expand our aesthetic boundaries. Rather, it borrows on a tradition, refines it to a safe comfortable level, and no doubt this is intentional as I'm sure the artist makes a fine living because the general public has simple tastes precisely because it is artistically uneducated. This problem goes back a long time, and it's always amusing to recall that Van Gogh, before he became an artist, briefly worked as an art dealer and actually tried to _dissuade_ people from buying some of the art on offer because he knew it was Reader's Digest style art. 

If you are a writer, which I'm judging from your signature, I'm at a loss to understand what you find so bad about my analogy. Shall we accept that a Shakespeare sonnet is not better or more important than a want ad, then?

The problem, too, is this use of the word "beauty," which is loaded and off the point, and also the recurring idea that one's personal tastes are all that matter, whereas I have repeatedly made the point that personal tastes can be divorced from solid artistic judgment.

----------


## Cioran

> I respect that St. Lukes, but you have to respect also why in some circles formalism is viewed as the standard postcolonial analysis must go against. If we use Western art history, movements, forms, theories, analyses, a lot of artists in developing countries will be ignored. Their art histories can only be traced back to modernism that is still either American or European-influenced. 
> 
> How will you then classify the Buddhist sculptures of India? If you will just use formalism, will you deny the fact that they have religious, cultural, and social contexts?


What we can do in this case is understand that there is a _pluralism_ of artistic histories and contexts, and we do not judge the art of Oceania, say, by the standards of abstract expressionism.

----------


## ftil

> It's not off topic. I'm responding to your myopic view about beauty. As I said, the most beautiful image to me is the image below because of its beautiful/meaningful narrative. As you have your own way of viewing things, I respect that. Do not impose your view. Do you want everyone to have the same view? That must be a one big boring world you have in mind.


LOL! How have I imposed my view upon you if you dont even know what I meant?  :FRlol: 

An interesting image you have posted....You may like Aubrey Beardsley's paintings. 

Interestingly enough, a cover for Salome has not penis as it was the original intention of the painter. 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salome_cover.jpg


Here is original.

http://www.wormfood.com/savoy/salome/138.html


Enjoy LitNet..... you will find members to talk.

----------


## miyako73

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

----------


## stlukesguild

Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare. 

I'm sorry but this is just pure intellectual Onanism. Pseudo-Intellectual Populism. There is no good nor bad. Shakespeare is only valued because of the preconceptions of the elite, while to your eyes and ears Readers Digest, Dan Brown and the _Twilight_ novels may be masterpieces of literary art. By whose criteria? By those with a degree of experience and a modicum of intelligence. Once again... all opinions in art may be subjective, but some opinions are better than others.

----------


## miyako73

> LOL! How have I imposed my view upon you if you don’t even know what I meant? 
> 
> An interesting image you have posted....You may like Aubrey Beardsley's paintings. 
> 
> Interestingly enough, a cover for Salome has not penis as it was the original intention of the painter. 
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salome_cover.jpg
> 
> 
> ...


Do you have amnesia? You wrote this:

"Well, paintings evoke feelings and paintings or images can manipulate how we feel. I talked about ugliness in modern art that is pervasive. Do you remember our discussion on your art thread where you tired to convinced me that I didn’t understand art…the art that was absolutely ugly. 

Paintings that depict sadness can be beautiful. Paintings that evoke negative feelings or disgust are no. You have shown a few artists on your art thread I have shown a few “masters of ugliness” here but the list is quite long."

----------


## miyako73

> Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare. 
> 
> I'm sorry but this is just pure intellectual Onanism. Pseudo-Intellectual Populism. There is no good nor bad. Shakespeare is only valued because of the preconceptions of the elite, while to your eyes and ears Readers Digest, Dan Brown and the _Twilight_ novels may be masterpieces of literary art. By whose criteria? By those with a degree of experience and a modicum of intelligence. Once again... all opinions in art may be subjective, but some opinions are better than others.


What will you do then if a person has two choices: a reader's digest edition and a book of shakespearean sonnets and he chooses the former because it's readable and he can relate more to the stories in it? Will you call him dumb, intellectually inferior, or "uncultured"?

That's the same thing why some guys would rather have a poster of Monica Bellucci than a print of the Mona Lisa. According to their lust, passion, sexual experience and how they look at things, Monica is sexier than Mona Lisa.

I'm just repeating the absurdity of reader's digest-shakespeare comparison.

----------


## ftil

> [COLOR="#B22222"]
> 
> And we have others judging art with regard to art therapy, the writings of Giordano Bruno, concerns for the occult, etc...




Thanks for good laughter. I must share something with you. In the past, I was irritated when you misinterpreted my words. I can laugh now. As Mark Twain said, "The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter." 

I have only read one sentence from your post....... Too much laughter and too much words, of course. 

You have not been posting new painters recently. Holiday is over.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

What you know about art is pretty much nil if you honestly think Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism, etc... have anything at all to do with "looking". Rather, they are about interpreting... through a given cant. They are about imposing a given theory upon a work of art... using a work of art as little more than a means of illustrating a given theory or dogma... not looking at a work of art.

One of the reasons for the recent resurgence in traditional art schools and artist ateliers is because the university-based academic approach to art has virtually nothing to do with looking... with the visual. A great many academics are notoriously insensitive to the visual beyond that which they can grasp or codify in words and theory and dogma. 

You deem formalism... looking at art in purely visual terms as the easiest way of looking at art... and yet you have already illustrated your own inability to look at art in this way. 

Why is Rembrandt one of the most brilliant painters? You cannot answer such questions by employing you favorite theory of the moment, and so it is much easier to dismiss the question by suggesting that there is no good nor bad than it is to actually learn how to look... with your eyes... not through your theory and dogma.

----------


## Cioran

> I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.
> 
> You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.



Is this directed at me? If it is, you obviously have not read all my posts. 

In my first or second post in this thread, I specifically disavowed the idea of Art Churches -- and cited as an example how the abstract expressionists had set up their own little sect that excommunicated anyone who imported the figurative or the literary into artworks. And I have just said that we need to recognize a plurality of artistic histories and contexts. 

Nobody here (except for ftil) is trying to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful, and, as I have repeatedly explained, this term "beautiful" is ill-defined and loaded. I have not said, for example, that Coombs's works lack "beauty." I have pointed out (and so has stlukesguild) that like it or not, his work exists in a context, a context of impressionism, in his case, which is what his work most closely approximates. And I have explained that he sticks safely there and does not try to push any boundaries.

And maybe that's OK for you or others, and here it's a matter of taste. But by the same logic, we can stick to writing at the level of Reader's Digest and forget about Shakespeare, yeah?

----------


## stlukesguild

What will you do then if a person has two choices: a reader's digest edition and a book of shakespearean sonnets and he chooses the former because it's readable and he can relate more to the stories in it? Will you call him dumb, intellectually inferior, or "uncultured"?

Will I call him dumb? Intellectually inferior? No. Experience is not intelligence. Having the experience needed to make an intelligent comparison between two works of literature and to recognize that one is a brilliantly written work and the other is a run-of-the-mill bit of writing is not to be confused with intelligence. You are arguing that any experience is equally valid in terms of judging a work of art. Thus a doctor (undoubtedly intelligent) might judge a work based upon its realistic portrayals of the medical world, while a Feminist might question the portrayals of characters according to their gender... but neither of these interpretations has the least thing to do with literature or how a given work compares with other works within the tradition of literature.

That's the same thing why some guys would rather have a poster of Monica Bellucci than a print of the Mona Lisa. According to their lust, passion, sexual experience and how they look at things, Monica is sexier than Mona Lisa.

We've already explored that issue. There is a difference between looking at an image... a painting... for the "beauty" or attractiveness of the subject matter... and looking at the same work as art.

----------


## miyako73

let me use film to make my points clear.

I'm from a country where independent filmmakers use digital videos to make film. Do you expect me to talk about cinematography and editing which are mostly formalist considering that technically their skills and equipment are inferior? I do, however, like their themes, plots, characters that are more interesting if I scrutinize them using Marxist approach as they mostly tackle class. What's wrong with that?

Likewise, I will analyze a certain tribal art according to the context in which it is made. If the symbols used are derived from myths and rituals, I will use anthropology, of course. Do you want me to use formalist concepts on something that is viewed more as a narrative than an object?

----------


## Cioran

> Comparing reader's digest to the works of Shakespeare is really absurd. Some may find the contents of readers digest comforting and others may find Shakespeare intellectually stimulating. saying the contents of readers digest are bad and Shakespeare is good, at least to my ears or eyes, is absurd. Whose criteria? You only think so because of your preconceptions about reader's digest and shakespeare.


Sorry. Somehow, I missed this part when I read the original post.

Well, what can I say? Laugh out Loud? Why is it that people on message boards cannot settle down, put aside their argumentative attitudes, and simply read what is written?

I did NOT say Shakespeare was good and Reader's Digest bad!

That was not my point at all, and I almost think, at this point, you are deliberately distorting what I said to get up an argument.

What I am saying is that Shakespeare has a level of sophistication of language, an inventiveness, a density of meaning and a complex of symbology that clearly is far removed from that of Reader's Digest. This doesn't mean you have to dislike Reader's Digest or like Shakespeare. It does mean we can, do, and must make comparisons of texts -- and works of art -- according to criteria like inventiveness, density of meaning, symbology, et. 

If one of our goals is to be _emotionally and intellectually stimulated,_ do you not think it more likely that we will turn to Shakespeare over the Readers' Digest? 

But this just speaks to yet another post I made earlier. We don't have to be intellectually or emotionally stimulated. We don't have to do anything but drink some beer, take a sleeping pill and stare at a Coombs painting and all will be right with the world. Just not very interesting, alas.


!

----------


## miyako73

> Sorry. Somehow, I missed this part when I read the original post.
> 
> Well, what can I say? Laugh out Loud? Why is it that people on message boards cannot settle down, put aside their argumentative attitudes, and simply read what is written?
> 
> I did NOT say Shakespeare was good and Reader's Digest bad!
> 
> That was not my point at all, and I almost think, at this point, you are deliberately distorting what I said to get up an argument.
> 
> What I am saying is that Shakespeare has a level of sophistication of language, an inventiveness, a density of meaning and a complex of symbology that clearly is far removed from that of Reader's Digest. This doesn't mean you have to dislike Reader's Digest or like Shakespeare. It does mean we can, do, and must make comparisons of texts -- and works of art -- according to criteria like inventiveness, density of meaning, symbology, et. 
> ...


What do you mean then by reader's digest as opposed to shakespeare's works. That is a binary opposite. Don't fool me. One has to be inferior, bad, or low. You don't use both extremes if you don't intend to show the vast difference.

If you're only consistent, you could have saved your energy from typing. Go back to your previous post. You said "all art is contextual."

----------


## Cioran

> What will you do then if a person has two choices: a reader's digest edition and a book of shakespearean sonnets and he chooses the former because it's readable and he can relate more to the stories in it? Will you call him dumb, intellectually inferior, or "uncultured"?


Uh, no. 

What we CAN say, however, is that over time, it is possible to _widen one's horizons,_ to a larger appreciation of art in particular, and the intellectual world in general.

Your suggestion here that I, or anyone else, is defaming people as "dumb" because they might read Reader's Digest over Shakespeare, or that anyone here (apart from ftil) is "monopolizing beauty" is a strawman conception entirely of your own misunderstanding, willful or otherwise.

----------


## stlukesguild

I respect that St. Lukes, but you have to respect also why in some circles formalism is viewed as the standard postcolonial analysis must go against. If we use Western art history, movements, forms, theories, analyses, a lot of artists in developing countries will be ignored. Their art histories can only be traced back to modernism that is still either American or European-influenced. 

How will you then classify the Buddhist sculptures of India? If you will just use formalism, will you deny the fact that they have religious, cultural, and social contexts?

We look at them within their own traditions... and within the history of art as a whole. Art History as practiced in the West is far more open to non-Western influences than Literature... due in part to the lack of incomprehension as a result of language barriers. Persian and Islamic influences exist throughout Western art since the Middle-Ages... or earlier. Egyptian and Mesopotamian/Persian/Babylonian art are all part of the common formal studies of art history. There is a clear recognition of the interweaving of cultures in Byzantium and Italy (as illustrated by the Cathedral of Siena with it's Islamic-inspired patterns and stripes) and certainly Spain. A study of Indian art will reveal the influx of Western (Greco-Roman) Classicism as well as the impact of Islamic ideals. By the same token, an exploration of Persian art will reveal influences drawn from the West (especially Venice and the Byzantines) as well as the East (China and the Mongols). The whole Post-Colonial view of art history is just a weak thinking, self-loathing, politically correct self-righteousness that ignores the fact that art and culture are forever the result of interweaving various cultures and traditions. Those interested may dig deep into other cultures and other traditions. Personally, I'm quite fascinated with Islamic Spain, Persia, India, and Japan especially.

----------


## Cioran

> What do you mean then by reader's digest as opposed to shakespeare's works. That is a binary opposite. Don't fool me. One has to be inferior, bad, or low. You don't use both extremes if you don't intend to show the vast difference.


Bull****. 

Read my latest post.

----------


## Cioran

And of course, it's NOT a "binary opposite," in fact you commit a standard bifurcation fallacy. I picked out two possible texts _out of a vast range of options, which may have fuzzy boundaries._

It gets awfully tiresome to have what one writes be so willfully misrepresented,

----------


## miyako73

> This is a meaningless question.
> 
> Rothko's art, like all art, exists in a broader context: the rest of the art that he created, the climate of the times, politics, economics, trends, visions. 
> 
> All art is contextual. Abstract art, which I prefer to call non-representational art since all art is abstract, no matter how realistic, had its roots in the mid-ninteenth century rebellion against a stifling classicism. It's worth reading about the travails of the Impressionists and especially Van Gogh, who was not an impressionist but a majority of one, to see how hard it was to break the dead hand of tradition in art.
> 
> As irony would have it, by the 1950s the abstract expressionists had become just as dictatorial as the classicists of the mid-19th century, declaring that all art that even hinted of the figure or of "literary" or "real-life" concerns was to be abjured. A new art church had developed with its own dogmas and its own way of excommunicating heretics.
> 
> Happily, that too is history, and in post-modern art anything goes. We'll see how long that lasts. 
> ...


Here's your "all art is contextual post."

----------


## Cioran

I admire your patience, stlukesguild.

----------


## Cioran

> Here's your "all art is contextual post."


Right. And?

----------


## miyako73

> Bull****. 
> 
> Read my latest post.


Please! Maybe you want to talk now about rhetoric. You cannot change the fact that you belittle reader's digest?

----------


## miyako73

> Right. And?


You don't even understand your sweeping statement?

I rest my case.

----------


## JCamilo

Ignore him Miyako. He is just destroying the thread in his desperate attempts to mimicry Stlukes, however with a full range of contradictions and personal attacks.

----------


## miyako73

> And of course, it's NOT a "binary opposite," in fact you commit a standard bifurcation fallacy. I picked out two possible texts _out of a vast range of options, which may have fuzzy boundaries._
> 
> It gets awfully tiresome to have what one writes be so willfully misrepresented,


For your free education:

In literary studies, popular writing in which reader's digest belongs is considered low literature.

----------


## Cioran

> Please! Maybe you want to talk now about rhetoric. You cannot change the fact that you belittle reader's digest?


Incredible. 

So, Reader's Digest has the same inventiveness of language, density of meaning, complexity of symbology, and soaring appeals to the human heart and mind, to the great, profound, and tragic events of life as ... Shakespeare? Seriously, you wish to say this? But you actually don't really know what you are talking about, do you?

You seem unable to process the point that I am NOT "belittling" Reader's Digest, UNLESS you wish to contend that Reader's Digest is every bit intellectually on par with Shakespeare. Is that your contention?

Reader's Digest has a context. Shakespeare has a context. They serve a niche. It is only you who insist on importing normativity to this discussion, not. I. It's not the Reader's Digest is bad and Shakespeare is good. It's that Shakespeare is more challenging and sophisticated than RD, and if we wish to expand our mental horizons we will pursue texts that help us do this. No one has to do this. No one is good or bad if he or she does or not do this. It's all up to you.

----------


## ftil

> Ignore him Miyako. He is just destroying the thread in his desperate attempts to mimicry Stlukes, however with a full range of contradictions and personal attacks.




It was 6 days ago when I posted. I admire St.Luke's patience..........6 days and 11 pages.  :FRlol: 




> I just cant believe it......the same pattern again that has happened on St.Lukes The Art Thread and my Mythology and religion in artbefore threads were closed. 
> 
> Time to go back to art. Franz Richard Unterberger's paintings may help reduce anxiety for a few. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ogq8toN4A
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...d-Beyond/page5

----------


## Cioran

> You don't even understand your sweeping statement?
> 
> I rest my case.


You rest your case? LOL. You don't even know any longer what you're talking about, if indeed you ever knew. What part of my "sweeping statement" don't I understand, that you understand, that you understand so much better? Are you suggesting I have contradicted myself? Or .. . what?

But you don't know what you are saying. You are just desperately flailing about because, like most people on the Internet, you want to win an argument rather than have a meeting of minds, and actually learn something.

----------


## miyako73

> Incredible. 
> 
> So, Reader's Digest has the same inventiveness of language, density of meaning, complexity of symbology, and soaring appeals to the human heart and mind, to the great, profound, and tragic events of life as ... Shakespeare? Seriously, you wish to say this? But you actually don't really know what you are talking about, do you?
> 
> You seem unable to process the point that I am NOT "belittling" Reader's Digest, UNLESS you wish to contend that Reader's Digest is every bit intellectually on par with Shakespeare. Is that your contention?
> 
> Reader's Digest has a context. Shakespeare has a context. They serve a niche. It is only you who insist on importing normativity to this discussion, not. I. It's not the Reader's Digest is bad and Shakespeare is good. It's that Shakespeare is more challenging and sophisticated than RD, and if we wish to expand our mental horizons we will pursue texts that help us do this. No one has to do this. No one is good or bad if he or she does or not do this. It's all up to you.


I already gave you a free education on low literature. I should not really take you seriously. You dropped bifurcation fallacy without even understanding what it was all about. You were the one who created reader's digest-shakespeare comparison and you accused me of a fallacy? That's one big sh!t of a bull.

----------


## Cioran

> Ignore him Miyako. He is just destroying the thread in his desperate attempts to mimicry Stlukes, however with a full range of contradictions and personal attacks.


Wow, more incredible stuff!

Yes, we know Miyako has no idea what the hell to think or say, and neither do you! So just go knock yourselves out. Meanwhile Stlukes and i will continue to provide value to this thread while you provide nothing but nonsense.

You see, I don't "imitate" anyone. Like stlukesguild, I am visually educated, so it's reasonable to suppose that some of our opinions will coincide, since we, unlike you, know stuff.

----------


## miyako73

> You rest your case? LOL. You don't even know any longer what you're talking about, if indeed you ever knew. What part of my "sweeping statement" don't I understand, that you understand, that you understand so much better? Are you suggesting I have contradicted myself? Or .. . what?
> 
> But you don't know what you are saying. You are just desperately flailing about because, like most people on the Internet, you want to win an argument rather than have a meeting of minds, and actually learn something.


No, I want to educate you. I was back-reading this thread. two names stood out: One is close-minded and the other is inconsistent and that is you.

----------


## miyako73

> Wow, more incredible stuff!
> 
> Yes, we know Miyako has no idea what the hell to think or say, and neither do you! So just go knock yourselves out. Meanwhile Stlukes and i will continue to provide value to this thread while you provide nothing but nonsense.
> 
> You see, I don't "imitate" anyone. Like stlukesguild, I am visually educated, so it's reasonable to suppose that some of our opinions will coincide, since we, unlike you, know stuff.


One big pretentious @ss.

----------


## Cioran

> I already gave you a free education on low literature. I should not really take you seriously. You dropped bifurcation fallacy without even understanding what it was all about. You were the one who created reader's digest-shakespeare comparison and you accused me of a fallacy? That's one big sh!t of a bull.


You haven't given anyone an education on anything, except your own inner insufficiencies. 

stlukesguild already wrote eloquently on the high art/low art distinction and overlap and provided numerous examples. Did you read it?

Is Reader's Digest as sophisticated and meaningful as Shakespeare? Yes or no? Answer the question.

Let me repeat: To pick Shakespeare and Reader's Digest out are _examples_, obviously, _out of a range of possible texts._ Or ... what? Do you think that the only two things ever written in human history are the Reader's Digest and Shakespeare?

LOL at this idiocy.

----------


## Cioran

> One big pretentious @ss.


Yes, we know, you have simply no clue what you are trying to say, you have lost the argument, indeed lost the thread of it, and all you can do now is resort to insults. Very telling.

----------


## Cioran

> No, I want to educate you. I was back-reading this thread. two names stood out: One is close-minded and the other is inconsistent and that is you.


Oh, really? How so?

Well, you have no idea! You don't know what you are talking about.

----------


## miyako73

Answer your own absurdity why you picked a high/elite literature and pitted it against a low/popular literature.

----------


## Cioran

> I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.
> 
> You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.
> 
> What you know about art is pretty much nil if you honestly think Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism, etc... have anything at all to do with "looking". Rather, they are about interpreting... through a given cant. They are about imposing a given theory upon a work of art... using a work of art as little more than a means of illustrating a given theory or dogma... not looking at a work of art.


Exactly!

----------


## Cioran

> I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.
> 
> You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.
> 
> What you know about art is pretty much nil if you honestly think Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism, etc... have anything at all to do with "looking". Rather, they are about interpreting... through a given cant. They are about imposing a given theory upon a work of art... using a work of art as little more than a means of illustrating a given theory or dogma... not looking at a work of art.
> 
> One of the reasons for the recent resurgence in traditional art schools and artist ateliers is because the university-based academic approach to art has virtually nothing to do with looking... with the visual. A great many academics are notoriously insensitive to the visual beyond that which they can grasp or codify in words and theory and dogma. 
> 
> You deem formalism... looking at art in purely visual terms as the easiest way of looking at art... and yet you have already illustrated your own inability to look at art in this way. 
> ...


Right. 

 :Wink:

----------


## miyako73

I already answered that. Theories make me look at something in a certain angle. It is not only for interpretation but for selective viewing as well. If your concern is everything feminist, why would you look at an angle that is beyond feminism?

----------


## Cioran

> Answer your own absurdity why you picked a high/elite literature and pitted it against a low/popular literature.


There is nothing to discuss. You missed my point. 

It is you, and not I, who are importing _value judgments_ to RD and Shakespeare. You can't stand that I won't do this. I have already explained to you why it's not the case that RD is "bad" and Shakespeare "good," but you can't process this because, evidently, the dogma of your miseducation has confined you to reading what people write through the warped prism of your own inculcated dogma. And your lack of visual education confines you to interpretive dogma about the visual arts. See stlukesguild's post on this, which I have just agreed with.

----------


## Cioran

> I already answered that. Theories make me look at something in a certain angle. It is not only for interpretation but for selective viewing as well. If your concern is everything feminist, why would you look at an angle that is beyond feminism?


LOL. 

Oh, no reason at all! 

Unbelievable.

----------


## Cioran

You have been sadly miseducated.

----------


## miyako73

Have you written a thesis with a theoretical framework? If you have, you would know what I'm talking about.

----------


## miyako73

I find this question by St. Lukes interesting.

"Why is Rembrandt one of the most brilliant painters? You cannot answer such questions by employing you favorite theory of the moment, and so it is much easier to dismiss the question by suggesting that there is no good nor bad than it is to actually learn how to look... with your eyes... not through your theory and dogma."

If I'll be strictly formalist, I will only look at the compositional elements in his portrait paintings: the use of dark tones, the play of light and shadow, the central positioning of the subject, the brightened background, the illumination of the face that creates visual layers, the lines that separate the foreground and the background, the brush strokes that create texture for more visual layers, even the size of the paintings, if I want to be mathematical, I can plot points to measure angles and distance all for finding out about compositional balance, and many more.

But I'm more interested in the "beweechgelickhijt"-- motive or emotion. Is it the core of his idea of natural movement? Is natural movement internal and consequently facial? I don't even have to use a theory in dissecting emotion and motive in his portrait paintings. Is emotion the unseen and the motive the seen? Is the motive related to power and the emotion to passion? Is motive masculine or emotion feminine? Can I see such "gendered" difference in his male portraits or female portraits? If I have to use theories, maybe I'll use what I've learned in psychology about emotion and motivation or even use Stanislavski's emotional memory and physical action considering posing for a painter is performance. 

It's easy to BS around with Formalism if you have keen eyes. You can write a paragraph about the different shades of black or red. My God, what for? But it's hard if a theory or a context or a narrative is involved. You really have to prove that Stanislavski's work on emotion and physicality, for example, is applicable. By merely dropping his name won't work. If you're interested in the context, you have to dig a lot of things beyond the painting for the image and your interpretation to connect and make sense. If you want narrative, make sure the story you consider as the subtext of the image makes sense. See, I want to be challenged. I go for the difficult because it's more rewarding.

Will I consider Rembrandt's portraits the best, the most beautiful, the most brilliant, and the most impressive?  Nope. For my taste, temperament, penchant for context and narrative, I'll pick Frida Kahlo's self-portraits any day.

----------


## ftil

*Aubrey Beardsley Part 1*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5naWu...8AD6242F1EB6D2

----------


## ftil

> Originally Posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> Having said this... Giorgio Morandi is still a better painter than Marshenikov... or Robert Coombs. Coombs is better than Atroshenko... but if you really like work along this line, look at Daniel Gerhartz:


Oh come on, I have posted Daniel Gerhartzs paintings on Name the Painting thread and I remember that you criticized him as you said, Daniel Gerhartz has some serious skills... but he doesn't seem to have the least idea what century he is living in. 


Well I appreciate that he is nonconformist like many other painters who blindly follow the trend.  :FRlol: 

Second, you cant compare Giorgio Morandi to Robert Coombs or Daniel Gerhartz. I like Robert Coombss art and he got well deserved American National Award of Excellence, Hunter Editions Award of Excellence" and First Annual Fine Art Competition.




> Not to my taste. Too much of a schmaltz-laden pastiche of late 19th century French Academicism... but very well done schmaltz



Schmaltz, eh?

Well, Daniel Gerhartz received a numerous awards such as Nona Jean Hulsey-Buyer's Choice Award, Prix de West Invitational, NAWA, National Cowboy Hall of Fame, Oklahoma, 1999, 1994, 1993 Robert Lougheed Award, Prix de West Invitational, National Cowboy Hall of Fame, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1998 Silver Medal for Oil, National Academy of Western Art Exhibit, National Cowboy Hall of Fame, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1993 Buyer's Choice Award, Northwest Rendezvous Exhibit, Kimball Art Center, Park City, Utah, 1992 John F. and Anna Lee Stacey Foundation Scholarship, 1998 Chicago Municipal Art League Award, 1988 President's Award - American Academy of Art, 1985 Faculty Recommendation Scholarship - American Academy of Art, 1985 MUSEUM COLLECTIONSWest Bend Art Museum, permanent collection, West Bend, Wisconsin, 1989 Huntsville Museum of Art, permanent collection, Huntsville, Alabama, 1997 


I dont know about you and whether you have received awards for your work or not. But if you have at least the same list of awards if not more as Daniel Gerhartz, you may be entitled to voice such a harsh criticism.  :FRlol:

----------


## stlukesguild

If I'll be strictly formalist, I will only look at the compositional elements in his portrait paintings: the use of dark tones, the play of light and shadow, the central positioning of the subject, the brightened background, the illumination of the face that creates visual layers, the lines that separate the foreground and the background, the brush strokes that create texture for more visual layers, even the size of the paintings, if I want to be mathematical, I can plot points to measure angles and distance all for finding out about compositional balance, and many more.

That is why I noted that pure "Greenbergian" Formalism was doomed to failure. It limited the discussion to only that within the painting itself. Art for Art's Sake or _art pour l'art_ admits that the viewer will bring his or her own baggage to a work of art... but rejects the notion that these external non-art elements are at all relevant to judging a work of art. Oscar Wilde's Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray is probably the best distillation of this approach to looking at art:

_The artist is the creator of beautiful things...
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things...
All art is at once surface and symbol. 
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. 
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors..._

Seeking "meaning" is part of interpretation and has nothing to do with judgment. When we base judgment upon external elements, we get the thinking that lies behind censorship. For centuries the Church deemed certain works of art immoral... and thus bad... because they were viewing art through their dogma. This is no different than the Marxist deeming this painting "bad":



because it glorifies and reinforces the privilege of the Aristocracy...

Nor is it any different from the Feminist declaring this painting bad...



... because it reinforces societal-based gender stereotypes. Neither interpretation involves looking at the image as an art object with a sensitivity to the visual elements. Again... both interpretations are more about words... attempting to put the visual into words... the attempt to use the art object to illustrate a given theory or dogma... It is the spectator, and not life, (or the work of art itself) that such an interpretation really mirrors...

Will I consider Rembrandt's portraits the best, the most beautiful, the most brilliant, and the most impressive? Nope. For my taste, temperament, penchant for context and narrative, I'll pick Frida Kahlo's self-portraits any day.

I personally prefer Bonnard and Matisse to Picasso... but I can fully recognize Picasso's towering genius and would not think to question the notion that he was the greatest artist of the 20th century. 

St. Frida?  :FRlol: 

"I have spoken to the most intelligent people about art, and 
they have not understood; but among those who understand, words 
are not necessary; you say 'Humpf, he, ha' and everything has 
been said."
-Degas

----------


## stlukesguild

Oh come on, I have posted Daniel Gerhartzs paintings on Name the Painting thread and I remember that you criticized him as you said, Daniel Gerhartz has some serious skills... but he doesn't seem to have the least idea what century he is living in. 

And what makes you think I have changed my position? Gerhartz is a better painter than Atroschenko. This does not mean that either of them show the least element that suggests they have absorbed anything from the last 120+ years of painting or are even aware of what century they are working in.

Well I appreciate that he is nonconformist like many other painters who blindly follow the trend.

William Blake was a non-conformist. Giorgio Morandi was a non-conformist. Atroschenko and Gerhartz are reactionaries. They are still painting as is it were the 19th century and they were members of the French Academy. 

There is nothing in a painting like this:



... that would have been out of place hanging in a Victorian Salon. This is not a question of "beauty"... and certainly not of "realism". There is nothing "realistic" about such paintings. The problem is that it comes off as a pastiche. The artists have a set notion of how a painting "should" look based upon a specific period and style of painting. This is not an art that is inspired by the art of the past, but rather an art that mimics the art of the past.

Second, you cant compare Giorgio Morandi to Robert Coombs or Daniel Gerhartz. I like Robert Coombss art and he got well deserved American National Award of Excellence, Hunter Editions Award of Excellence" and First Annual Fine Art Competition.

Coombs and Gerhartz have both won numerous awards from various associations which promote a reactionary approach to painting. Morandi, on the other hand, hangs in the Met, MoMA, the National Gallery of Art, Washington, and numerous other major museums in the US, Europe, and Asia. two of his paintings currently hang in the White House. His works have also been featured in films by Federico Fellini and Michelangelo Antonioni, as well as a novel by Don DeLillo. Coombs was awarded a $10,000 prize. Morandi's paintings sell for millions. Although I suspect that Morandi's career might just be the more impressive, neither awards nor sales are a true measure of an artist's worth one way or the other... Of the 5 wealthiest living artists, only two (Jaspar Johns and Gerhard Richter) are any good. (And Richter's conceptual paintings are garbage and his abstractions little more than garish decorative bon-bons). Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons are little more than con-artists... hucksters of the worst kitsch imaginable. Takashi Murakami is their Japanese heir apparent... and the next artist in line... David Choe... is a grossly overvalued graffiti artist. Rembrandt and Vermeer, on the other hand, died in relative obscurity and poverty.

I dont know about you and whether you have received awards for your work or not. But if you have at least the same list of awards if not more as Daniel Gerhartz, you may be entitled to voice such a harsh criticism.

Yes... I have received a number of awards... which sit on a shelf somewhere gathering dust. I have also sold a number of paintings. As any artist who has shown in public, I have been the target of criticism good and bad. The more attention an artist garners, the more likely the work is to be criticized. If the work doesn't live up to the degree of attention it has been afforded (Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, Thomas Kinkade, and LeRoy Nieman, for example) the criticism can become quite brutal.

----------


## Cioran

ftil keeps bringing up an award that Coombs won as if this has jack-all to do with anything. But in this case the award is even worse than meaningless. He won an award from a society that omits in advance any art outside the kind of art that Coombs makes! What an accomplishment!

I used an argument to analogy earlier which raised Miyako's hackles. I don't know why. Oh, well, maybe I do know why, so let's try a different analogy.

In this corner we have the Reader's Digest, and in that corner we have a collection of feminist Marxist literature.

This is not a question of one or the other being good or bad. It's a question of which corner is more likely to expand your intellectual horizions and give you new and fruitful things to think about. Which would you pick, Miyako? Well, since you study feminism and Marxism, I'm guessing you'd pick the feminist/Marxist corner. Zounds! But now you are being high brow and elitist! Who are you to criticize the RD corner? Why not just stick with the RD corner and forget all about the Marxist/feminist corner? 

Plainly, though, in the real world, those who desire to expand their intellectual horizions will get more out of either the Feminist/Marxist corner or the Shakespeare corner, or both, than they will get out of the RD corner. This is just a fact.

And Coombs' art in relation to the Great Masters is like that. It's a Reader's Digest corner where thinking stops at a conventionalist, well-trod, unchallenging place. It doesn't mean you can't like his work or that it doesn't have its own "beauty." It's just that, for those who seek more, much more, Coombs is not nearly enough.


The irony here is that it is not I (or stlukesguild) who is trying to dictate to ftil what she should like or find beautiful. It's the other way around. I could easily list the strengths of Coombs' work, while still judging them ultimately insufficient to what is wanted or needed from art. But ftil cannot do likewise. She cannot list the strengths of the modernist canon, or even so much as acknowledge their existence. It is she who is trying to dictate what is "beautful" or perhaps "meaningful" in art, elevating her personal (narrow and blinkered) "taste" in art to a universal commandment. It's a breathakingly arrogant and intellectually bankrupt enterprise she has embarked upon, and will be persuasive only to those who already share her prejudices and her lack of visual education.

----------


## miyako73

St' Lukes should really do something. You are ruining his thread that's very interesting. Your comments are inconsistent, uninteresting, and absurd.

----------


## Cioran

> St' Lukes should really do something. You are ruining his thread that's very interesting. Your comments are inconsistent, uninteresting, and absurd.


Oh, dear!

My goodness, well you emoting all over the place again. Maybe you could try answering my question instead: here is the Reader's Digest corner, there is the Marxist/Feminist lit corner. Which do you pick, and why?

Of course you've alredy made your pick. Unfortunately, by your own argument earlier when I used the analogy with Shakespeare instead, you are hoist by your own petard. By picking Marxism/feminism you are dissing RD and its readers and we musn't have that! Remember, this is _your own argument._

I'm sorry you can't follow a simple analogic argument. To reiterate one last time, I am not making a value judgement that RD is "bad" or that its readers are "dumb" when compared to those who pursue Marxism/feminism or Shakespeare. You imported those value judgments and invalidly ascribed them to my analogic argument. The question is rather of expanding one's mental horizons. And the fact is you already agree with me because if you disagreed, you would never have undertaken Marxist/feminist studies and would instead have contented yourself with a lifetime subscription to Reader's Digest.

Coombs is Reader's Digest art. If you like that stuff, fine. Most of us will want more, much more, thn Coombs is offering. Sorry if such a simple demonstration ticks you off so much. It's mystifying, too, since your very course of study that you chose shows that you agree with me in practice.

----------


## miyako73

You're wrong. I'll pick reader's digest. I only read books on theories when I need to. They are not my daily readings. 

Whether it's high/elite or low/popular literature does not dictate my reading habit and interest. If I feel like reading it, I will. If I think it's interesting, I'll read it. If I have the mood for it, I'll grab it. Right now I have The Book of Songs in my bathroom. Sometimes I feel like reading comic books, the Bible, works of Neruda and other Latin-American writers, works of Asian Writers, English Lit, Spanish Lit, Portuguese Lit, American Lit, Postmodern poetry and fiction, works of Russian poets and novelists, Indian/Pakistani/Afghani novels, Greek tragedies, classical texts, US Supreme court rulings, suicide letters, recipe books, Latin prayers, jokes online, graffiti in public bathrooms and train stations, erotica in men's magazines, hagiography (Catholic and Eastern Christian saints), or even classified ads. In short, I like variety. 


Next.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> And what makes you think I have changed my position? Gerhartz is a better painter than Atroschenko. This does not mean that either of them show the least element that suggests they have absorbed anything from the last 120+ years of painting or are even aware of what century they are working in.


Hehehe…this is not what I meant. 





> Yes... I have received a number of awards... which sit on a shelf somewhere gathering dust.


 I am curious what awards you have received. Can I find them on Internet?

----------


## miyako73

> If I'll be strictly formalist, I will only look at the compositional elements in his portrait paintings: the use of dark tones, the play of light and shadow, the central positioning of the subject, the brightened background, the illumination of the face that creates visual layers, the lines that separate the foreground and the background, the brush strokes that create texture for more visual layers, even the size of the paintings, if I want to be mathematical, I can plot points to measure angles and distance all for finding out about compositional balance, and many more.
> 
> That is why I noted that pure "Greenbergian" Formalism was doomed to failure. It limited the discussion to only that within the painting itself. Art for Art's Sake or _art pour l'art_ admits that the viewer will bring his or her own baggage to a work of art... but rejects the notion that these external non-art elements are at all relevant to judging a work of art. Oscar Wilde's Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray is probably the best distillation of this approach to looking at art:
> 
> _The artist is the creator of beautiful things...
> The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things...
> All art is at once surface and symbol. 
> Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. 
> Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors..._
> ...



If your idea of art for art's sake is the rejection of morality in looking at an art and the irrelevance of its artist's justification, I'm all for it. But if your idea includes the rejection of the viewer's input that uses context, biographical reading, narrative, cultural symbols, archetypes, your art for art's sake is just a longer name for formalism. A gay artist painting penises is definitely calling for a biographical reading of his work. 

In anthropology of aesthetics, I learned how every human being views an object according to his experience and how every object is a product of culture. If you show two paintings, one by Michaelangelo and another by Qiu Ying (Ming Dynasty), to a Chinese person who does not know the value of both artworks, that person will appreciate Qiu Ying's more. Why? Because he can relate to the art work. The images are familiar to him. Therefore, art appreciation is also cultural. 

I know where you're coming from, but if you insist that only the views of the people who are university-trained should be acknowledged when it comes to looking at an art, art appreciation will remain the activity of the elite.

Postcolonialism aims to prevent that elitism to take root or remain stronger. Arts from developing countries should be viewed with different lenses fitting to the historical. social. and cultural backgrounds of their artists. I just don't think you can place an aboriginal art from Australia beside Klimt's masterpiece and say Klimt's is better. To avoid such folly, we have to start accepting the notion that every artwork has its own merit. 

In high school, we had art history class but only of Western arts and artists. We were trained to be pretentious. It seemed we were taught so if someone would ask about Baroque or Rococo we could answer. The local artists I knew had been painting since I was a child, but their works were not studied. I realized then that that was the case because their works would not fit within or could not be placed beside the Western arts. I "uneducated" myself by appreciating all kinds of arts, "high" or "low," Western or Eastern, local or international without judging which is better or more beautiful. 

I think evaluating, viewing, liking, interpreting are all mental processes we use in looking at and appreciating arts. If you employ semantics, of course, you'll differ. Theories are intellectual lenses that veer us to a certain angle when we look at an art. If an art is not Marxist, it does not mean it is a bad art; it only means it is not interesting to a Marxist--like Michaelangelo's work not interesting to that Chinese person.

I'm really for the use of all lenses in looking at and appreciating arts because I always go for variety over sameness and homogeneity. With that in mind, I'm able to appreciate an artist who crumples a paper and calls it an art or hangs his shorts in an exhibit, and i don't see his artworks as a crumpled paper and his shorts only because I go beyond formalism and the strict interpretation of art for art's sake. The artist may not justify, but I can. A viewer can also be an artist's advocate. Don't singers and actors have fans?

----------


## ftil

> Attachment 8558


I was wondering who is the painter and the title of the painting you have posted. 

Too bad that you didn't posted for everybody to see it. I would easily find it.

----------


## Zagreus

Having read through all of this, I can only say: wow! 
Will St.Luke's ever post again or has he got tired of all this fighting?
Also: I'm not an art literate nor properly educated in visual arts, but can't we agree that people might have different opinions? Just let it be. I'd like to learn about art understood through Formalism as much as I'd like to learn about art understood through Marxism, Feminism and Postcolonialism. Will you guys ever start _talking_ about Visual Arts again instead of discussing about general topics?

----------


## Cioran

> Having read through all of this, I can only say: wow! 
> Will St.Luke's ever post again or has he got tired of all this fighting?
> Also: I'm not an art literate nor properly educated in visual arts, but can't we agree that people might have different opinions? Just let it be. I'd like to learn about art understood through Formalism as much as I'd like to learn about art understood through Marxism, Feminism and Postcolonialism. Will you guys ever start _talking_ about Visual Arts again instead of discussing about general topics?


Well, I am not going to fight with anyone anymore, and I am just going to put fitil and Miyako on ignore. The latter asked me what I thought about a certain painting by Coombs, and I attempted a thoughtful response. In return, I received abuse. I will no longer tolerate this person's invective.

Of course we can agree that people might have different opinions on art. Let me reiterate a point I made earlier: in this thread, neither stlukesguild nor I are trying to define art for anyone, or say what anyone should or should not like. Alas, it is just the opposite. Ftil has set herself up as the arbiter of what is, and is not, "beauty." While I, for instance, can tell you what's good about Coombs' work, she cannot say anything good about art she doesn't like; can say nothing about all that is good (and great) in the modernist canon, or even concede that this canon has any value. This is, as I have said, breathtakingly arrogant and earth-shakingly wrong headed.

Moreover, as stlukesguild has stated, even if one is to embrace a relativism so extreme that what's good in the visual arts is solely a matter of opinion, then it remains the case that some opinions are better than others

ftil keep touting this "Almost Sunset" painting and never fails to mention that it won a prize. What she consistently and disingenuously fails to mention is that the prize was awarded by an organization that excludes from winning its prize any art that differs in the slightest from the art that Coombs makes. The prize is worthless. 

Art exists in a social context, as I've said. But even so, it's not enough to say, "Let's understand this art through the prism of Marxism, Feminism, and Post-colonialism." You can do that if you wish, but if you do, you are no longer talking about art _qua_ art. For no matter how socially enmeshed any particular work is, at the end of the day all art shares in common the practice of _seeing,_ and converting what is seen into marks on a surface. That is the formalism behind art, and if you lose sight of this fact, as it were, then you lose sight of seeing, of art at its most essential as it has been practiced back to the days of cave paintings.

In a later post I'll state what I think is good and not so good about "Almost Sunset" and compare it to a particular work of Cezanne I have in mind. In so doing, perhaps I can show why, rightly, Cezanne is a great and important artist, and Coombs is not.

----------


## miyako73

Good that you'll stop spewing intellectually bereft rage and yes, nonsense.

"In so doing, perhaps I can show why, rightly, Cezanne is a great and important artist, and Coombs is not."

Still you don't get it. Oranges belong in a fruit bowl not in a pastry basket. Comparing Cezanne and Coombs? Really?

----------


## Cioran

Ftil and Miyako are now on Ignore. From here on in, I will talk about my own understanding of, and experience with, the visual arts. Abusive responses will be ignored and abusers will go straight to ignore.

I think someone said thumbnails are preferred here, when reproducing images. I'm not sure how to do that.

Anyway, I've looked at a bunch of Robert Coombs paintings now. Here's one:



I don't like to classify art and artists but sometimes it can be helpful as a rule of thumb. I'd classify Coombs as a neo-Impressionist.

I'll start by saying that to my way of thinking, in general, the most interesting parts of Coombs' paintings are the backgrounds (negative space) and not the foreground figures (positive space.)

In the above painting, the most interesting part is the upper left. If you cut that out and blew it up, it would be a successful painting. The least interesting parts of this painting are the mother and child, which figures express easy, banal sentimentality that has been done so many times one can't even count the number of times it has been done.

In the visual arts, _local color_ refers to color as actually exemplified by objects in the world. Local colorists are those who attempt to reproduce, as nearly as possible, the natural colors of their subjects. It is key to successful realistic painting.

When one learns art, one discovers that one can dispense with local color. When one does that the true fun begins. 

More later.

----------


## miyako73

You're doing good, Cioran. That's how professionals do it. You say what is interesting and what is not. You express the flaws according to your understanding. You also appreciate its merit.

Saying Cezanne is better is not how you should look at Coombs' work. You should appreciate or not appreciate his art according to what you see and feel about his painting not according to someone's work.

----------


## stlukesguild

If your idea of art for art's sake is the rejection of morality in looking at an art and the irrelevance of its artist's justification, I'm all for it. But if your idea includes the rejection of the viewer's input that uses context, biographical reading, narrative, cultural symbols, archetypes, your art for art's sake is just a longer name for formalism. A gay artist painting penises is definitely calling for a biographical reading of his work. 

The common academic approach to art criticism involves 4 distinct elements: 1. Description (What do we actually see?) 2. Analysis (How is the work formally organized?) 3. Interpretation (An attempt to define a meaning or expression utilizing historical knowledge, the biography of the artist, imposing an external theory or dogma, or even simply using our own personal experiences and imagination.) 

Formalism, in part, developed in response to the obvious collapse of an imagined universal shared culture (or at least one that was shared among Western Culture). It centers almost wholly upon the first two and last elements of art criticism: what do we actually see and how is it organized? One then makes a judgment based upon this. In theory, a formalist critique of a work of art avoids any cultural, theoretical, or dogmatic bias. One can look at a Cubist painting, a Renaissance altarpiece, or an African work of ritual sculpture without any knowledge of either... analyze how well the work is organized... and offer up a value judgment.

The concept of Art for Art's Sake/art pour l'art... or aestheticism was less extreme than Formalism. The writers of the art pour l'art movement (Wilde, Pater, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Gautier, etc...) never suggested that art criticism should not include a grasp of the historical context in which an artist worked, the artist's biography, personal experience an imagination. What this theory did espouse was that external non-art elements should not impact our judgment of the work of art. 

The Catholic Church was long one of the biggest patrons... and powerful critics of art in the West. A work of art that conveyed ideas sympathetic to the Protestants... let alone Islam or the Jewish faith... was not merely deemed heretical but also "bad art". 

There is no difference between this sort of bias that would appear unacceptable to most of us, and the sort of bias we get with Feminist or Marxist or other dogmas. One can impose any interpretive filter one wishes upon art... but in a good many instances these amount to nothing more than using the art to reinforce a given bias or dogma that has nothing to do with the art itself:

As I suggested earlier, one might employ Marxist Theory to interpret and judge this work of art:



One may come to the conclusion that the art glorifies the privilege of Aristocracy and class and thus deem the work "poor art". However, Marxism is irrelevant to questions of artistic merit, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical context that the artist worked in or his intentions. It ultimately involves a judgment based upon the values of another time and place. This sounds quite similar to the fear expressed that a Western viewer looking at an Indian Buddha sculpture or Australian Aboriginal painting will not be able to offer a fair judgment because they will be imposing their own foreign values and standards upon a work of art created by a culture that may not share these values or standards.

I know where you're coming from, but if you insist that only the views of the people who are university-trained should be acknowledged when it comes to looking at an art, art appreciation will remain the activity of the elite. Postcolonialism aims to prevent that elitism to take root or remain stronger.

God... I thought PC theory had died out some 10 years ago. There still must be those enclaves among academia. Unfortunately, art will never fail to be an activity of the "elite". In the past this "elite" was largely limited to those of a given class. The ability to appreciate Dante or Shakespeare or Mozart or Duke Ellington or Michelangelo or Jackson Pollock no longer demand one be born to a certain class... but they do demand a given body of knowledge and and effort.

I just don't think you can place an aboriginal art from Australia beside Klimt's masterpiece and say Klimt's is better. 

What not? I can judge Klimt in comparison to Michelangelo or Matisse... I can also look at his work in comparison to Hokusai.

In high school, we had art history class but only of Western arts and artists. We were trained to be pretentious. It seemed we were taught so if someone would ask about Baroque or Rococo we could answer. The local artists I knew had been painting since I was a child, but their works were not studied. I realized then that that was the case because their works would not fit within or could not be placed beside the Western arts. I "uneducated" myself by appreciating all kinds of arts, "high" or "low," Western or Eastern, local or international without judging which is better or more beautiful. 

I'm glad for you. You've come to the point where you cannot recognize any qualitative difference in art. There is no good nor bad. This will probably work quite well for you in your own artistic efforts. You will be able to shrug off any and all criticism and never have the need to improve... because improvement suggest a measure of quality which doesn't exist. 

If an art is not Marxist, it does not mean it is a bad art; it only means it is not interesting to a Marxist--like Michaelangelo's work not interesting to that Chinese person.

And yet my Chinese studio-mate loves Michelangelo and my Korean studio-mate wants nothing more than to see the Sistine next year, while I love Hokusia and Utamaro and Persian and Arabic illuminate manuscripts, Indian sculpture, and Byzantine mosaics. There is no reason that a Chinese art-lover cannot appreciate Michelangelo any more than there is a reason that an art-lover living in the 21st century cannot appreciate medieval art.

I'm really for the use of all lenses in looking at and appreciating arts because I always go for variety over sameness and homogeneity. With that in mind, I'm able to appreciate an artist who crumples a paper and calls it an art or hangs his shorts in an exhibit, and i don't see his artworks as a crumpled paper and his shorts only because I go beyond formalism and the strict interpretation of art for art's sake. 

Unfortunately most people... and the society as a whole don't have time to waste looking, listening, and reading everything. The vast majority of all art will be forgotten... primarily because it wasn't that good. You can cry all you wish that this isn't fair, but perhaps you should learn that life isn't fair... not all people are equal... not all artists are equal.

St' Lukes should really do something. You are ruining his thread that's very interesting. Your comments are inconsistent, uninteresting, and absurd.

"In so doing, perhaps I can show why, rightly, Cezanne is a great and important artist, and Coombs is not."

Still you don't get it. Oranges belong in a fruit bowl not in a pastry basket. Comparing Cezanne and Coombs? Really?

One must appreciate the irony involved in Ms. Miyako's comments. She has no problem making insulting comments concerning the abilities of others and then turns about and argues that there is no good nor bad and that the very notion of offering up judgment is wrong.

I think someone said thumbnails are preferred here, when reproducing images. I'm not sure how to do that.

As long as the image does not contain any nudity, you can upload it to Photobucket, select the image, click "choose action", click on "clickable thumbnails" and paste to LitNet.

If the image contains nudity, Photobucket is likely to delete it, so I employ Flickr, but the process is a bit more complex. Again you upload the image to Flickr, click and open the image in your "photostream", select "share", select "thumbnail" or small, the copy the code. THe entire code will look like this:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8320179682/" title="Shepard_Fairey_Hope_2008 by Stlukesguild1, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8355/8320179682_b6aba0045b_m.jpg" width="159" height="240" alt="Shepard_Fairey_Hope_2008"></a>

Copy the portion beginning with the second (or final) "http://" through the .jpg

As here:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8355/8...aba0045b_m.jpg

Take this and post it in the "Insert Image" feature. Be sure to upload using From URL and shut off the "Retrieve remote file..."

Click OK

This will post like this:



(Or simply post the [IMG] and [/IMG] around the code.)

Then go back to Flickr, open the largest configuration of the image, and again copy that code:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8320179682/" title="Shepard_Fairey_Hope_2008 by Stlukesguild1, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8355/8320179682_b6aba0045b_z.jpg" width="350" height="529" alt="Shepard_Fairey_Hope_2008"></a>

Cut the same portion of the code:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8355/8...aba0045b_z.jpg

Go back to LitNet. Highlight the first code in your post then select "Link" 

Enter the second code (for the larger image) and click OK

When you post the thread you'll get a thumbnail linked to a larger image.

You can check before posting by using the "Preview Post"

----------


## ftil

You must have missed my post on a previous page where I asked you what awards you have received.
I remember when you expressed your disappointments that nobody here was interested in your art. 
I am interested to see them.
Why dont you take the opportunity to present your awarded paintings?  :Smile5:

----------


## miyako73

I'm curious to see St. Luke's body of work. It must be intelligent because of his grasp of art theory and history. Where can I see it, St. Luke? Can you post it here? I won't judge it the way you do. I don't think there's a bad or ugly art, but there are that do not excite or interest me.

----------


## Cioran

Thanks on the thumbnail info, stlukesguild. I'll try this out a little later when I have some time; right now I'm at work.

A few more words about Robert Coombs, for the time being: After having looked at a number of his paintings, I would say that he is a very talented painter but also a very savvy businessman. He knows exactly what he is doing, because he knows how visually uneducated the public is.

In the backgrounds of his paintings, he is a painter: free, easy, symphonic, creative. In the foregrounds (the figures) he is a businessman. There, in the figurative work, is where he gives the public what it expects: cheap, dime-store sentimentality.

I can't help but believe that he is aware of his visual schizophrenia. My bet is that in the privacy of his studio, he makes full canvases of his backgrounds, and when he does that he feels his freest and most painterly.

----------


## miyako73

Wow, Cioran. Impressive. That's a good read. You tackle motive and intent and visual schizophrenia. Impressive analysis, indeed.

----------


## ftil

> I'm curious to see St. Luke's body of work. It must be intelligent because of his grasp of art theory and history. Where can I see it, St. Luke? Can you post them here? I won't judge them the way you do. I don't think there's a bad or ugly art, but there are that do not excite or interest me.



I am glad that you agree with me in encouraging St. Luke to post his art. It will be a good opportunity to learn about prestigious awards in US.

----------


## Zagreus

> Well, I am not going to fight with anyone anymore, and I am just going to put fitil and Miyako on ignore. The latter asked me what I thought about a certain painting by Coombs, and I attempted a thoughtful response. In return, I received abuse. I will no longer tolerate this person's invective.
> 
> Of course we can agree that people might have different opinions on art. Let me reiterate a point I made earlier: in this thread, neither stlukesguild nor I are trying to define art for anyone, or say what anyone should or should not like. Alas, it is just the opposite. Ftil has set herself up as the arbiter of what is, and is not, "beauty." While I, for instance, can tell you what's good about Coombs' work, she cannot say anything good about art she doesn't like; can say nothing about all that is good (and great) in the modernist canon, or even concede that this canon has any value. This is, as I have said, breathtakingly arrogant and earth-shakingly wrong headed.
> 
> Moreover, as stlukesguild has stated, even if one is to embrace a relativism so extreme that what's good in the visual arts is solely a matter of opinion, then it remains the case that some opinions are better than others
> 
> ftil keep touting this "Almost Sunset" painting and never fails to mention that it won a prize. What she consistently and disingenuously fails to mention is that the prize was awarded by an organization that excludes from winning its prize any art that differs in the slightest from the art that Coombs makes. The prize is worthless. 
> 
> Art exists in a social context, as I've said. But even so, it's not enough to say, "Let's understand this art through the prism of Marxism, Feminism, and Post-colonialism." You can do that if you wish, but if you do, you are no longer talking about art _qua_ art. For no matter how socially enmeshed any particular work is, at the end of the day all art shares in common the practice of _seeing,_ and converting what is seen into marks on a surface. That is the formalism behind art, and if you lose sight of this fact, as it were, then you lose sight of seeing, of art at its most essential as it has been practiced back to the days of cave paintings.
> ...


I'm actually glad you started discussing, I mean, I learned a lot about the concept of art, but it seems to me that it has come to a point where any further arguing won't add anything to the subject. You made clear where you stand in this, everyone did. Now it's for the audience to decide what ideas are to embrace.

You said you'll hold "Almost Sunset" against a Cézanne: please do. I'm interested, tell us how you see :)

----------


## stlukesguild

Due to my career (teacher) and the current conservative and anti-teacher climate in America in which teachers have bee fired for posting a picture of themselves drinking a Guinness while vacationing in Ireland or wearing a bikini while vacationing in Florida, I rarely post any of my newer works on line due to the fact that they employ the nude. 

Up until about 5 years ago I was working mostly in collage related to books and reading. A few examples:


_-Lamentations: Tense and on Edge_ 


_-The Three Kingdoms_


_-The Nightingale Approaching_ 


_-Ghost Sonata_


_-Winter Meditations on a Theme by Thomas More_


_-A Poet Unhinged_


_-The Poetry of Perfumed Letters_


-_Belle lettres_


_-There Was a Crooked Man_


_-Ancient Gardens_


_-Terza Rima_

I'll post two of my newer figurative paintings that I have posted on line before:


_-Tyger, Tyger_




_-Noli me tangere_

The second image is to give some concept of scale. My figurative paintings are 80"x44" and are constructed of mixed media (pastel, acrylic, pencil, and gold-leaf on paper). My major influences include Japanese Ukiyo-e prints and screen painting, Indian sculpture, Persian, Arabic, and Medieval European illuminated manuscript paintings, Byzantine mosaics, early Italian Renaissance painting, Ingres, Klimt, Bonnard, Matisse, Beckmann, Francis Bacon, and recently... popular culture, posters, etc... 

As for my awards, I have a couple "Best of Show" one "Best Painting" another "Best 3-D Work" for a ceramic piece, and a couple others. They are all pretty much as meaningless as most any award outside of being a little pat on the back. Nearly every group exhibition that involves some form of competition (as opposed to a commercial gallery) includes some sort of awards. I have acted as a juror on a couple of occasions for a University Art Exhibition and I have been a curator and director of an art gallery of my own for several years. I know just how much subjectivity and even politics are involved in awards. I had one award stripped by a juror who felt that because I hadn't signed the front of the painting, I must have been ashamed of it. I simply never sign the front of my works. Neither do many other artists. I entered a major museum competition and was rejected because the curators were more interested in smaller works. A number of my friends were rejected because the curators were interested in focusing on younger artists. Such stipulations are fine... but often exhibition organizers will not tell you that realism or abstraction or older artists or whatever really have no chance of being shown... because they want to collect your money... your entry fee... regardless. Honestly, the best award is to have someone who likes your work enough to actually buy it... but even this is no measure of merit. Obviously there are more people likely to purchase something like this:



than something like this:



(Both, by the way, are by quite talented and well-respected artists.

----------


## miyako73

I like Noli Me Tangere. I like how the woman holds the man's hands as if she prevents him to grope her, and how the man's hands look indifferent as if he's not interested to touch her. Indeed, "touch me not." Are you Asian, St. Lukes? Formalists will love this particular painting. It has the colors, mosaic, sharpness of figurative lines, use of gold found in Eastern Christian iconography. It can be Adam and Eve or two haloed virgins-- again, "touch me not."

----------


## Cioran

Nice work! Love the collages. The figurative work seems quite original. Thanks for sharing thee, stlukesguild.

----------


## stlukesguild

*Liu Chenyang*

I recently stumbled upon the work of a young and promising Chinese painter, Liu Chenyang. Liu was born in 1984 in the Henan Province, China. She studied in the Third Painting Studio of Oil Painting Department of Guangxi Arts Institute and is currently undertaking postgraduate studies in the Oil Painting department of Guangxi Arts Institute. Her work has been exhibited frequently in China and abroad, and she has begun to earn a solid following and sells at rather impressive prices. 

Liu's work is clearly rooted in Western Modernism. Her employment of flat areas of bright color recalls Gauguin, while her bold gestural outlines suggest Edvard Munch, Egon Schiele... as well as the Chinese tradition of calligraphy. 









She has an aversion to the imagery rooted in popular culture and the use of neon, DayGlow, and florescent colors popular with the current crop of Chinese Neo-Pop/Pop Surrealists. Her subject matter is rooted in personal and intimate experience and memory with a special focus on the experience of women/girls in their intimate moments.































I find her portraits and self-portraits particularly effective. She can be quite bold in these works in her handling of paint without the need for too much consideration for complex composition. She can also employ some rather audacious and surprising color combinations. Liu is also quite good at capturing a definite facial expression, personality, and mood with rather limited means.

























Her more recent work has grown in scale and often employs multiple figures... and animals. The best of these maintain her ability to convey a mood, atmosphere, gesture, and even personality with simple means or a limit degree of "realistic" detail.

Liu Chenyang is certainly an artist to watch.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> As for my awards, I have a couple "Best of Show" one "Best Painting" another "Best 3-D Work" for a ceramic piece, and a couple others. They are all pretty much as meaningless as most any award outside of being a little pat on the back. Nearly every group exhibition that involves some form of competition (as opposed to a commercial gallery) includes some sort of awards. I have acted as a juror on a couple of occasions for a University Art Exhibition and I have been a curator and director of an art gallery of my own for several years. I know just how much subjectivity and even politics are involved in awards. I had one award stripped by a juror who felt that because I hadn't signed the front of the painting, I must have been ashamed of it. I simply never sign the front of my works. Neither do many other artists. I entered a major museum competition and was rejected because the curators were more interested in smaller works. A number of my friends were rejected because the curators were interested in focusing on younger artists. Such stipulations are fine... but often exhibition organizers will not tell you that realism or abstraction or older artists or whatever really have no chance of being shown... because they want to collect your money... your entry fee... regardless. Honestly, the best award is to have someone who likes your work enough to actually buy it... but even this is no measure of merit. Obviously there are more people likely to purchase something like this:


Well, I do understand that there may be politics involved in awards. I dont think that subjectivity plays a big role. After all, if an artist get the award for excellence there is no that much subjectivity but there are criteria according to which paintings are evaluated. The same is when you get academic award for excellence, you dont get because of politics but because of evident academic achievement.  :FRlol: 

To be honest, I dont understand your harsh criticism of D. Gerhartz. I wish I have a chance to hear his opinion of your paintings....it would be fair. He not only have an impressive list of awards but also number of paintings .

Thank you for showing your art..I prefer Gerhartzs and Coombs art that is full of feelings.  :Wink:

----------


## miyako73

Way before Gerhartz and Coombs were born, a famous painter in my country had already painted images like these, yet nobody really talks about him outside the country. Now that postcolonialism is currently loud a theory in humanities, scholars back home go back to his works for studies in aesthetics and identity. I can only hope foreign art scholars will begin to realize that developing countries too have impressive artworks, brilliant artists, and art histories. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bf2tqZcAEA

----------


## ftil

> Way before Gerhartz and Coombs were born, a famous painter in my country had already painted images like these, yet nobody really talks about him outside the country. Now that postcolonialism is currently loud a theory in humanities, scholars back home go back to his works for studies in aesthetics and identity. I can only hope foreign art scholars will begin to realize that developing countries too have impressive artworks, brilliant artists, and art histories.



There were/are many talented artists all over the world. Many of them were born with a brush and were masters and some who wanted to be painters. It happens in every profession.......there are masters and. craftsmans.  :FRlol: 

BTW, I am curious about the painting you have posted but you still didn't reveal the name of the painter.

----------


## miyako73

backread i put the name of the photographer. it's a photographic image. David Nebreda

----------


## miyako73

I don't know what you meant by craftsman. Sotheby's and Christie's certainly consider Amorsolo an artist, and so are the intelligent collectors.

----------


## ftil

> I don't know what you meant by craftsman. Sotheby's and Christie's certainly consider Amorsolo an artist, and so are the intelligent collectors.


Perhaps, it is not the best translation but what I mean that there are people who have little talent and their work is not that of having talent but a hard work.

----------


## miyako73

Since you are into award/medal/prize, here's another one by a Filipino artist named Juan Luna, who won gold medal at Exposición Nacional de Bellas Artes in 1884 in Madrid (Picasso won honorable mention in 1897). He even lived in France and Spain for awhile, yet he was still ignored by art scholars. My point here is that there are non-western artists whose body of works are not included in Art History because well they are not Western-- in short, racism. So, Postcolonial theory, a workable theory for identity politics, is a need to rectify the inhumanity of the past.



luna.jpg

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *miyako73*
> backread i put the name of the photographer. it's a photographic image. David Nebreda


Sorry, but I didn't notice where you put his name. Anyway, I didn't know him but I have found the photo you have posted. 




> Bachelor of Fine Arts. At the young age of 19 was diagnosed with schizophrenia . He lives shut up in a flat in Madrid with just two rooms where he has made all of his photographic work, without medication, without outside communication, no radio, newspapers, books or television. Vegetarian for 20 years, practice sexual abstinence, and subjected to severe fasts that you maintain a state of extreme thinness.
> 
> Their images came to blows the gallery Renos Xippas who dedicated an exhibition in his gallery of Paris , was where Léo Scheer discovered his work, impressed by his editor decided to become a force to disclose his work. He has published two photo books. Self-taught in photography, surprising for its wise use of the technique, mastery of light and chiaroscuro of his photographs, not manipulate the positivado even if you use the double exposure. 
> 
> His work is almost unknown in Spain, in France has been promoted by people from the aforementioned category Léo Sheer , critical philosopher and one of the promoters of Canal + France, and has even been the subject of an article by Jean Baudrillard. 
> 
> The only reference close to his work may be the artist Joel-Peter Witkin , although this looks to people outside their models or cadavers, not Nebreda, which bases all his work in his own person. 
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nebreda



And his work. He takes pictures of himself, after flagellation and self-harm.

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...nebreda-35499/


BTW, why did you put ftil quote behind the image you posted?  :Reddevil: 


[QUOTE]tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpghttp://www.online-literature.com/for...-Beyond/page13

----------


## miyako73

what do you mean? I googled, saved the pic, and posted. I did not change anything. I did not quote your name. Go backread. Damn I want what you're having. You're seeing things.

----------


## ftil

> what do you mean? I googled, saved the pic, and posted. I did not change anything. I did not quote your name. Go backread. Damn I want what you're having. You're seeing things.


I have posted a link to your post. post # 186.

Enjoy LitNet........I don't have time for that.  :FRlol:

----------


## miyako73

LOL. I quoted your previous post which I accidentally moved or something and I inserted the image inside the quote.

-----------------------------------

This is not what I meant but it is a big subject and off topic.[/QUOTE]

It's not off topic. I'm responding to your myopic view about beauty. As I said, the most beautiful image to me is the image below because of its beautiful/meaningful narrative. As you have your own way of viewing things, I respect that. Do not impose your view. Do you want everyone to have the same view? That must be a one big boring world you have in mind. 


tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg[QUOTE=ftil;1195323]



-------------------------------

Got it now? No Occultism involved. Trust me.

----------


## stlukesguild

Way before Gerhartz and Coombs were born, a famous painter in my country had already painted images like these, yet nobody really talks about him outside the country. Now that postcolonialism is currently loud a theory in humanities, scholars back home go back to his works for studies in aesthetics and identity. I can only hope foreign art scholars will begin to realize that developing countries too have impressive artworks, brilliant artists, and art histories.

The problem that many non-Western nations suffered from was not so much that Western artists/critics/art historians/art lovers etc... imposed their set standards upon the art of a culture that with different values and standards, but rather it has been that in a great many cases these non-Western cultures have developed a certain self-loathing... a rejection of the strengths of their own artistic achievements and a desire to mimic the style of Western art. 

The critic, Robert Hughes, spoke of this as the "cultural cringe", in response to Australia's feelings of artistic inferiority to Europe and the United States. For a long time the US had this same cultural cringe with regard to European culture. Perhaps the difference was the manner in which the US developed its own cultural mythology. 

I know little or nothing of the art of the Philippines, but I can use, by way of example, the art of Japan. The Japanese had a very ancient and rich art history. They produced some of the oldest-known ceramic sculpture. The Jomon and Haniwa works are especially fine:









While Japanese art owes much to the Chinese... they also broke free from the Chinese hold and developed their own unique artistic voice. Chinese ceramics, for example, tend to be highly polished and elegant:





There are elements that suggest Persian and Middle-eastern influence... and vis-versa. The Japanese, on the other hand, lacked access to the fine porcelain clay and so they were were forced to use the rougher stone-wear clays. Out of necessity... and in conjunction with their love of nature (and undoubtedly the nature-based native Shinto religion) Japanese ceramics evolved in a manner almost shockingly "modernist" with an embrace of apparent accidents, "crude" asymmetry etc...







The history of Japanese painting is equally rich. There are the most elegant calligraphic and almost minimal of paintings:



















And there are works that are stunningly decorative and employ compositional ideas that were shockingly original to Western artists:













And then there's the entire tradition of Graphic Arts... print-making in Japan. The Ukiyo-e print-makers were essentially illustrators. They were seen as the "low brow" artists by court painters known for producing the equivalents of our postcards for tourists, posters of celebrities, illustrations for pulp novels and even pornography... and comic books. Yet these artists became among the most know and influential:

















These artists had a profound influence upon Western artists ranging from Whistler to Degas, Mary Cassatt, Van Gogh, Matisse, etc... The Western artists, however, took the elements they admired... yet the work remained clearly of the Western tradition.

By the late 19th century, however, Japanese art began to absorb many influence of Western art... and often this was not for the better:









As the artists strove to paint like Western artists, they largely lost any sense of personal voice rooted in their native traditions. It was only after WWII that Japanese Art developed its own Modern and yet uniquely native voice:

----------


## ftil

Have you noticed that when you quote somebody the name is on the top of the post not in the middle of the post?
If you use quote bottom there are no numbers behind the name.

Anyway, you are on ignore from now.  :FRlol: ....... I don’t want this thread to be closed.

----------


## miyako73

Let me explain to you ftil. So petty.

*Originally my post looked like this:*

tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg 


> This is not what I meant but it is a big subject and off topic.


It's not off topic. I'm responding to your myopic view about beauty. As I said, the most beautiful image to me is the image below because of its beautiful/meaningful narrative. As you have your own way of viewing things, I respect that. Do not impose your view. Do you want everyone to have the same view? That must be a one big boring world you have in mind.

*I wanted the image to be after my post. When I moved the image, I accidentally dragged "([QUOTE=ftil;1195323])"; Thus:
*


It's not off topic. I'm responding to your myopic view about beauty. As I said, the most beautiful image to me is the image below because of its beautiful/meaningful narrative. As you have your own way of viewing things, I respect that. Do not impose your view. Do you want everyone to have the same view? That must be a one big boring world you have in mind. 


tumblr_lze1hzSVHW1r98944o1_500.jpg[QUOTE=ftil;1195323])

*Got it now?
*

----------


## stlukesguild

My point here is that there are non-western artists whose body of works are not included in Art History because well they are not Western-- in short, racism.

Undoubtedly racism exists... and was part of what led past generations to ignore the achievements of artists of other cultures... but to suggest that because an artist who was Black or Female or Gay or non-Western was ignored and is still ignored because of sexism or racism or any other such bias is making something of a leap. For every Black or Female or non-Western artist whose work has been ignored, there are just as many... if not far more... Western Male artists who have largely disappeared or been ignored. 

Who decides which artists make it into the so-called "canon" of art history? This is a process that continues to evolve over the course of time and is the result of the opinions of those who have invested most into art: art dealers, art collectors, art historians, academics and professionals of all walks, and then obviously the well-informed art audience and the subsequent artists. For better of worse art often follows money and power because it is here that the artist will find patronage, support, and promotion of his or her work. We are constantly "discovering" ignored masters. 150 years ago Vermeer was largely ignored, today he is a towering figure of art history. Vilhelm Hammerschoi and Anders Zorn... both masterful painters... were only recently "rediscovered". Japanese Art has benefited from Japan's history... their trade with the West, their military and economic power have resulted in their art being the subject of study and exploration by the West. Chinese art becomes increasingly important as China becomes a military/economic power to be reckoned with.

The reality is that every culture pushes their own culture/history/artistic vision. You cannot blame the United States of Europe for not taking Filipino or Ecuadorian or Sudanese art seriously. The French promote their tradition... and those traditions they deem relevant to their development. The same is true of the English, the Italians, the Germans, the Americans, and the Filipinos.

----------


## JCamilo

Not really. If you recite in the proper order facing west at the exactly time, you can quote in the midle. :. 




> Anyway, you are on ignore from now. ....... I don’t want this thread to be closed.


The owls are not what they seem 




> Have you noticed that when you quote somebody the name is on the top of the post not in the middle of the post?
> If you use quote bottom there are no numbers behind the name.

----------


## stlukesguild

Thank you for showing your art..I prefer Gerhartzs and Coombs art that is full of feelings.

There is no art that is full of feelings. A work of art is an inanimate object. The feelings are in the viewer. A work of art may inspire feelings in the viewers, but ultimately you bring these to the work. I have a response to Coombs and Gerhartz as well. I find the work overly sentimental, unrealistic, and cliche. The paintings are technically very well executed, but they strike me as pastiches of works by artists that I find far more original and far better. Artists in the same painterly tradition, including Boldini, Charles Chaplin, Anders Zorn, Watterhouse, Ingres, Girodet, Fragonard, Gainsborough, Anton Raphael Mengs, Winslow Homer, John Singer Sargent, Sorolla, Berthe Morisot, Edgar Degas, Frank Duveneck, Manet, William Merritt Chase, etc... to say nothing of Rubens, Rembrandt, Titian, Velazquez and Raphael were all far more original, far more innovative, and far better painters all around. You can't honestly express surprise if an artist you like paints in a manner that is little more than a pastiche of Impressionism or Cubism if others are likely to compare these artists to Monet and Degas or Braque and Picasso and feel that the pastiche comes up lacking. I admitted as much in connection with the artist Catherine Able, whose work I posted earlier... and admitted that it was a pastiche of Art Deco, Cubism, Tamara Lempicka, etc... While I like her work... I don't imagine that it is in any way in the same category as Lempicka... let alone Picasso and Braque.

----------


## ftil

> Not really. If you recite in the proper order facing west at the exactly time, you can quote in the midle. :. 
> 
> 
> 
> The owls are not what they seem


 Why don't you offer miyako73 your company?  :FRlol: 


I remember that a member posted Beksinski art on the forum. I didn't know his paintings and I don't regret.




> Zdzisław Beksiński was a renowned Polish painter, photographer, and sculptor. Beksiński was born in the town of Sanok, in southern Poland. After studying architecture in Kraków, Beksiński had no formal training as an artist. His paintings were mainly created using oil paint on hardboard panels which he personally prepared, although he also experimented with acrylic paints. The 1980s marked a transitory period for Beksiński. During this time, his works became more popular in France due to the endeavors of Piotr Dmochowski, and he achieved significant popularity in Western Europe, the United States and Japan.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zdzis%C...Beksi%C5%84ski


His paintings.
http://art.vniz.net/en/beksinski/


Beksiński claimed, "I wish to paint in such a manner as if I were photographing dreams".


I reminds me about Henry Fuseli's The Nightmare and S. Freud.


When Max Eastman visited Sigmund Freud's apartment at Berggasse 19,Vienna, Austria, in 1926, he noticed a print of John Henry Fuseli's (1741-1825) The Nightmare hanging on the wall next to Rembrandt vanRijn's The Anatomy Lesson.


*Henry Fuseli, The Nightmare*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jo..._Nightmare.JPG


Sigmund Freud was also fascinated with demonology. 




> Sigmund Freud calls the Praestigiis Daemonum one of the ten most significant books of all time.
> http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/weyer.htm





> De praestigiis daemonum is a book by demonologist Johann Weyer, also known as Wierus, first published in Basel in 1563. The book also contains a famous appendix also circulated independently as the Pseudomonarchia daemonum, a listing of the names and titles of infernal spirits, and the powers alleged to be wielded by each of them.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_praestigiis_daemonum

----------


## miyako73

@St. Luke

We have traditions in sculptural and textile arts. But the West looks at them as exotic and too ethnic; thus, they are called handicrafts. Our painting history can be traced back in 1800's or even earlier when the Spanish painters came and put up art schools in the Islands. I don't think your "cultural cringe" is applicable as far as the painting history of the Philippines is concerned. 

Earliest painting/drawing/illustration works in my country:


Damian Domingo.jpg

Justiniano Asuncion.jpg

Esperidion de la Rosa.jpg

Filipe Roxas.jpg

Jose Honorato Lozano.jpg

----------


## ftil

> Thank you for showing your art…..I prefer Gerhartz’s and Coombs’ art that is full of feelings.
> 
> There is no art that is full of feelings. A work of art is an inanimate object. The feelings are in the viewer. A work of art may inspire feelings in the viewers, but ultimately you bring these to the work. I have a response to Coombs and Gerhartz as well. I find the work overly sentimental, unrealistic, and cliche. The paintings are technically very well executed, but they strike me as pastiches of works by artists that I find far more original and far better. Artists in the same painterly tradition, including Boldini, Charles Chaplin, Anders Zorn, Watterhouse, Ingres, Girodet, Fragonard, Gainsborough, Anton Raphael Mengs, Winslow Homer, John Singer Sargent, Sorolla, Berthe Morisot, Edgar Degas, Frank Duveneck, Manet, William Merritt Chase, etc... to say nothing of Rubens, Rembrandt, Titian, Velazquez and Raphael were all far more original, far more innovative, and far better painters all around. You can't honestly express surprise if an artist you like paints in a manner that is little more than a pastiche of Impressionism or Cubism if others are likely to compare these artists to Monet and Degas or Braque and Picasso and feel that the pastiche comes up lacking. I admitted as much in connection with the artist Catherine Able, whose work I posted earlier... and admitted that it was a pastiche of Art Deco, Cubism, Tamara Lempicka, etc... While I like her work... I don't imagine that it is in any way in the same category as Lempicka... let alone Picasso and Braque.


There are paintings full of feelings and paintings completely void of feelings. If people have vibrant bodies full of feelings, they will feel them. But I am not going into details as it is off topic.

You are entitled to have your opinion about paintings, so I am. Please, don’t forget that it is your opinion and not the opinion of all artists or art historians. Likewise, my opinion is only my opinion.  :Wink:

----------


## miyako73

Also, one modernist Filipino Painter named Manansala did impressive works in the 50's to 60's he called Transparent Cubism, which was original, yet you can't find his name in art history books:


M1.jpg

M2.jpg

m3.jpg

M4.jpg

M5.jpg

----------


## stlukesguild

We have traditions in sculptural and textile arts. But the West looks at them as exotic and too ethnic...

Actually, that's a bias within the West as well. There are great debates concerning the divide between the so-called "fine arts" and the "applied" or "decorative arts". William Morris and the Arts and Crafts Movement, the Pre-Rapahelites, and the Bauhaus all challenged this notion... but it became re-entrenched under Clement Greenberg and other Modernist critics that used terms such as "narrative", "illustrative" and "decorative" as insults... the idea being that such works of art were less "pure". 

One of my favorite living artists, Robert Kushner...

















...was part of the so-called "Pattern Art" movement that embraced pattern and decorative art rooted in tapestries and other decorative art forms including textile arts. Kushner traveled through the Middle-East and Japan and was struck by the absence of such a divide between applied/decorative art and "fine art". There are more than a few Western critics/historians/artists who are exploring art forms and genre once dismissed as minor in comparison with painting, sculpture, and architecture.

----------


## stlukesguild

You are entitled to have your opinion about paintings, so I am.

The statement that a painting is an inanimate object and has no feelings is not an opinion, but a fact... unless you have some bizarre interpretation of the terns fact and opinion... or unless you can show how a painting has feeling.

A painting can inspire feelings... but these feelings are in the audience not in the painting. Fact.

The feelings inspired by a work of art vary between people because of the fact that the audience brings their own feelings to bear. Fact.

----------


## miyako73

St Lukes is correct. A painting is an inanimate stimulus that can stir emotions. If you see a laughing image of a person in a canvas, it's just an image of a person with an open mouth and a distorted face. Does the painting feel happy? Nope. Is it a painting about happiness? Not necessarily. Does it make you happy? That's the question only you can answer. Even paintings which have figures that giggle make me sad. See, it is its viewer who gives emotion to a painting.


Okay, poker game is over. I lost.

----------


## ftil

> The statement that a painting is an inanimate object and has no feelings is not an opinion, but a fact...


This is just your opinion not a fact.  :FRlol: 




> unless you have some bizarre interpretation of the terns fact and opinion... or unless you can show how a painting has feeling.


LOL! Well, if you dont pick up feelings from the paintings, I am not going to explain it to you. Nobody would. As I said, you have to feel the feelings to understand what I am talking about. If you are interested to learn, I may give you some books to read so that you may understand it and evaluate your level of emotional awareness. Otherwise, I dont want to waste your and my time. It starts with cognitive knowledge but it is the beginning and until you experience it, you wouldnt have a clue what I am taking about.  :Wink: 


I have forgotten to ask you which of your paintings you presented was awarded.

----------


## miyako73

My god, ftil! Do you know the meanings of "inanimate" and "object"? I seldom agree with St. Lukes; I think you don't know what you're talking about.

----------


## JCamilo

She actually knows, she said "you have to feel" and "until you experience" and not "the painting feels" or "the painting has experience", but her desire to pull Stlukes leg is too much to admit one single agreement with him. And no cognitive theory will help out, as the majority of cognitive models focus too much on the individual. This is funny  :Biggrin:

----------


## miyako73

Thanks, JC. You got that one. I did not continue to read after she said inanimate object having no feelings is not a fact. Inconsistency problem again. Damn! inconsistency.

----------


## ftil

> My god, ftil! Do you know the meanings of "inanimate" and "object"? I seldom agree with St. Lukes; I think you don't know what you're talking about.


LOL! I was just curious if you were going to do what Cioran did, knowing that he was on my ignore list but for 14 pages responded to my posts.

I guess I can expect another 14 pages..... Forums are..... delightfully entertaining.  :FRlol: 

You have made my day. 


My gift for you.

*Rene Magritte, Le Modele Rouge* 

http://store.myartmatch.com/enlarge/89442/






> Originally posted by *JCamilo*
> 
> She actually knows, she said "you have to feel" and "until you experience" and not "the painting feels" or "the painting has experience", but her desire to pull Stlukes leg is too much to admit one single agreement with him. And no cognitive theory will help out, as the majority of cognitive models focus too much on the individual. This is funny


You didn't understand what I said. I am not going to repeat it.........you already has a company.  :FRlol:

----------


## miyako73

> LOL! I was just curious if you were going to do what Cioran did, knowing that he was on my ignore list but for 14 pages responded to my posts.
> 
> I guess I can expect another 14 pages..... Forums are..... delightfully entertaining. 
> 
> You have made my day. 
> 
> 
> 
> My gift for you.
> ...



Didn't you just respond to my post? I thought I was on ignore. C'mon. I know you can't resist.

----------


## mortalterror

Stluke, I bet you'd probably like Tadashi Nakayama. He does a mix of modern and traditional Persian styles.

----------


## ftil

I didn't know Tadashi Nakayama.




> Nakayama begins each print by drawing the design on ordinary paper. After the design is completed, it is painted with watercolors an he may add gold and silver to help him visualize the final work. Next, Nakayama transfers each color of the design onto separate sheets of tracing paper. For example, every section of the print which will be magenta is traced onto a separate sheet of paper, every section which will be cadmium yellow is traced onto another sheet, etc....
> 
> When all of the areas of color have been transferred onto sheets of tracing paper, the next step is to transfer the image to the woodblocks, again using one block for each of the different areas of color. Nakayama craves his blocks using chisels, awls, knives and other tools. Upon completion of the carving, he begins the printing of trial proofs. During this process, he determines the order in which the colors and the leaf gold and silver will be printed. Determining the order of colors is influenced by the shadings of color he wishes to create and it also depends to some extent on where the colors are located in the composition. For example, when certain colors are printed over others, a certain grain or striation might occur which Nakayama does not want in his print. Experience has taught him the general order of the application of colors and the optimum time for the printing of 24 carat leaf gold and silver. Nakayama's goal might be to achieve the clearest printing possible or it might be to create a kaleidoscope of brilliance by overlapping colors.
> 
> Because Nakayama's prints are very complicated, they are very time-consuming and he is able to complete only one or two prints each year. He is the sole creator of his work and until very recent years, he did all of the work of each print. He drew the basic design, traced the colors onto the blocks, carved the blocks, printed the trial proofs and final edition. At this time, he receives some assistance in the carving of blocks and in printing. However, all stages of carving and printing are done under his supervision. He controls every stage of his creativity.
> http://www.hendricksartcollection.com/nakayama.html



http://www.hendricksartcollection.com/nak30.html


http://castlefinearts.com/search_res...eno=3&pn=&rpp=


http://www.azumagallery.com/exhibiti...g%20Horses.jpg


http://www.azumagallery.com/exhibiti...fly%20Wind.jpg


http://www.azumagallery.com/exhibiti...g%20Horses.jpg

----------


## Cioran

What a shame that someone as brilliant and generous with his time as stlukesguild comes here and gives everyone, for free, an art education, and yet the thread is persistently mucked up by a couple of plonkers. Even more a shame that moderation is loose enough here to permit that to happen.

After this post, I'll make thumbnails for the works I post. 

Robert Coombs' painting, "Almost Sundown," is, like all his works that I have seen online, nothing more than visual cliche. I'm sure he knows it. As I mentioned, he's a talented painter, which talent most shows up in his loose, free, impressionistic backgrounds, but obviously he is also a businessman who wants to make money off his art. No garret for him. And that's fine. But the rest of us can become visually educated enough to understand why paintings like this just don't sufficiently nourish the mind or the heart. They are Reader's Digest Art. If you want Shakespeare, or Dostoevsky, or even Feminist Post-Colonial Marxism, you'll have to set your sights higher.

It's worth pursuing for a moment the literary analogy. If you are a reader and a writer and someone came along and wrote nothing but simple little stories in simple language with a formulaic plot, one-dimensional characters, simple, predictable resolutions and cheap, easy sentimentality, would that be enough for you? I should hope not. 

Compositionally, "Almost Sundown" is as basic and unchallenging as it can be: foreground, background. No visual challenge. Everything is on the surface. Easy.

The girl's attitude and bearing, her expression, the way she twines her hair, is all formulaic. It's idealized and pedantic. Trite. The artists uses (mostly) local color to render her flesh and garments, though he becomes freer and less constricted in the background. 

I suppose the highlight of the painting is intended to be the way the sunlight plays off her hair. And it's well done. The problem is, stuff like this has been done countless times, and better. See: the Impressionists. This is what we want from art? The play of sunlight on hair? It's fine to have that. But is that _all_ we want? 

Looking at the work, we might think: is this made at sunrise or sunset? At least that might give us something to think about. We might imagine something different about the girl's attitude and bearing, the thoughts running through her mind, if the work were made in the morning, rather than in the evening. Maybe, maybe not. But at least it would give us something to think about,

But, no. The artist is determined to give us _nothing_ to think about or ponder. We are offered no challenges. He has helpfully titled the work "Almost Sundown," so we aren't even allowed to reflect on the time of day depicted in the work. 

Verdict: Yawn. It's wallpaper. 

Here's a 1921 work by Edward Hopper. It's called Night Shadows.



Even the name sings of poetry, without giving away the meaning of the work.

Compositionally, the work is daring and unconventional, the exact opposite of Coombs's soporific compositional cliches. It's a striking view from above, not too often seen in fine arts in general, though a staple of graphic novels. 

The inky, enigmatic shadow, that bold velvet-black line, cutting diagonally from left to right, intersects with, and provides a jarring counterpoint to, the gracefully curving expanse of the spacious white sidewalk. By itself that design is interesting to look at, even if nothing else were in the work.

What's it a shadow of? No doubt of a streetlight. That is the source of the illumination. But as the shadow crawls up the side of the building, it becomes immense, face-like, vaguely threatening. It looms. 

Who is the man, and where is he going at this late hour? What is the storefront? We don't know. He seems to be walking at a brisk gait, and we sense that if we waited another moment, he might break out into a trot -- even into a run. Is he on some sinister mission? Or perhaps he is being pursued, and feeling threatened, in this lonely, street-lighted concrete island of the New York City night. We don't know. We are not given this information but left to ponder it. 

So much of Hopper's work is like this: enigmatic, full of isolation, asperity, foreboding and solitude. It's spooky. It reminds us that the big city, for all its hustle and bustle, its swarming mobs, is at bottom a foreboding and lonely place, a place of anomie and alienation. We're faces in the crowd. Desolation. Loneliness and death. With no solution to the riddle of why we are here or where we go, if anywhere, when we die. 

These are not the cheap, easy, facile emotions that Coombs trades in, but dark and disturbing emotions that are important precisely because they are authentic and we all must confront them whether we wish to or not. With an astonishing economy of means, and no recourse to color, Hopper has vividly evoked existentialism.

The line work and cross-hatching by itself is expressive, and so damned interesting to look at. It is reminiscent of Rembrandt. The sharp light/dark patterns hold one's attention and prefigure Noir film of the 1940s, still two decades in the future when Hopper made this.


Earlier I mentioned local color, and _expressiveness_ in the visual arts. As I recall, someone took issue with my naming "expressiveness" as vital to the visual arts. I've no idea why. What is visual art, if not expression? Perhaps one could contend that some of the more extreme abstractions and simplifications of certain minimalist art are void of expression, or intended to be so, but I don't think so. Mondrian's Broadway Boogie-Woogie is one of the most expressive works I've ever encountered. Here it is:



As to local color, what happens when the artist abandons it? Remember, local color is an attempt to reproduce as faithfully as possible the colors in the subject of the painting, the colors before one's very eyes.

Let's look at another work with the world "night' in it. It is the Night Cafe, by Vincent Van Gogh. In it, Van Gogh abandoned local color.



Of this painting, Van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo: _"I have tried to express the terrible passions of humanity by means of red and green."_

The terrible passions of humanity by means of red and green! Not only is there _expression_ in art, as someone earlier took issue with, but it may be done -- somehow! -- by means of red and green! 

But how?

Red and green are _complementary colors,_

What does that mean?

Well, now we are into color theory. Color doesn't care whether you are a post-colonialist feminist Marxist, a Libertarian, a devotee of George Romney or whether your subscribe to Readers' Digest. It doesn't care about the "fiscal cliff" or anything else. 

In the painter's color wheel, there are three _primary colors_: red, yellow and blue. These are the linchpins of the subtractive color wheel. In the additive color wheel, such as is used in Photoshop, the three primaries are red, green and blue, and in printing cyan, magenta and yellow. 

Primary colors are colors that contain no trace of any color but themselves. That is why they are primary. They reflect the fact that the human eye is trichromatic.

Each of the primary colors has a _secondary_ color that is its opposite and complement. In the case of red, that color is green: which is a 50/50 mixture of the two other primaries, yellow and blue. The complement of the primary yellow is violet: a 50/50 mixture of the primaries red and blue. And the complement of the primary blue is orange, a 50/50 mixture of the two other primaries red and yellow. 

It is a curious fact about the way that the human mind is wired that these complementary colors reinforce each other. Red set against green brings out redness and greenness most powerfully. Yellow against violent brings out yellowness and violetness most powerfully. Blue against orange brings out blueness and orangeness most powerfully. This phenomenon is called _complementary contrast._

Google Joseph Albers for more on this.

Van Gogh's painting isn't the best expression of the violent Red/Green complementary contrast, since the green of the pool-table felt is not set directly against the blood red of the walls, although the green of the ceiling does meet the red of the walls. And the painting of course contains a lot of yellow. 

The main point, though, is that by abandoning local color -- for surely the cafe did not look _just like this_ -- Van Gogh has gained _powerful expressiveness._ His expression is less subtle than that of Hopper, but along the same lines: He has painted a place, he wrote, _where one can go mad._

By simple means of bold color and powerful three-point perspective, the artist has used paint _by itself_ to pry open the door to the oubliette of the human psyche, down which he himself would ultimately plunge.

From such simplicity does the visual arts draw upon immense resources, with searing and soaring results. 

More later.

----------


## stlukesguild

I actually don't like Mondrian much... and I hate _Broadway Boogie Woogie_. I had a college painting professor, somewhat of an Expressionist (as I was as the time) once give us a lecture on Mondrian's composition. During the lecture, I asked, "Do you REALLY like Mondrian? REALLY?" He stopped and thought for a moment, and then replied, "Well...... I really don't like Broadway Boogie Woogie. No... That's not right... I really don't like Mondrian." :FRlol: 

I actually like some of Mondrian's earlier works... largely because they have something of a more human touch to them. That's what I like about Sean Scully. He found a way to marry two opposite strains of abstraction: Hard-Edged Geometric Abstraction/Minimalism and Abstract Expressionism/Gesture Painting:



I suspect my aversion to the strain of geometric Abstraction has to do with the fact that I was inundated with such as a student. A good many of my teachers were former students of Joseph Albers. The head of the painting department at my school was one of the leading figures of the Op Art movement: Julian Stanczak:







There's a certain irony to the fact that in spite of my proclaimed aversion, geometry and pattern have become so central to my work.

*****

Hopper on the other hand, is brilliant. He is an example of the difference between the master craftsman and the master artist. I was able to see Hopper's Retrospective at the National Gallery a few years back. While his watercolor paintings are quite fluid and convey some of the sense of virtuosity that you find in Winslow Homer and even John Singer Sargent, his oil paintings have a certain rudimentary crudeness. I never find myself impressed by his handling of paint... let alone his drawing... which can be lumpen at times. In spite of this, the results are quite brilliant. He plays this geometry, which so well conveys a stark modern American urban landscape, against the color and isolated figures which so well convey a sense of atmosphere. Here are a few of my favorites:


_-A Room in New York_


_-Night Windows_

Hopper spent some formative years in Paris and had studied the great Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. His paintings build upon the manner in which Degas, Vuiilard, and Bonnard set the viewer up as voyeurs to intimate domestic dramas. _In A Room in New York_ we view a domestic scene through the window as if through the lens of a camera out on the balcony. The faceless man sits reading the evening paper while his faceless wife turns away and absent-mindedly plunks a few keys on the piano. They are separated by the table and the door... yet the red chair enveloping the man and the woman's red dress suggests an undercurrent of passion... unrequited desire.

In Night Windows, Hopper takes the voyeuristic view even further. We look across the street through the windows of a neighboring apartment. We are offered but a few suggestive details. The warm summer breeze blows the curtains outward. We see the edge of the bed (draped in red) and a woman clothed only in a rose (red) towel bends over (perhaps drying her hair) offering us a view of her shapely bottom. To the right, a lamp with a red shade casts forth a crimson light like those of the Red Light District in Amsterdam. Like Jimmy Stewart playing the voyeur in Rear Window, we are led into drawing all sorts of conclusions... making up narratives... many of a rather erotic nature.


_-Office at Night_

In _Office at Night_ we are presented with a scene of a male office worker and his secretary working late into the night. The hard simplified forms presents a setting where everything is proper and business-like... but there is something unsettling about the greenish light... which is rather hellish as in Van Gogh's _Night Cafe_... if not as extreme. The man and the woman are framed and brought together by the light on the wall. He looks as if he is trying all he can to remain professional... unaware of the gaze his secretary makes in his direction and her voluptuous body that is barely kept contained by her tight business attire. The curved arms of the chair behind her almost reach out to caress her full buttocks... as perhaps the man desires. The entire setting conveys the sort of understated sexual tension one finds in _film noir_... like a scene from _The Maltese Falcon_ or _Double Indemnity_. 


_-Summertime_

Hopper can create a dramatic mood from the simplest of means: a curtail blowing in the wind as a lovely red-haired woman in a clinging and semi-transparent white dress steps out of a stark white building into the blinding light of the summer sun which casts raking shadows on the walls.

I fully realized the limitations of Clement Greenberg's theories when it came to his comments on Edward Hopper. Greenberg was unable to wholly dismiss Hopper in spite of the fact that his paintings challenged all of his theories about abstraction, narrative, American provincialism, etc... He recognized the genius of the work... but was unable to admit that perhaps Hopper just might be a great painter. The best he could offer was to suggest that Hopper represented some debased strain of literature. 

Another artist who recognized the genius of Hopper was Alfred Hitchcock. The way Hopper stages his scenes, the unexpected points of view, the single figure isolated against the modern city landscape, the psycho-sexual dramas, the sexual undercurrents in a society that was ever very proper... all of these had an immense impact on Hitchcock. And who could fail to recognize this as the very model for Norman Bates' house?

----------


## Cioran

Sorry, I'm sort of on the go so I have not had time to read and consider all of your latest post, but ... you HATE Broadway Boogie-Woogie? 

 :Eek6: 

Doh!

It may be that you have to live in New York City, as I do, to get it. 

Anyway, keep up the good work, and don't let the plonkers get you down!  :Wink: 

Great stuff on Hopper, stlukesguild. Thanks.

----------


## miyako73

How's Cioran today? Can you explain why you like Broadway Boogie Woogie? I know I'm not on ignore. Be honest to yourself. 

St Luke, can you comment on my reading of your Noli Me Tangere? Like my formalist analysis of your work's title. Thanks.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> ...Up until about 5 years ago I was working mostly in collage related to books and reading. A few examples:
> 
> 
> _-Winter Meditations on a Theme by Thomas More_
> 
> ...I'll post two of my newer figurative paintings that I have posted on line before:
> 
> ...The second image is to give some concept of scale. My figurative paintings are 80"x44" and are constructed of mixed media (pastel, acrylic, pencil, and gold-leaf on paper). My major influences include Japanese Ukiyo-e prints and screen painting, Indian sculpture, Persian, Arabic, and Medieval European illuminated manuscript paintings, Byzantine mosaics, early Italian Renaissance painting, Ingres, Klimt, Bonnard, Matisse, Beckmann, Francis Bacon, and recently... popular culture, posters, etc...


Thanks for sharing examples of your work. A couple years back you shared _Temptation_ on the Let out the artist thread (posts 473 and 476) along with a blog entry. _Temptation_ is very similar to _Tyger, Tyger_ and _Noli me tangere_, are they part of a more extensive series on a theme? 
Im drawn more to your collage works, with the use of old envelopes, inclusion of postage stamps, the overall geometrical composition and proportions are pleasing, comfortable. They appeal to my architectural eye.


*Happy New Year in art*

I took a moment to see what 2013 has to offer as it pertains to upcoming local museum exhibits.
One exhibit that I already had my sights on from last year, is the Bernini Sculpting in Clay coming to the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth this February. 

The Bernini exhibit is an absolute must for me. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to see many of his sculptures in the flesh when visiting Rome on two occasions. The exhibit will feature 49 of his clay and terracotta study models as well as several of his drawings. 

https://www.kimbellart.org/exhibitio...sculpting-clay

Fountain of the Four Rivers at Piazza Novona (1988):



^Note: the lion at the bottom of the tree just above the water, now look at the museum link above and the photo of Berninis clay study for the lion. Btw that is St. Agnes church in background left.

In addition to the Bernini exhibit, the Kimbell will also host Wari: Lords of the Ancient Andes and The Age of Picasso and Matisse: Modern Masters from The Art Institute of Chicago

https://www.kimbellart.org/exhibitio...-ancient-andes

https://www.kimbellart.org/exhibitio...titute-chicago

Speaking of the Kimbell, the museum expansion is slated to open late 2013. The expansion is designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano.

*The Dallas Museum of Art* is still showing Posters of Paris: Toulouse-Lautrec and His Contemporaries. See St. Lukes posting earlier on this thread (Post no. 6)
The exhibit ends January 20th, so I better hurry.

http://www.dallasmuseumofart.org/Vie...ons/dma_442782


Heading back to Fort Worth, I skimmed through the *Amon Carter Museum of American Art* website to see whats cooking for 2013. I discovered the artist Romare Bearden and his upcoming exhibit with a literary connection; A Black Odyssey. 

http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibiti...-black-odyssey

Im interested in seeing this one.



*Sorry to bury your questions miyako73.....St. Lukes?, Cioran?...*


.

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic and/or inflammatory posts will be removed without further notice.

~*

----------


## miyako73

Cioran and St. Luke, do you find "Broadway Boogie Woogie" better, more beautiful, more briliant than this painting "Avenida Manila" that won a medal in Biennale Internazionale dell’ Arte Contemporonea Florence. The painting is a depiction of a street in Manila. I want to learn from you guys how you compare paintings with almost the same subject.

artwork.jpg

----------


## stlukesguild

As most here probably know, I am an incurable bibliophile... nay, a biblio-maniac. I am writing these words from an office den that by most definitions is a decent small library. I am surrounded by several thousand books... at last count at least 3500. The book shelves are full. Books are stacked on top of these reaching to the ceiling. Books teeter and tower on the desk, on the tables, on top of the computer, and on the floor, turning the room into a labyrinth of the written word that J.L. Borges would surely understand. I became hooked on reading and books from a young age... and it was through books that I was first truly introduced to art.

The first book that I remember reading and wholly enjoying was Dr. Seuss' classic, _Green Eggs and Ham_. I have little doubt that I was as enthralled by the visual imagery as I was by the text:



Not long after, my brother received Dr. Seuss _The Sleep Book_ for his birthday... a gift that taught me the meaning of "envy". The visual imagery of this book was even more fantastic... surreal, even (although I did not then know the term):







When I first stumbled upon Salvador Dali not too many years later, I could not help but recognize a similarity of visual language. This painting in particular, entitled _Sleep_, struck me as quite "Seussian" with the head balanced on stilts...



... an apt image of the tenuous nature of sleep and dreams.

Other books that ranked among my favorites due primarily to the art included Maurice Sendak's _Where the Wild Things Are:_



A good many years later I found that I was just as enthralled with Sendak's unique visual magic and fantasy when I attended his production of Mozart's _Magic Flute_:





as well as his contributions to Tim Burton's _The Nightmare Before Christmas_:



Both Seuss and Sendak inspired me and fueled me with a love of the fantastic. I am still far more enamored of the fantastic and the fabulous than I am of the realistic... in literature and art.

I was lucky enough to have inherited several older books from my grandparents that were illustrated with engravings or lithographs. Among these, I remember _Alice in Wonderland_ and _Through the Looking-glass_...





_Mother Goose_...



the whole _Wizard of Oz_ cycle...



_Huckleberry Finn_ and _Tom Sawyer_...



the tales of Edgar Allan Poe...



and the collected works of Shakespeare:



I didn't get around to reading Shakespeare until later... the texts proved far too dense for me at the time... but the engraved illustrations were incredibly atmospheric and highly seductive. I still remember the image of Richard III's hired goons killing his young nephews as they slept. 

As I approached adolescence, my tastes in illustration shifted toward comic books. I followed any number of comic book superheroes: Batman, Spiderman, Superman, Captain America, the Fantastic Four, etc...





I didn't know it at the time, but comic books had roots in some truly "serious" art. The graphic elements of the imagery, the page layouts, the shifting point of view and scale... even the narratives laden with superheroes undertaking impossible deeds, monsters, ghouls, ghosts, epic battles... all of these and more could be found in Japanese Ukiyo-e prints dating back to the 18th and 19th century.









Even if I had known about "serious art"... "fine art"... at the time, I doubt I would have been the least interested. This was a period dominated by Modernist abstraction. In actuality, the greatest draftsmen of the age were employed in illustration and comic books. Where the Baroque had Caravaggio and Rubens and Van Dyck painting grandiose oil paintings of Christian and Greco-Roman heroes and saints... the mid-20th century had Batman, Superman, and Wonder-Woman... drawn with all the Baroque love of the muscular body seen in dramatic action and from breathtaking points of view.



Speaking of Wonder Woman... comic books also offered the adolescent boy, such as myself, the first real sexual fantasies... in the form of hot, scantily-clad women:





Along with the comic books of superheroes, I was also reading those that featured fantastic tales of aliens, monsters, ghouls, ghosts, and the like:





And then there were the more "underground" satirical comics ala MAD, Cracked, and Plop! These accompanied my first nascent adolescent steps toward teenage rebellion:







It was around this time that I discovered and became obsessed with my first real "fine artist", Salvador Dali. Dali was introduced to me by a young, female art teacher, just out of art school. He was like an unadulterated drug:









The guy could paint with the facility of any realist... but didn't waste his time on such boring crap. Instead he painted dream-like images of melting watches, ant invasions, elephants on stilts and giraffes on fire... bodies morphing into strange monsters and devouring themselves, bizarre illusions... and all the strange sexual imagery... Here was an artist any teenage boy could love. 

I ran out and bought my first art book on Dali... and it was a magnificent and incredibly expensive book. At $100 it was a luxury item for me at the time... but worth every bit. The pages were gilt in gold leaf, the cover was also laden with gold and embossed, and the book weighed a ton... illustrated with the finest quality reproductions. I gloated over and gorged myself on that book... until I virtually knew every painting... intimately. 

My obsession with Dali lasted perhaps a year... at least until I discovered Heironymus Bosch...




If Dali was like an unadulterated drug... he was marijuana... where Bosch was pure crack cocaine or heroin. Nothing in Dali prepared me for this 15th century madman. To this day I would name the Garden of Earthly Delights as one of the ten... if not 5 greatest paintings ever. Dali's surreal imagery came from his private dreams and fantasies. Bosch' nightmares came from reality. He recognized that reality was as surreal, fantastic, absurd, and nightmarish as any fantasy or dream. I can think of no other painting that has so kept me enthralled... looking ever closer at all those unimaginable details... all the little dirty deeds...













The symbolism is such in Bosch, that one could write entire volumes on just the _Garden of Earthly Delights_... and indeed, more than a few art historians have done just that.

And where the "Garden" leaves off, _The Temptation of St. Anthony_ picks up:









More than a few viewers have noted that Bosch' paintings suggest an almost frenzied LSD inspired vision... so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there may indeed be a link. St. Anthony, due to the tales of his visions, was considered the patron saint of the affliction known as "St. Anthony's Fire" or ergot poisoning caused by fungal infections of rye and other cereals which is then ingested. The symptoms include gangrene as a result of vasoconstriction induced by the ergotamine-ergocristine alkaloids of the fungus leading to poor circulation, loss of peripheral sensation, edema and ultimately the death (gangrene) and loss of affected tissues, painful seizures and spasms, diarrhea, itching, headaches, nausea and vomiting. The mental effects including mania or psychosis including LSD-like hallucinations.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> Bosch' nightmares came from reality. He recognized that reality was as surreal, fantastic, absurd, and nightmarish as any fantasy or dream. I can think of no other painting that has so kept me enthralled... looking ever closer at all those unimaginable details... all the little dirty deeds...



I could not say that Bosch kept me enthralled. I have learned about Bosch by an accident as I searched books about Gnosticism. I have found Wilhelm Fraengers The Millenium of Hieronymus Bosch. I havent finished reading his book as Fraenger didnt provide specific references so that I could verify the sources. His book didnt even have bibliography.....perhaps, the publisher has forgotten.  :Biggrin: 

I have found in Wikipedia about Fraenger. 





> Wilhelm Fraenger (5 June 1890 in Erlangen  19 February 1964 in Potsdam) was a German art historian.
> Fraenger was a specialist in the epoch of the German Peasants' War and of the mysticism of the Late Middle Ages. He wrote important studies of Jerg Ratgeb, Matthias Grünewald and Hieronymus Bosch. His work on Bosch was very influential in its day and *considered Bosch under the aspect of occultism*, seeing Bosch as an artist guided by an esoteric mysticism. He maintained friendships with numerous artists and intellectuals, some stretching decades
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Fraenger



Occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret) is "knowledge of the hidden" bibliography or specific references, therefore, must be hidden.  :FRlol:

----------


## Pierre Menard

Great post, StLukes. Interesting reading.

The last little bit reminded me of how I really need to go out and see more paintings in person. It truly changes the way you experience visual art.

----------


## stlukesguild

Wilhelm Fraenger was more than a bit of a whacko... although his book on Bosch provided the first real look at his work in depth. I still have a copy myself. _The Garden of Earthly Delights_ by the writer, Peter S. Beagle was far more useful. Beagle offered far more solid interpretations of Bosch' works based on the writings of mainstream art historians as well as his own observations and conclusions as an art lover and a writer. The book presents Bosch is a manner accessible to the non-art historian. The best book on Bosch available at present appears to be that by Larry Silver which is built more on solid research without the desire to prove some personal theory, which marred Fraenger's book. Fraenger assumed that the "heretical" details mocking the clergy proved that Bosch must have been a member of some heretical cult into the occult... but in all reality, Bosch's mockery of the clergy and the aristocracy are no different from that of Chaucer or many other artists and writers. Bosch had the added advantage that he did not need to sell his paintings. He had married one of the richest women in the county which provided him a degree of independence that left him free to paint as he wished.

SLG- I might note... that up to this point I had never been to an art museum nor seen a real painting of merit in reality. While I may have known that many paintings were far larger than they appeared in reproduction in books, having only seen them in this manner had a profound impact upon my perceptions of painting.

PM-The last little bit reminded me of how I really need to go out and see more paintings in person. It truly changes the way you experience visual art.

Yes... at this point, even though I knew that many of the paintings by the old masters that I was just then exploring were quite sizable... the dimensions were printed right there in the books... my actual experience... what I was seeing... was limited to book-scaled reproductions. As a result, all of my efforts at painting at the time might be termed as miniatures. I have little doubt that William Blake's work was marked by the fact that most of the artists he knew and admired he only knew through mechanical reproductions: engravings.

----------


## JCamilo

Vampirella... so strange they started to try to make her history as if she is not just an impossible walking swimsuit. Frank Frazetta art in black white was the best thing for cheap horror stuff.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> Wilhelm Fraenger was more than a bit of a whacko... although his book on Bosch provided the first real look at his work in depth. I still have a copy myself. The Garden of Earthly Delights by the writer, Peter S. Beagle was far more useful. Beagle offered far more solid interpretations of Bosch' works based on the writings of mainstream art historians as well as his own observations and conclusions as an art lover and a writer. The book presents Bosch is a manner accessible to the non-art historian. The best book on Bosch available at present appears to be that by Larry Silver which is built more on solid research without the desire to prove some personal theory, which marred Fraenger's book. Fraenger assumed that the "heretical" details mocking the clergy proved that Bosch must have been a member of some heretical cult into the occult... but in all reality, Bosch's mockery of the clergy and the aristocracy are no different from that of Chaucer or many other artists and writers. Bosch had the added advantage that he did not need to sell his paintings. He had married one of the richest women in the county which provided him a degree of independence that left him free to paint as he wished.


Well, I would say that Bosch was a whacko. Therefore, you may be right that Wilhelm Fraenger was a whacko too. for choosing to write about Bosch.  :FRlol: 

Second, I don't understand how you can say that Fraenger "provided the first real look at his work in depth". It is a work of pseudo scholar who didn't provide specific references and bibliography. 
I wouldnt waste my time to read others interpretations of his art. As I said, it was by an accident that I discovered his paintings.

----------


## Paulclem

It is interesting, St Lukes, that, separated as we are by thousands of miles and from similar but different cultures, that we share a good number of pictorial influences. I don't mean to suggest I'm an artist, or even cultured, but I recognise many of those references you made from my own childhood. 

Dr Suess books were coveted in my first class - we had The Cat in the Hat - and the kids would rush to be the first to get that book. It was the same with Green Eggs and Ham later. Mother Goose, Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were all there, and I really loved the marvel comics and read them over and over when I could afford them. Mad was there too, but I always went for the X-Men or Dr Strange. I came across Bosch and, in my teens, a friend introduced me to Dali, though I have to say I had barely an artistic or appreciative bone in my body at that time. 

Interesting post.

----------


## stlukesguild

Around the time of my discovery of Bosch I began to make something of a systematic exploration of art history on my own. Today this would have been so much more easy with access to the internet, Wikipedia, and literally millions of works of art available in reproductions on-line. Back then I relied on the small library in the small town in which I lived, as well as those in the towns immediately surrounding. _Newsweek_ had published this great series on the major museums around the world: the Louvre, the National Gallery London, the Hermitage, the Prado, the Uffizi, the Met, etc... These presented the artists by nationality and chronologically. I also began to pick up monographs on artist who really caught my attention.

Being so floored by Bosch, I began to look around for something similar and I rapidly stumbled on *Pieter Bruegel (Brueghel) the Elder*. Brueghel began his career as something of an heir to Bosch. This was especially true of his engravings which employed similar themes and imagery:







Like Bosch, Brueghel presented landscapes that were teeming with tiny figures... often engaged in all sorts of dirty deed... all laden in symbolism and allegory. The meaning of _Big Fish Eat Smaller Fish_ is not too difficult to discern but prints such as _Christ in Limbo (the Harrowing of Hell)_ and _Gluttony_ from the series on _The Seven Deadly Vices_ are full of bizarre Bosch-like details that leave the viewer puzzling for hours. 

Brueghel also produced a number of paintings that following in the fantastic tradition of Bosch. Among my favorites are _The Fall of the Rebel Angels_:



As the Rebel Angels are driven from heaven by those Angels loyal to God, they already have begun to metamorphose into strange creatures... amphibians, fish, one toad-like creature that opens his own belly to reveal his guts and eggs... and another fallen angel... the most beautiful... perhaps Lucifer himself... is blessed with the lovely wings of a butterfly. As with the "Hell" panel of Bosch's _Garden of Earthly Delights_ the viewer can virtually hear the cacophonous noise of this scene as the battle is accompanied by yelling, howling, horns blaring and bleating, the drone of a hurdy-gurdy, and the pluck of various stringed instruments. Of course Bosch takes this even further, transforming the instruments that in earthly life were the source of profane and lurid music, into the very means of torture for sinners in his hellish orchestra.



Another favorite painting by Brueghel in the tradition of Bosch is the painting entitled _Dulle Griet_ (or "Mad Meg"). The painting portrays a tale from Flemish folklore of a woman so driven by desire for riches that she leads an army of women in a raid on hell itself. The painting is an obvious comment on the sin of avarice. 

Perhaps the greatest of Brueghel's paintings in the realm of Bosch-inspired fantasy is the harrowing _Triumph of Death_. In this painting, death is unrelenting and unforgiving. He shows no mercy and no concern for age, wealth, or rank. Women, children, kings, knights, Popes, court jesters, musicians, mothers, lovers... death comes for all... and all are ferried away to the scorched landscape of the dead.



Brueghel, however, worked with a broader range than Bosch. He was no mere follower of Bosch. Along with Bosch, he established the tradition of Netherlandish landscape painting with his God's eye view of the natural world. Brueghel's landscapes exhibit an acute observation of the details of the real world that is astounding. These were clearly the result of endless life studies... some of which have survived. 





Brueghel's study of beekeepers presents an almost "surreal" image... wholly rooted in reality. In spite of the fact that the Netherlandish painters lacked the formal understanding of anatomy, physiology, and perspective that the Italian masters such as Michelangelo, Raphael, Leonardo, etc... displayed, Brueghel still exhibits an unprecedented grasp of foreshortening, the body seen in a broad array of poses... at work and at play... and the illusion of receding space as conveyed through scale and aerial perspective. 









Nor has any artist surpassed Brueghel in his ability to capture not only the details of the landscape... but the sense of atmosphere and color. The teal-pewter-gray sky and the black figures isolated against the stark white snow in _Hunters in the Snow_ perfectly conveys the frozen atmosphere of February. In the painting _The Harvesters/August_ one can literally feel the heavy oppressive humid atmosphere that has led a number of the farm-workers to collapse with exhaustion. In _Haymaking/July_(?) we are presented with a glorious summer day. I have always thought it appears more like June than July. The weather is not yet too hot as conveyed by the cool colors, the clothing, and the attitudes of the laborers. While hay is gathered in the fields, girls haul baskets of fruit... berries and cherries... off to market. 

Peter Paul Rubens, who would become the greatest Flemish painter, and the artist perhaps most instrumental in the development of the genre of the landscape... especially in France and England... was a great admirer of Brueghel. Indeed, he owned several of Brueghel's paintings and was a close friend and co-worker with Brueghel's son, Jan. Rubens made a study after the three farm girls in Brueghel's _Haymaking_ (which unfortunately I cannot find online)...



... and other elements of Brueghel's landscapes pop up again and again in the later artist's work:



One of my absolute favorite paintings by Brueghel is the so-called Netherlandish Proverbs:



At first glance, the painting is a realistic view of the comings and goings in a small Netherlandish village... although some of the things being carried out appear a bit strange. Nearly every last detail in the painting, however, is a literal representation of then-commonly-known proverbs: "He has an eel by the tail" (Akin to our "tiger by the tail". "She holds fire in one hand and water in the other" (She blows hot and cold). "One must crawl to make one's way through the world." "He has the world balanced on the tip of his thumb" (In the palm of his hand). "he runs his head against a brick wall." "Their so close they s*** from out of the same hole." The meanings of many of these proverbs are still recognizable today. 

One of the most intriguing of Brueghel's paintings was his last, _Magpie on the Gallows_:



Gallows were a common site in the war-torn Netherlands as they struggled against oppressive Spanish rule. But here we have the gallows in the most beautiful... even idyllic of landscapes. Beneath it peasants dance joyfully. Clearly the painting suggest the co-existence of life and death. Like Poussin's painting _"Et in Arcadia ego"_... even in paradise we shall find death...



The fact that Brueghel left this one painting to his wife in his will has led others to surmise that the image of the magpie (a symbol of gossip) on the gallows was something of a warning to his wife against excessive loose talk after he was gone.

----------


## ftil

St. Luke, 
I am curious where you found that Brueghel was inspired by Boschs paintings. Did Brueghel say that Bosch was his inspiration?

----------


## stlukesguild

Well, I would say that Bosch was a whacko. Therefore, you may be right that Wilhelm Fraenger was a whacko too. for choosing to write about Bosch. 

Bosch is acknowledged as one of the greatest artists of the Renaissance and one of the key figures in the development of the Northern Renaissance. I don't see how electing to study and write about him could be deemed "whacko"... except by yourself.

Second, I don't understand how you can say that Fraenger "provided the first real look at his work in depth". It is a work of pseudo scholar who didn't provide specific references and bibliography. 

Yes, Fraenger's book... or rather the common English translation doesn't include a separate bibliography according to modern/contemporary formal academic standards. However, the book includes an appendix of some 100+ pages with hundreds of citations and there are hundreds more citations throughout the text itself. Obviously, you have not read or even come across a complete copy of Fraenger's _Heironymus Bosch_. 

I probably should not have termed Fraenger as a whacko. He is far from being a pseudo-scholar. He has far more legitimate claim to being a respected scholar of art history than either you or I. Fraenger began his studies of Art History at Studied at the University of Heidelberg in 1915. He was awarded a major prize by the university for his essay on 17th century art theory, and earned his Doctorate from Heidelberg in Art History in 1917. He dis further studies in France, Holland, and Switzerland and was appointed Library Director of Schlossbibliothek in Mannheim. Fraenger founded a group of academics opposed to certain aspects of "elitism" in the study of the arts, and in support of Progressive ideas in education. In 1927 Fraenger was forced out of power by Nazis due to his progressive views. The nazi's took an even more hostile view of his book of the German painter, Matthias Grünewald. After the war, Fraenger became active in politics and education, and was later appointed appointed director for the Center for German Folk Studies (Institut für deutsche Volkskunde), part of the German Academy of Sciences. His books on Bosch and Grünewald remain important Art Historical texts.

Fraenger's studies on Bosch are incredibly well-researched. Fraenger constructed an explanation of the artist's work based on his theory that Bosch belonged to a heretical group, the Adamites in 's-Hertogenbosch, which practiced many of the rites depicted in Bosch's paintings. The theory remained controversial and unaccepted by other Bosch scholars, including Charles de Tolnay. 

I wouldnt waste my time to read others interpretations of his art. As I said, it was by an accident that I discovered his paintings.

Yes... it's much easier to make up your own interpretations based on a complete lack of knowledge of the artist, his biography, the culture/society in which he worked, his artistic predecessors and sources of inspiration.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Yes, Fraenger's book... or rather the common English translation doesn't include a separate bibliography according to modern/contemporary formal academic standards. However, the book includes an appendix of some 100+ pages with hundreds of citations and there are hundreds more citations throughout the text itself. Obviously, you have not read or even come across a complete copy of Fraenger's Heironymus Bosch.


There are citations but there is no specific references so that the reader cant verify the sources. 
Perhaps, you dont have a problem about that but I do.
Too many pseudo scholars and pseudo scientists of my liking.  :Brow: 




> Fraenger's studies on Bosch are incredibly well-researched.


Too bad that he didnt learned how to provide specific references. 






> Yes... it's much easier to make up your own interpretations based on a complete lack of knowledge of the artist, his biography, the culture/society in which he worked, his artistic predecessors and sources of inspiration.


Well, I havent finished Fraengers book. Again, it is a pseudo scholar work. If it wasnt, he would provide specific references. Sorry, but I dont consider pseudo work as a source of knowledge.  :FRlol:

----------


## stlukesguild

I am curious where you found that Brueghel was inspired by Boschs paintings. Did Brueghel say that Bosch was his inspiration?

Brueghel's works clearly follow in the fantastic tradition of Heironymus Bosch... especially early on. Bosch was already dead by the time Brueghel had become a mature artist, but his work remained highly popular and there were any number of copies and forgeries:









Demand for Bosch-like paintings and prints continued well into the 16th century. Hieronymus Co ck, the great Flemish printer and publisher fed this demand with prints after Bosch and in the manner of Bosch. Brueghel was among the many artists who provided images for Co ck, and his print _Big Fish Eat Little Fish_ 



...was actually published attributed to Bosch... no doubt in hope for a larger audience. 

It doesn't call for a great leap of imagination to recognize that as Brueghel knew Bosch' work, provided prints for the same publisher who was promoting works after Bosch or in the style of Bosch, allowed for one of his first prints for this same publisher to be printed attributed to Bosch... then it is just quite probable that images such as this:







... were inspired (at least in part) by the artist's exposure to Bosch's work... Brueghel almost certainly knew of Bosch' _Garden of Earthly Delights_ (which remained in the Netherlands until 1566) either through the original, or through one of the dozens of known copies.

----------


## stlukesguild

There are citations but there is no specific references so that the reader cant verify the sources. 

How specific do you need? My copy of Fraenger's book lists hundred of texts which Fraenger cites by title, author, date, and page. How much more do you need to verify? You're not a scholar nor an art historian.

Perhaps, you dont have a problem about that but I do.
Too many pseudo scholars and pseudo scientists of my liking. 

Starting with that face in the mirror?

_Fraenger's studies on Bosch are incredibly well-researched._

Too bad that he didnt learned how to provide specific references.

Again... what do you want? A hand-written copy of the artist's autobiography?

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> Brueghel's works clearly follow in the fantastic tradition of Heironymus Bosch... especially early on. Bosch was already dead by the time Brueghel had become a mature artist, but his work remained highly popular and there were any number of copies and forgeries:


I asked a question about Brueghel because Fraenger mentioned that the person who ordered the The Garden of Earthly Delights was unknown. He also talked about the secrecy about that painting. So, I was wondering how Brueghel could see itunless he had the same sponsor. Or perhaps, Fraenger wasnt that wrong.  :FRlol: 





> How specific do you need? My copy of Fraenger's book lists hundred of texts which Fraenger cites by title, author, date, and page. How much more do you need to verify? You're not a scholar nor an art historian.


Well, you have a different copy that I had then. There was only the name of the author. No the title of the book , no page, no year, no bibliography. How would you call that?  :Brow: 

I am really curious and I may look at university library, if I can find a copy you have.

----------


## ftil

I have checked in both university libraries and both have a copy of The Millennium of Hieronymus Bosch. Interestingly enough both copies were published by Chicago, University of Chicago Press [1951]. 
The copy I have read was also published by Chicago, University of Chicago Press [1951] 
Very intriguing, I will definitely check it out how did it happened that my copy didnt have neither specific references nor bibliography.

----------


## stlukesguild

I asked a question about Brueghel because Fraenger mentioned that the person who ordered the The Garden of Earthly Delights was unknown.

The provenance of many older paintings is unknown. In the case of The Garden of Earthly Delights, art historians have not even been in agreement as to the approximate date of the painting. Proposed dates range from 1460-1504. Wikipedia gives a solid general overview of the history of the painting:

Charles de Tolnay's suggests that the triptych was ordered by Engelbrecht II of Nassau, in or shortly after 1481, when he attended the Chapter of the Order of the Golden Fleece in 's-Hertogenbosch. The _Garden_ was first documented in 1517, one year after the artist's death, when Antonio de Beatis, a canon from Molfetta, Italy, described the work as part of the decoration in the town palace of the Counts of the House of Nassau in Brussels. The palace was a high-profile location, a house often visited by heads of state and leading court figures. The prominence of the painting has led some to conclude that the work was commissioned, and not "solely  a flight of the imagination".

It is probable that the patron of the work was Engelbrecht II of Nassau, who died in 1504, or his successor Henry III of Nassau-Breda, the Stadtholder or governor of several of the Habsburg provinces in the Low Countries. De Beatis wrote in his travel journal that "there are some panels on which bizarre things have been painted. They represent seas, skies, woods, meadows, and many other things, such as people crawling out of a shell, others that bring forth birds, men and women, white and blacks doing all sorts of different activities and poses.

Because the triptych was publicly displayed in the palace of the House of Nassau, it was visible to many, and Bosch's reputation and fame quickly spread across Europe. The works popularity can be measured by the numerous surviving copiesin oil, engraving and tapestrycommissioned by wealthy patrons, as well as by the number of forgeries in circulation after his death.

----------


## stlukesguild

For those interested, Google Earth includes a feature that allows you to explore The Garden of Earthly Delights and other paintings in the Prado (and I assume other museums) in the most incredible detail:

http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2...museum-up.html

----------


## ftil

> [COLOR="#B22222"]
> 
> 
> 
> It is probable that the patron of the work was Engelbrecht II of Nassau, who died in 1504, or his successor Henry III of Nassau-Breda, the Stadtholder or governor of several of the Habsburg provinces in the Low Countries. De Beatis wrote in his travel journal that "there are some panels on which bizarre things have been painted. They represent seas, skies, woods, meadows, and many other things, such as people crawling out of a shell, others that bring forth birds, men and women, white and blacks doing all sorts of different activities and poses.



Well, we will never know. Fraenger has changed his mind after publishing his book and claimed that the triptych was commissioned by the grand master Jacob van Almaengien, a Jew baptized in Hertogenbosch in 1946 in the presence of Philip the Fair, duke of Burgundy.

But Bosch got too much of my attention.  :FRlol:

----------


## ftil

St.Luke, I must say it again that your posts are a great source of inspiration. 

I did some research about Karen King, a professor of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School. 




> Karen L. King has been cracking the codes of early Christianity for more than 20 years. Two of her recent books on religious figures have been particularly controversial. The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle portrays Mary Magdalene as an important apostle after the resurrection, King explains. Her other book, What is Gnosticism?, targets a more academic audience.
> 
> King deals with many of the same ideas as Da Vinci Code. But she brushes aside comparisons between herself and the novels fictional Harvard symbologist, Robert Langdon. The scholar and self-described feminist says the closest field to Langdons nonexistent field of symbology would be semiology, a field unrepresented at Harvard.
> http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/ar...ng-before-dan/


Anyway, I didnt know that by Karen King unveiled a small, torn papyrus that has eight incomplete lines of Coptic script. King, who received the fragment from an unnamed private collector, says it is a fourth-century CE codex. Nothing is known about the circumstances of its discovery except that it may have been excavated from an area in Upper Egypt.




> Is a scrap of papyrus suggesting that Jesus had a wife authentic?
> 
> Scholars on Wednesday questioned the much-publicized discovery by a Harvard scholar that a 4th century fragment of papyrus provided the first evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus was married.
> 
> And experts in the illicit antiquities trade also wondered about the motive of the fragment's anonymous owner, noting that the document's value has likely increased amid the publicity of the still-unproven find.
> 
> Karen King, a professor of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, announced the finding Tuesday at an international congress on Coptic studies in Rome. The text, written in Coptic and probably translated from a 2nd century Greek text, contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife," whom he identifies as Mary.
> 
> King's paper, and the front-page attention it received in some U.S. newspapers that got advance word about it, was a hot topic of conversation Wednesday at the conference.
> ...







> A gospel or gospel-fragment might be regarded as fake whether its author belongs to the ancient or
> the modern world. In both cases, the aim would be to persuade as many readers as possible to take the
> new text seriously  as a window onto unknown aspects of Jesus life, or how it was perceived by his
> later followers. In her thorough and helpful analysis of the text that is coming to be known as the
> Gospel of Jesus Wife (GJW), Karen King rightly points out that new items of information about the
> historical Jesus are not to be expected from it.
> 
> It can though provide valuable insights into early Christian debates about sexuality and gender. At least, it can do so if it is genuine, genuinely old. King admits to initial scepticism, but is now convinced that this papyrus fragment derives from a fourth century copy of a second century text.
> 
> ...







> The bottom line is that there are a number of uncertainties about this textits date, the text itself, its relationship to other texts of the period, and of course its authenticity. All these issues areand should bea matter of debate. At least two great Coptic scholars, Luijendijk of Princeton and Bagnell of NYU, regard the text as authentic, dating to the fourth century. So there are two sides (at least) to the authenticity debate.
> 
> What is wrong, however, is for the Harvard Theological Review to suspend publication because of the dispute about authenticity. Dispute is the life of scholarship. It is to be welcomed, not fled from. When a professor at the Harvard Divinity School, backed up by two experts from Princeton and NYU who declare the text to be authentic, presents the caseand tentatively at thatthat should be enough for HTR to publish Kings article, not to cowardly suspend its decision to publish. Instead, HTR has cringed because there will now be a dispute as to authenticity. This is shameful.
> 
> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...mething-wrong/



I have to do more study about Gnosticism..but not from Karen Kings books. Thats for sure.  :FRlol:

----------


## stlukesguild

Michelangelo Buonarotti:

When I first really started looking at *Michelangelo Buonarotti*'s work, the restoration on the Sistine frescoes had not yet been completed, and so all the available photographs in books were of darkened, soot covered paintings. Such had Michelangelo been known, at least as a painter, for generations... centuries, even. The artist was put forth as a dark, brooding figure... a sort of Romantic hero... who had painted muscular superhuman images of mankind that were weighed down... leaden... and as lost in the shadows as the faces in Rembrandt. 



It was thus only to be expected that the brilliance, clarity, and glowing colors that were revealed by the restoration of Michelangelo's frescoes would result in surprise... shock... even outrage. This was furthered by the bleached out appearance of the first photographs due to the use of excessive lighting. As a result of the darkened state of the frescoes, the Vatican had installed increasingly powerful lighting to view the paintings. A documentary of the actual restoration process, however, revealed just how careful the restorers were. In corner areas of the frescoes that would barely be seen the restorers would try applications of the cleaning solution for various periods of time analyzing the refuse removed until the slightest sign of paint pigment appeared establishing the time need to clean a given area. At the end of each hour, all the refuse removed from was analyzed for any possible paint pigment. Even the chief critic of the restoration, Professor James Beck, from Columbia, was forced to acknowledge that notion added by Michelangelo's hand was being removed during the process. He changed his criticism to concern for exposure of the frescoes to modern air and its pollutants. The restorers countered that allowing the frescoes to linger beneath layer upon layer of wax, soot, dirt, and varnish was likely even more damaging to the paintings. 

The change in appearance of the Sistine paintings was truly amazing:



I worked as a research assistant for an art historian specializing in the Italian Renaissance, and she made it clear that the results of the restoration were most certainly to be expected and in line with the usual emphasis of Italian Renaissance painting (clarity of form, even lighting, strong contours, and clean bright colors) as could be seen in examples of Michelangelo's own work... such as the _Doni Tondo_: 



I was immediately awed by the drawing in Michelangelo's paintings... and even more so by the drawings themselves:















Michelangelo's drawings were no mere "life drawings". A quote by Degas in Paul Valery's _Degas Dance Drawing_ states: "Drawing is not about what you see, but rather what you can make others see." Michelangelo's drawings illuminated this idea to me well before I could have put it into words. His mastery of touch... the manner in which he knows just where to emphasize a line... or to understate something... allows the viewer to almost grasp... feel the sculptural form of the body in his or her mind's eye. As brilliant as the Sistine frescoes revealed themselves as being following the restoration, early on I recognized that the artist truly was a sculptor. Nothing mattered but the sculptural forms of the human body. The backgrounds in most of the paintings were negligible... often little more than architectural settings akin to those that might frame a work of sculpture. And if Michelangelo wasn't a sculptor... then he was a choreographer... organizing the beautiful and expressive movements of the human body as it twists and turns across the span of the Sistine Ceiling.

I cannot not look enough at Michelangelo's sculpture... the _Drunken Bacchus_...



the _Pietà_...









the _Risen Christ_...



the _David_...



the Medici Tomb figures...



the "slaves"... struggling to free themselves from the earth... from this "too too sullied flesh"...





Surely these leaden earthly beings... struggling to be free... to become as gods... virtually sum up the whole of Michelangelo's oeuvre.

And provide the visual language later employed by Rodin...



And then there is the _Rondanini Pietà_... rapidly reworked in Michelangelo's last days... and then left unfinished...



The elongated figures recall the attenuated saints on the Gothic cathedrals and the electric spirituality of El Greco... while the manner in which these figures cut through the air in an arc suggests something as far removed as the Modernism of Brancusi:



As much as I love Michelangelo's drawings and sculpture... it is ultimately the Sistine that continually speaks the most to me. 

The narrative paintings on the Sistine ceiling began timidly as the artist was confronted by the vast, cavernous space and his own lack of interest in landscape or background. But soon Michelangelo grew increasingly adventurous... employing simple, bold, audacious designs:





One element that the artist begins to utilize is a multiplicity of scenes within a single frame... Adam and Eve reaching for the forbidden fruit... and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden are seen in the same image. In _The Creation of the Sun and the Moon_ (Light and Dark)...



God swoops in toward us from the right... like a great grey-bearded Old Testament superhero... his minions blinded by his grandeur... and then he's gone... exit stage left... offering us a fleeting view of his backside. 

The designs of the narrative scenes and the grouping of the figures are stunning... but at times the single figures... saints and sibyls and Old Testament prophets and "ignudi" are even more grand... their forms expanding and bursting forth from their architectural frames:











Perhaps the most dazzling... certainly the most beautiful... figure on the ceiling of the Sistine is the rightfully famous Libyan Sibyl:



Where Michelangelo infused a sense of movement and the passing of time within a narrative image such as _The Creation of the Sun and Moon_, the artist here succeeds at achieving the same within a single figure... in a manner that is almost Proto-Cubist... and yet appears wholly realistic and natural. The Sibyl is caught in the act of setting aside her reading (or prophetic writings... as evidenced by the quill in the ink jar) and stepping forth from her seat. Her big toe faces us directly as she begins to step forth. Her right leg is in profile... the foot delicately arched. Her beautiful and muscular back ("she" was modeled upon a male nude... see above) is turned to us. The pose as a whole would be virtually impossible... and yet the combination of details suggesting differing points of view... combined with the swooping curve of her glowing orange/peach/yellow robes creates the sense of the figure turning in space. 

No lesson from Michelangelo was greater than this... the recognition of the value in understanding the anatomy of the human body to such an extent that one might distort this for expressive purposes... without losing a sense of "naturalism". This is something I later recognized in Titian... Rubens... and Ingres.



_The Last Judgment_, once again, brought to light the superhuman... almost superhero-like aspects of his work. Where the Sistine ceiling employed an incredible array of poses, the artist was now free from the constraints of gravity... and figures flew through the air, twirled, twisted, and summer-salted like some great aerial, acrobatic dance:

 



One element of all of the Sistine paintings that was rarely touched upon by art historians... at least at the undergrad level... was the undeniable sexuality of these images. I have long found an incredible sense of irony to the fact that the paintings decorating the private chapel of the Popes in the very heart of Christendom, exuded such eroticism... and eroticism of a homosexual nature at that.





More than a few Cardinals and Bishops expressed discomfort with the paintings... especially with such details as King Minos penis lunched on by a serpent of hell and the one sinner dragged to his damnation by his scrotum brutally grabbed by a demon. The painter El Greco was so outraged that he offered to paint over the whole of Michelangelo's work and offer something truly worthy of the Holy Church. Luckily, no one took him up on his offer... and his lack of respect for "El Divino" (The Divine One) led to threats by Italian artists causing him to flee to Spain. 

One can only imagine how completely outrageous _The Last Judgment_ must have originally been... when all the figures... even Christ and Mary were nude. Of course Michelangelo's defense was wholly logical: surely those rising from the dead would not be clothed? The moronic attempts of Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst to shock the middle-class art viewers are mere child's play in comparison. Unfortunately... to quiet conservative factions within the Church, the more blatant or "obscene" elements of nudity were covered up by draperies added by Michelangelo's follower, Daniele da Volterra, who subsequently became known as the "braghettone" or "britches maker". 

Oh... and here is a great interactive site for viewing the Sistine:

http://blogs.utexas.edu/utsoa-deepfo...istine-chapel/

----------


## mona amon

> God swoops in toward us from the right... like a great grey-bearded Old Testament superhero... his minions blinded by his grandeur... and then he's gone... exit stage left... offering us a fleeting view of his backside. - *StLukes*


I just cannot help thinking of this picture every time I read Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts:"  :Biggrin:

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> 
> Undoubtedly, ftil will find some way to turn the discussion of whatever artist I explore into a discussion of Gnosticism, the Occult, and Giordano Bruno's De vinculis in genere. Funny how she doesn't post for weeks... and then the second I add a new post to this thread... Should I feel flattered... or "stalked?"


Heheheyou have a way to make me laugh. As I said, your posts inspire me. It is not my fault that it leads me to occult or Gnosticism. Blame yourself.  :FRlol: 

Second, I dont respond, if I dont feel inspired. Life is too short and the list of books I want to read is quite long.

Finally, the choice is yours whether you want to feel flattered or stalked.  :Wink5: 

Dont forget that it is only a forum. I personally dont care about virtual reality.but I like to be inspired.

BTW, I have noticed that when you post nudity, you stop using Thumbnails. You have also changed to a larger image of Bosch's paintings. How I can't be tempted to talk about Bruno then.  :Ihih:

----------


## miyako73

I'm sorry, St. Luke. Allow me to be real. I hate joining the parade without really enjoying the revelry. Considering all the artists that have influenced you, I expect better. Your artworks are not really that impressive. They are forgettable. Again, I apologize for my honesty.

----------


## ftil

I can't find the website with Sistine chapel. Too bad that I didn't save it. The viewer could see any detail in paintings. 

A few other websites.

http://triggerpit.com/2010/11/21/sis...-walk-through/

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...chapel-photos/

----------


## Corona

I'm really intered in Michelangelo and I'm sure he has been the greatest master of the Reinassence in a time where the likes of Titian, Raffaello or Leonardo were around. His greatness was such that whereas he's still remembered as the central artist of the Rinascimental art and tought, in his later days he went even beyond that, anticipating the "horror vacui" of the Baroque-period, especially in his last sculptures. What a shame I didn't manage to see the Sistine Chapel, yet. 

What do you guys think about Grunewald? I have recently been approaching to his paintings and I must say he's quite impressive. 
visit-of-st-anthony-to-st-paul-and-temptation-of-st-anthony (1).jpg

The way he works on symbols, the grotesque use of metaphors, the impressivness of the painting...

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *Corona*
> What do you guys think about Grunewald? I have recently been approaching to his paintings and I must say he's quite impressive.


Thanks for posting. I didn't know his art.

An intriguing painting of the Isenheim Altarpiece.



*"Isenheim Altarpiece - Concert of Angels and Nativity"*

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..._Isenheim2.jpg



And details. I am wondering who is the lady with a crown.  :Ihih: 


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...newald_038.jpg



God as Emperor?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...newald_039.jpg


Like Charles I, Founder of the Holy Roman Empire.

*Albrecht Dürer*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...e-by-Durer.jpg




In the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...harlemagne.jpg


*The Resurrection*

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-_WGA10755.jpg


It reminds me about Michelangelo's Last Judgement 

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...ent-christ-wga



A few details from Temptation of Saint Anthony


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%2C_detail.jpg


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-_WGA10770.jpg

----------


## Cioran

Unfortunately, the "Ignore" function does not work if one views the thread without logging in.  :Incazzato: 

Great work, stlukesguild. Michelangelo,  :Nod:  It seems that God, in reaching out to touch Adam, is inside a human brain.

For all your good work, you get ... an occultist stalker, and someone who knows nothing about art but views the whole world through the prism of feminist post-Marxism or some such BS, evidently surreally oblivious to the fact that viewing the world through her chosen ism-prism is as dumb as viewing it through the ism-prism of Old Dead White Men ... her antipathy to the latter no doubt inspiring her tantrum at my invocation of Shakespeare.

Anyway, good luck. I know a lot about art too, having both made it and written extensively about it. But post here?

No. This place has the usual Internet disease. Message boards attract anonymous abusers.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm sorry, St. Luke. Allow me to be real. I hate joining the parade without really enjoying the revelry. Considering all the artists that have influenced you, I expect better. Your artworks are not really that impressive. They are forgettable. Again, I apologize for my honesty.

Michelangelo is a virtually unrivaled figure in the history of painting... one of the top nominees for the title of "The Greatest Artist Ever" if we could confer such a title. I have absolutely no illusions of comparing my work with that of Michelangelo or any of the masters from art history that I have posted.

I'm sorry you find my work unimpressive and forgettable... but you negative opinion is not really something that I will likely lose sleep over. 

What do you guys think about Grunewald? I have recently been approaching to his paintings and I must say he's quite impressive.

Matthias Grünewald is an incredible painter. The Eisenheim Altarpiece is an incredible work of early German Expressionism. There are many links between Grünewald's work and Bosch's painting of the _Temptation of St. Anthony._ Grünewald's painting was created for the Monastery of St. Anthony in Isenheim near Colmar, which specialized in hospital work. The Antonine monks of the monastery were noted for their care of plague sufferers as well as their treatment of skin diseases, such as ergotism. The image of the crucified Christ is pitted with open wounds and plague-like sores, his flesh grown gangrenous, showing patients that Jesus understood and shared their afflictions and their sufferings.

----------


## miyako73

Yeah, A third-world painter named Roland Ventura sold the painting below for 1.1 million dollars at Sotheby's:


ronaldventura.jpg


Even before he went international, I had already followed his art exhibits. Not bad for someone dumb in arts ha? Now compare your works to his. I see more classical influences in his works than in yours that are supposedly influenced by European masters. Influenced my foot!

You boast like you're really a well-known artist. Sorry for bursting your fantasy bubble.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *stlukesguild*
> Matthias Grünewald is an incredible painter. The Eisenheim Altarpiece is an incredible work of early German Expressionism. There are many links between Grünewald's work and Bosch's painting of the Temptation of St. Anthony. Grünewald's painting was created for the Monastery of St. Anthony in Isenheim near Colmar, which specialized in hospital work. The Antonine monks of the monastery were noted for their care of plague sufferers as well as their treatment of skin diseases, such as ergotism. The image of the crucified Christ is pitted with open wounds and plague-like sores, his flesh grown gangrenous, showing patients that Jesus understood and shared their afflictions and their sufferings.


I agree but why did you say that it is a work of early Expressionism. I would never make that association.  :Confused5: 




> The image of the crucified Christ is pitted with open wounds and plague-like sores, his flesh grown gangrenous, showing patients that Jesus understood and shared their afflictions and their sufferings.


I would strongly argue that but I will keep for myself what I think.  :FRlol: 

BTW, you have acknowledged my humble presence here by noticing that I haven't been posting for weeks but you have forgotten to acknowledge a few members who have disappeared but have showed up immediately.......... as soon as I made a post.  :Ihih:

----------


## Corona

Thanks to ftil for the links!
I agree on the parallel between Bosch and Grunewald, I'm quite interested in Bosch, as wells; the latter is unparalled when it comes to density of simbolism and majesty. I cannot think of many works denser than his trypthics, and I believe his artworks to be some of the most complex in the western art. 
As I'm beginning to study Michelangelo's works I'm slowly finding out the magnitude of his greatness; one could argue there have been some painters on the same tier as him, some more suggestive, some other more human, but noone ever came close to him in epicness.

----------


## JCamilo

Michelangelo is the guy. Even his poetry is good. The the Sistine may be "it". What justify all humankind. 

Now, it is funny you talk about Michelangelo and that you liked comic books, because I cannot imagine something more legitimate to claim his influence than the godlike representations of humans that build Superman, Batman, etc. And like the Sistine, they have strong narrative elements usuing visual arts. A bit like medieval imaginery in churches was meant to complement the oral intervation of the priests (or maybe, to be the completed by it), since most people could not read, but could follow the stories with the images. 

Sistine has everything, from any point of view, the artist, the history of creation, the theme, the easter eggs spreads by the never conformist michelangelo, the multiple meanings, the political power, the latter history... and most people will think only about adam and god, not imagining it basically rebuilds the creation of the entire universe. 

First time i was teaching in class, when i show a slide of Sistine for the first time, a lighting bolt just strucks. So, Micheangelo is the only rational argument for God.

----------


## Corona

Yeah, I've not been within his poetry a lot, but from what I've read I can confirm he was pretty much a great artist in every artistic field, not to mention he's my favourite sculptor, after Bernini. As for the Sistine I've not experienced a sightseeing to it so I can't tell HOW MUCH it's epic: everyone said it's a whole different experience from everything else.
I can tell Raffaello Sanzio's vision may be preferable as it still seems even "purer" but my opinion is that appreciating his style is more difficult for modern viewers: I'm not to generalize neither I want to simplify the concept of beauty, but I guess that we're not accostumed to traditional beauty, we need to "refine" our tastes to fully get some artists. That, of course, can be said about every great artist worth the time!
In Michelangelo's case, however, it's easier as he was "epic" in every sense: we can both feel the anxiety for deity, the greatness of human nature and foresee the despair, the angst of nothingness, the perfection of the body and the decay of the meat, like in his Last Judgment, one of the monumental pieces of art.

----------


## Paulclem

> First time i was teaching in class, when i show a slide of Sistine for the first time, a lighting bolt just strucks. So, Micheangelo is the only rational argument for God.


I bet that freaked you out a bit.  :Biggrin5:

----------


## stlukesguild

Yeah, A third-world painter named Roland Ventura sold the painting below for 1.1 million dollars at Sotheby's:

Most intelligent individuals... especially those who model themselves as pseudo-Marxists... understand that money is no measure of artistic measure, otherwise J.K. Rowling would be the unchallenged greatest living writer. This little idiot painter, for example...









... recently saw one of his paintings sell for $4.47 Million US. 

Even before he went international, I had already followed his art exhibits. Not bad for someone dumb in arts ha? Now compare your works to his. I see more classical influences in his works than in yours that are supposedly influenced by European masters. Influenced my foot!

Not many "classical" references that I recognize... as if references were the measure of art. Almost all artists build upon earlier artists. It appears to me that Mr. Ventura is building far more on popular culture and American Pop Art... undoubtedly newly arrived in the third world 15 years after the fact:





Honestly, he doesn't do much of anything for me. He's not bad, but neither is he great. And he most certainly will not earn any serious place in the history of art. That you like him is neither here nor there. You have also expressed an admiration for crap art like this:



and mediocre twaddle such as this...







You boast like you're really a well-known artist. Sorry for bursting your fantasy bubble.

Where have I boasted? To suggest that I have been influenced by this or that artist is not to suggest that I see myself as a peer or equal... its not to make a value judgment at all. As I already stated, I have no illusions of comparing my work to Michelangelo or any of the artists I have posted... all of whom have clearly earned their places in art history. 

Again, I'm sorry you don't like my work, but I'll try not to be too depressed over the fact.

----------


## ftil

> and mediocre twaddle such as this...



Oh, come on. You should get used to criticism. There always will be people who will criticize us……no matter what. 


BTW, I didn’t know Fernando Amorsolo y Cueto. You may say “mediocre twaddle".




> Fernando Amorsolo y Cueto (May 30, 1892 – April 24, 1972) is one of the most important artists in the history of painting in the Philippines.[1] Amorsolo was a portraitist and painter of rural Philippine landscapes. He is popularly known for his craftsmanship and mastery in the use of light. Born in Paco, Manila, he earned a degree from the Liceo de Manila Art School in 1909 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Amorsolo



I don’t want to sound sarcastic but you are not in Wikipedia that says that you are the most important in the history of American art. Get over it…….and keep posting.  :Wink5:

----------


## stlukesguild

I agree but why did you say that it is a work of early Expressionism. I would never make that association.

Expressionism distorts forms and colors for expressive purposes. Romanesque and Gothic art, Rogier van der Weyden, Mannerism, Grünewald, etc... are generally seen as falling within the Expressionist strain... and all were influential upon later Expressionists whether we are speaking of Van Gogh, Edvard Munch, Egon Schiele, the German Expressionists of Die Brücke, Der Blaue Reiter, the Neue Sachlichkeit, or even other European Modernist "Expressionists" such as Georges Rouault, Chaim Soutine, and even Francis Bacon. 

Many Modernists such as Emil Nolde...



and Max Beckmann...



... openly admitted to building upon Grünewald for the simple reason that his portrayal of the Crucifixion was among the most powerfully expressive of the element of suffering... something that many of the German artists of the early 20th century knew intimately as a result of their experiences in the trenches of WWI followed by the political chaos, instability, and grinding poverty following the war. 

These same artists were also inspired by the raw... even crude images of Christ found in medieval wood carvings and altarpieces:

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

Sorry, looks like I'm behind by a couple days.





> I just cannot help thinking of this picture every time I read Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts:"





> Michelangelo is the guy. Even his poetry is good. The the Sistine may be "it". What justify all humankind.... 
> 
> ...First time i was teaching in class, when i show a slide of Sistine for the first time, a lighting bolt just strucks. So, Micheangelo is the only rational argument for God.


Creation of the Sun and Moon 
The etymology of mooning begins with Michelangelo



^From my stamp collection; a special issue envelope I picked up in Rome, commemorating the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. 

He also dabbled in Architecture. Examples of Michelangelos architectural contributions include Saint Peters Basilica, Laurentian Library, Capitoline Hill, Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Medici Chapel

Piazza del Campidoglio and Palazzo del Senatore 1988:



Saint Peters Basillica (1988):

----------


## ftil

> I agree but why did you say that it is a work of early Expressionism. I would never make that association.
> 
> Expressionism distorts forms and colors for expressive purposes. Romanesque and Gothic art, Rogier van der Weyden, Mannerism, Grünewald, etc... are generally seen as falling within the Expressionist strain... and all were influential upon later Expressionists whether we are speaking of Van Gogh, Edvard Munch, Egon Schiele, the German Expressionists of Die Brücke, Der Blaue Reiter, the Neue Sachlichkeit, or even other European Modernist "Expressionists" such as Georges Rouault, Chaim Soutine, and even Francis Bacon.


Thanks for your response. I know that expressionism distorts forms and colors but I would never compare Grunewalds paintings with Expressionists as I looked at his paintings. 
El Greco is regarded as a precursor of Expressionism.

----------


## Corona

Yeah, El Greco was as relevant for expressionism as he was for the likes of Picasso.
I have to admit I've not been through El Greco's work a lot, so far, but what's really amazing about his artworks is that he was one of the first painters to represent spiritual "tension", to "make visible what's not visible".
So in a way an ideal comparison with the Expressionist painters is far from inadequate, if we obviously keep the context aside.

----------


## stlukesguild

I know that expressionism distorts forms and colors but I would never compare Grunewald’s paintings with Expressionists as I looked at his paintings.

Many artists and art historians have made this connection.

El Greco is regarded as a precursor of Expressionism.

Yes... he is. And you'll note that I included the Mannerists and El Greco would fall under that category. On the other hand, El Greco probably didn't have a huge impact on artists outside of Spain & Picasso for the simple reason that the vast majority of his paintings are housed in Spain and somewhat inaccessible to artists in France or Germany and Spain wasn't much of a destination for artists from outside in the 19th or 20th centuries. Oddly enough, Manet did make a tour of Spain and was quite impressed with his work... as well as with that of Velazquez (which is more obvious).

I was able to see a large portion of El Greco's oeuvre as part of a retrospective shown at the Met some years back. The best paintings do indeed have a sense of a tormented spirituality. The worst paintings, however, have something of black velvet paintings about them. I loved his flickering brushwork... but was disappointed in his use of color. He was an even worst colorist than his teacher, Tintoretto. 

While we're on Spain... we might point out that Goya was another precursor of Expressionism:

----------


## ftil

> Yeah, El Greco was as relevant for expressionism as he was for the likes of Picasso.
> I have to admit I've not been through El Greco's work a lot, so far, but what's really amazing about his artworks is that he was one of the first painters to represent spiritual "tension", to "make visible what's not visible".



An interesting way to summarize his art. There is some anxiety but I dont know the source of it.
There is also an interesting symbolism..

----------


## miyako73

Oh, St. Luke, I don't blame you. You're an art history reader not an art historian who engages in research. You called Fernando Amorsolo's works "mediocre twaddle"? Do you know what "twaddle" is? I thought you were an English language expert. Anyway, for your education, read this:

"The artist became a professor in his early 20s and was already establishing himself in the art world. At the age of 25, he was already married to Salud Jorge and had a daughter, Virginia, when he caught the eye of one of the most influential figures in Filipino society. Amorsolo had designed the logo for Ginebra San Miguel, still in use in its original form today, depicting St. Michael vanquishing the devil. The owner of the beverage company, Don Enrique Zobel, a leading figure in the business community and an ardent patron of the arts, was so impressed by his work that he offered to send Amorsolo to the Academia de San Fernando in Madrid for further studies with a generous stipend for himself and his young family. The artist took the standard entrance exam at the Academia. To Amorsolos surprise, after evaluating his work, the school informed him that, based on the results, they would accept him not as a student but as a professor at the school."

http://www.fernandocamorsolo.com/

In case you don't know about Academia de San Fernando, that was the same art school Goya ran as its director and where Picasso and Dali went.

If you really read my post and understood it, you would not imply that I liked his works. Even though he was a national artist in my country, I find his works too bucolic and pastoral for my taste. I mentioned his works to show that he already mixed Realism and Impressionism way before Coombs did.

Amorsolo






Coombs




Also, Sotheby's and Christie's know Amorsolo. I don't think they know about you and your works.

----------


## miyako73

You're really funny, St. Luke. You chose Ventura's hyperrealist paintings infused with pop art images so you could dismiss him as an artist and insult our art history by saying pop art, an art movement that began in the mid 50's, came late in the Philippine art scene. Pleaseeeeeee.

Filipino artists who were educated in Britain and America went back to the Philippines and did pop art from 60's to 80's. Pop art in my country did not really start in the 60's.

If what Livingstone, de la Croix, and Tansey say about pop art are true, pop art had been made in my country way before Andy Warhol was born.

"In Pop art, material is sometimes visually removed from its known context, isolated, and/or combined with unrelated material."

"The concept of pop art refers not as much to the art itself as to the attitudes that led to it"

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony."

Yes, I used Wikipedia and these statements were bibliographically cited.

Livingstone, M., Pop Art: A Continuing History, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990
de la Croix, H.; Tansey, R., Gardner's Art Through the Ages, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1980.

In 1920's, Amorsolo already popularized this image:



Warhol (1960's)



In 1930's, the formative years of Philippine cinema, movie billboards like these were already made:



In 1940's, comics magazines with popular covers were already mass-produced:

 





In 1950's, Filipino pop artists painted the surplus jeeps of the Americans after the Second World War to be used as public transportation:



Have I educated you enough?

Now let's go to the the works of Ventura that you excluded:















If you don't see classical influences like Michelangelo's David and Da Vinci's human anatomy and horses, you are blind. I also see Dada images in his works and Dali's influences too.

Now let me post the works of an artist who has been influenced by Michelangelo, Dali, Bosch, Rubens, Brueghel, and other BS:













Really? Maybe you're an art history professor. But a painter and painting professor? Really?

----------


## Pierre Menard

Miyako, did it occur to you that you may be able to have a genuine conversation with Stlukes that leads to greater understanding of his influences if you weren't so petty, immature and more concerned with degrading his work than actually talking like a proper human being?

Also, you have an odd understanding of influence. Influence isn't just using elements of previous artists work in your work. Some influences influence you more in such a way as: 
-These artists furthered my understanding of the medium
- These artists are the ones that made me take the medium seriously
- These artists inspired me to create my own works of art
- With a great love and understanding of certain art that has come before me, I can use that understanding to create something different, much in the same way that a Romanticist poet can be influenced by a Classicist, but uses their understanding of Classicism to more clearly define and push their own boundaries in new directions. 


I'm sure not every single painter StLukes loves and is 'influenced' by has a clear visual 'influence' on his own work, but I'll go out on a limb and say that StLukes understanding and love for all the artists he's mentioned has, over his life, helped him achieve his own artistic vision, if you like (correct me if I'm wrong Stlukes). 

Much in the same way that Walt Whitman influenced more than any other poet my love for poetry. But that doesn't mean if I became a poet I'd write like Walt Whitman, however, he'd still be a major influence. 

Cut out the pettiness, it's ridiculous.

----------


## ftil

> While we're on Spain... we might point out that Goya was another precursor of Expressionism:


Since you have brought Goya......He had strange attraction to witches....


*Witches Sabbath*



http://www.franciscodegoya.net/Witch...ath-large.html



*Witches In The Air*

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/Witch...Air-large.html




*The Bewitched Man*

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/The-B...Man-large.html





*The Conjuration*

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/The-C...ion-large.html





*Witches Sabbath, The Great He-Goat*

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/The-G...oat-large.html




A special gift for you.  :Wink5: 


*Nude Maja*

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/Nude-Maja-large.html



*The complete works* 

http://www.franciscodegoya.net/the-complete-works.html

----------


## miyako73

If St. Luke is honest, he'll tell you what he deleted. Didn't he say in one of his posts that these artists have influenced his works? You won't see it because it has been edited out.

If I did not see the disconnect, I would not have reacted.

----------


## Corona

I agree with St.Luke about Goya: the anxiety in his works seems to anticipate some of the 20th century's artworks, especially considering his works are impenetrable so one can't just focus on symbols. You have posted his Coloussus: well, it's nearly impossible to give a single interpretation of the meaning. One could argue it's a prophecy of humanity being crushed, or a comment on humanity being small and defenseless(in another painting about the same theme we see a giant elevating far beyond a city)but the artist's point of view remains unknown. 
This could be applied to all of his "Black Paintings": "El Perro"(The Dog) is maybe his most impervious work, being impossible to be deciphered, so "angst" is a possible approach to partially getting Goya's art.

lourdes+carcedo_perro_goya.jpg

The anguish coming from Goya's last paintings comes from the fact these works seems illogical, not explainable by reason, and yet they all seem to focus on "disgusting" themes like Saturn devouring his sons, a witches' sabba, peasants fighting to death, a dog being buried by sand, etc. The fact is that we don't know what does Goya indicate as the source of suffering, of evil: every creature, a man as much as a dog has to suffer from an unknown source of evil, and the only thing Goya seems to focus on in his last paintings is the "low" nature of the human soul. It's a given a painting as his Saturn explores unexplored territories, the dark side of the human soul. Before that just some artists as Bosch or Brueghel had depicted the horror of the human soul, in the case concentring on a more religious matter, specifically on the decaying nature of sin. In Goya's last works even religion seems to be left outside of that. 
Human souls is an undiscovered frightening abyss.

As for El Greco I guess the tension coming from his works is still a spiritual one, so that of spirits "extending" high.

----------


## ftil

> I agree with St.Luke about Goya: the anxiety in his works seems to anticipate some of the 20th century's artworks, especially considering his works are impenetrable so one can't just focus on symbols. You have posted his Coloussus: well, it's nearly impossible to give a single interpretation of the meaning. One could argue it's a prophecy of humanity being crushed, or a comment on humanity being small and defenseless(in another painting about the same theme we see a giant elevating far beyond a city)but the artist's point of view remains unknown. 
> This could be applied to all of his "Black Paintings": "El Perro"(The Dog) is maybe his most impervious work, being impossible to be deciphered, so "angst" is a possible approach to partially getting Goya's art.


Do we really have to make any interpretations? It is nothing else but an educated guesswork.

We can sit in the artist head, trying hard to make assumptions..believing that it is true. I dont do it. Art speaks on its own and I strongly believe that it is not a place for left brain activities. G. Bruno and M. Ficino would agree with me. Thats for sure. It is so hard not to go back to occult.  :FRlol:  The answer may be more prosaic that we would want it to be.

----------


## Corona

That's an interesting and complicated matter!
I don't think there's a "necessary" approach to art; as art itself stands as impossible to be defined it's difficult estabilishing how one should generally approach art. From my point of view it's easier approaching a single artist, trying to estabilish his own poetics for how much we can understand an artist who lived centuries ago. 
I think it's still different from a full "interpretation": I think an interpratation has not to be mistaken for a "study" of an artist's poetics. 
It's a difficult topic since everything related to art cannot be universally defined, but I'd say it's not necessary interpretating a work, but it's still advantageous trying to "understand" an artist to fully appreciate his art. This should lead to a kind of equilibrium; whether it's true art speaks for itself one can still try to "decipher" the emotions a single artwork involves the viewer/listener/reader.
What I'm saying, to put it straight, is that "studying" and interpretating an artist doesn't necessarily ruin the purity of his art or the fruition, as long as one doesn't exaggerate on interpretation because, of course, it's still art you're viewing, not an essay! If one doesn't just focus on explainations I think studying an artist - his tecnhinque, the use of symbols, the possible meanings he wanted to give - could even help enjoying his art more.
I would definitely say it depends on both the viewer's point of view and method and on the single artist. Interpretating a painting a painting by Salvador Dalì or René Magritte would be partially missing the point, especially in the case of Magritte. In my humble opinion for an artist like Bosch it would be all but misleading trying to "decipher" his symbolism as the artist was probably trying to express something. 
One just has not to exceed or it would reduce the pleasure of simply appreciating the work in itself.
Sometimes "interpretating" a work, especially when you're not an art historian, it's just explaining your own feelings giving them a proper "arrangement".

Once again, it's a very complicated topic!

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *Corona*
> Sometimes "interpretating" a work, especially when you're not an art historian, it's just explaining your own feelings giving them a proper "arrangement".



Of course, it is own opinion of a viewer. How it is different from the art historian? Take, for example, another field of mythology and religion. By the middle of the nineteenth century, mythology was dominated by a comparative mythology, an analysis of myth that takes place in libraries rather than in the field. What soon emerged were various approaches to the study of myth driven by new discoveries and theories within such emergent disciplines as anthropology, psychology, literary criticism, and the history of religions. So, another theory emerged that examined myths. In other words, the same myths but different interpretations. We may ask who is right or wrong. I may give another example, psychology, for instance. It started with Freud, followed by many different psychological theories that have been changing like weather. I cant stand Freud but there are psychiatrists or psychologists who blindly follow it. Not only psychiatrists but also  art historians who are trying to use his fraudulent theory to explain art. When I have read analysis based on Freud, I was laughing, rolling on the floor.

Anyway, it is more complex than saying you are not art historian  :Wink5:

----------


## stlukesguild

The problem that miyako suffers from... well, beside that of occasionally forgetting to take her medication and certain personality issues... is what Robert Hughes termed the "cultural cringe." The "cultural cringe" is the realization that your culture is considered to be nothing more than a third-world culture which has never been taken seriously in the world of arts and literature... indeed is largely deemed as irrelevant. Like all inferiority complexes, there are those suffering from such who put forth a facade of bluster, bombast, and swaggering braggadocio that only serves to guard their sense of self esteem, feelings of inferiority... and fears that the judgments of others are true. 

Art and art history is a dialog. Artists participate in this dialog on a local or regional level, a national level, and an international level. There are undoubtedly local and regional artists of great merit... who by purely formal judgments... based upon the work itself... are every bit as good as some of the biggest names in art. Unfortunately, they are not seen as part of the dialog. One can cry about the fact that such is unfair... and attempt to lay the blame on culture, nationality, race, gender, social class, etc... Ultimately, art is an elitist game. No culture owes it to another to take the "outsiders" efforts seriously or promote it over their native achievements. Earning a place within "the canon" is something that must be fought for. The Europeans... the Parisians... did not hand the title of "The Capital of the Art World" over to the Americans... to New York. It was seized. The art of Jackson Pollock, Willem deKooning, Robert Motherwell, Mark Rothko, etc... demanded attention and could not be ignored. 

As it now stands, the Philippines have nothing of any real merit to add to the dialog of art history... just as Miyako has nothing of any worth whatsoever to add to this dialog... and so both will go on being rightfully ignored.

----------


## ftil

I have feelings that we will see shortly the death of the threadGone with the wind 


*Vladimir Kush, Flown With the Wind*

http://www.jacobgallery.com/art_gall...H_THE_WIND.htm


Or, 

*Vladimir Kush , Farewell Kiss*

http://www.thefancy.com/things/29305...-Vladimir-Kush

I hope that I am wrong but the dynamic here is so bloody obvious.  :Biggrin5: 
Sad, indeed.

----------


## miyako73

> The problem that miyako suffers from... well, beside that of occasionally forgetting to take her medication and certain personality issues... is what Robert Hughes termed the "cultural cringe." The "cultural cringe" is the realization that your culture is considered to be nothing more than a third-world culture which has never been taken seriously in the world of arts and literature... indeed is largely deemed as irrelevant. Like all inferiority complexes, there are those suffering from such who put forth a facade of bluster, bombast, and swaggering braggadocio that only serves to guard their sense of self esteem, feelings of inferiority... and fears that the judgments of others are true. 
> 
> Art and art history is a dialog. Artists participate in this dialog on a local or regional level, a national level, and an international level. There are undoubtedly local and regional artists of great merit... who by purely formal judgments... based upon the work itself... are every bit as good as some of the biggest names in art. Unfortunately, they are not seen as part of the dialog. One can cry about the fact that such is unfair... and attempt to lay the blame on culture, nationality, race, gender, social class, etc... Ultimately, art is an elitist game. No culture owes it to another to take the "outsiders" efforts seriously or promote it over their native achievements. Earning a place within "the canon" is something that must be fought for. The Europeans... the Parisians... did not hand the title of "The Capital of the Art World" over to the Americans... to New York. It was seized. The art of Jackson Pollock, Willem deKooning, Robert Motherwell, Mark Rothko, etc... demanded attention and could not be ignored. 
> 
> As it now stands, the Philippines have nothing of any real merit to add to the dialog of art history... just as Miyako has nothing of any worth whatsoever to add to this dialog... and so both will go on being rightfully ignored.


What a condescending twaddle! That is the right usage of the word.

How can I blame a person who has not read arts and transnationalism, arts and decolonization, and arts and postcolonialism where arts and artists from Asia are studied and written about by art historians and scholars from the West?

I already told you that your "cultural cringe" would never apply to the painting history of my country because the early development of Philippine painting was strongly connected to the visual arts of Spain and Europe.

Based on your view, I should celebrate because at least we have three different art histories studied in our schools: Western, Philippine, and Asian Art histories. It seems you have only studied one-- arts of the West. So limited, indeed.

Even though Filipino designers are big names now in contemporary furniture design, I do not limit my aesthetic appreciation on furniture. Even when Asian films win in prestigious festivals, I still watch good American, French, Italian movies. 

Art is not a dialogue where the marginalized want to become part of the status quo. It is a cultural process that has a shared history. Just wait when Asian countries dominate; Orientalism will be redefined. A new lens will emerge.

As for me, I'll continue appreciating artists who deserve accolades like Kenneth Cobonpue (yes, he's from the "third-world"--I thought this was no longer used in development studies) who blurs the division between arts and design:













Now you will say Cobonpue is accepted in the West because his works are representatives of his culture and he has no "cultural cringe". Wrong. I hadn't seen furniture designs like those before I heard of his name. It just happens that designers are meticulous people. They define beauty inch by inch and their eyes for aesthetics are objective and both quantitative and qualitative.

This will give you a lesson: if fairness is the game, you'll be reading pages about a painter in Vietnam or a sculptor in Kenya. People like you want elitism in arts, so crappy artworks like yours will be considered because other better choices are shut out.

I still don't think you're a skilled, talented painter.

----------

