Jump to content
Just visiting?

The Art Thread

villa_shere

By villa_shere
in Off Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

Seat68 Grand Master

Seat68

Posted
Posted
Just now, mjmooney said:

The recent TV documentary on Kahlo made me appreciate her art a lot more. 

The life she had, had to, obviously did impact her art. I didn't really get her at first, I think I had seen Two Fridas and that was it, the lady with the eyebrows. I started looking into her based on seeing Henry Ford Hospital around 5 years ago and it made me appreciate her, but particularly her art. I missed that documentary though so as soon as I hit submit reply, I will go looking for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjmooney Grand Master

mjmooney

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I missed that documentary though so as soon as I hit submit reply, I will go looking for it

Three-parter on BBC iPlayer - 'Becoming Frieda Kahlo'. 

Edited by mjmooney
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
luckyeddie Experienced

luckyeddie

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Brought over here....

 

And that is fine, for me I think it's fine. Sometimes the art alone is enough, and for me my enjoyment isn't fully dictated by the life of the artist, but it certainly allows me to add perspective to what they create. Basquiat and his drug use, Frida Kahlo's work in particular Henry ford Hospital, which depicts her miscarriage, as well as her post accident work, Henry ford hospital is one of my favourite paintings. 

I do actually agree with you to a degree, as I do not know the entire life of every artist, but try to pick up a little, and if I find something startling, or fairly revolutionary, I will look, a little, into their life and what their influence was at the time. 

I would post Kahlos Henry Ford Hospital but although not graphic, might not be suitable.

I fully get what you're saying, and agree that the tragedies in people's lives certainly enhance their talents, sometimes make them possible. My appreciation in all art forms is fairly shallow, but when I read about the artists mental health problems and / or tragedies in life, that brings out the empathy for the person behind the work, which I keep separate to their work. In context with Villa, my appreciation of Paul McGrath was that he was genuinely one of the greatest players I ever watched and great me such joy, but reading his autobiography, it brought me to tears. The pain and suffering he endured. If he had been an average footballer, it would not have elevated my opinion of his abilities, but I still would have respected his experiences.

I feel empathy for van Gogh, but do not believe his talent should make him one of the most well know artists of all time. Saying he painted like an 8 year old was OTT😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seat68 Grand Master

Seat68

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

IMHO,modern art is pathetic.

Very dismissive considering modern art is vast and isn't a single movement, in my opinion. Dali is different to Klee etc. Its a generic term. You have Don Bachardy, a traditional portrait painter who could be considered modern art, he produces some wonderful pictures, particularly of his now deceased partner, Christopher Isherwood.

1030095345.0.x.jpg

Then you have the ridiculously fun Superlambanana by Taro Chiezo, how, to me at least, that can be called pathetic is beyond me.

405px-Superlambanana,_Tithebarn_Street_2

But the traditional "modern art" considered to be splatters, or shapes, cubism, surrealism etc. Not entirely my thing but I get something out of it. I appreciate it, I see the value, and do not consider it pathetic. Take Francis Bacon, I do not think I have "enjoyed" a single painting of his, but then I don't think I am supposed to. I find his work jarring, sometimes menacing, uncomfortable. At least the work I have seen. I do however think he was seriously talented and produced incredibly unique ideas. I want to learn more about him as I am fairly young in my art journey and he is the modern artist that intrigues me the most, purely because of the emotion I get from looking at his work. 

SQPWKKLUPZDXPDK4PHQKQHJ75Q.jpg&w=1800

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisp65 Grand Master

chrisp65

Posted
Posted

I went along to see the Ai Weiwei sunflower seeds installation at Tate Modern. I can completely understand someone reading a tabloid synopsis of the work could think it was rubbish. To be there in person and see the multiple scales of the work, it was magnificent.

spacer.png

Same went for Maman, by Louis Bourgeois. Just stunning to see it in real life, to walk under it, to move around it and see it against different backdrops of scenery.

spacer.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xela Grand Master

Xela

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why is the Mona Lisa so famous? It's not impressive at all, in context of all the other well known paintings out there. 

 

Edited by Xela
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjmooney Grand Master

mjmooney

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted
44 minutes ago, Xela said:

Why is the Mona Lisa so famous? It's not impressive at all, in context of all the other well known paintings out there. 

Why is anything famous? People just like certain things, without being able to say why. @bickster thinks The Beatles were crap, but millions disagree. I think all rap/hip hop is crap, but again, millions disagree. Some things just catch on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Albrighton Grand Master

Mark Albrighton

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Xela said:

Why is the Mona Lisa so famous? It's not impressive at all, in context of all the other well known paintings out there. 

 

Not an expert in the slightest, but I believe it’s for several reasons.

First up, who painted it. I believe he traveled around with it for years so that would suggest Leo rated it highly himself.

The sort of half turn way in which she’s seated. I don’t think it was particularly common back then, a lot of portraits were side on profiles. 

The question as to who she was. It’s generally agreed upon now, but the uncertainty gives it a certain mystique. Add to that her open to interpretation facial expression and the debatable background. Gives art historians lots to debate.

It was stolen. Not the only famous painting to be nicked, but it doesn’t hurt in the old fame stakes.

And somewhat more subjective, I think it is just regarded as being a good painting. Realistic. Use of light and texture and all that.
 

Edited by Mark Albrighton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xela Grand Master

Xela

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

And somewhat more subjective, I think it is just regarded as being a good painting. Realistic. Use of light and texture and all that.
 

It's tiny isn't it? (kw1.jpg). Just felt it was a bit underwhelming when I saw it. Perhaps I was expecting to be blown away (kw2.jpg)

The Night Watch by Rembrandt was more impressive IMO. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Albrighton Grand Master

Mark Albrighton

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted
13 minutes ago, Xela said:

It's tiny isn't it? (kw1.jpg). Just felt it was a bit underwhelming when I saw it. Perhaps I was expecting to be blown away (kw2.jpg)

The Night Watch by Rembrandt was more impressive IMO. 

 

It certainly isn’t the biggest painting no, I remember the 12 year old me thinking that when I saw it and wondering why there wasn’t more interest in another painting that I saw there which seemed to take up the whole wall (no idea what it was). 

Guess it ain’t the size of the your canvas that matters.

The Night Watch is good, yeah. Weirdly has attracted a lot of attempted vandalism over the years. Mentioned it before but the ambassadors is interesting too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bickster Grand Master

bickster

Posted
  • Moderator
Posted
2 minutes ago, Xela said:

It's tiny isn't it? (kw1.jpg). Just felt it was a bit underwhelming when I saw it. Perhaps I was expecting to be blown away (kw2.jpg)

The Night Watch by Rembrandt was more impressive IMO. 

 

Yep, it’s smaller than you expect it to be and it probably suffers a great deal from over exposure. Everyone knows what it looks like so it’s hard to view it objectively, theres no surprise no first impressions.

Portraits rarely do it for me anyway, I’m much more into something abstract or something that shocks which is why I vere very towards more modern art. 
Even classic landscapers rarely do it for me, there are exceptions like Turners later works such as this that hangs in the Walker art gallery in Liverpool (simply called Landscape)

image.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjmooney Grand Master

mjmooney

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted
4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yep, it’s smaller than you expect it to be and it probably suffers a great deal from over exposure. Everyone knows what it looks like so it’s hard to view it objectively, theres no surprise no first impressions.

Portraits rarely do it for me anyway, I’m much more into something abstract or something that shocks which is why I vere very towards more modern art. 
Even classic landscapers rarely do it for me, there are exceptions like Turners later works such as this that hangs in the Walker art gallery in Liverpool (simply called Landscape)

image.jpeg

Never understood why people considered the impressionists so radical, when Turner was years ahead of them, and way more 'out there'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...
Â