toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,242
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Oct 3, 2022 21:18:03 GMT
I'm actually rethinking my answer a bit in retrospect. 'Sincerity' is actually not a great word in some ways, because something can be completely sincere and vital to the psyche of its creator yet still be missing the essential element of "but why should I care about this?" (To bring it back to the other cliché I've often spouted, that of the singer/songwriter who's writing about a bad date they had 30 years ago. They could be completely sincere about the fact that it's occupied their thoughts ever since, and they might 'need' to write the song in order to move on emotionally, and my reaction could still be "who the fuck cares?"
So some combo of magic and sincerity, maybe. Maybe I should've stuck with 'vision.'
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Oct 3, 2022 21:20:37 GMT
No no! I genuinely enjoy reading people's thoughts about this. I tend to prefer art that I can't understand, it shouldn't be fathomable, that way it retains magic (which to me is kind of the opposite of sincerity, to take up hatz' point). But that doesn't work for film, because I can't tolerate complex plots at all. Books, films, have to be relatable, simple. A lot of old art is like that because it’s either religious scenes you don’t understand and/or very symbolic but it’s still figurative so you can just appreciate the art itself. Sometimes I think I should read more to understand what specific paintings actually mean (ahhh the duck means good health!) but I also quite like not knowing too. Paintings are like puzzles.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Oct 3, 2022 21:28:05 GMT
Sometimes I think I should read more to understand what specific paintings actually mean (ahhh the duck means good health!) but I also quite like not knowing too. Paintings are like puzzles. The best example of that I can give is school science classes. I remember when I was 12 and we did experiments in chemistry that absolutely blew my mind - red liquids turning blue and giving off a peculiar honk, sodium exploding in water, orange crystals starting to fizz and grow into dark green smoking blobs. I really got into it all, started reading about it - but there quickly came a point where actually understanding it killed the magic. And teachers were keen to explain it! I had to cover my ears...
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Oct 3, 2022 21:30:41 GMT
I'm actually rethinking my answer a bit in retrospect. 'Sincerity' is actually not a great word in some ways, because something can be completely sincere and vital to the psyche of its creator yet still be missing the essential element of "but why should I care about this?" (To bring it back to the other cliché I've often spouted, that of the singer/songwriter who's writing about a bad date they had 30 years ago. They could be completely sincere about the fact that it's occupied their thoughts ever since, and they might 'need' to write the song in order to move on emotionally, and my reaction could still be "who the fuck cares?" So some combo of magic and sincerity, maybe. Maybe I should've stuck with 'vision.' Vision makes sense, yeah. It's difficult to define. I find myself thinking about this stuff a lot when I'm walking around galleries. Sometimes you're totally thrown by a piece of art. So you're naturally inclined to find out something about it, about the artist. But does that help? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's unpredictable. I don't know why it's unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Oct 3, 2022 22:00:02 GMT
I've always been into art, painting especially, but also to a lesser extent photography. I'm less into sculpture, I'm not sure why. I've had an interest in art for a long time, as a child I'd get fascinated by particular paintings, then as a teenager I got into things like Vorticism and Futurism. Later I got into Pop Art and then political art of the 30s. So sometimes my interest is driven by a wider interest in social and cultural history. These days I'm into such a wide variety of things, however I tend not to go much before the 18th century, although I can appreciate the old masters. I tend to like things that are expressive and have a sense of narrative. I'm particularly interested in British utopian art and artistic colonies of the 19th century. I had an interesting chat with a museum curator over the summer about an artistic colony in Cranbrook, Kent. I still enjoy discovering new painters, the last painter I got really interested in was Edward Burra who I think deserves to be even better known. www.bing.com/images/search?q=edward+burra&form=HDRSC2&first=1&tsc=ImageHoverTitle
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Oct 3, 2022 22:07:34 GMT
I love the work of Sussex painter James Ravilious - but then that's partly because his painting appeals, but also because my family in general loves his work. My father did, my brother does and so do I. There's a irrationality in that which makes a part of the appeal. I think you mean his father Eric.
|
|
toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,242
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Oct 3, 2022 22:09:48 GMT
there quickly came a point where actually understanding it killed the magic. And teachers were keen to explain it! I had to cover my ears... I totally get that. 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.' I suppose everything, including emotion, comes down to a chemical reaction of some kind. But if it happens inside someone else's being entirely, it can never quite be reduced to that. Hence the 'magic' of which you speak. I also think dichotomies are always welcome. Picasso and Warhol were great draftsman. Beefheart's taking off from some very basic, standard musical forms. Having both a "Sister Ray" and a "Candy Says" in your repertoire increases the power of both of them, etc. Is it necessary to understand a tradition completely before you fuck it up? I'm not sure, but I can certainly name situations where it helps. I think it confirms that the weirdness is intentional, usually. Proving you 'could' play it straight if you wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Oct 3, 2022 22:23:53 GMT
think pop art is childish You probably need to look into it deeper. There's a lot more to it than Warhol and Lichenstein, in fact I find them pretty dull too. The early British stuff and the proto Pop Art painters like Stuart Davis, who is my favourite American painter of the 20th century, are incredible. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Davis_(painter)
|
|
Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by Sneelock on Oct 3, 2022 22:27:44 GMT
oh man, I loved growing up with Warhol & Jasper Johns. it's so colorful and user friendly. Art you can roll up and tuck under your arm.
|
|
|
Post by souphound on Oct 4, 2022 0:32:45 GMT
As toomanyhatz and Mr. Freem mentioned above, on some occasions there can be a certain magic that is somehow amplified in there being a link of some sort between the artist and his/her art.
In my case, this very much happened with Vincent Van Gogh. Almost 40 years ago, on my weekly trip to the library, among my random haul was a small book exploring the letters exchanged between Vincent and his younger brother, Theo. Reading it, I really understood a lot about his state of mind shall we say. Who he was. What he was going through (as far as I could possibly imagine). The nature and quality of his relationships. Some of his personal history. I was completely and hopelessly drawn in. To understand better, I started looking at his art, especially the evolution of his works. When looking at one of is paintings I am still immediately reminded of what he was going through, as best as I can approximate. I translate the colors, the brushstrokes, the subject, the lighting..... It's a special feeling.
There are other avenues leading to a special appreciation of an oeuvre d'art of course, but that accident worked out really well for me that day.
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on Oct 6, 2022 10:29:26 GMT
Of all the arts, the one that appeals most to me is the written word.
|
|
|
Post by A.R. Parsons on Dec 12, 2022 0:51:07 GMT
Lately I'm mostly interested in the pre-pottery Neolithic works found in southeastern Anatolia at sites such as Göbekli Tepe.
Also the early horizon works of the Chavín culture in Peru.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 10:32:01 GMT
I've seen quite a lot of art this year, visiting the Rijksmuseum, the Louvre, the National Gallery in Prague, the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin and the Novecento in Milan. It's been great but I still don't know how to 'do' these visits.
The Louvre is a good example of what I mean. As you know, it's a vast complex of rooms and you really need to have a plan of what you want to see before you go in. But even if you wanted to see just one or two paintings, by the time you've found them and taken a good look, that's actually a bit of work in itself. Lots of walking! Of course if you take the time to visit the museum, then you're going to want to see more than just a couple of exhibits.
So I avoid all the sculpture, and reckon if I go for three or four paintings that interest me I'll end up seeing other great things anyway. It was great going on a Friday evening, because it really wasn't very busy at all, and in fact there were a couple of big rooms on the second floor of one of the wings that were empty of people, with these huge canvases (shamefully I can't even remember what they were). It was great to take the time and look closely, in this old, quiet room, with no kids standing in front taking fucking selfies with their tongues hanging out before moving on to something else they don't know or care about.
By the way the Prague gallery was just as impressive to me as anywhere else I've been, and it was virtually empty. So I suppose the galleries and museums themselves have a name, just as much as the art that's inside. The Louvre is (rightfully) world famous and everyone fights to get inside; the NGP isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 11:17:34 GMT
The Lourve is spectacular though but then I visited the National Gallery last weekend and was almost as impressed.
I've said before that galleries are odd, unsatisfying places. I prefer smaller the ones, like the Guggenheim in Venice where it's more intimate and often less busy.
It's easy to become overwhelmed and a bit tired frankly in the larger places. Last weekend I visited the Courtauld Gallery, Tate Britain and the National and I was knackered by the end. You do need to prioritise before you go - and probably do some research into the paintings yourself - and you definitely need to pick the quieter times of the week to visit.
I think revisiting a place is probably the most satisfying experience. You know the score, know the paintings you like.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 11:19:05 GMT
And why are the description cards so damn small? You have to lean in just to read 'em.
|
|