|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 13:57:43 GMT
Dougie, why don't we do a couple of pictures in the National before Tannhauser?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 14:06:30 GMT
Dougie, why don't we do a couple of pictures in the National before Tannhauser? Opera John. A bit out your depth mate
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 14:13:11 GMT
Not arsed about WHAT you're doing but....what's this? a sly arrangement?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 14:37:03 GMT
Not arsed about WHAT you're doing but....what's this? a sly arrangement? Toby has ditched the missus and is taking me out on a date.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,792
|
Post by rayge on Dec 12, 2022 14:45:25 GMT
One reason for going to galleries is a matter of scale. Reducing, say, Martin's Days of His Wrath (or, I imagine, having never actually seen one, anything by Rothko) to the size of a desktop screen removes most of its power.
In the days when I went to the cinema I always sat in the front row. The main reason was that I used to go with my mates Clive (6'3") and Keith (6'5") and that was the only way we could sit together without crushing our legs, but I got to value having to move not only my eyes, but also my head, to follow the action, more involving somehow. It was as if I were entering the space.
And really, this is a general principle I tend apply to all the arts I actually like: whether it's words, photos, paintings, records, I want it to create another world (doesn't have to be THAT different, just one step over will do) for me to explore or wonder at, be moved by (physically and 'intellectually', as well as emotionally). Vision has always been my strongest sense, to the extent that the only way I can properly express my feelings about records is in terms of visual metaphors: space, dramatic action, colours, the whole idea of 'soundscaping'. As I've never been able to use a pen, pencil or brush in any coherent way, cameras are the only medium I can use to express my reaction to what I see, and the advent of digital photography, and the ability to alter images, has led me to become more aware of what works in images, and to think more clearly about what I like. And pretty much all my favourite paintings and artists - as is also true of orchestral music, fiction and poetry - postdates the beginnings of the Romantic movement in the late 18th century.
In terms of painting, that generally means painters who try to deconstruct and reconstruct the visible: that would include Turner, Constable, the PRB (not so much Millais), the Impressionists and post-Impressionists (Seurat!), whatever Atkinson Grimshaw is, Cubists, Expressionists, Surrealists (Magritte!), Hopper and a fair few people that most here wouldn't recognize as artists at all, such as Robert Crumb, Ronald Searle and George Herriman
Sculpture is different. Although I can, and do, admire the skill and artistry involved in carving wood and stone, the only things that really move me are anonymous decorative works in corbel tables or on the bench ends of pews. And non-figurative sculptures do not really connect with me in any way. I just don't experience like that.
Also, generally, I do not enjoy live performance, whether live music, plays, performance art of any kind, stage shows, whatever, as much as I do the products of art. I don't want to see it being made.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 14:56:29 GMT
One reason for going to galleries is a matter of scale. Reducing, say, Martin's Days of His Wrath (or, I imagine, having never actually seen one, anything by Rothko to the size of a desktop screen) removes most of its power. Often, yes, but you're actually going to get a better look at the Mona Lisa if you head to the Louvre website (or a good art site) than by going to the gallery itself. That's just a fact. In the days when I went to the cinema I always sat in the front row. The main reason was that I used to go with my mates Clive (6'3") and Keith (6'5") and that was the only way we could sit together without crushing our legs, but I got to value having to move not only my eyes, but also my head, to follow the action, more involving somehow. It was as if I were entering the space. I couldn't agree more. I'm always surprised by how easy it is to get a seat in the front row of a cinema. Unless it's a packed auditorium and most of the seats are taken, you can usually sit right in front of the screen and immerse yourself in what's there. It's really the best way to experience a film, I think. Sculpture is different. Although I can, and do, admire the skill and artistry involved in carving wood and stone, the only things that really move me are anonymous decorative works in corbel tables or on the bench ends of pews. And non-figurative sculptures do not really connect with me in any way. I just don't experience like that. Also, generally, I do not enjoy live performance, whether live music, plays, performance art of any kind, stage shows, whatever, as much as I do the products of art. I don't want to see it being made. I agree with what you say about sculpture, and I kind of agree with that last part too, but I wonder why it's true - is it that you feel that you have to acknowledge the performance in some way? there's a tiny bit of pressure on you in that situation to show appreciation, because the artists are present?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 14:59:24 GMT
Galleries can be exhausting. There's so much to see and you walk straight past some works that you could spend an hour analysing. I'm off to Venice in a couple of months so will probably hit the Guggenheim there. Dougie, why don't we do a couple of pictures in the National before Tannhauser? Could do man, could do. What's the dress code for the ROH btw?
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,792
|
Post by rayge on Dec 12, 2022 15:06:29 GMT
Also, generally, I do not enjoy live performance, whether live music, plays, performance art of any kind, stage shows, whatever, as much as I do the products of art. I don't want to see it being made. I agree with what you say about sculpture, and I kind of agree with that last part too, but I wonder why it's true - is it that you feel that you have to acknowledge the performance in some way? there's a tiny bit of pressure on you in that situation to show appreciation, because the artists are present? It's more to do with the rest of the audience being present than the artists (in theatres and gigs), but I don't - didn't - feel that way about cinemas, and happily stood in crowds of 40,000 plus in football stadiums, so that's not all of it. Physical discomfort in seats is a part of it, too, but the main things are having no control, over things like volume and brightness and stopping and starting, plus the tension of something possibly going wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 16:08:04 GMT
One reason for going to galleries is a matter of scale. Reducing, say, Martin's Days of His Wrath (or, I imagine, having never actually seen one, anything by Rothko to the size of a desktop screen) removes most of its power. Often, yes, but you're actually going to get a better look at the Mona Lisa if you head to the Louvre website (or a good art site) than by going to the gallery itself. That's just a fact. In the days when I went to the cinema I always sat in the front row. The main reason was that I used to go with my mates Clive (6'3") and Keith (6'5") and that was the only way we could sit together without crushing our legs, but I got to value having to move not only my eyes, but also my head, to follow the action, more involving somehow. It was as if I were entering the space. I couldn't agree more. I'm always surprised by how easy it is to get a seat in the front row of a cinema. Unless it's a packed auditorium and most of the seats are taken, you can usually sit right in front of the screen and immerse yourself in what's there. It's really the best way to experience a film, I think. Sculpture is different. Although I can, and do, admire the skill and artistry involved in carving wood and stone, the only things that really move me are anonymous decorative works in corbel tables or on the bench ends of pews. And non-figurative sculptures do not really connect with me in any way. I just don't experience like that. Also, generally, I do not enjoy live performance, whether live music, plays, performance art of any kind, stage shows, whatever, as much as I do the products of art. I don't want to see it being made. I agree with what you say about sculpture, and I kind of agree with that last part too, but I wonder why it's true - is it that you feel that you have to acknowledge the performance in some way? there's a tiny bit of pressure on you in that situation to show appreciation, because the artists are present? The Mona Lisa is unique though and because it's the world's most famous painting you can't get close enough to the bloody thing to enjoy it sadly. I've not had that issue with other Da Vinci's but I was similarly frustrated I couldn't get closer to Michelangelo's Pieta. Days of his Wrath is at the National Gallery but it's hung so high on the wall it's hard to really take it in. The front row is the worst place to watch a movie! Craning your neck! Horrible. I sit at the very back so I can take in the whole screen. I like gigs but it's rare to experience a Great one. I don't think it's like seeing a magician's secrets or nothing but there needs to be that combination of factors that align to make it great...performance...venue....crowd....sound quality....your own state (drunk, high, sober etc). The only live situation I largely avoid is live comedy because it just feels like a false environment were people are performing themselves (must laugh at the joke!).
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 16:13:08 GMT
The front row is the worst place to watch a movie! Craning your neck! Horrible. I sit at the very back so I can take in the whole screen. Nonsense. That's like saying you want to stand at the other end of the hall so you can 'take in' all of the Mona Lisa I've been to about three films in total in recent years where I've had to crane my neck and it hasn't been comfortable - actually one of them could have been one of the Cameo cinemas. Usually you're just close, rather than too close. It's the best way.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 16:15:09 GMT
The Mona Lisa is unique though and because it's the world's most famous painting you can't get close enough to the bloody thing to enjoy it sadly. You can't get close to it anyway - there's a cordon, and there's a lot of glass in front of it. I don't know of any other painting that has that level of distance 'built in'. Even the Guernica in Madrid just has a rope in front of it (or it did 20 years ago).
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 16:22:00 GMT
The front row is the worst place to watch a movie! Craning your neck! Horrible. I sit at the very back so I can take in the whole screen. Nonsense. That's like saying you want to stand at the other end of the hall so you can 'take in' all of the Mona Lisa I've been to about three films in total in recent years where I've had to crane my neck and it hasn't been comfortable - actually one of them could have been one of the Cameo cinemas. Usually you're just close, rather than too close. It's the best way. If you get too close you can't see the whole screen ya daft bugger! I don't wanna see up some actors fucking nose.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 12, 2022 16:25:36 GMT
It's never that close!
Please yourself. Sit with the masses.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 12, 2022 16:37:17 GMT
It is! It's like watching it through a bloody fish eye lens.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,792
|
Post by rayge on Dec 12, 2022 16:55:14 GMT
It depends on the film format and the size and age of the cinema and seats (and your eyesight). I pretty much gave up going around the time you were born, Dougie, and I suspect it may be a whole different experience now.
As for neck craning, never did that, because didn't sit up straight. Legs straight out, bum on the edge of the seat, neck or shoulders on the backrest depending how high it was.
|
|