Posted on 06/01/2005 4:08:07 PM PDT by Republicanprofessor
Thanks. You can keep me on your list.
bump for later read
Thanks, Professor!
I like the Caillebotte's from post 14 and post 36, the Twachtman's in 16 and 24 (although the 16 is a better painting even though I love the real Emerald pool. God is the best artist of them all), the Monet's in 22 and the two Sloth posted (although the second is better than the first)
The Monet's posted in the article are too formless and dreary to go over the sofa. Likewise the haystack just doesn't catch the eye or the imagination.
It's a pity the old masters never did an Enterprise fighting a Klingon battle cruiser painting. :^)
Ah ha! I saw the the similarity but dismissed it, forgetting that the image would be reversed in the mirror Caillebotte must have used. Thanks for the little lesson on Caillebotte -- I've always liked his work and will now read up on the man.
Are the collections as awesome as the architecture?
Some of the collections change, but many are permanent. I can spends hours there looking at everything. The new Getty has incredible natural lighting. Plus, they serve beer & wine to make the visit even better. In the summer, they have concerts and dance events. They also have great food & allow you to picnic on the lawn.
I'm not sure about this squinting thing. We don't usually do that in class, because I just relish the brushwork as it is. What I love is how they can create images with just a splash of paint. That loose brushwork is not as easy as it looks and has more immediacy and spontaneity than using a very small brush and tight hand to get things exactly "right" as in a photograph.
I also just like the way the blobs of paint, if you will, create a new level of visual interest, especially if the white of the canvas or other colors shine through. I think this is from one of the waterlillies, but I just found it on a google search and love it at it is: a detail of his brushwork.
I agree, but it has been pointed out to me that if you keep looking at the spot, the wave will continuously repeat itself, so you keep getting chances to examine it!
A watercolor instructor with whom I once studied noted that if you can draw mountains, you can draw waves. I find that a fairly valid observation within reason.
I've spent most of my life on the water and have noted one or 2 things myself: water is highly reflective, as well as being often transparent; the troughs of waves most always reflect the sky, while the crests will normally manifest the shadows and the local color of the water itself. As you look toward the horizon, the crests seem to get closer together, while you lose sight entirely of the troughs. This causes the water to actually appear to be getting darker as it fades into distance, defying the rules of atmospheric perspective.
Even so, water is damn difficult to render.
I'm not qualified to really comment on those guys, but I can bet that the artists themselves were squinting as they painted.
Interesting that the Impressionists purposely went for flatness. I have thought they did that because they were interested in portraying light for its own sake, without relying on devices such as chiarascuro or the artificially dark backgrounds that the academics, and even Sargent, used so effectively in portraits to make the sitter come forward. But I know also that they were influenced by Japanese art, which was flat by tradition. But I imagine that the new invention of the time, the camera, also notorious for making flat images may have been an influence.
Yeah, I agree with your provocative comment about the spirituality of modern art, though I'm pretty sure I'd like to exclude plenty of it from that characterization. Maybe most of it.
Meanwhile, I have been looking at an old photograph of that era, of bank robber and model citizen Frank James, which clearly imitates the 19th century academic tradition of painting!
What does "ashcan artist" mean?
If you have a ping list for these threads, please put me on it. Thanks.
LOL!
That's just it, I can't see the splashes of paint as anything more than splashes of paint unless I squint them into an image. I don't know if it's from nature or from training (I'm an engineer)
I guess the core of the matter is that I don't really care about technique or brushwork. I just want a picture that talks to me. And most of the impressionists don't talk to me. (The entire water lillies series doesn't grab me at all for instance)
One style that just crossed my mind is where they do the entire thing with many small dots of paint. Up close its just paint spatters on canvas but as you back away the image comes into view. Now that I can appreciate for the planning involved to get the image right. (Haven't an idea of what the style/technique is called)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.