I always thought that this portrait of Vollard by Picasso showed a large, intelligent man (despite the fact that Cubism dissolves his lower body into the background).
Posted on 09/18/2006 6:45:13 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
WHEN student Ambroise Vollard first saw a Cézanne painting in a Paris dealer's window, he regretted bitterly that he couldn't afford it. "I thought to myself how nice it must be to be a picture dealer," he wrote later. "Spending one's life among beautiful things like that."
Vollard, who within a few years did indeed become a picture dealer, soon lacked neither beautiful things nor interesting people around him. In 1895, he hosted the first major exhibition of Paul Cézanne's work. He gave Pablo Picasso his first Paris show in 1901 and Henri Matisse his first solo exhibition in 1904. He bought up entire studios of artists he admired, wrote books about Cézanne and Edgar Degas, published lush illustrated books and prints, and frequently hosted chicken curry suppers in his fabled gallery cellar
(Excerpt) Read more at calendarlive.com ...
I always thought that this portrait of Vollard by Picasso showed a large, intelligent man (despite the fact that Cubism dissolves his lower body into the background).
Goethe wrote: One should, at least once a day, see a pretty picture......
Thank you.
Art ping.
Let Sam Cree, Woofie, or me know if you want on or off this fascinating art ping list.
You are very welcome.
It took me a while to enjoy Cubism. It is very much a head game. The one that turned me on was Picasso's "Pieon in a nest with eggs" at the Munson Williams Proctor Institute in Utica, NY.
I could not find a image of it to post. But it creates a crazy feeling as the pigeon beats its wings to save the eggs from falling from the nest.
. . . and Renoir . . .
. . . and Cezanne. . .
This is a tiny image because the site won't let me link, but he has a cat in his lap. Pierre Bonnard.
Anybody who likes cats can't be all bad!
He looks like an interesting man.
Nice ... I think it shows the world fractured into a million tiny pieces by the artist's own insanity.
It happens.
. . . what he looked like in later life.
I think I like him. I'd be dour and phlegmatic, myself, if my life weren't such a farce :-).
Oh, I like the type too. . . so much that I married one! (NOT French, at least he's only got a little French Huguenot way way back -- just a little dour and phlegmatic!)
I don't particularly share his taste in art, though.
Oh, some of it's all right . . . but I'm like you, I'm a bit of a traditionalist.
Degas paintings are pretty, and Cezanne has lovely colors. "Representational" is my thing!
. . . but it is worth precisely nothing unless he can communicate that to the viewer. And that's where the technical ability etc. comes into play.
. . . just posted that Dali because I like it. Representational and transcendent simultaneously -
I admire Dali, but I don't really like this one. Wrong mood maybe :-).
Once we can tell what a picture is, then the rest is our personal preferences.
This is the Dante engraving that I own a (probably forged) copy of:
Pretty. I like the wings.
The wings are nice. It's the blue of the angel's robe that I like the best - it almost vibrates.
It must be more vivid in real life, although it does look nice just in this image.
It's very hard to get a true impression of a painting in a high-quality reproduction in a book, let alone a small image on the internet.
The thing that really brought that home to me was the Norman Rockwell exhibit that toured here to Atlanta. His paintings in person are amazing - more color, more detail, more life than any reproduction I've ever seen.
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.