Favorite artists - contribute!
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46583
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Thanks, Voronwë.
I'm not sure what you think you messed up onEthel wrote:I effed up again, didn't I? I just don't seem to be able to catch the rhythm of this place. I'm sorry.
, but I'm going to say you didn't. At least not to me.I think this has been one of the funnest threads I've participated in, on any forum.
While I was thinking all this over I had to make dinner and eat it, but the two Degas pictures stayed in my mind.
Ethel, your proposal for the story in that picture is a different one, therefore more interesting. Only, for me, the man doesn't look angry or accusatory, just.......overpowering. If I ever see a better reproduction, I'd be interested in seeing whether my reading stands up. Or if yours or Rodia's ideas seem more sensible to me.
"The Absinthe Drinker" is a picture that really gives me the creeps. That poor creature, sitting there as she does, lost, addicted, whatever. Finished with her day (the sore feet, you are right, I bet they ARE sore) she is finding oblivion in that glass. How harsh the light is! See how strong the shadows are behind her and the man. The lights in that cafe must have been very, very bright, how cruel.
I can't decide whether that man has anything to do with her or not. He could be her husband or pimp, or a stranger who just happens to be sitting next to her. Well, even if he's connected to her, he's still a stranger to her, if you follow me. There is no sympathy between them. They are figures, she a woman, he a man. She is light, he is dark. She looks beaten, totally exhausted, worn out, he seems as though he is deliberately NOT looking at her. See, she can't even lift her arms to rest her hands and arms on the table the way you would. She is REALLY tired.
Ethel, do you know more about this picture? I've seen it, of course, and have always been made unhappy by it.
I could write a book about her, poor woman, and what her life has been and is about to be. I think she's just had a blow of some kind, some bad news or something. Kicked out of her apartment, lost her job (assuming she had a job to lose), her child dead, her lover gone, something bad, worse than the daily miseries.
I recently read a long article about how Degas painted those famous pictures of the ballet dancers. In my ignorance I had thought he was like a human camera, catching the scenes as one and at once, but of course that's now how it was.
Dig deeper.
Well I was browsing through the Louvre's online gallery (since I won't get a chance to visit for many years, and this is the closest I can get 
), and found a sort of obscure French painter who lived in the early 1800s. I really loved his work, these very detailed landscapes/outdoor scenes. Here are a couple of examples:
I only wish I could have found larger sizes of his works.
Edit: I completely forgot to say that the painter's name is Michallon.
), and found a sort of obscure French painter who lived in the early 1800s. I really loved his work, these very detailed landscapes/outdoor scenes. Here are a couple of examples:I only wish I could have found larger sizes of his works.
Edit: I completely forgot to say that the painter's name is Michallon.
Last edited by elfshadow on Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." - HDT
Yes, I believe I did. I posted in the thread about that complicated Degas picture, and - silly me - I actually thought I had something interesting to say about it. However, I managed to do it at the exact moment when the subject was being changed because it was too dark. I always seem to do this here. I love the idea of this board but it makes me feel like... I don't know... Hagrid, or something. Too big, too loud, too uncouth, too impossible. Whistler and vison can discuss a picture for days, but once I post something about it, it's time to change the subject.Anthriel wrote:Ethel, did you post in the right thread?
Cheers, y'all.
Ethel, if there is any rhythm in this thread I have yet to detect it.
All right, then...Degas appears to have given the picture a rather bland and useless name, while somebody (who?) has given it a sensational one, and the sensational title is the one that even most scholarly sources have adopted.
Does this say more about Degas, or about the people who put names on these doggone pictures?
All right, then...Degas appears to have given the picture a rather bland and useless name, while somebody (who?) has given it a sensational one, and the sensational title is the one that even most scholarly sources have adopted.
Does this say more about Degas, or about the people who put names on these doggone pictures?
Ethel, I'm quite sure that your contribution was pefectly in line with the way this thread's been going, and I thought your post quite good.
I must say, though, that this sort of examination of these paintings is fun to me but it feels more like an interesting game than it does interesting art to me. I personally find it kinda silly from an artistic pov...it's just not how I react to or enjoy art. Very interesting to see a very different approach. (Which is not to say I want people to stop talking about it, cuz it really is a pretty cool discussion.)
Oh, and that Monet feels oddly flat to me. Lacking the usual dynamisn (is that a word?) that Monet has.
I must say, though, that this sort of examination of these paintings is fun to me but it feels more like an interesting game than it does interesting art to me. I personally find it kinda silly from an artistic pov...it's just not how I react to or enjoy art. Very interesting to see a very different approach. (Which is not to say I want people to stop talking about it, cuz it really is a pretty cool discussion.)
Oh, and that Monet feels oddly flat to me. Lacking the usual dynamisn (is that a word?) that Monet has.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
But... then... what is art? Is it just shapes and colors? Or is it shapes and colors that suggest human emotion?yovargas wrote:I must say, though, that this sort of examination of these paintings is fun to me but it feels more like an interesting game than it does interesting art to me. I personally find it kinda silly from an artistic pov...it's just not how I react to or enjoy art. Very interesting to see a very different approach. (Which is not to say I want people to stop talking about it, cuz it really is a pretty cool discussion.)
Yov, that is emphatically NOT a Monet. That is a tacky print from a Motel 6. This is a Monet:
And yes, I agree that we need to steer back to art itself. A separate thread devoted to the thoughts of artists, and to the stories and people they paint, would however be an excellent idea. I'd like to see somebody split off from this thread for that discussion, if anyone would care to do that.
Ethel: Your question has never been satisfactorily answered, and never will be. My namesake would have said that art is indeed nothing but shapes and colors!
My answer to you would be, if you wish to continue in this discussion, to respond to each painting in whatever manner you think is valid. Yov apparently is not as interested in stories as in design, so in this thread let's try to keep the focus there. But I agree that it's impossible to divorce design from content, so Yov (I'm sure) will not begrudge us a little speculation on such matters.
And yes, I agree that we need to steer back to art itself. A separate thread devoted to the thoughts of artists, and to the stories and people they paint, would however be an excellent idea. I'd like to see somebody split off from this thread for that discussion, if anyone would care to do that.
Ethel: Your question has never been satisfactorily answered, and never will be. My namesake would have said that art is indeed nothing but shapes and colors!
My answer to you would be, if you wish to continue in this discussion, to respond to each painting in whatever manner you think is valid. Yov apparently is not as interested in stories as in design, so in this thread let's try to keep the focus there. But I agree that it's impossible to divorce design from content, so Yov (I'm sure) will not begrudge us a little speculation on such matters.
Ethel: I love the idea of this board but it makes me feel like... I don't know... Hagrid, or something.
Ethel, LOL, your post was perfectly in line with the discussion and very interesting.
It was coincidence that Voronwë chose that minute to change the subject with the worst Monet I have ever seen,
and that's because Voronwë is a maverick and a danger to us all. He has his reputation to preserve. 
Threads tack into the wind. Nothing to do but hang on to the rudder. I personally don't think it is inappropriate in this thread to discuss the artist's intent or the story he/she was trying to tell. One of the things that makes me like an artist, usually, is the inner perspective on the subject which shows through the painting. (Or else it makes me dislike them.)
Jn
Ethel, LOL, your post was perfectly in line with the discussion and very interesting.
It was coincidence that Voronwë chose that minute to change the subject with the worst Monet I have ever seen,
and that's because Voronwë is a maverick and a danger to us all. He has his reputation to preserve. Threads tack into the wind. Nothing to do but hang on to the rudder. I personally don't think it is inappropriate in this thread to discuss the artist's intent or the story he/she was trying to tell. One of the things that makes me like an artist, usually, is the inner perspective on the subject which shows through the painting. (Or else it makes me dislike them.)
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I will leave you with this:
I don't think it looks very good on a computer monitor. This is a painting I came to know and love at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, near Los Angeles. What do I love about it? The light. Somehow, the artist made the afternoon sky so bright that it almost hurts your eyes. And he did this with paint. And those buildings on the hill... is that Jerusalem the Golden?
This virtual image does not do it justice. I stood in front of this painting for an hour once, wondering if there was a way I could steal it and get it past the guards. Oh, not wondering seriously. It was an homage to how much I loved the painting, that's all.
Thanks, Jn. I am trying so hard not to be a thorn in the side, but I begin to believe it's in my nature.
I don't think it looks very good on a computer monitor. This is a painting I came to know and love at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, near Los Angeles. What do I love about it? The light. Somehow, the artist made the afternoon sky so bright that it almost hurts your eyes. And he did this with paint. And those buildings on the hill... is that Jerusalem the Golden?
This virtual image does not do it justice. I stood in front of this painting for an hour once, wondering if there was a way I could steal it and get it past the guards. Oh, not wondering seriously. It was an homage to how much I loved the painting, that's all.
Thanks, Jn. I am trying so hard not to be a thorn in the side, but I begin to believe it's in my nature.
yovargas seems, to me, to be saying he looks at a picture as a whole, without dissecting it or analyzing it, it either affects him or it doesn't. Or, it has a "good" effect or a "bad" effect? Is that it? Patterns? Shadows and light?
Me, being the verbose, yappy, storytelling and curious me that I am, I see a picture as a story. Right away. Which is why I'm not fond of pictures that have nothing of the "human" in them. It doesn't have to be a person, it can be a wall made when a man piled stones, or a barn board with a robin perched on it, an empty path. But nature, in and of itself, doesn't move me in a picture, most of the time. There has to be a story, and only people make stories.
And speaking of stories, I just watched a wonderful hour-long documentary about Botticelli's "Primavera", surely one of the loveliest pictures ever made. *sigh* I wonder if I'll ever see it, or "The Birth of Venus" in person?
Me, being the verbose, yappy, storytelling and curious me that I am, I see a picture as a story. Right away. Which is why I'm not fond of pictures that have nothing of the "human" in them. It doesn't have to be a person, it can be a wall made when a man piled stones, or a barn board with a robin perched on it, an empty path. But nature, in and of itself, doesn't move me in a picture, most of the time. There has to be a story, and only people make stories.
And speaking of stories, I just watched a wonderful hour-long documentary about Botticelli's "Primavera", surely one of the loveliest pictures ever made. *sigh* I wonder if I'll ever see it, or "The Birth of Venus" in person?
Dig deeper.
Not to make a joke of a serious matter......well, not much.......in the second painting by Corot there's a boy lying on the grass, reading.
He reminds me of someone............
Ethel, I love that first one, of the Golden City. I don't think I ever saw it before.
The "mechanics" of painting are the mechanics of the miraculous, I think.
He reminds me of someone............
Ethel, I love that first one, of the Golden City. I don't think I ever saw it before.
The "mechanics" of painting are the mechanics of the miraculous, I think.
Dig deeper.