Recent art that you liked

[stlukesguild]

Picasso's paintings are great because of the concept, not the execution. Yes his execution was excellent, he was famously called a "good draftsman", but is was his ideas and his concepts that made him the great artist he was, not his mechanics.

You are confusing an artist's impact within the narrative of Art History with the quality of his or her work. Picasso's early work... from the so-called Blue and Rose Periods remain among his most popular and highest priced. Yet these works were in no way as innovative as many paintings by Van Gogh, Gauguin, or Munch. But many of those paintings are quite exquisite. Art History is a narrative that attempts to map out a linear development of art from one innovation to the next. But there are any number of artists who fall outside of this narrative who produced marvelous works of art... quite often as good as or better than some of the big names within the narrative. I have known and worked with a number of art historians and was stunned by their lack of taste... their failure to appreciate what made a work of art truly superlative beyond citing certain novelties. Why are the paintings of Vermeer so revered when he was largely unknown in his own life-time so that his innovations or concepts are of little impact on art history? Then ask yourself what makes one painting by Picasso or Matisse or DeKooning so much more admired than others rooted in the very same concepts. It would seem that the answer is that some works are far more successful in terms of form or aesthetics.

 

[john]

Well SLG, I'm not confusing anything but your post is confusing. What was the debate about again?

 

[Iain]

View attachment 7900

Now this... a work made for the Conservative Political Action Conference... is so bad it's almost brilliant... unintentionally hilarious. Is that Glenda the Good Witch's magic wand? Flip-flops? Jeff Koons will likely wish he had done this.

B'jesus. What's Rolf Harris got to do with the CPAC?! I think a visit to an ophthalmologist is in order..

 

[brianvds]

Does an artist's early work need to reference what is there right in front of you in order to make an impact on you either way? I wouldn't think you could know in every instance, especially in abstract or nonrepresentational works. Not knowing, does it actually matter? Maybe respect the artist might come in to play. I can see that for some people, but if they are doing good work that people love, what's the difference?

Well, if the current work doesn't do anything for me, but people tell me it's the stuff of genius, then I am willing to give it a second thought, if it is clear that the artist is in fact very skilled. Maybe it's me whose missing something. E.g. having seen Mondrian's slow evolution to abstraction, I can see where he's coming from. I confess his work still doesn't do much for me, but he doesn't strike me as a charlatan.

With Hirst and Koons, I'm waiting for them to put up invisible art works for sale, claiming that only intelligent people can see it...

 

[Iain]

Well, I am not going to defend Koons or the other fellow's work. I personally prefer to see the hand of the artist in the work. Of course, where it may be lacking in craft, in formal skill, it will make up for in the idiosyncrasies of its maker.

We are only ever arguing for our own personal bias, from our own limited experience, scope and limitations when it comes to art. No?

We could change the title of the thread to, "Recent art that you abhorred."?

 

[Artyczar]

Koons and Hirst and Emin are art stars because they are embraced by a super-wealthy class of collectors who see art as a means of proving their superior or more advanced taste.

While I'm not a fan of a couple of these guys (I'm not defending them at all), nor am I defending the rich (also not necessarily a fan), I can't agree that this is a reason anyone (the vast majority) is/are collecting or buying art. I think some people have to think this because they themselves very much dislike the work and can't understand why anyone would collect it. Art stars are inevitable. I can think of some that are also accepted among "art lovers and artists," those that don't have assistants, those that have "skills," those that have more "aesthetics," etc. The artists that you named have done things that may seem more outlandish is all, and so what? There's just as many that have done similar things that never got famous, just like there are many who haven't had successes that you find aesthetically acceptable. That aside, that's not my point. My point is that I just don't think the main reason an art star is made is because some wealthy bastard is trying to prove a point of feeling superior. Saatchi publicized a couple of these guys and that bolstered their careers quite a bit. You kind of are an automatic star once that happens. There wasn't a superiority game there that I can see. Saatchi collects a vast amount of contemporary work.

 

[Artyczar]

Picasso's paintings are great because of the concept, not the execution. Yes his execution was excellent, he was famously called a "good draftsman", but is was his ideas and his concepts that made him the great artist he was, not his mechanics.

You are confusing an artist's impact within the narrative of Art History with the quality of his or her work. Picasso's early work... from the so-called Blue and Rose Periods remain among his most popular and highest priced. Yet these works were in no way as innovative as many paintings by Van Gogh, Gauguin, or Munch. But many of those paintings are quite exquisite. Art History is a narrative that attempts to map out a linear development of art from one innovation to the next. But there are any number of artists who fall outside of this narrative who produced marvelous works of art... quite often as good as or better than some of the big names within the narrative. I have known and worked with a number of art historians and was stunned by their lack of taste... their failure to appreciate what made a work of art truly superlative beyond citing certain novelties. Why are the paintings of Vermeer so revered when he was largely unknown in his own life-time so that his innovations or concepts are of little impact on art history? Then ask yourself what makes one painting by Picasso or Matisse or DeKooning so much more admired than others rooted in the very same concepts. It would seem that the answer is that some works are far more successful in terms of form or aesthetics.

Telling someone they are confusing something with this other thing that you think they are confusing it with, and stating it as fact, is a bit overstepping, IMO. You can back it up with as much pontificating about Art History as you want, but it all comes down to opinion, don't you think? This is why art is so highly debated. Maybe what John is talking about is how Picasso was famous among everyone, not specifically "art" people. Non art people don't care about how well Picasso could or couldn't draw. Most don't care about his Blue period. They know him for his abstract and cubist works and easily recognize those pieces as Picasso's concepts. That is how I understood it.

 

[stlukesguild]

Picasso's paintings of the Blue and Rose period include a good number of his most famous and beloved works. A number of these rank among the most reproduced of his oeuvre.

Picasso's biggest leap in terms of "concepts" was undoubtedly Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Its impact on the development of Modernism, however, was rather minimal. As a result of the negative responses to the painting, it was rolled up and stored away for several decades. The painting never really impressed me... until I saw it in person and realized just how well-realized it was. This was a result of not merely recognizing the ideas or concepts involved (much of those I learned of through my reading years later). The impact was due in large part to the scale, the handling of the paint... ferocious in some passages and delicate and sensuous in others, etc...

What engages you first when looking at a work of art that is new to you? Is it the ideas or concepts spelled out in the artist's statements or critical commentary... or is it what you see before your eyes?

The paintings of Analytical Cubism may rank as the works by PIcasso that had the biggest impact on the development of Modernism... but are they his best works? One might think so if innovation and novelty were most important to you. There are several problems with this notion. First of all, this demands a strong working knowledge of art history. One cannot recognize the novelty of Caravaggio, Monet, or Les Demoiselle's d'Avignon unless one knows what went before. Of course, with a strong working knowldge of art history, one recognizes that every "innovative" work of art has its precursors. The Jeff Koons painting cited above is clearly derivative of Rosenquist, Richard Hamilton, Tom Wesselmann... and even Eduardo Paolozzi. Novelty also is limited in terms of time. It quickly becomes like an old joke. Or the latest innovation in automobile design. By the 1930s and 1940s Cubism... whether Analytical Cubism or Synthetic Cubism... was an old concept. It had spread across Europe and into the Americas. And yet many of Picasso's finest paintings date from this period... after Dada, Surrealism, Futurism, Magic Realism, and non-objective Abstraction have come upon the scene. Among these, one would need to include Guernica and certainly this painting:

Now I would argue that every work of art is rooted in "concepts" or "ideas"... and some of these ideas or concepts are more profound and/or more original or novel than others. Does the profundity of the idea alone equate with the profundity of the art? I think not. There are plenty of works of art that convey important ideas on history, culture, race, society, inequality, etc... and yet fail in terms of form and result in our thinking of them as "pretentious". At the same time there are many works that deal with ideas we might think of as cliche, unoriginal, trite, or shallow... but they are transformed into something more due to how they were realized.

 

[stlukesguild]

Returning to the OP, I recently stumbled upon this artist on my Twitter feed:

The artist, William Shackelton, was an English painter who lived from1872 to 1933. These paintings, in particular, remind me of elements of J.M.W. Turner, Gustave Moreau, and Odilon Redon. The bottom painting in some way also makes me think of the more atmospheric works of Arthur Rackham.

 

[Artyczar]

I like these. They are almost dreamlike and omnipotent-ish. Nice work. Angelic.

 

[Artyczar]

What engages you first when looking at a work of art that is new to you? Is it the ideas or concepts spelled out in the artist's statements or critical commentary... or is it what you see before your eyes?

I have to say all of the above really. The entire impact of everything! Especially if it's a strong work of art (IMO). I take all of that into account because I think all that hits me at once. It could be scale, it could be how it's rendered. It could be the idea, the concept. It could be the message. It could be the composition or palette. It depends on what the forefront of the piece of work I'm looking at is. I am an interested onlooker, so I am engaged even if I decide it's boring in the end. I tend to reach and try to find connection with everything I see, despite what parts of art history I know and don't know. I don't know everything, and I don't need to know everything to appreciate something as it is. But I feel I know enough to place the basics where they belong (style, etc.), and on whose shoulders they are built. I continue to learn more and more as I go through life. I am a student of all things in this life (like anyone). And I was referring to a general audience when it comes to Picasso, not insiders who consider some of the work novelty. I think over time it may have become novelty, but it certainly was/is innovative, original, and in that case (for some), could have been considered some of his "best" works (in that regard). Ideas count, and look at how those ideas derived and evolved. It's nothing short of incredible when you think of it whether you care for the work or not. ...IMO, of course.

 

[john]

I think it boils down to this; given a choice between a photorealist painting and one that is done in more abstract impressionist manner, most people will prefer the more abstracted painting. Even if the painting was meant to be photorealistic and failed, with a thousand little imperfect brushstrokes, the failed attempt at photorealism will usually be more interesting than the perfectly rendered one. That's the interesting thing to me. To me, that is where the art is.

 

[stlukesguild]

I think it boils down to this; given a choice between a photorealist painting and one that is done in more abstract impressionist manner, most people will prefer the more abstracted painting.

I don't know if you are correct in this assumption or not. It seems like a good many people think "It looks just like a photograph" is the highest compliment one can offer. True photorealism has only been around since the late 1960s. I like some of their work... Chuck Close comes to mind. My own personal taste leans towards what we might term "Expressionism"... an art that employs intentional distortions, exaggerations, abstractions, etc... But let's face it, the spectrum from Photorealism to Non-Objective Abstraction is incredibly broad. The loose brushwork of Impressionism and Expressionism... or artists such as Turner, Rembrandt, and Titian aren't the only path to an Expressionistic figurative art. Mannerism, the Italian Renaissance, Ingres... even the Classicism of an artist like Raphael are full of intentional distortions and abstractions of line, color, space, form, etc... The Jeremy Lipking painting, I would argue, isn't even close to being Photorealism. One might make a strong case for the idea that the Koons painting is closer to Photorealism in many ways.

 

[Artyczar]

I also prefer an abstracted work over photorealism John, but I don't know about what "most" people prefer. I think a lot of people are really impressed by technical skill and think the more real something looks, the "better" the artist is. I have experienced that a lot with people that don't know much about art.

 

[stlukesguild]

Yes... and there are more than a few who limit their notion of technical skill and/or craftsmanship to that in which the end goal is a rendering of the illusion of visual realism.

 

[john]

"The Jeremy Lipking painting, I would argue, isn't even close to being Photorealism."

Yes it is.

"One might make a strong case for the idea that the Koons painting is closer to Photorealism in many ways."

No one can't.

 

[Claude J Greengrass]

Returning to the OP, I recently stumbled upon this artist on my Twitter feed:

The artist, William Shackelton, was an English painter who lived from1872 to 1933. These paintings, in particular, remind me of elements of J.M.W. Turner, Gustave Moreau, and Odilon Redon. The bottom painting in some way also makes me think of the more atmospheric works of Arthur Rackham.

Returning to the OP, I recently stumbled upon this artist on my Twitter feed:

View attachment 7920

View attachment 7921

View attachment 7922

The artist, William Shackelton, was an English painter who lived from1872 to 1933. These paintings, in particular, remind me of elements of J.M.W. Turner, Gustave Moreau, and Odilon Redon. The bottom painting in some way also makes me think of the more atmospheric works of Arthur Rackham.

I also saw elements of JMW Turner in these paintings. Thanks for posting them

 

[john]

It's like I'm arguing with myself here, because a few years ago I ran across James Michael Smith's photorealist landscape paintings and really liked them so I made a painting trying to do what he does, ha.

One of his paintings...

 

[brianvds]

Well, I am not going to defend Koons or the other fellow's work. I personally prefer to see the hand of the artist in the work. Of course, where it may be lacking in craft, in formal skill, it will make up for in the idiosyncrasies of its maker.

Yes, indeed, I have seen lots of work that is less than refined, and where the technical limitations of the artist are apparent, that I nevertheless liked.

We are only ever arguing for our own personal bias, from our own limited experience, scope and limitations when it comes to art. No?

Yup, which is why I never get all too serious about it.

We could change the title of the thread to, "Recent art that you abhorred."?

There is actually rather little of that. Usually, at worst, a piece fails to do much for me. I seldom see art I actually actively hate.

 

[stlukesguild]

"The Jeremy Lipking painting, I would argue, isn't even close to being Photorealism."

Yes it is.

"One might make a strong case for the idea that the Koons painting is closer to Photorealism in many ways."

No one can't.

Might I suggest a visit to the optometrist?

Photorealism involves such a degree of the illusion of photographic realism that it could easily be confused... especially in reproduction... for an actual photograph. The process of photorealism commonly involves multiple photographs, grids, and projection of the photographic references on the painting surface.

Jeremy Lipking's painting looks nothing like photorealism:

The painting certainly exhibits a degree of realism rooted in years of drawing and painting from life and studying anatomy, but it is not much more "realistic" than many paintings by John Singer Sargent or Thomas Eakins.

The background and the secondary elements are painted loosely and likely in a few layers at the most and they are quite flat in comparison to the example of photorealism above.

Even the head, which is painted a bit less-loosely... in the manner employed since the Renaissance and the Baroque... is no way as "realistic" in the sense of looking like an actual photograph... such as seen in the paintings by Marco Grassi above.

The Jeff Koons painting, on the other hand, clearly employed the use of multiple photographs projected on the surface in a manner not unlike the paintings of Rosenquist or Wesselmann.

Details such as this spoon of whipped cream topped with a cherry look like the photographic illustrations from the 1950s/60s... as well as being a riff on Pop Art.