Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

If the Mona Lisa didn't exist, what would the default Greatest Painting be?

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
I mentioned the Hay Wain at the start of this thread. I thought that painting was twee rubbish until I actually saw it in the flesh, at which point I was blown away.

It’s true, though, to a greater or lesser extent, for all art, I think, and particularly oil paintings. There’s something about the textures, scale and sheer majesty of them that just can’t be captured in a book or on a screen, or even by an A0 sized print.
 

hash tag

chillin
Constable was a half decent painter, much sniffed at because of his commercial success perhaps.
speaking of English artists, Hogarth was tremendous. Just how did he get so much character into so many of his pictures when they were just black and white. It's beyond me.
 

SpookyFrank

Self-cleaning oven, the whole bit.
All those people who said they didn't get Mark Rothko until they saw one in real life at which point they broke down in tears, were transported to hitherto unimagined realms of pure delight, got up out of their wheelchairs for the first time in thirty years or whatever are full of shit. Bullshit seen up close is still bullshit.
 

hash tag

chillin
I couldn't believe this was by Rothko when I saw it last week. Like you say, buckshot is still buckshot, however much you polish it.
IMG-20180402-WA0005.jpg
 

dessiato

Because I could not stop for death
All those people who said they didn't get Mark Rothko until they saw one in real life at which point they broke down in tears, were transported to hitherto unimagined realms of pure delight, got up out of their wheelchairs for the first time in thirty years or whatever are full of shit. Bullshit seen up close is still bullshit.
There's a lot of bullshit talked in the art world. IMO some of the worst for this in recent times were the YBA, but it certainly predates them.

Years ago I did an art history course which was very interesting. But when we looked at things like this:

I upset a lot of people who insisted it is art. Whilst there is, arguably, a certain artistry in the object, and it certainly has merit as a piece e of design, the only thing that the so-called artist actually did was to write a name on it. So, if it is art, the recognition should go at least as much to the original designer, and to the people who produce it, as to Duchamp who claims it as his.

It seems that a lot of people now practise the emperor's new clothes approach to what is art.
 

S☼I

ifyalikeitthenushouldaputadonkonit
It’s true, though, to a greater or lesser extent, for all art, I think, and particularly oil paintings. There’s something about the textures, scale and sheer majesty of them that just can’t be captured in a book or on a screen, or even by an A0 sized print.
Absolutely. I wasn't that bothered about Klimt, for example, until I saw his The Maiden in Prague. It's incredible in the flesh. Same as Vermeer. I've seen eleven of his works and they're genuinely spine-tingling. Something about the light and stillness just does it for me.
 

Lupa

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I wasn't that bothered about Klimt, for example, until I saw his The Maiden in Prague. It's incredible in the flesh. Same as Vermeer. I've seen eleven of his works and they're genuinely spine-tingling. Something about the light and stillness just does it for me.
Yep. Vermeer had fantastic control of light. Literally. He painted using a camera obscura ...

"The art of chiaroscuro:
To create the astounding effects of light and shadow, it is believed that Vermeer used the camera obscura - a box with a hole with a lens in it. The inside of the box would be painted white and using a series of lenses and mirrors it would reflect the outside image within. This would intensify the light and shadows of the reflection, allowing the artist to see finer detail of light and shadow on surfaces and objects.
There is a great deal of evidence in Vermeer's works that he used this device, particularly in paintings such as The Lady with the Red Hat and The Lacemaker.
This technique assisted Vermeer in capturing minute details and highlighted aspects of surfaces and objects in dimmed or stark lighting conditions that created spectacular effects through the various lenses and mirrors.
This contraption also allowed for shadow lines to be much harsher and bold and this can be seen in the artist's take on clothing and fabrics. Another benefit of using the camera was that Vermeer did not have to constantly move around to catch finer detail for close-ups - he would continue looking inside the box without interrupting his flow of work"
Johannes Vermeer Style and Technique
 

killer b

Minimum Waste / Maximum Joy
The Vermeer camera obscura theory is just that, a theory. There's no convincing supporting evidence I've seen. He could just have been an amazing painter.
 

Dr. Furface

One small step for man
I upset a lot of people who insisted it is art. Whilst there is, arguably, a certain artistry in the object, and it certainly has merit as a piece e of design, the only thing that the so-called artist actually did was to write a name on it. So, if it is art, the recognition should go at least as much to the original designer, and to the people who produce it, as to Duchamp who claims it as his.
The point is that it was Duchamp (and nobody else) who had the idea of taking this everyday object (which he didn't create) and displaying it as a work of art, thereby demanding the viewer to think about not only the validity of the object itself as a piece of art, but also his own validity as an artist, as well as the very notion of what art is and can be. Yes it's absurd, comical and ridiculous, but it's also profound and challenging - and that's why it's an important piece of art. It clearly had quite an effect on you anyway!
 

killer b

Minimum Waste / Maximum Joy
Whatever he used or didn't use, he was still an amazing painter. He still had to apply the paint to the canvas whatever.
 

SpookyFrank

Self-cleaning oven, the whole bit.
The Vermeer camera obscura theory is just that, a theory. There's no convincing supporting evidence I've seen. He could just have been an amazing painter.
One of the arguments for it is that his portrayal of light and shade is more accurate than should be possibly given the capabilities of the human eye. We do not percieve the brightness of a surface in absolute terms, only relative to other stuff in our field of view. Vermeer's paintings suggest an ability to look at two separate points in a scene and determine which is brighter, something humans can't actually do with any accuracy.
 

JimW

支那暗杀团
One of the arguments for it is that his portrayal of light and shade is more accurate than should be possibly given the capabilities of the human eye. We do not percieve the brightness of a surface in absolute terms, only relative to other stuff in our field of view. Vermeer's paintings suggest an ability to look at two separate points in a scene and determine which is brighter, something humans can't actually do with any accuracy.
Mind, we don't see in oils or tempura either, so I reckon he may have been manipulating these images in several ways.
 

SpookyFrank

Self-cleaning oven, the whole bit.
The point is that it was Duchamp (and nobody else) who had the idea of taking this everyday object (which he didn't create) and displaying it as a work of art, thereby demanding the viewer to think about not only the validity of the object itself as a piece of art, but also his own validity as an artist, as well as the very notion of what art is and can be. Yes it's absurd, comical and ridiculous, but it's also profound and challenging - and that's why it's an important piece of art. It clearly had quite an effect on you anyway!
Depends if you think the purpose of art is to make a point, or to make a thing that has a point.

But even if it is only about making a point, 'look how clever I am' is a pretty shit point to make.
 

SpookyFrank

Self-cleaning oven, the whole bit.
I think that bellends are still calling Duchamp's work shit 100 years on is a tribute to it's excellence tbh. Truly shit art fades into obscurity IME.
I still think the Armenian genocide was a bad thing, presumably this means it was actually great because of what apparently now passes for logic around here.

People who don't like x are bellends because they don't like x which is great because bellends don't like it and you can always spot a bellend because they're the ones who don't like x.

:rolleyes:
 

Stanley Edwards

1967 Maserati Mistral.
R.I.P.
There is only is one contender

I sadly have to report that these murals no longer exist :( Someone whitewashed them out after I left Granada. However, they were great fun, lasted a few years and were photographed countless Thousands of times, so they will survive on the internet for as long as the internet survives :)

For those who have no idea...

This mural and the Second one (next door) were painted under street light during very hot August nights heavily under the influence of stuffs :D I still love them. They were totally free - no idea what was going to happen. 3 Meters x 3 Meters on walls next to the highest court of Southern Spain painted with Two a Penny Chinese acryllics. I was only questioned a single time by police. They realised there was fuck all I was doing illegally and left me alone. Local businesses paid for the paints and brushes (and beers). 90% of people loved them and thanked me very generously.

------------

Cheers for putting me in a thread of such esteem ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim

RoyReed

Must fly!
Last edited:
Top