Who's your favourite painter?

strtdv

Rembrandt. The darker and moodier the better

sev112

stickyfiddle said:

I can't really get on with Rembrandt. I've tried, and he was clearly phenomenal, but they're all so miserable. 

I do love Van Gogh though. Maybe a cliche, but just astonishing stuff. I sat for a good 30 minutes in the Van Gogh room in the Met. I could've stayed all day.

Oooh, I'm going to NY in a couple of weeks, will have to pop in

wish  more places were like London with free museums 

marantz1300

hungrymark said:

Think Rousseau was Naive

I know.

When I first met my wife I took her to the Tate.
She's a Teacher and loved it,was supprised because she thought I was a pikey thug.
Still can't understand why She came.
She said I scared her.

Mkjackary

Favourite artist is Joe Fenton

marantz1300

JezWynd said:

WezV said:

when I was teaching one of my students was doing some wonderful art deco studies

he did me a great interpretation of this - same size as the original.... she is fairly imposing

Tamara De Lempicka. I saw an exhibition of her work earlier this year. Strange woman, her early stuff is great, stylised deco. Then she married into monied society and hung out in Hollywood and later NY and started to paint quite dreary still life's.

  

She did some beautiful works. Sublime.

ICBM

Overly predictable, but probably Van Gogh.

http://www.vangogh.net/images/paintings/green-wheat-field-with-cypress-tree.jpg

I've been lucky enough to see this Van Gogh up really close - it's in the National Gallery in Prague, where I went not long after the fall of communism. The gallery was still very un-modernised, very little of the security you get nowadays, just a dozing Soviet-era attendant on a chair in the corner - no ropes, no glass. I could literally have touched it if I'd wanted to - of course I didn't, but standing that close to it, exactly where Vincent did when he painted it, did something that seeing it in a print or behind glass just couldn't… it was like the painting was alive and I was back in 1889 in a field in France. Quite incredible, and something I'd never experienced or expected before.


Also, this week I was in Paris, and I went to see this…

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg/687px-Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg

Yes, I know you've seen it a million times. It's like the Stairway To Heaven of painting, everyone who knows nothing about art picks it as the best painting ever. But it really is - or at least it's on a very short list. Seen in person, even from ten feet away and through bulletproof glass, it's incredible. It has a sort of inner light, somehow - and it makes every other painting of its era (and most others) look ordinary and flat. If you don't know what the fuss is about and you have the chance, go and see it - assuming you can fight your way through the six-deep crowd of selfie-takers in front of it...

Deadman

I don't have one, but a painting can take me to another place. Art is pretty much my life.

Nomad

ICBM said:

I've been lucky enough to see this Van Gogh up really close - it's in the National Gallery in Prague, where I went not long after the fall of communism. The gallery was still very un-modernised, very little of the security you get nowadays, just a dozing Soviet-era attendant on a chair in the corner - no ropes, no glass. I could literally have touched it if I'd wanted to - of course I didn't, but standing that close to it, exactly where Vincent did when he painted it, did something that seeing it in a print or behind glass just couldn't… it was like the painting was alive and I was back in 1889 in a field in France. Quite incredible, and something I'd never experienced or expected before.

His later style can have that effect. About 10 years ago, there was a Van Gogh exhibition in Edinburgh which I went to (twice). The galleries were laid out chronologically, so you started from his Dutch style stuff, through his impressionist period, and onto the later style. I was wandering through, looking at the impressionist ones, and could see Two Crabs coming up, but was taking care not to look directly at it. When I did, my reaction was palpable - the colours just exploded. I found myself wondering what happened to him to go from the pastelly impressionist style to the riot of vibrant and powerful colours and bold brush strokes - a truly profound change in style.

Since I was into doing copies of his stuff at the time, I had a damn good, close look at his brushwork on many of the later style paintings.

duotone

Lately been enjoying this http://marijatiurina.com

stickyfiddle

ICBM said:

Overly predictable, but probably Van Gogh.

[cypress trees]

I've been lucky enough to see this Van Gogh up really close - it's in the National Gallery in Prague, where I went not long after the fall of communism. The gallery was still very un-modernised, very little of the security you get nowadays, just a dozing Soviet-era attendant on a chair in the corner - no ropes, no glass. I could literally have touched it if I'd wanted to - of course I didn't, but standing that close to it, exactly where Vincent did when he painted it, did something that seeing it in a print or behind glass just couldn't… it was like the painting was alive and I was back in 1889 in a field in France. Quite incredible, and something I'd never experienced or expected before.


Also, this week I was in Paris, and I went to see this…

[mona lisa]

Yes, I know you've seen it a million times. It's like the Stairway To Heaven of painting, everyone who knows nothing about art picks it as the best painting ever. But it really is - or at least it's on a very short list. Seen in person, even from ten feet away and through bulletproof glass, it's incredible. It has a sort of inner light, somehow - and it makes every other painting of its era (and most others) look ordinary and flat. If you don't know what the fuss is about and you have the chance, go and see it - assuming you can fight your way through the six-deep crowd of selfie-takers in front of it...

The van goghs in the MET are the same. You could literally touch them, and very easily. To get that close to see the brushstrokes is phenomenal and I actually found it quite emotional.

I haven't been to the Louvre, but I suspect what a lot of people forget is that it's 600 years old. Obviously it's a good painting(!) but if you look at its best contemporaries it's ASTONISHING. The Sistine chapel obviously matches it for good reason, but Caravaggio wasn't even born until 50+ years later.

@sev112 - do go to the MET if you have time. We were there almost all day and did maybe half. I'm not big on galleries in general but it's just fantastic. The Egyptain stuff is particularly incredible.

EDIT: I took this at a focal length of 18mm - ie very close up (roughly equivalent to an iphone camera zoomed all the way out). No waiting for a spot, no leaning over a barrier. I'm not even sure there was a rope.

ICBM

stickyfiddle said:

The van goghs in the MET are the same. You could literally touch them, and very easily. To get that close to see the brushstrokes is phenomenal and I actually found it quite emotional.

Yes, same here. I know this will sound pretentious, but being able to see the thickness of the brushstrokes and almost literally feel the energy with which they've been applied was a profound experience - and it somehow did make the painting seem almost literally like a window in time, to the point where I almost felt I could feel the heat of the sun and the breeze in the field where he painted it. Very powerful.

(Your pic there really captures something of it, with the angle you've used so the three-dimensional texture is very apparent.)

stickyfiddle said:

I haven't been to the Louvre, but I suspect what a lot of people forget is that it's 600 years old. Obviously it's a good painting(!) but if you look at its best contemporaries it's ASTONISHING. The Sistine chapel obviously matches it for good reason, but Caravaggio wasn't even born until 50+ years later.

It's not just its modernity - even that image above (which is the best I could easily find online) doesn't do the real thing justice. It's incredibly alive - there's a sort of presence that seems to not be a flat image, and that cliché of "the eyes follow you" is true. And that's even behind glass, it must be phenomenal if you could actually see it directly up close. It truly is one of the greatest works of art I've ever seen.


On the same theme, clichéd "great paintings" which are genuinely great when you see them in reality, I love this one too - Turner, "The Fighting Temeraire"

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/22/article-0-031E08000000044D-994_964x713.jpg

One of the things that makes it so is the rest of the title, usually left out "…tugged to her last berth to be broken up". There is much more to it than just a picture of a ship, it's about the passing into history of something significant, and you really see that when you're in front of the full-size painting.

Turner is one of my favourites too, and that's one of his very best.

Neil

ICBM said:

stickyfiddle said:

The van goghs in the MET are the same. You could literally touch them, and very easily. To get that close to see the brushstrokes is phenomenal and I actually found it quite emotional.

Yes, same here. I know this will sound pretentious, but being able to see the thickness of the brushstrokes and almost literally feel the energy with which they've been applied was a profound experience - and it somehow did make the painting seem almost literally like a window in time, to the point where I almost felt I could feel the heat of the sun and the breeze in the field where he painted it. Very powerful.

(Your pic there really captures something of it, with the angle you've used so the three-dimensional texture is very apparent.)

stickyfiddle said:

I haven't been to the Louvre, but I suspect what a lot of people forget is that it's 600 years old. Obviously it's a good painting(!) but if you look at its best contemporaries it's ASTONISHING. The Sistine chapel obviously matches it for good reason, but Caravaggio wasn't even born until 50+ years later.

It's not just its modernity - even that image above (which is the best I could easily find online) doesn't do the real thing justice. It's incredibly alive - there's a sort of presence that seems to not be a flat image, and that cliché of "the eyes follow you" is true. And that's even behind glass, it must be phenomenal if you could actually see it directly up close. It truly is one of the greatest works of art I've ever seen.


On the same theme, clichéd "great paintings" which are genuinely great when you see them in reality, I love this one too - Turner, "The Fighting Temeraire"

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/22/article-0-031E08000000044D-994_964x713.jpg

One of the things that makes it so is the rest of the title, usually left out "…tugged to her last berth to be broken up". There is much more to it than just a picture of a ship, it's about the passing into history of something significant, and you really see that when you're in front of the full-size painting.

Turner is one of my favourites too, and that's one of his very best.

 I love the way the Temeraire has the appearance of a ghost as if its time has already past with the smelly little steam tug to the fore - the present.

Snap

I like art a lot. I went to the Tate Modern for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Was very taken by the room full of geometric stuff from Croatia, various artists.

I like Mark Rothko - you do really need to see his stuff in a proper setting, and the room they have in the Tate is brilliant, its absorobing stuff.

I like pop art, Dan Monteavaro is great, sort of Ray LIchtenstein on speed.

I like Damian Hirst - especially his pharmaceutical series.

The Vatican Museums has some truly stunning work, yes, its obviousl, but bloody hell, the Sistine Chapel really is something, as are the fresos in the Raphael rooms.

I'm not a fan of Titian and the like - similary a lot of the stuff in The National , just bores me.

57Deluxe

The bloke who does the old Georgian windows in Guitar Village.... work of art compared to mine..

https://i1.wp.com/dc400.4shared.com/img/lX8xaJjN/s3/git_vill.jpg

thebreeze

I like nearly all Rothko's paintings.  My favourites are in the Rothko Chapel.

http://houmuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rothko_2000_by_Hickey-Robertson1.jpg

ICBM

I have to say I haven't seen any Rothko I really like, but I did very much like this Yves Klein in the Centre Pompidou…

https://mcopesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/klein.jpg

Why one and not the other? I don't know.

chrispy108

https://tuinderlusten-jheronimusbosch.ntr.nl/en#
This is an interactive viewer for The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch.
It's absolutely stunning, and it's just crazy to think it's over 500 years old.

sev112

ICBM said:

I've been lucky enough to see this Van Gogh up really close - it's in the National Gallery in Prague, where I went not long after the fall of communism. The gallery was still very un-modernised, very little of the security you get nowadays, just a dozing Soviet-era attendant on a chair in the corner - no ropes, no glass. I could literally have touched it if I'd wanted to - of course I didn't, but standing that close to it, exactly where Vincent did when he painted it, did something that seeing it in a print or behind glass just couldn't… it was like the painting was alive and I was back in 1889 in a field in France. Quite incredible, and something I'd never experienced or expected before.

I was lucky to see 5 of VG's Sunflowers brought together from all over the world and displayed next to each other.  That too was the moment that I really started appreciating his work - the astonishing 3d texture
and of course, that you could get your face almost right up to the surface - no glass.

and learning about VG's interactions and successes and then stresses from his work in Arles with Gaugain really helps one understand what was going on in his life and his paintings

some bbc prog on next Sat at 8pm apparently

JezWynd

ICBM said:

I have to say I haven't seen any Rothko I really like, but I did very much like this Yves Klein in the Centre Pompidou…

https://mcopesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/klein.jpg

Why one and not the other? I don't know.

That's nice. Is it a flat field of blue or there stuff going on in it?

Medieval is good.

JezWynd

hungrymark said:

Think Rousseau was Naive

Trusting maybe, but Naive?