The Great Art Debate

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by William the White » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:08 pm

Our discerning and drinking bunch of season ticket holders and art lovers (to various degrees) followed up our previous visits to Barcelona, Madrid, Amsterdam, Bruges, Porto, Sevilla and Cordoba with a visit to Vienna, City of beer, beisl and enough art to tip you over into overload.

We spent last Tuesday - our first full day - in the outstanding galleries and gardens of Belvedere. The entire day, including a tasty lunch. In the morning we visited the permanent collection in the Upper Galleries (those at the top of the hill on which the palace complex is built).

This is the permanent collection of the museum, much of it pleasant but often humdrum 17th-19th century European art.

Then there is the fourth floor dedicated mostly to the Austrian geniuses of the modernist movement. We walked into the first room. This had paintings by Klimt, Schiele and Kokoschka, about 20 in total. And instantly we were hit with the knowledge that we sure had chosen the right city this time. One of us, another poster on here, declared that he could happily spend the entire morning in just this one room. The beautiful, the daring, the disturbing offered an instant assault on the senses. This was built upon in the following four rooms, which include the biggest single collection of Gustav Klimt anywhere in the world - including The Kiss.

The Lower Belvedere - lovely walk through gardens to get there - offered two temporary exhibitions. One of Monet (judiciously displayed with some Klimt works adjoining - two masters of light reflecting on each other's genius) which was tremendous. The final gallery, though, was the surprise for me and, I think, the best single event of the entire trip. It was a temporary collection of artists from the Viennese Hagenbund - the league of modernist artists established to promote the new founded in 1900 (Klimt was among the first members) and thriving until Hitler had it closed down in 1938, and had its last president sent to the death camps. here I learned of artists new to me, whose work spoke profoundly of the times - and in particular of the post-1918 years when the shock of total defeat and loss of empire was expressed by work full of spiritual isolation, puzzle and loss. I've started to research the artists that I responded to most powerfully - Fritz Schwarz-Waldegg, Georg Erlich, Josef Floch and Felix Albrecht Harta.

These people could paint.

This was a brilliant day. More to come, though...

Jugs
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1949
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:31 pm
Location: On a shelf

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by Jugs » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:15 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So Folkestone now has the same number of Banksy pieces as Clacton.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/ ... for-26264/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a circus.

Have seen lots of art recently but nothing tops the exhibition of Schiele's nudes I saw at the Courtauld today. Best exhibition of 2014, for me.
Hmmm! His nudes always struck me that they were suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, or possibly ebola.
The subject of hysteria was fairly new when Schiele was painting, with some commentators suggesting he painted figures induced with hysteria.

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by William the White » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:59 pm

Jugs wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So Folkestone now has the same number of Banksy pieces as Clacton.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/ ... for-26264/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a circus.

Have seen lots of art recently but nothing tops the exhibition of Schiele's nudes I saw at the Courtauld today. Best exhibition of 2014, for me.
Hmmm! His nudes always struck me that they were suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, or possibly ebola.
The subject of hysteria was fairly new when Schiele was painting, with some commentators suggesting he painted figures induced with hysteria.
We saw the permanent Schiele exhibition at the Leopold Museum in Vienna's impressive and innovative 'Museum Quartier'.

He is a brilliant artist - bleak, moving, intense. How sad that he died at the age of 28 (I think).

These rooms contain the largest single collection of Schiele anywhere. And were tremendous. My companion - who also posts on TW - is a long term admirer of Schiele's work. He was happy! Me too. :D

Add to this that we then crossed the road to the Kunst Historisches Museum to see a visiting exhibition of Velasquez that included five or six of my favourite paintings of his. I was happy! :D

We then caught a U-Bahn to check if the Danube was, in fact, blue. It isn't. Though a public lavatory outside the Staatsoper played the Blue Danube waltz when you entered.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by Hoboh » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:13 am

William the White wrote:
Jugs wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So Folkestone now has the same number of Banksy pieces as Clacton.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/ ... for-26264/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a circus.

Have seen lots of art recently but nothing tops the exhibition of Schiele's nudes I saw at the Courtauld today. Best exhibition of 2014, for me.
Hmmm! His nudes always struck me that they were suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, or possibly ebola.
The subject of hysteria was fairly new when Schiele was painting, with some commentators suggesting he painted figures induced with hysteria.
We saw the permanent Schiele exhibition at the Leopold Museum in Vienna's impressive and innovative 'Museum Quartier'.

He is a brilliant artist - bleak, moving, intense. How sad that he died at the age of 28 (I think).

These rooms contain the largest single collection of Schiele anywhere. And were tremendous. My companion - who also posts on TW - is a long term admirer of Schiele's work. He was happy! Me too. :D

Add to this that we then crossed the road to the Kunst Historisches Museum to see a visiting exhibition of Velasquez that included five or six of my favourite paintings of his. I was happy! :D

We then caught a U-Bahn to check if the Danube was, in fact, blue. It isn't. Though a public lavatory outside the Staatsoper played the Blue Danube waltz when you entered.
No I won't :wink:

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by William the White » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:07 pm

Last Friday, while visiting daughter, her partner and four months now grandson, just learning to chuckle, we managed to squeeze in a visit to the tate's 'late turner' exhibition.

Some very nice things there, including some watercolours I'd never seen before...

BUT - pretty cheeky of the Tate, I reckon, to charge £18.00 for an exhibition of paintings where something like 75% (at a guess) come from their own collection...

Partner loved it though - so money well spent there... :D

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:45 pm

William the White wrote:Last Friday, while visiting daughter, her partner and four months now grandson, just learning to chuckle, we managed to squeeze in a visit to the tate's 'late turner' exhibition.

Some very nice things there, including some watercolours I'd never seen before...

BUT - pretty cheeky of the Tate, I reckon, to charge £18.00 for an exhibition of paintings where something like 75% (at a guess) come from their own collection...

Partner loved it though - so money well spent there... :D
Yes, and I haven't been yet, but I suspect the loans were from free public collections too, like 'Rain, Steam and Speed' from the National Gallery?

Still, even moving this stuff around costs money and the funding from elsewhere isn't getting any more generous.

You and your partner must be good candidates for getting value out of a National Art Pass, incidentally? http://www.artfund.org/get-involved/buy ... l-art-pass" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by William the White » Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:32 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote:Last Friday, while visiting daughter, her partner and four months now grandson, just learning to chuckle, we managed to squeeze in a visit to the tate's 'late turner' exhibition.

Some very nice things there, including some watercolours I'd never seen before...

BUT - pretty cheeky of the Tate, I reckon, to charge £18.00 for an exhibition of paintings where something like 75% (at a guess) come from their own collection...

Partner loved it though - so money well spent there... :D
Yes, and I haven't been yet, but I suspect the loans were from free public collections too, like 'Rain, Steam and Speed' from the National Gallery?

Still, even moving this stuff around costs money and the funding from elsewhere isn't getting any more generous.

You and your partner must be good candidates for getting value out of a National Art Pass, incidentally? http://www.artfund.org/get-involved/buy ... l-art-pass" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yep - that is an interesting thought... I think our provisionally planned New Year trip to London might go most of the way towards paying for a two people pass - with 50% discounts on exhibitions we wish to see...

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:09 pm

William the White wrote:
Yep - that is an interesting thought... I think our provisionally planned New Year trip to London might go most of the way towards paying for a two people pass - with 50% discounts on exhibitions we wish to see...
Yep, and it also gives free entry to the Courtauld Gallery and the Dulwich Picture Gallery, both brilliant little places.

Pretty much every big art exhibition in the country accepts them, so it's not just London - used mine for Warhol at Tate Liverpool the other day.

Oh, and I know you're not exactly short of reading material, but they send out a quarterly magazine that isn't bad too.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38621
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:08 pm

I've spent a long time perusing Turner's sketchbooks via this link and thanks to tinyurl. Time and patience needed but I had both. The sketchbooks fascinate me as much as the finished works:

http://tinyurl.com/n3hnmgu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38621
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:31 pm

I've also become quite fascinated by the work of a modern Iranian artist, Behzad Bagheri

http://gnwps.com/m/behzad_bagheri" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38621
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by TANGODANCER » Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:49 pm

The more I paint, the more I try to understand branches of art that , well, I just don't really understand. I've changed some views and learned quite a bit. I came across this by accident. I wish I hadn't. It's just whacko. http://tincanvas.org/?p=213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37588
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by thebish » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:55 am

TANGODANCER wrote:The more I paint, the more I try to understand branches of art that , well, I just don't really understand. I've changed some views and learned quite a bit. I came across this by accident. I wish I hadn't. It's just whacko. http://tincanvas.org/?p=213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

that's interesting... (and good to hear). do you mind me asking what views you have changed recently?
Some people are like Slinkies … not really good for anything, but you can’t help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38621
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:59 am

thebish wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:The more I paint, the more I try to understand branches of art that , well, I just don't really understand. I've changed some views and learned quite a bit. I came across this by accident. I wish I hadn't. It's just whacko. http://tincanvas.org/?p=213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
that's interesting... (and good to hear). do you mind me asking what views you have changed recently?
I'll take it as a serious question and answer thus:

No Damascus moment, just a gradual mind change. The desire to paint really grabs you. I've painted and drawn spasmodically almost since I was old enough to hold a pencil. I got a big watercolour box for Christmas one year, and oil paints another. A lot of years I did nothing until recently.Now, hardly a day goes by without some work. To be honest, I prefer my sketchbooks to actually painting pictures in the main. To paint all and everything, to experiment with some styles and make an effort to understand others has become a real interest. Picasso, for instance, I see as a disturbed man but a truly great and talented painter and , although I've changed many views, I still maintain it comes down to personal preference. His works are not something I'd want to spend forever studying but I appreciate his skills. Whilst there are literally thousands of talented people in every branch of art, there are also a fair amount of odd-balls and quite a few I'll always regard as charlatans. That I just accept. I also realise that, to an artist, painting a nude figure is more about the challenge of doing it realistically than anything else or any sexual predominance. Why shouldn't you paint whatever you like within the bounds of reasonable decency? ( Some go way beyond these bounds granted)

Understanding colours is something that watercolour painting has really brought out.

I suppose my views have changed mainly from really looking into colours and seeing what the artists are trying to do. Google Images is a massive art gallery where any artist you care to mention can be viewed extensively. I also use the local library (Bolton Central) which has a comprehensive collection). Whilst I appreciate the skills of the old masters, ( and yes, the Pre-Raphaelites) I also really rate and get pleasure from quite a lot of contemporary artists. Without a doubt the impressionists are my favourite area and Turner my idea of a genius, but some modern impressionists are truly talented. I've gone back to school, if you will.

That's it.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by William the White » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:23 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote:
Yep - that is an interesting thought... I think our provisionally planned New Year trip to London might go most of the way towards paying for a two people pass - with 50% discounts on exhibitions we wish to see...
Yep, and it also gives free entry to the Courtauld Gallery and the Dulwich Picture Gallery, both brilliant little places.

Pretty much every big art exhibition in the country accepts them, so it's not just London - used mine for Warhol at Tate Liverpool the other day.

Oh, and I know you're not exactly short of reading material, but they send out a quarterly magazine that isn't bad too.
Bought the double pass, wrapped it and placed it under the tree, labelled for partner and I - from Pablo, Gustav and Diego...

A much-welcomed present... :D

Thanks for the recco... Using it for the forthcoming London trip will save us £41... Well on the way to the £68 the passes cost...

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:57 am

William the White wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
William the White wrote:
Yep - that is an interesting thought... I think our provisionally planned New Year trip to London might go most of the way towards paying for a two people pass - with 50% discounts on exhibitions we wish to see...
Yep, and it also gives free entry to the Courtauld Gallery and the Dulwich Picture Gallery, both brilliant little places.

Pretty much every big art exhibition in the country accepts them, so it's not just London - used mine for Warhol at Tate Liverpool the other day.

Oh, and I know you're not exactly short of reading material, but they send out a quarterly magazine that isn't bad too.
Bought the double pass, wrapped it and placed it under the tree, labelled for partner and I - from Pablo, Gustav and Diego...

A much-welcomed present... :D

Thanks for the recco... Using it for the forthcoming London trip will save us £41... Well on the way to the £68 the passes cost...
You're welcome. :D

I went to go and see Late Turner today, assuming, without any real basis, that the gallery would be in a quiet post-Christmas lull.

I couldn't have been more wrong: I arrived to a very long queue for tickets three hours into the future. So I made a rash decision and became a Tate 'member' for the first time. Maybe I won't renew my Art Pass in March now.

Anyway, Late Turner... wow, that was a slog. I know the aim will have been to be as comprehensive as possible, but it would definitely have benefited from some judicious cutting down, in my view.

I'm still processing how (or if) my view of him has changed. He has a greatest hits album that is up there with the very best, and I still think he is Britain's only representative in art history's pantheon of great painters, but christ he produced a lot of paintings that do nothing for me, and he was, frankly, a truly dreadful painter of figures. One interesting insight that the volume of works did afford is the extent to which, as well as being a great innovator, Turner was also a jobbing painter churning out pictures to a handful of formulas when it suited him to be. The exact same tree and chrome yellow-fading-to-blue sky mix appears in at least 4 of his Italian views.

Like you, I very much enjoyed some never-before-seen watercolours of alpine views, lakes and castles, especially when they also incorporated gouache and bodycolour (a distinction I have learnt today).

This, in the London Review of Books, is an excellent and interesting review: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n24/john-barre ... c83839913c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dorment in the Telegraph also gets near to my thoughts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... urner.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by William the White » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:24 pm

The quality of the art criticism in The London Review of Books is one of the reasons I keep paying my sub. And that is an intelligent take on the exhibition.

We spent yesterday at the Tate, Liverpool, mostly for the Warhol exhibition (saving the first six quid of the cost of the Art Pass). This was an interesting experience, that left me wondering about this artist, who sometimes seems vacuous, sometimes playful, even exuberant, sometimes ironic and in the case of the silk screen depictions of the Sing Sing electric chair, in golds, reds, pinks, and, finally a deep, deep red that almost obscures its subject, the artist is dealing with much more profound subject matter but not letting us in on his thoughts (if, indeed, he has any).

I enjoyed the Marilyn pieces (how to create an icon for an age that was giving religion a miss and hedonism its turn). The Campbell's soup tins made me smile - I hadn't realised that Warhol had titled them 'still life' and defended them by pointing out that if he'd painted fruit in a bowl it wouldn't have caused all this fuss, and Americans saw more soup tins than fruit bowls...

He was certainly an outstanding illustrator and his record sleeve designs were the best.

His films and TV work were significantly less than interesting - but I haven't found a way to respond to moving image art yet. Only Emin's has really interested me so far. That said, this from Gretchen Bender, that we visited after the Warhol was impressive if nothing else: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-li ... hen-bender" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We had lunch at the gallery and did some more exploring - it was nice to revisit the 'Constellations' floor and the ground floor's 'The Serving Library' explored art and word in what might have been an interesting way if we hadn't been so knackered by then! http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-li ... ng-library" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might read a book today... :wink:

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38621
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:35 pm

If I might be allowed a couple of comments ( on Turner only here) that are just personal views Mummy. Quite a few of them are based on actual known facts:

Figures: Firstly, Turner was almost exclusively, a landscape painter and an impressionistic one at that. No portraits of himself exist apart from the self-created one and the still questionable "young-man" drawing of Varley's? This and the absence of many works with figures (he did some, "The Unpaid Bill" and " The Artist'a Workshop" amongst them and the figures in them are fine) I just believe figures as such didn't interest him as subjects. Rembrandt, Singer Sargent and Russell Flint specialised in them. Turner painted landscapes. He was an environment painter pure and simple.He was also, when the mood took him, capable of very detailed work in contrast to his impressionist paintings. He painted light and shade, weather and scenic views over a vast (excuse the pun) canvas. Half the problem, indeed the whole problem now, and I agree entirely on this, is in the fact that he painted and sketched so much that any doodle or squiggle that can be attributed to him becomes a collectors item as soon as they surface. Far too many get exhibited that he himself might not have rated highly. I admire the man so much that I'm quite happy perusing his many sketch books. He fascinates me. I haven't watched "Mr Turner" the film yet, and I'll probably enjoy it knowing it will be little but and anachronistic tale based around a few basic truths and decorated with copies of his works.

At the risk of assassination, and with no disrespect meant to yourself, I do often wonder how many critics, reviewers and art experts actually paint or look for things in paintings other than the artists imagined. I've read quite a few books on Turner over time and regularly peruse his works via the excellent "Google Images" source. I've been through loads of his sketch books this way (which I find as fascinating as his finished works) and even copied an odd painting or two. People describe some of his paintings as "moralistic" etc. I believe he was just a compulsive painter with a need to paint anything and everything he wanted to. So he did.

" to which Turner replied that " the critic sees more in my pictures than I ever painted.’ being so relevant a comment to me it made me laugh aloud.

PS: You may find this interesting. I certainly did.
http://www.artistsandillustrators.co.uk ... ike-turner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.artistsandillustrators.co.uk ... ike-turner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:48 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:If I might be allowed a couple of comments ( on Turner only here) that are just personal views Mummy. Quite a few of them are based on actual known facts:

Figures: Firstly, Turner was almost exclusively, a landscape painter and an impressionistic one at that. No portraits of himself exist apart from the self-created one and the still questionable "young-man" drawing of Varley's? This and the absence of many works with figures (he did some, "The Unpaid Bill" and " The Artist'a Workshop" amongst them and the figures in them are fine) I just believe figures as such didn't interest him as subjects. Rembrandt, Singer Sargent and Russell Flint specialised in them. Turner painted landscapes. He was an environment painter pure and simple.He was also, when the mood took him, capable of very detailed work in contrast to his impressionist paintings. He painted light and shade, weather and scenic views over a vast (excuse the pun) canvas. Half the problem, indeed the whole problem now, and I agree entirely on this, is in the fact that he painted and sketched so much that any doodle or squiggle that can be attributed to him becomes a collectors item as soon as they surface. Far too many get exhibited that he himself might not have rated highly. I admire the man so much that I'm quite happy perusing his many sketch books. He fascinates me. I haven't watched "Mr Turner" the film yet, and I'll probably enjoy it knowing it will be little but and anachronistic tale based around a few basic truths and decorated with copies of his works.
I agree that Turner was overwhelmingly mostly interested in 'atmospheric effects', for want of a more elegant term, but the fact is that he did paint many many landscapes with figures in to tell a mythological narrative, like his hero Claude Lorraine. Lots of them are in this very large exhibition and lots are on show permanently in the Tate Britain Turner rooms anyway. They are not very well known and I think that's because (a) they don't fit the conventional wisdom of the last 60 years that he was a proto-impressionist or even abstract expressionist (when in fact he was knocking out mythological paintings right until his final productive year); and (b) they're just not that good in their handling of figures.

I am talking about large, finished, oil on canvas paintings here, not his sketches and watercolours. My new suspicion is that he did paint a fair few canvasses for his market that he may not have rated that highly himself - see above my comments about the phantom repeating Italian tree.

As for the film... I am very keen that you should see it, but as a devoted fan of the man I'll tell you now that you will not be wholly pleased or even entertained by it.
TANGODANCER wrote:At the risk of assassination, and with no disrespect meant to yourself, I do often wonder how many critics, reviewers and art experts actually paint or look for things in paintings other than the artists imagined. I've read quite a few books on Turner over time and regularly peruse his works via the excellent "Google Images" source. I've been through loads of his sketch books this way (which I find as fascinating as his finished works) and even copied an odd painting or two. People describe some of his paintings as "moralistic" etc. I believe he was just a compulsive painter with a need to paint anything and everything he wanted to. So he did.

" to which Turner replied that " the critic sees more in my pictures than I ever painted.’ being so relevant a comment to me it made me laugh aloud.
It's ok, I don't feel that was an assassination!

Do critics need to paint to be able to comment on painting? I think it helps. I have painted and I enjoy the physical aspect of paint as a material. Certainly Ruskin, the uber critic and main target of Turner's comment you have quoted was himself a very accomplished and fairly prolific artist. I know that other critics I respect - Collings, Searle and Sewell, for example, have all done a considerable amount of their own painting.

Painting isn't just a craft-based activity though. The viewer's prerogative is a big part of why it is such a seductive medium - it always leaves space for the viewer's imagination or taste to complete the equation, unlike, say, video art which generally forces you to process it on its own terms. So in that sense it's open to anyone with eyes to compare painters and paintings and to say what they see in them - certainly Turner's good living was assisted by the interest in his work that critics stimulated.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38621
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light a penny candle from a star.

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by TANGODANCER » Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:27 pm

No real argument with any of the above, Mummy. A lot of his works classed as "mythological" are amongst the least appealing to me really. I like some of his paintings with figures in, like the Scarboro ones and Flint castle, Fish Market Hastings, etc, whilst his Napoleonic stuff wouldn't be too much before his own era to class as anything ancient. I love his delicate watercolours such as "The Sun of Venice setting sail" , but I do believe that the man might be less than amused that things he sketched haphazardly or as component work for later use are now on exhibition as genius. I also agree his exhibitions should probably be pruned down somewhat, though not from a personal opinion point as I haven't seen them. Too much of any good thing tends to take the edges off. Maybe some of the money recouped from his sales might be used for a permanent Turner Gallery? I'm sure it would pay for itself and become a money-earner in time.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Re: The Great Art Debate

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:45 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Too much of any good thing tends to take the edges off.

Maybe some of the money recouped from his sales might be used for a permanent Turner Gallery? I'm sure it would pay for itself and become a money-earner in time.
That's absolutely true - I went round with a critic yesterday and we were discussing how it is that very few artists have a varied enough output to make seeing all of it at once rewarding. There is perhaps only Picasso who could stand it.

There really is already a dedicated Turner Gallery at Tate Britain, Tango, which, thankfully, is free and so not a money-earner at all!

I've never really enjoyed it precisely for the reason about seeing too much of one thing all once discussed above, and have always preferred seeing the Rain, Steam and Speed and the Fighting Temeraire holding their own with anything else art history has to offer in the National Gallery.

Incidentally, now that I have shelled out for a Tate membership that means that I plus one other can go into any of their exhibitions free of charge, I'd be delighted to have you as my guest if you could make it down to London before it finishes on 25 Jan. Though I know there are other, bigger costs involved of course.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 21 guests