The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/gustave ... kers-1849/

Today's Artfinder image of the day. I doubt we'll have a Mondrianesque row over it. Make of that what you will.

Regarding your question, Jon, colour photography existed in some form from the mid-nineteenth century and was well advanced prior to WW2.

Ah, ok. I knew that there had been some successful attempts at colour photography in the 19th century, but I am surprised to learn that there were colour photographs of paintings being taken prior to WW2.

That's exciting really - I wonder what other early colour photographs we have of 'lost' masterpieces.

[Montreal Wanderer]

https://www.artfinder.com/story/gustave ... kers-1849/

Today's Artfinder image of the day. I doubt we'll have a Mondrianesque row over it. Make of that what you will.

Regarding your question, Jon, colour photography existed in some form from the mid-nineteenth century and was well advanced prior to WW2.

Ah, ok. I knew that there had been some successful attempts at colour photography in the 19th century, but I am surprised to learn that there were colour photographs of paintings being taken prior to WW2.

That's exciting really - I wonder what other early colour photographs we have of 'lost' masterpieces.

The first example by Levi Hill, long thought to be a fraud, but now accepted dates from the 1850s - I suppose the girl's name is Mary.

[Jugs]

Jugs - or anyone else - can you have a stab at explaining Richter's abstract paintings to me? Has he done anything other than invent the squeegee technique and try it with every colour palette possible?

I hadn't before heard of Richter so I couldn't offer much. But from the overview that I've just given myself of his work on google-images, his oeuvre reminds me of an American abstract-expressionist called Clyfford Still. Still outright rejected any type of figurative representation in art and was unapologetic about his fully-abstract style; I gather Richter would have been the same. For Still, art should not be a product of our intellect or contemplation - it should be pure intuition and feeling. I wonder if Richter felt the same way. It looks to me that he was - his work looks even more out-of-control than Still's. Rothko, for example, had a much more measured and considered approach to abstract art - his work was the product of much thought and deliberation. Still, and I'm guessing Richter, worked more from their personal intuition and inborn feeling for colour.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You haven't heard of Richter? What was this essay you said you were writing?!

[Jugs]

The essay I'm going to be writing Final year of Uni. I'm recently getting into colorists, such as Malevich and Albers, but I haven't yet discovered them all.

[thebish]

Personally I wouldn't say that shouts any message at all. Just an artist painting something he may see in the countryside. This one, in contrast shouts loud and clear.

hmmmm... what does it shout? "TITTIES!!!!!" ??

[Jugs]

Personally I wouldn't say that shouts any message at all. Just an artist painting something he may see in the countryside. This one, in contrast shouts loud and clear.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

But often subtlety is more beautiful. When it was first executed, the Courbet painting would have said a great deal - for it would have been one of the first works proper to depict the working man toiling away.

A bit of an understanding of impressionism is often important when it comes to understanding paintings by artists such as Courbet, Degas, Toulouse-lautrec and so on. Impressionism was a very important epoch in the history of art and this piece by Courbet is atypical of the concern that the artists had with the plight of the working man and the downtrodden; no longer were artists painting royalty, battles, religious or mythological scenes. Instead they were giving a portrait of reality as it was for the worse-off; the paintings were often bleak but they were honest.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The essay I'm going to be writing Final year of Uni. I'm recently getting into colorists, such as Malevich and Albers, but I haven't yet discovered them all.

Interesting. What's your degree subject?

[Jugs]

Film-making but owing to my interest in art, I've chosen twice so far to take art-based essay questions as its permitted.

[TANGODANCER]

Personally I wouldn't say that shouts any message at all. Just an artist painting something he may see in the countryside. This one, in contrast shouts loud and clear.

hmmmm... what does it shout? "TITTIES!!!!!" ??

Well, of course, what else?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Film-making but owing to my interest in art, I've chosen twice so far to take art-based essay questions as its permitted.

Phew... I did wonder whether you were in the final year of a modern art degree and somehow hadn't heard of Richter, for a second!

[Bruce Rioja]

Horseshit

Here's a pile of old elephant shit. Won the Turner Prize too. Absolute shite.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Horseshit

Here's a pile of old elephant shit. Won the Turner Prize too. Absolute shite.

Yes, and an interesting part of the a tale that illustrates how rotten the contemporary art establishment, led by Nicholas Serota and his Tate, actually is.

Serota and the Tate award Ofili the £20,000 Turner Prize for a painting that incorporates Elephant shit. Ok, no big deal - the money comes largely from a sponsor..

Ofili is then appointed by Serota to become one the Tate trustees (who, in turn, appoint the Tate director).

The Tate trustees then purchased one exhibit of Ofili's for £700,000 (Turner Prize winners come with premium pricing), with a lot of public money, while Ofili himself was a trustee!

And this was not an isolated incident.

The whole sorry story about this insidious cabal here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tate%27s_p ... Upper_Room" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lost Leopard Spot]

That's exciting really - I wonder what other early colour photographs we have of 'lost' masterpieces.

I'm amazed that you should need to ask...
this for instance (Klimt's Medicine)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

That's exciting really - I wonder what other early colour photographs we have of 'lost' masterpieces.

I'm amazed that you should need to ask...
this for instance (Klimt's Medicine)

Great stuff!

Any more you know of?

Any Renaissance masters?

I was actually thinking recently that a book about the greatest works we've lost would be interesting for art lovers. A combination of the treasures we know to be destroyed and those for which there is a tantalising possibility that they are still out there waiting to be discovered in an attic.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

That's exciting really - I wonder what other early colour photographs we have of 'lost' masterpieces.

I'm amazed that you should need to ask...
this for instance (Klimt's Medicine)

Great stuff!

Any more you know of?

Any Renaissance masters?

I was actually thinking recently that a book about the greatest works we've lost would be interesting for art lovers. A combination of the treasures we know to be destroyed and those for which there is a tantalising possibility that they are still out there waiting to be discovered in an attic.

There already is a book: Celine Delavaux The Impossible Museum - the best art you’ll never see
And also there is an exhibition at the Tate (mind you that's on modern art) called the Gallery of Lost Art.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think the Gallery of Lost Art at the Tate is available as an online tour as well...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There already is a book: Celine Delavaux The Impossible Museum - the best art you’ll never see
And also there is an exhibition at the Tate (mind you that's on modern art) called the Gallery of Lost Art.

Thanks a lot, that's interesting!

Sounds like there might still be room for my version of the book though, after all:

This sounded like such a good book; just the kind of book that I like. Stories behind works of art that have been lost, destroyed, transformed, hidden away or stolen. I imagined pages of sumptuous illustrations of works of art, exciting and interesting stories of crimes, invesigations, terrible accidents... you know, breathless recountings of detection and treasure hunts, with the world's greatest paintings or sculptures as the prize to be won or lost forever.

What a terrible disappoinment it turned out to be, on many fronts. Firstly, the text is not only sparse but frequently banal. If a great painting was destroyed somehow, or fabulous jewels were lost, I want the why, when, who, how and where. If the only record for posterity is a copy, I want to know who made the copy, why, when, how (you get my drift).

For instance, the book discusses an enormous 16th century fresco (chapter: Destroyed) and all we get as to its destruction is "Unfortunately, the work was destroyed in 1660 as a result of urban redevelopment". WHY? Do we know who was responsible? The only record we have of the fresco is a partial copy made in 1649. By whom? Why did they make a copy? When discussing the Romanov jewels,(chapter: Lost) we get a picture of a non-disappeared crown, a pitiful list of some of the many hundreds of items we know to have been lost - and an out of focus photograph of one of them. What was its history? What was it made of? How much did it cost? Under what circumstances was the photograph taken? Napoleon's diamond (chapter: Transformed) tells us that the diamond first appeared in a crown, then a sword, then another crown, then a necklace....... its not been "transformed", just moved around into different settings. Its not been cut up, remodelled or changed in shape - so its not "transformed". I would have liked a picture showing it in the crown, then the sword, then the other crown...... with me?

Quite often the subject under discussion is mentioned extremely briefly, then the text flies off at a complete tangent. Not that there is much text - often less than 100 words on each page, surrounded by vast acres of white space.

What is also annoying is the author's total slobbering over works of modern art that borders on the orgasmic, when this enthusiasm is clearly not shared for the works of the great masters. In fact, some great works are discussed in terms so dismissive that its quite embarrassing.

The text is also littered with sloppy spelling and punctuation, no bibliography and nothing about the author herself. In all, a terrible, terrible disappointment.

And the Tate 'exhibition' is just a bit of the website, but fascinating nonetheless.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Oh well, sorry about that! I was going to buy that book too... after that review I don't think I'll bother (let me know when yours comes out )

[yeh, it was a film at the Tate, but for a limited period - they seem to have stuck it ont tinternet now]


{edited to remove grocer's apostrophe!}

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Oh well, sorry about that! I was going to buy that book too... after that review I don't think I'll bother (let me know when your's comes out )

Ha, I think you'll be waiting a long time. The book as a research project only occurred to me after I had read of a few of Old Master paintings that we know once existed, either because we have prints or because Vasari mentioned them or something... basically, I haven't made much of a start!