The Great Art Debate

[Il Pirate]

My equivalent was to sit next to Arthur Miller at the Young Vic at the london premier of The Last Yankee. Then having tea and cream cakes backstage with him. He raved about Margot Leicester's performance in his play!


Now there's somebody I would have liked to have met. (AM; 'tho ML is probably good company!). Your meeting was probably early 90's Will? I've heard that he could be a little reserved, but other things I've read say he could be the life & soul. I may be more informed when I've read Arthur Miller 'A Life' by Martin Gottfried, which my daughter has just bought me. Peter Brook was polite enough and chatted for a minute or so, but certainly gave the impression that enough was enough if you know what I mean.

[William the White]

My equivalent was to sit next to Arthur Miller at the Young Vic at the london premier of The Last Yankee. Then having tea and cream cakes backstage with him. He raved about Margot Leicester's performance in his play!


Now there's somebody I would have liked to have met. (AM; 'tho ML is probably good company!). Your meeting was probably early 90's Will? I've heard that he could be a little reserved, but other things I've read say he could be the life & soul. I may be more informed when I've read Arthur Miller 'A Life' by Martin Gottfried, which my daughter has just bought me. Peter Brook was polite enough and chatted for a minute or so, but certainly gave the impression that enough was enough if you know what I mean.

Late 80s I think. The fact that I'd worked with David Thacker and Margot had been in two of my plays gave us something to talk about. He was a total gent...

[Il Pirate]

My equivalent was to sit next to Arthur Miller at the Young Vic at the london premier of The Last Yankee. Then having tea and cream cakes backstage with him. He raved about Margot Leicester's performance in his play!


Now there's somebody I would have liked to have met. (AM; 'tho ML is probably good company!). Your meeting was probably early 90's Will? I've heard that he could be a little reserved, but other things I've read say he could be the life & soul. I may be more informed when I've read Arthur Miller 'A Life' by Martin Gottfried, which my daughter has just bought me. Peter Brook was polite enough and chatted for a minute or so, but certainly gave the impression that enough was enough if you know what I mean.

Late 80s I think. The fact that I'd worked with David Thacker and Margot had been in two of my plays gave us something to talk about. He was a total gent...

A girl who was once in Grange Hill was in one of mine ......

[thebish]

(fake) banksy..

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Happy Easter, all.




Probably my favourite in the National Gallery. The inn keeper's expression - "What are these guys so excited about?" gets me every time.

[bobo the clown]

The right hand of the guy on the right though ...

[TANGODANCER]

Though not as colourful I prefer his other version of the same theme.

[Bruce Rioja]

(fake) banksy..

Bish - Have you ever watched the film 'Exit Through The Gift Shop'?

[Bruce Rioja]

The right hand of the guy on the right though ...

It might be a forerunner to the big sponge hand?! Perhaps.

[William the White]

Portillo on Picasso at 10.00 on ITV.

The Tory with half a heart gets himself another gig in his Socialist father's homeland...

Before that ep 2 of The Village.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Portillo on Picasso at 10.00 on ITV.

The Tory with half a heart gets himself another gig in his Socialist father's homeland...

Before that ep 2 of The Village.

Thanks for the heads up, Will - I will watch tomorrow.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Though not as colourful I prefer his other version of the same theme.

I've not seen that one in person, but it really doesn't do as much for me.

If you go into that big hall of Baroque paintings at the National Gallery, the 1601 version stands out head and shoulders above everything in there, deploying all the tricks and fireworks of the Baroque before the period even got going.

Personally I don't find this darker version anywhere dear as involving - the NG one invites the viewer to pull up a chair, join the table, and see Christ who, clean shaven and effeminate looking, is unrecognisable to us at first until we see his gesture.... exactly the same experience the disciples are going through in Emmaus. Brilliant. Add to that the illusion of the halo in the shadow of the innkeeper, cast by the (groundbreaking) single source of light; the little still lifes that could hold their own against anything the Dutch have ever painted, along with the bravura touch of the fruit bowl shadow taking the shape of a fish, the symbol of the Christian faith; and the innkeeper's, expression, the perfect straight man foil for the operatic extravagance of the disciples' gestures.

Ok yes, after a perfectly foreshortened left arm, the old man's hand is disappointing, but thank goodness, or the perfection would be too much to bear.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Verbs theory is a fine theory - the fact that I feel it can be 'destroyed/demolished/knocked-down' so quickly has nothing to do with its fine quality, more a lack of appreciation as to just how revolutionary Monet truly was.
I am of the opinion that Monet was a superbly talented painter who accomplished many things in painting, and not just in composition, but also in style and technique. I also accord little value to Van Gogh - I find him overblown and very dramatic, but in no sense revolutionary. Therefore my main aim in this 'discussion' is to assert the traditional view that Monet influenced Van Gogh, but this funky new idea that Van Gogh influenced Monet is to my ear* an affront, because to put it in the bluntest of blunt terms how can a crap painter influence a genius like Monet - there, colours (yellow included) firmly nailed to mast. * d'ya see what I did there?

Since this discussion I have read into Monet's life and work for the first time, and I have to admit that it has brought me round to LLS's way of thinking a lot more, both in terms of appreciating his genius and doubting the potential for Van Gogh to have influenced him.

It is an unfortunate coincidence that Monet appears more similar to Van Gogh as he got into his seventies and his gifts waned with age and ailments. I still have a lot of time for VVG, however. I think I can agree that he wasn't 'revolutionary' - to my mind he was just a special one-off and it is testament to his gifts that he could achieve so much with that loose, swirling brushwork.

[William the White]

Portillo on Picasso at 10.00 on ITV.

The Tory with half a heart gets himself another gig in his Socialist father's homeland...

Before that ep 2 of The Village.

Thanks for the heads up, Will - I will watch tomorrow.

I think you'll enjoy. I certainly did.

[TANGODANCER]

Though not as colourful I prefer his other version of the same theme.

I've not seen that one in person, but it really doesn't do as much for me.

If you go into that big hall of Baroque paintings at the National Gallery, the 1601 version stands out head and shoulders above everything in there, deploying all the tricks and fireworks of the Baroque before the period even got going.

Personally I don't find this darker version anywhere dear as involving - the NG one invites the viewer to pull up a chair, join the table, and see Christ who, clean shaven and effeminate looking, is unrecognisable to us at first until we see his gesture.... exactly the same experience the disciples are going through in Emmaus. Brilliant. Add to that the illusion of the halo in the shadow of the innkeeper, cast by the (groundbreaking) single source of light; the little still lifes that could hold their own against anything the Dutch have ever painted, along with the bravura touch of the fruit bowl shadow taking the shape of a fish, the symbol of the Christian faith; and the innkeeper's, expression, the perfect straight man foil for the operatic extravagance of the disciples' gestures.

Ok yes, after a perfectly foreshortened left arm, the old man's hand is disappointing, but thank goodness, or the perfection would be too much to bear.

Hmm. Forgive me then for being a little sceptical, whilst taking nothing from the painting quality. A halo is a light source, an aura, not a shadow at all, so I discount that, and the fish may be there intentionally, or just the shadow of a leaf from the bowl. Both are a little immaterial and sound a little like art-gallery blurb. Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight and had a botox job. The meal itself also seem a little lavish compared to the simple fare of the other painting. Magnificently done, without doubt, but I still prefer the other for reality.

[mrkint]

Just marauding around youtube and saw that the BBC's Power of Art series is all up there, done by Simon Schama. I'm gonna watch them as and when, and might be wworth looking at for you guys if you haven't already seen it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_GUJjvCBWY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

really enjoying the look at Caravaggio so far. Brilliant stuff.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Hmm. Forgive me then for being a little sceptical, whilst taking nothing from the painting quality. A halo is a light source, an aura, not a shadow at all, so I discount that,

What do you mean you 'discount' it?! The point was, he wasn't trying to paint an actual halo (whatever that could possibly be?!) - he pioneered a style of painting that dropped unrealistic things like gold-ring halos and, for me, he found an ingenious way of replacing it in the image.

and the fish may be there intentionally, or just the shadow of a leaf from the bowl.

That ambiguity it precisely why it's such a clever little baroque trick.

Both are a little immaterial and sound a little like art-gallery blurb.

What do you mean by 'immaterial'? Sometimes the real delight in a picture are the little details (which, incidentally, are not described in the description on the card on the gallery wall).

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight and had a botox job.

Thanks for completely ignoring my own personal attempt at explaining that one - that it's supposed to slow us down and delay our recognition too. Not that anyone really has a clue what he actually looked like!

(And the Gospel of Mark (16:12) Jesus is said to have appeared to the disciples "in another form" - this is one way of interpreting that phrase.)

[TANGODANCER]

Woah there. I didn't ignore your personal opinion Mummy, just posted my own view. Am I not allowed to disagree? Sounds almost headmasterish.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Woah there. I didn't ignore your personal opinion Mummy, just posted my own view. Am I not allowed to disagree? Sounds almost headmasterish.

I just found some of your tone a bit dismissive, but this is the internet.

[TANGODANCER]

Woah there. I didn't ignore your personal opinion Mummy, just posted my own view. Am I not allowed to disagree? Sounds almost headmasterish.

I just found some of your tone a bit dismissive, but this is the internet.

Not dismissive at all, believe me, just a different perspective. I agree Jesus wasn't exactly the same man they had known (doubting Thomas etc), and surely art is wide open to personal interpretation? There is also your advantage of viewing the painting rather than a picure of it. I suppose we just see what we want to see. The idea of gold rings floating over the heads of holy/saintly figures was always more artistic rather than realistic. Some day I may get to see the original. The quality of the artist's painting skills is beyond argument.