The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

Art in Amsterdam is overwhelmingly good... The main reason for this, of course, is the golden 17th century of Rembrandt and Vermeer and Hals (and many other lesser but still outstanding talents). And i spent three hours in their company at the Rijksmueum's 'Masterpieces' collection last saturday morning. I doubt that anywhere in the Western and Northern world there is a more satisfying collection of work from a single nation... and Rembrandt is one of the few that can compete with the geniuses of Spanish art...

Then to spend the afternoon with van Gogh was stunning once more (Someone early on this thread dismissed this collection totally - it's almost impossible to respond to that other than to wish the guide dog well). An additional totally unexpected treat was that the museum was hosting a touring exhibition of 'Picasso in Paris' - I think about 1902-1908 - which included several masterpieces from the blue period (outstanding) - and also his first tentative experiments in cubism, including early sketches of the famous Desmoiselles d'avignon.

We made the mistake of watching bolton wanderers on sunday but two of us went to the modern art museum on monday... pretty disappointing, tbh, apart from some sculpture by Willem de Kooning, that was brilliant and moving and disturbing...

[Bruce Rioja]

Looks like the back corner of a spray booth/bench to me, Tango.

[thebish]

Would you see this as modern art? (Nothing to do with me by the way)

I think I'd describe it as "decorative" art - which sounds pejorative - but isn't - just a different category to "great" art...

[TANGODANCER]

Looks like the back corner of a spray booth/bench to me, Tango.

And Bruce wins the coconut.



It's simply an old table a ship modeller has used for years to work on. The "scars" are just where he's cut things with a Stanley knife. You see the reason I put it up, is his wife commented it was modern art and got him to take the photograph. Now, several folk on the site are asking for prints etc. One guy say's he'll happily pay $25 for a high res photo to frame and hang etc. So I guess it should be titled "Unintentional Art. Just found it interesting what some folk see as different sorts of art.

[Bruce Rioja]

So, ignoring the lines at the bottom from the scanner, what do we make of this then?

I've still not received anyone's thoughts on this yet, other than for WtW's "Nowt".

[thebish]

boobies?

[Bruce Rioja]

Indeed, Bish

But I'm wondering if people think it's a worthwhile piece of art, a child's scribble, so on.

[thebish]

Indeed, Bish

But I'm wondering if people think it's a worthwhile piece of art, a child's scribble, so on.

doesn't really "speak" to me - apart from saying "load of scribble", "boobies" and "thunder thighs"

[TANGODANCER]

Looks like something a bored 12 year old might scribble on the back page of his maths excercise book (tearing it out of course before submitting homework).

[malcd1]

Art in Amsterdam is overwhelmingly good... The main reason for this, of course, is the golden 17th century of Rembrandt and Vermeer and Hals (and many other lesser but still outstanding talents). And i spent three hours in their company at the Rijksmueum's 'Masterpieces' collection last saturday morning. I doubt that anywhere in the Western and Northern world there is a more satisfying collection of work from a single nation... and Rembrandt is one of the few that can compete with the geniuses of Spanish art...

Then to spend the afternoon with van Gogh was stunning once more (Someone early on this thread dismissed this collection totally - it's almost impossible to respond to that other than to wish the guide dog well). An additional totally unexpected treat was that the museum was hosting a touring exhibition of 'Picasso in Paris' - I think about 1902-1908 - which included several masterpieces from the blue period (outstanding) - and also his first tentative experiments in cubism, including early sketches of the famous Desmoiselles d'avignon.

We made the mistake of watching bolton wanderers on sunday but two of us went to the modern art museum on monday... pretty disappointing, tbh, apart from some sculpture by Willem de Kooning, that was brilliant and moving and disturbing...

It was me. I still think it was a bigger waste of time and money than watching Bolton lose 5-0 at Wembley.

Or perhaps I don't have any taste where art is concerned but I still believe a lot of Van Gogh is the 'Emperors New Clothes'. I would expect more from an A Level art student than the majority of these:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincen ... 80&bih=610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do appreciate a couple of his self-portraits though.

[Bruce Rioja]

I still believe a lot of Van Gogh is the 'Emperors New Clothes'.

Exactly what I thought when I went.

[TANGODANCER]

I could spend time in a Van Gogh exhibition. He had talent and a least gave positve indications of what he was doing. Not like this decription of a modern day woman artist's work:

" Ridged or folded sheets of steel have since become signature pieces. Her pleated diamond shapes recall sky-bound paper aeroplanes or origami birds. Or are they wrinkles, as if the metal had buckled under time's duress? More than simply pointing to the past, these rusty, retro-Modernist sculptures condense time, bringing the dreams and failures of other eras into the present."

And I thought it was just bent tin. Guess I don't qualify as a critic then.

[malcd1]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincen ... 80&bih=610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would just add, don't look at the small thumbnail pictures. Click on them for the bigger view.

I would check out the sunflower, the chair, Van Gogh's bedroom and the Night Cafe in Arles. These are particularly bad paintings. The majority of the rest aren't much better.

[TANGODANCER]

For what it's worth (in my simple like it-dont' like it way of seeing art), Van Gogh, admittedly a troubled and somewhat screwed up character, was actally a true painter, and also a very prolific one. Painting was his whole life. He painted everything he saw and in the way he saw it, the ugly and the beautiful together. Mainly expressionist rather then minute detail perfectionist he expressed himself and his moods on canvas. I'm not saying he'd be an artist I'd like hanging on my wall, but I can appreciate his work. Then again, I wouldn't want the Mona Lisa hanging on my wall either. One man's great art is another man's rubbish I suppose.

[thebish]

I would check out the sunflower, the chair, Van Gogh's bedroom and the Night Cafe in Arles. These are particularly bad paintings.

in what way "bad"?

[malcd1]

I would check out the sunflower, the chair, Van Gogh's bedroom and the Night Cafe in Arles. These are particularly bad paintings.

in what way "bad"?

Probably should have said crap or amateurish.

[William the White]

Art in Amsterdam is overwhelmingly good... The main reason for this, of course, is the golden 17th century of Rembrandt and Vermeer and Hals (and many other lesser but still outstanding talents). And i spent three hours in their company at the Rijksmueum's 'Masterpieces' collection last saturday morning. I doubt that anywhere in the Western and Northern world there is a more satisfying collection of work from a single nation... and Rembrandt is one of the few that can compete with the geniuses of Spanish art...

Then to spend the afternoon with van Gogh was stunning once more (Someone early on this thread dismissed this collection totally - it's almost impossible to respond to that other than to wish the guide dog well). An additional totally unexpected treat was that the museum was hosting a touring exhibition of 'Picasso in Paris' - I think about 1902-1908 - which included several masterpieces from the blue period (outstanding) - and also his first tentative experiments in cubism, including early sketches of the famous Desmoiselles d'avignon.

We made the mistake of watching bolton wanderers on sunday but two of us went to the modern art museum on monday... pretty disappointing, tbh, apart from some sculpture by Willem de Kooning, that was brilliant and moving and disturbing...

It was me. I still think it was a bigger waste of time and money than watching Bolton lose 5-0 at Wembley.

Or perhaps I don't have any taste where art is concerned but I still believe a lot of Van Gogh is the 'Emperors New Clothes'. I would expect more from an A Level art student than the majority of these:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincen ... 80&bih=610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do appreciate a couple of his self-portraits though.

Obviously people's taste in art differs. Inevitably, and that's good. Perhaps you could post a link or two to art you admire and we could swap reasoned comments on each other's taste... You know where I'm coming from, obviously, but I'm in the dark as to what you rate...

[malcd1]

Obviously people's taste in art differs. Inevitably, and that's good. Perhaps you could post a link or two to art you admire and we could swap reasoned comments on each other's taste... You know where I'm coming from, obviously, but I'm in the dark as to what you rate...

You are correct William, peoples taste are different.

I don't profess to be an art aficionado but I like a more classical style. I prefer Rembrandt, Goya or Rubens but I don't mind admitting to liking a bit of Dali or even Banksy.

[William the White]

Obviously people's taste in art differs. Inevitably, and that's good. Perhaps you could post a link or two to art you admire and we could swap reasoned comments on each other's taste... You know where I'm coming from, obviously, but I'm in the dark as to what you rate...

You are correct William, peoples taste are different.

I don't profess to be an art aficionado but I like a more classical style. I prefer Rembrandt, Goya or Rubens but I don't mind admitting to liking a bit of Dali or even Banksy.

Well, we obviously share a great deal of taste... Rembrandt I've raved at above... Goya vies with Velasquez and Picasso as my most loved artist ever... (tho Velasquez always wins)... Rubens and Dali I admire without affection (tbh Dali gets on my nerves, though I can see why people like him, i think he's heartless and that leaves me thinking 'so what?')... Banksy I love...

So I'm really puzzled given that list why you find van Gogh's incredibly innovative life - from Potato Eaters (with its grim homage to realism) to Starry Night (with its wonderful exuberance) not worth recognition... He grabbed every artistic fashion and twisted it for himself... and made artists decades later think about what they were doing...

OK - you just don't get it... and neither does Bruce...

I'm glad I do, anyway, enriches my life a little...

[TANGODANCER]

Of all the paintings of the Tango I've seen (and there are hundreds) this is one of the few I'd want. Most of them fail because of over dramatic attempts at sex or contortionist gymnastics.This one works for me, modern or no.