The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

For the crayons...

See below... As posted on p79 of this thread...

It's small scale for Moore, in the centre of the room...

Are you going to catch the Manet?

There's a brilliant Henry Moore in the room before the Rothko, that, as so often with this artist's work, changes its impact as you move around the sculpture... It is another Mother and Child, a persistent motif for Moore, that from the front is shocking, as though a semi monster lurks within the figure, and from the far left side as you look at it, slightly behind, is a hooded mother with a fragile baby held tenderly...

I've tried to find the image online without success, but, just in case there are some interested, it really is worth searching out...

Is it this one?

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/moo ... orm-t02272" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't remember ever stopping to look at it. By the looks of things, it's only a preparatory model in plaster - I would quite like to see whatever the finished version was. I wouldn't seek out though - I think I'm quite impatient with artists who have 'persistent motifs' if I am not convinced they have a lot to say on the subject.

That's the one, I'm pretty sure...

I loved its transience, the journey it took me on... I'm not sure what you mean by your impatience or the lot that artists might have to say...

The revelation of this work, for me, is the different things it says about its subject, as I move, and it doesn't... It isn't saying any single thing at all... That is its grip...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

On a youtube search for the music of the brilliant Mexican singer Chavela Vargas and came across this tribute to the wonderful artist Frida Khalo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD8FAShzaE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The song La llorona means 'the woman crying...'

I'm not really a fan, Will, but then I can't see what people see in Gauguin or Rousseau's primitive stuff either.

Maybe in person it stands up as surrealist art?

Not surrealist, certainly, though perhaps taking permission from surrealism to move beyond the representational... She and Rivera (and others) created a Latin American experiment that is revolutionary in form and content... Rivera's Frescoes, Kahlo's bold sexuality... they both challenge the very fundamentals of a society historically gripped by reactionary catholicism and caudillismo - the ideology of the woman as servile or whore... and the 'leader' as object of secular worship and obedience...

They are splintering doors, smashing windows, consciously using art as a weapon... This stirs stuff within me... Almost certainly I view them within their moment more than you - this is no criticism, obviously, simply observation of the nerves that art hits - and it feels to me that at that moment they were vital...

I used to like Rivera more than Kahlo. I'm the other way round now... His frescoes are still impressive (I'm so glad they survive, and i was able to see them - thank you Channel 4)... but her work endures the longer, imho, is less exalted and more universal...

To be fair, just seeing them in a quick YouTube slide show doesn't really allow much thought.

The only thing I saw was that primitively figurative painting that doesn't do anything for me as painterly expression (separate from the message).

By the way, there IS certainly some surrealist work there, surely?! I'm not talking about the monobrowed portraits of women (herself?), but some of the other works?

What was 'their moment', out of interest?

[William the White]

On a youtube search for the music of the brilliant Mexican singer Chavela Vargas and came across this tribute to the wonderful artist Frida Khalo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD8FAShzaE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The song La llorona means 'the woman crying...'

I'm not really a fan, Will, but then I can't see what people see in Gauguin or Rousseau's primitive stuff either.

Maybe in person it stands up as surrealist art?

Not surrealist, certainly, though perhaps taking permission from surrealism to move beyond the representational... She and Rivera (and others) created a Latin American experiment that is revolutionary in form and content... Rivera's Frescoes, Kahlo's bold sexuality... they both challenge the very fundamentals of a society historically gripped by reactionary catholicism and caudillismo - the ideology of the woman as servile or whore... and the 'leader' as object of secular worship and obedience...

They are splintering doors, smashing windows, consciously using art as a weapon... This stirs stuff within me... Almost certainly I view them within their moment more than you - this is no criticism, obviously, simply observation of the nerves that art hits - and it feels to me that at that moment they were vital...

I used to like Rivera more than Kahlo. I'm the other way round now... His frescoes are still impressive (I'm so glad they survive, and i was able to see them - thank you Channel 4)... but her work endures the longer, imho, is less exalted and more universal...

To be fair, just seeing them in a quick YouTube slide show doesn't really allow much thought.

The only thing I saw was that primitively figurative painting that doesn't do anything for me as painterly expression (separate from the message).

By the way, there IS certainly some surrealist work there, surely?! I'm not talking about the monobrowed portraits of women (herself?), but some of the other works?

What was 'their moment', out of interest?

At the most vital part of their being as artists they were at an intersection between capitalism, communism and fascism - and were not asleep... Ideas, art and action seemed to them absolutely inextricable... This produced the greatest impetus to their best work...

An extract from an article by Trotsky offers an aspect of the polemic...

Rivera and October

In the field of painting, the October revolution has found her greatest interpreter not in the USSR but in faraway Mexico, not among the official “friends,” but in the person of a so-called “enemy of the people” whom the Fourth International is proud to number in its ranks. Nurtured in the artistic cultures of all peoples, all epochs, Diego Rivera has remained Mexican in the most profound fibres of his genius. But that which inspired him in these magnificent frescoes, which lifted him up above the artistic tradition, above contemporary art in a certain sense, above himself, is the mighty blast of the proletarian revolution. Without October, his power of creative penetration into the epic of work, oppression and insurrection, would never have attained such breadth and profundity. Do you wish to see with your own eyes the hidden springs of the social revolution? Look at the frescoes of Rivera. Do you wish to know what revolutionary art is like? Look at the frescoes of Rivera.

Come a little closer and you will see clearly enough, gashes and spots made by vandals: Catholics and other reactionaries, including of course, Stalinists. These cuts and gashes give even greater life to the frescoes. You have before you, not simply a “painting,” an object of passive esthetic contemplation, but a living part of the class struggle. And it is at the same time a masterpiece!

Only the historical youth of a country which has not yet emerged from the stage of struggle for national independence, has allowed Rivera’s revolutionary brush to be used on the walls of the public buildings of Mexico. In the United States it was more difficult. Just as the monks in the Middle Ages, through ignorance, it is true, erased antique literary productions from parchments to cover them with their scholastic ravings, just so Rockefeller’s lackeys, but this time maliciously, covered the frescoes of the talented Mexican with their decorative banalities. This recent palimpsest will conclusively show future generations the fate of art degraded in a decaying bourgeois society.

The situation is no better, however, in the country of the October revolution. Incredible as it seemed at first sight, there was no place for the art of Diego Rivera, either in Moscow, or in Leningrad, or in any other section of the USSR where the bureaucracy born of the revolution was erecting grandiose palaces and monuments to itself. And how could the Kremlin clique tolerate in its kingdom an artist who paints neither icons representing the “leader” nor life-size portraits of Voroshilov’s horse? The closing of the Soviet doors to Rivera will brand forever with an ineffaceable shame the totalitarian dictatorship.

[William the White]

Oh... to mummy... you are quite right, there is clearly surrealist-influenced work in that youtube selection...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Oh... to mummy... you are quite right, there is clearly surrealist-influenced work in that youtube selection...

That's still a serious understatement for me and the idea that she borrowed from surrealism merely 'the permission to move beyond the representational' is bordering on the ridiculous! Even if you knew she'd never seen a surrealist painting in her life, you'd have to say that several of her works fall into the category - the following come from a quick Google of her name:

http://pictify.com/288883/frida-kahlo-the-broken-column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.touchedbyfire.ca/wp-content/ ... utHope.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.garuyo.com/web/media/images/ ... lo%203.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_u ... 0_1060.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/Q/1/1 ... l-1932.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://illumine9eyes.files.wordpress.co ... ahlo32.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JgDxc3aF7es/T ... +bain.jpeg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some stuff there as wacky and... er... surreal as anything Magritte or Dali did, if not quite as witty or well painted.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Is it this one?

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/moo ... orm-t02272" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't remember ever stopping to look at it. By the looks of things, it's only a preparatory model in plaster - I would quite like to see whatever the finished version was. I wouldn't seek out though - I think I'm quite impatient with artists who have 'persistent motifs' if I am not convinced they have a lot to say on the subject.

That's the one, I'm pretty sure...

I loved its transience, the journey it took me on... I'm not sure what you mean by your impatience or the lot that artists might have to say...

The revelation of this work, for me, is the different things it says about its subject, as I move, and it doesn't... It isn't saying any single thing at all... That is its grip...

Someone like Damien Hirst is a good example. For me, if you going to revisit a single subject again and again, you'd better have something interesting to say about it every time. Sooner or later, I'm going to become bored of you just shouting "remember we're all going die!" at me. It loses its shock value and becomes boring as it seems commonplace and obvious.

I like some Moore sculptures because, and Bobo is going to shake his head wearily at this one, they have an inner force, rather than the appearance of something that has been delicately shaped and finished from the outside.

Moore wrote this of his own work:

One of the things I would like to think my sculpture has is a force, is a strength, is a life, a vitality from inside it, so that you have a sense that the firm is pressing from inside trying to burst or trying to give off the strength from inside itself, rather than having something which is just shaped from outside and stopped. It's as though you have something trying to make itself come to a shape from inside itself. This is, perhaps, what makes me interested in bones as much as in flesh because the bone is the inner structure of all living form. It's the bone that pushes out from inside; as you bend your leg the knee gets tautness over it, and it's there that the movement and energy come from. If you clench a knuckle, you clench a fist, you get in that sense the bones, the knuckles pushing through, giving a force that if you open your hand and just have it relaxed you don't feel. And so the knee, the shoulder, the skull, the forehead, the part where from inside you get a sense of pressure of the bones outwards--these for me are the key points.

http://www.renaissancesociety.org/site/ ... e.205.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do see this in a lot of his work and I think he dealt with the form, force, weight and movement of physical things in a way that was a genuinely new insight from what had gone before.

Now, my view is that he doesn't have a great deal to say about family dynamics, or the mother and child relationship, which is why I find it a bit tedious and repetitive that these are such 'persistent motifs' in his work.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

From Herr Ratzinger to Legally Blonde, via one of the greatest painters of all time.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/diego-v ... t-x-c1650/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TANGODANCER]

From Herr Ratzinger to Legally Blonde, via one of the greatest painters of all time.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/diego-v ... t-x-c1650/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without doubt a magnificently painted work. The comment's somewhat presumptious.

" It’s a work based on fear. The Pope hasn't just offered you biscuit; he’s warning you to fear the wrath of God. His gaze is stern and unflinching, and his cheeks are almost as red as his crimson cloak."

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

From Herr Ratzinger to Legally Blonde, via one of the greatest painters of all time.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/diego-v ... t-x-c1650/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without doubt a magnificently painted work. The comment's somewhat presumptious.

" It’s a work based on fear. The Pope hasn't just offered you biscuit; he’s warning you to fear the wrath of God. His gaze is stern and unflinching, and his cheeks are almost as red as his crimson cloak."

I don't know if 'presumptuous' is the word... personally I think the thing to fear is the Pope himself - a brutal and powerful political operator.

I imagine Velazquez was pretty nervous to be meeting him.

[Montreal Wanderer]

From Herr Ratzinger to Legally Blonde, via one of the greatest painters of all time.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/diego-v ... t-x-c1650/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without doubt a magnificently painted work. The comment's somewhat presumptious.

" It’s a work based on fear. The Pope hasn't just offered you biscuit; he’s warning you to fear the wrath of God. His gaze is stern and unflinching, and his cheeks are almost as red as his crimson cloak."

I don't know if 'presumptuous' is the word... personally I think the thing to fear is the Pope himself - a brutal and powerful political operator.

I imagine Velazquez was pretty nervous to be meeting him.

He looks like he'd scare the crap out of me too.

[thebish]

an interesting-ish review!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/books ... =all&_r=1&

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Bobo was very well behaved on a quick visit to the National Gallery yesterday, apart from lamenting the perspective in Van Gogh's chair and the fact that Joseph Wright 'couldn't be bothered to put any effort in in the corners'!

[Always hopeful]

Bobo was very well behaved on a quick visit to the National Gallery yesterday, apart from lamenting the perspective in Van Gogh's chair and the fact that Joseph Wright 'couldn't be bothered to put any effort in in the corners'!

He does have a point though.

[bobo the clown]

None taken !!

[William the White]

Bobo was very well behaved on a quick visit to the National Gallery yesterday, apart from lamenting the perspective in Van Gogh's chair and the fact that Joseph Wright 'couldn't be bothered to put any effort in in the corners'!

Try taking him to the Tate Modern...

And put the vid on youtube...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Bobo was very well behaved on a quick visit to the National Gallery yesterday, apart from lamenting the perspective in Van Gogh's chair and the fact that Joseph Wright 'couldn't be bothered to put any effort in in the corners'!

Try taking him to the Tate Modern...

And put the vid on youtube...

This would be entertaining, but I don't think the gallery would allow it.

The filming, that is - not Bobo's entry.

[Worthy4England]

Bobo was very well behaved on a quick visit to the National Gallery yesterday, apart from lamenting the perspective in Van Gogh's chair and the fact that Joseph Wright 'couldn't be bothered to put any effort in in the corners'!

Try taking him to the Tate Modern...

And put the vid on youtube...

This would be entertaining, but I don't think the gallery would allow it.

The filming, that is - not Bobo's entry.

Agreed, I don't think even the Tate Modern could be conned into displaying Bobo's entry.

[mrkint]

As said in the other thread, was in Copenhagen at the weekend. I'm not really an art person but some of the stuff on show was mind blowing. The city's Glyptotek (funded by the founder of Carlsberg...christ he must have run the show back in the day) is a real treat. It's focus is on historical artefacts, but when we were there it had an exhibit on French 19th/20th C painters. Wasn't expecting much, but it was so good! I lost count of the number of Cezzanne's, Manet's and Monet's on show. There was even a version of Manet's Execution of Maximillian. But my favourite on show was Millet's Death and the Woodcutter



There were also a number of Van Gogh's on show. It was interesting to see how much his brushstrokes seemed to influence Monet's later work. The paint really does jump out from the canvas. Though as an art novice this may be me talking out of my arse.

Another museum we went to was the Staten Musuem for Kunst (lol) ie. The National Gallery. This was more mindblowing for the size of the collection. There was a really excellent bit dedicated to Picasso, Mattise and Bracques and that lot, and another one dedicated to this Danish surrealist dude whose names escape me. But then there were whole other wings dedicated to European 17th C and around that, another one dedicated to modern abstract stuff (mostly shite, but some good pieces in between). You could easily lose a day in that place. I don't think we even got around two-thirds of it.

Finally, and by far the best, was the Louisana Museum of Modern Art, about 30km north of Copenhagen in a town called Hummlebaek(?). Now, I'm no curator, but for me, this was how a museum/gallery should be.

http://www.louisiana.dk/uk/Menu/Visit+L ... chitecture" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The place is laid out in a modern architecturey structure. Essentially, it is a series of wonderfully lit tunnels which roam around a park (all filled with sculptures and other works) which sits on the Danish coast, looking out to Sweden in the east. It is absolutely breathtaking just as a place, but adding in the works around you amplifies that.

You tour through contemporary Danish art, while all the time seeing hidden pieces set in the gardens. There was a pop-art temporary exhibition on, and another one (with one person's work, Tara Donavan, really impressive to me). And again, just the names which were on show...Warhol, Liectenstein, Rothko, Henry Moore, Picasso...all hidden away in thsi maze-like museum. Would go back again in a heartbeat, and would recommend to anyone who ever finds themselves over there.


Then I went to Malmo for a day and went to the city's Kontshall, which was hosting the most pretentious exhibit in the world. This helped to balance things out somewhat

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Great review, Verbs.

There's a lot there that I'll have a think about later.

I've never read anyone argue that Monet's late work was influenced by Van Gogh, but that's an interesting thought.

Some things are certain - they would have met on several occasions and known each other's work, and they both collected and were inspired by Japanese art. The orthodox version of the story is that Van Gogh would have been influenced by impressionism, but yours in an interesting idea.

[mrkint]

Cheers, PB. I have to say I've always been in the 'art, shmart' camp of things. But the weekend was fascinating. The National Gallery had a guide to some of the Rubens on display, telling you how he is telling stories through the way characters are depicted. Certainly opened my eyes.

Haha! The fact it's not been mentioned before is interesting in itself. As I say I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this area, and it could just be me. But when you compared the Van Gogh landscapes to the ones that Monet did early on, you see how delicate Monet was with his brushstroke and how that contrasted with Van Gogh who seems to layer the paint so thick on the canvas. Then in the next room, there was another Monet landscape but from the 1890s (i think) which had a striking thickness in the paint - more akin to VVG and a real departure from the earlier ones in the previous room.

Again though, I'm basing this on very few paintings I saw in one exhibit. So it could be just a coincidence. Definitely going to investigate their relationship further though, cheers.

And as an aside, PB, copenhagen is definitely somewhere I'd encourage you to visit if you're an art fan - you would probably appreciate it more than me!