The Great Art Debate

[thebish]

this is my favourite turner... it's called ship, obscured by mould and mildew...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Mummy, what are your views on these impressions of the Westminster fire in 1834? I love them personally but what's your view?

http://www.carolineshenton.co.uk/on-the ... -giveaway/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like them - they have a little room to themselves at Tate Britain and as you walk down the line, you do get the feeling of seeing impressions of the disaster unfolding from different viewpoints on the Thames. I'm not sure if that is accurate and Turner was indeed on a boat?

Incidentally, this is something I have always fancied finding out about. What was the design of the old Houses of Parliament that went in that fire? And what was it about Britain and British public life that meant the gothic design for the rebuild prevailed, as opposed to the neoclassical buildings that had become fashionable elsewhere (US Capitol, for example...)?

Back to the painting... I have to say Tango, I'm afraid I can't see watercolours as anything more than sketches and struggle to get too excited about them - they're for preparation or rough note-making, but they are not proper paintings in themselves. The National Gallery does not have a single one on display, as far as I am aware.

[thebish]

watched a program on BBC i-player today about the life of Sister Wendy...

in it - she said summat that fits this thread... she said "it's great art because it is not merely illustrative"

I think that's the heart of it...

[TANGODANCER]

Back to the painting... I have to say Tango, I'm afraid I can't see watercolours as anything more than sketches and struggle to get too excited about them - they're for preparation or rough note-making, but t they are not proper paintings in themselves. The National Gallery does not have a single one on display, as far as I am aware.

Oh dear. I can't believe you said that. Sir William Russel Flint and a lot of others would be less than pleased with that statement. Ask one of your art critic friends on that one.

[thebish]

Back to the painting... I have to say Tango, I'm afraid I can't see watercolours as anything more than sketches and struggle to get too excited about them - they're for preparation or rough note-making, but t they are not proper paintings in themselves. The National Gallery does not have a single one on display, as far as I am aware.

Oh dear. I can't believe you said that. Sir William Russel Flint and a lot of others would be less than pleased with that statement. Ask one of your art critic friends on that one.

or... he could just be happy with his own opinion and make his own mind up...

[TANGODANCER]

Back to the painting... I have to say Tango, I'm afraid I can't see watercolours as anything more than sketches and struggle to get too excited about them - they're for preparation or rough note-making, but t they are not proper paintings in themselves. The National Gallery does not have a single one on display, as far as I am aware.

Oh dear. I can't believe you said that. Sir William Russel Flint and a lot of others would be less than pleased with that statement. Ask one of your art critic friends on that one.

or... he could just be happy with his own opinion and make his own mind up...

In which case, I'm sure he's capable of telling me.

[TANGODANCER]

Incidentally, this is something I have always fancied finding out about. What was the design of the old Houses of Parliament that went in that fire? And what was it about Britain and British public life that meant the gothic design for the rebuild prevailed, as opposed to the neoclassical buildings that had become fashionable elsewhere (US Capitol, for example...)?

I can't answer your question from personal knowlege, but this link seems to have some info on it.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-h ... reat-fire/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Back to the painting... I have to say Tango, I'm afraid I can't see watercolours as anything more than sketches and struggle to get too excited about them - they're for preparation or rough note-making, but t they are not proper paintings in themselves. The National Gallery does not have a single one on display, as far as I am aware.

Oh dear. I can't believe you said that. Sir William Russel Flint and a lot of others would be less than pleased with that statement. Ask one of your art critic friends on that one.

I don't know of an art critic who is a watercolour enthusiast.

Perhaps the 'proper paintings' thing is too strong a statement. I would give my right arm for some of Egon Schiele's ink and watercolour drawings. And I do like Flint's pictures of women.

Generally they don't move me as paintings and I am not an outlier here - as I say, I don't believe the National Gallery hangs a single one. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the Impressionists you so much admire all worked using oil paints?

[TANGODANCER]

Bit late in the day to reply Mummy. I'll come back to it tomorrow.

[TANGODANCER]

Returning to your questions Mummy, apparently Turner's watercolours are mainly in the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin, by bequest. The Victoria and Albert has a sizeable collection of paintings by British watercolour artists also.

As to why artists choose to work in oils I really have no idea, the main thing springing to mind being that canvas and board used in oils are longer lasting then the paper of watercolours? . Russel Flint worked almost entirely in watercolor, Sisley used the medium as well as oils, as did Monet and Degas. John Singer Sargent was a master of watercolour as many others were. Rowland Hilder who died about ten years ago was also a fine watercolour artist and there are many in th modern era who are exceptional. It all comes back to individual preference. I have at least seven or eight framed Russel Flint copies and one small Singer Sargent. None of them are more than just paper prints with no value at all. I just like them. Even my wife isn't a fan and thinks they are just "okay"

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Returning to your questions Mummy, apparently Turner's watercolours are mainly in the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin, by bequest. The Victoria and Albert has a sizeable collection of paintings by British watercolour artists also.

As to why artists choose to work in oils I really have no idea, the main thing springing to mind being that canvas and board used in oils are longer lasting then the paper of watercolours? . Russel Flint worked almost entirely in watercolor, Sisley used the medium as well as oils, as did Monet and Degas. John Singer Sargent was a master of watercolour as many others were. Rowland Hilder who died about ten years ago was also a fine watercolour artist and there are many in th modern era who are exceptional. It all comes back to individual preference. I have at least seven or eight framed Russel Flint copies and one small Singer Sargent. None of them are more than just paper prints with no value at all. I just like them. Even my wife isn't a fan and thinks they are just "okay"

My view, Tango, is that most of the great artists whho used watercolours did so as a way of sketching compositions and trying things out, but that they did not consider them to be 'finished paintings' and they did not exhibit them as such.

I am confident this is true of Turner, Degas and especially Monet - indeed I do not know of any Monet watercolours so I would be interested to be pointed in their direction.

Singer Sargent may well be an exception here - and Flint would not appear in a list of greats.

You might be interested in this documentary on the art of the low countries: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... of_Plenty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is a nice little account in there of how important the innovation of using oil-based paints was, with painters like Jan van Eyck at the forefront.

For me, what that innovation made possible was the painting of texture and depth and mass and.... 'presence'.

None of this means that watercolours are uninteresting. Certainly not - many of them display immense, virtuoso skill and often have a dynamism that is sometimes lacking in a staid, finished painting. I enjoy pencil sketches and indeed oil sketches for the same reason.

You will not, however, convince me that they are 'proper' paintings!

[TANGODANCER]

Windmill in Zandaam by Claude Monet. Watercolour. The lower one is again a watercolour by Van Gogh (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 469407.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobo the clown]

You will not, however, convince me that they are 'proper' paintings!

As opposed to this ...

[thebish]

the Monet watercolour there is probably (as Mummy suggests) simply a watercolour sketch for his Oil Version..




the Van Gogh one he describes as a challenge to himself - as if to say - is proper painting possible with watercolour? he concludes that it's a decent watercolour...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Proper snobs! Why should oil be different to watercolour. Where does acrylic come in, is that middle class art?
In this order of snobbery only western paintings are paintings - all Chinese, Japanese, Mughal, and Neanderthal paintings are to be dismissed as not proper...

[thebish]

Proper snobs! Why should oil be different to watercolour. Where does acrylic come in, is that middle class art?
In this order of snobbery only western paintings are paintings - all Chinese, Japanese, Mughal, and Neanderthal paintings are to be dismissed as not proper...

I'm not saying one is better than the other - merely that it's a bit wide of the mark to claim Monet and Van Gogh as watercolour artists.... they aren't/weren't!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Proper snobs! Why should oil be different to watercolour. Where does acrylic come in, is that middle class art?
In this order of snobbery only western paintings are paintings - all Chinese, Japanese, Mughal, and Neanderthal paintings are to be dismissed as not proper...

I'm not saying one is better than the other - merely that it's a bit wide of the mark to claim Monet and Van Gogh as watercolour artists.... they aren't/weren't!

I think I was mainly aiming my poison frog darts at mummy... But even so, I dispute the contention that Monet considered himself to be an 'oil painter' too...

[TANGODANCER]

Would you consider this a proper painting Mummy? Joseph Zbukvic is a watercolour master.



Pissaro, Canaletto, many famous artists used watercolour. Van Gogh painted almost 150 watercolours. This is also from his letter to his brother:

"I wish you could see the two watercolours I have brought back with me, for you would realize that they are watercolours just like any other watercolours. They may still be full of imperfections, que soit, I am the first to say that I am still very dissatisfied with them, and yet they are quite different from what I have done before and look fresher and brighter. That doesn't alter the fact, however, that they must get fresher and brighter still, but one can't do everything one wants just like that. It will come little by little."

As Van Gogh continued to refine his technique, he used more and brighter colors in his watercolors. Over time he became more comfortable working with watercolors and was able to work quickly with them to produce more impressive works. When he started working with watercolors, Van Gogh used them to add color to his drawings, but as he continued to use them he began creating works that stood alone as watercolors.

[TANGODANCER]

Proper snobs! Why should oil be different to watercolour. Where does acrylic come in, is that middle class art?
In this order of snobbery only western paintings are paintings - all Chinese, Japanese, Mughal, and Neanderthal paintings are to be dismissed as not proper...

I'm not saying one is better than the other - merely that it's a bit wide of the mark to claim Monet and Van Gogh as watercolour artists.... they aren't/weren't!

Did someone claim Monet and Van Gogh were watercolour only artists, or even primarily so? I certainly didn't, my words were: "Sisley used the medium as well as oils, as did Monet and Degas." It's in my post.

[Beefheart]

Went to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam last year, have to say, I didn't really get what the fuss was about.