Favorite Painting
 

There wasn't a thread for favorite paintings and since I have a new one, I thought I'd make a make a thread.


The Abbey in the Oakwood by Caspar David Friedrich-1810

I have too many. Definately not just one. :(

Burnt Out Europe, Manuel Ocampo

HM, because I am obsessed with this story

John Quidor, The Headless Horseman Pursuing Ichabod Crane, 1858

I can have a single favorite painting because I'm more of a sculpture person. I doubt I could make of a short list of less than a dozen each marble and bronze.

See, I didn't get sculpture until I was in Rome last year, and then suddenly it hit me. I think Britain is very bad for sculpture, if I've seen it the setting has been awful. I mean, I was reduced to tears by Michaelangelo's Pieta in the Vatican, just unbelievable. But 'classical' sculpture seems to be featured very begrudgingly in Britain, while someone like Rachel Whiteread gets a brilliant treatment. This is either an odd thing or I am wrong, which given my general rubbishness with art, the latter is more likely.

Painting-wise, I can't think of one painting that jumps out as my favourite. I see galleries more as part of an experience than I look for something to call my favourite.

God... I'd have to narrow down a list of at least 20 painters and many more paintings to one work... impossible, no?

I was mildly interested until I spent 2 days in Florence. The bronzes in one of the main plazas (Veccihio? not sure) and the David changed it all. I spent literally 30 minutes walking in circles around the David, completely absorbed in it.

So, to summarise: Italians are easily swayed by iffy politics, but they do sculptures better than other people. I will one day visit Greece and have some kind of comparison between the two. Internet-wise, we could just have Marras and Nefeli argue. Awesomest.

American Gothic

a lot of mondrians early works;


gustave courbets desperate man;


lucian freud's nudes with drapery;



can I just keep posting paintings/series I like?

I think whether you allow yourself to enjoy contemporary scultpure more than classical or not, has not much to do with which is 'better?"

what is wrong with whitereads work? I don't personally enjoy her more recent ones, but the internal space sculptures are quite wondreful to experience..

Post away. I'll probably digress into posting sculpture before much longer.

I can't rep you for the desperate man. :( that's amazing looking.

I was originally intending to allow the painting speak for itself, but I think I'd enjoy writing a paragraph or two, explaining everything that I adore about this particular work of art.

First of all, it is simply a classic. A painting that has over-time nearly transformed itself into pop art in the same sense as the Mona Lisa, or Munch's The Scream. I strongly enjoy the distinct familiarity I feel with this image.

With that being said, this painting not only depicts the grass-roots of American culture, but the bare foundation of human existance. The farmer and his wife's faces are incredibly stale and disinterested. Perhaps, even bored and weathered.

The standard framing of the married couple resembles a modern day photograph taken on someone's front lawn during an important event (think prom pictures). But this is not a special day of any sort, and these faces are not cheerful, nor full of optimism. Instead we have life caught off-guard by the artist's brush; and are staring it's dullness, and hardships right in the eye.

This painting, to me, fully represents the cold truth of our existences.

(Edited because I jumped to a point without researching it thoroughly.)

It could be his wife or daughter, Wood never said.

I couldn't write more before because I needed to get in a taxi, but just on the british/italian sculpture comments..

Italian renaissance sculpture is what it is, because of the materials and money available to artists at the time in the area. Yes there are wonderful timeless peices, in the sense they are eternally aesthetically pleaseing ( what man could ever say an image of himself isnt... beautiful.. it is human nature, no? ) but they exist all the more magestically due to the context of their creation. I am assuming you have some knowledge of art history here, if you don't then please read up, because time is very relevant to a piece's impact on the art world around it. The same pieces created now would not have the same impact on the art world.

Also, I'm not sure why contemporary Britain would ever champion the work of old italian sculptures over those currently working from its own country. Art is big bizness now.. in a very different way to back then.

I find american gothic to be incredibly vulgar, personally.

Please do explain further.

For someone who studied in europe, it's a fairly bland painting. I guess it embodies everything I find constrictive about american culture at the time in its subject matter? To me it isnt even interesting in a satirical way.. which the artist has denied in any case. It's become quite popular for clearly being a crappy work of art(yes, in my opinion), that happens to connect/did connect with a lot of people who were surrounded by conservative views and roots. It's popular because some people thought it was a funny depiction of how dull simple life is.

but again.. only my opinion. :)

Whether or not the artist intended any sort of social satire - art is subjective. In today's world, the painting can have a very different meaning than the artist's original intent back in 1930. I believe that the popularity of the painting in modern America, as well as it's simplistic style greatly add to any satirical interpretations.

I'm probably just talking out of my ass here...
but again.. only my opinion. :)

I like these 2 a lot.

That's along the lines of what I was saying. I dont believe the piece has any real merrit itself, only fame, really.Fame for reasons which had nothing to do with the artists original intent.. just because its kitschy.

there is a very simple courtyard picture by jan de hooch that somehow felt more real than the very accomplished vermeers around it: it was its emotiona texture, not its technical achievement, even though it was accomplished in itself, though not in such historical scale-- and the fact that it was in such good company lent a warmer eye to it.

would you like to post a picture?

do you mean Pieter De Hooch, Jan was the first name of Vermeer.. There are a few paintings depicting courtyards, which one are you talking about here?

yes pieter-- it is at the national art gallery in wdc.

sorry for the excess of beer, but that stuff happens.

lets see

i dont have time for a better online pic:





someone online is offering "reproductions" of this.

I really like Whiteread's work, have done for a while now. The point I was making is that I think half of the struggle with a gallery is how to set the art. The experience I had in Rome was the (representational) sculpture was treated with quite a degree of respect, well-considered, and would generally be in-and-amoungst other sculpture of a similar period. Britain, or London at least, seems to just plonk a sculpture anywhere, ideally next to a painting under perspex with bright lights shining on it so you can't qutie see the painting properly.

Which is to say, I get very kneejerk-y when people decry 'contemporary' or 'modern' art, so I can understand why you've written the above.

some favs (one is not enough, and I hope they qualify even if there's not proper "paint"? )

Unfortunately I can't really say much about the way sculpture is curated for galleries in the UK as all I see of it is bits and peices in magazines. When I was in London a few years ago I went to the Tate/modern and somewhere else I cannot recall. But that is as far as my experience goes.

lol where exactly are you visiting that they have incorrect lighting angles with covered paintings? I'm not sure I've come across that anywhere aside from perhaps in a museum *head bangs glass while getting too close* Something like that(the bad hanging/lighting) is more clumsyness or incompitence surely than not allowing a sculpture some space.

But.... again.. if you are comparing a piece that is on display in a gallery for 3 to 6 weeks, to one which lives in the same spot, for a hundred years.. and draws in people and money with which to pay for the 'grounds' which surround it... So, then which do you think will have the more majestic location/presentation..

I can see what you are saying of course.. but.. I'm sure there are logical though not necessarily correct, reasons for it being the way it is.

William Bouguereau.

some more

yr forgiven.

from what I know of vermeer, I appreciate, yet don't exactly 'like' his work. It's beautiful and wonderfully well done technically, and I understand the math and formulae and hardwork etcetcetc. But.. yes.. I dont know.. It is.. not my thing.

This one of de hooch you suggest does the same for me. I can appreciate, totally, but it doesnt turn on my arty side :P

one of if not my favourite magritte :D

it sounds like I think vermeer/de hooch is shit... I dont at all. hopefully what I wrote is kind of understandable. :|

Yeah, there's always a lot to be said for the context - as you say, a short-term thing doesn't need to be perfect. But it's things like the National Portrait Gallery is so busy... it almost feels like a teenager's bedroom, every available space plastered with picture. I mentioned Whiteread before because I think she's one of the few people to do something with the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern. Potentially such a brilliant space, but fucking impossible for anything with much of a degree of subtlety. The Twombly exhibition at the same was great, but the Richter pieces felt very much like they were plonked in a room (and they were meant to be first-time showings).

But, having said that, I'm really not the greatest appreciator of art, I don't seem to manage one gallery a month nowadays.

saucy!

by sigmar polke

i also love that bouguereau painting, it's beautiful

I've never seen any Twombly irl, I get the impression I would like his work a lot more in person than I do from books. In books, it just gives me a 'so so' to 'enjoyable'.

HA, I think.. (at a guess) that for the National Portrait Gallery.. to justify public arts spending you need to have as much of your work on display to the public as possible. Not even only for the locals, but to draw the tourist visit and dollar. Unfortunately for us art lovers, not all tax payers are happy to have their dollars spent on 'fuddy duddy' which will sit in a back room and only come out once a year or so.. :)

As for anywhere else... who knows. :(

Twombly makes much more sense 'in person', as it were. Similarly, I never could see the appeal of Warhol for years until I saw some of the large-scale stuff in Berlin a few years ago. I still don't really like Warhol, but the magnitude makes me dislike him less.