Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
inspiration from Artists Week 35 , Peder Mork Monsted and Richard Thorn.
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Welcome to week 35 of Inspiration fro Artist this weeks Artist are : Peder Mork Monsted and Richard Thorn . I will introduce Peder Mork Monsted this evening, on Wednesday Jenn will introduce Richard Thorn .
I will start with an apology for going first , I’m leading a watercolour workshop on Wednesday and will be unable to use my iPad until late evening.
Peder Mork Monsted 1857-1941 was a Danish realist painter.
He is best known for his landscapes painted in a realistic style. His favourite motifs include snowy winters landscapes, still water and forests.
He is my favourite artist, I was inspired by his tree paintings from the start and still find them fascinating. I guess he has been a big influence on my choice of subjects but not the style. I know that several people are not keen realistic paintings, my hope is you enjoy his work for his skill.
Posted
Excuse my french, but bloody hell, remarkable realism. The second image, of course much looser, and preferable to some. I don't normally like realists with respect to portraits and often wonder, why not just take a photo. But these are impressive. Going to search for info on how long they take, and the dimensions.
Posted
Yes he is a excellent artist who I thing does pass off the realism really well . When I first looked at that painting Lucian I really thought it was a photograph and good one at that . I’m not a hundred percent sure re the difference stage as I have seen a couple of his later ones that had that looseness go then , I have come to think that he painted loose when the mood took him.
His trees are to me just superb I feel that I could touch them and can easily imagine standing underneath the canopy , I have admired his work for about twenty years and still don’t get fed up of looking at it . He certainly inspires me and I don’t mind thing that to anyone that.
Posted
Looking at the snow scene my first thought was that it could pass for a photo, but then I reckoned that in this case the painter might even have gone beyond what a photo can capture. While not a fan of works of art that aim for, but (just) fail to achieve, realism, I do like these remarkable paintings, simply because they do succeed so incredibly well.
I'd be interested in getting up close to these in a gallery to see what is going on at a detailed level. The path through the trees looks amazing but when zoomed in there is a slightly loose look to the brush strokes, esp. in the shadows and the grass -- but those might be pixelation artefacts.
As Lucian mentioned, it would be interesting to see the periods that these correspond to (there are dates on a couple). I'm always fascinated to see whether painters go from realism to less realism, or vice versa.
Posted
He produced a huge amount of the highest quality work over a long career - I have long not so much admired him, as worshipped him! It's not that I would want to paint like that, or could paint like that, but he produced such beautiful paintings, and as has been said - photographic to some extent they may be, but he surges leagues beyond the purely photographic. He is absolutely not an Impressionist - though lived in an era in which Impressionism gained much ground. Some may say that he belonged to an earlier and more conservative generation, but while they MAY say it, I think they'd be wrong. I'm sure he has and had his critics; I can't be bothered to look for them - would a painter who could actually draw with his brush find a welcome at the Slade today? Would a latter-day Brian Sewell find him saccharine and old fashioned (worth bearing in mind that BS hated Harold Hodgkin and David Hockney too) as Sewell did in the case of Ken Howard? Don't know, don't care about art critics overall: of course they're right sometimes, but I wish they didn't always feel the need to take a stand, and just appreciated work in its own right.
Forget trends in art, periods in which one approach or another ruled, compulsory denigration of all that happened before or after the era which a given critic might have favoured, none of that matters in the face of transcendant genius and - Monsted handed his brushes and paints as if an angel guided his hand: and if that's gushing - I really don't care.
Posted
Incidentally - I think Monsted corresponds to an eastern, specifically Russian, influence, rather than to the French or even German. A look at the great Ivan Repin should show you what I mean: and - Putin Stalin Lenin et al firmly to one side - Russian painting followed its own path, and achieved as near as can be got to perfection - in the years before the Russian revolution. After that, conformism set in: the artist's worst enemy.