Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Inspiration from Artists Wk159 Featuring Artists : Erin Hanson ant Thirry Bruet
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
I think his work falls into the 'weirdly, wonderful and fascinating, but can't see it on my wall' category. I do like it, but only to look at, especially his take on other artists work. I thought it might be difficult to find an image Lew hasn't posted, but M. Bruet seems to have been as prolific as he is imaginative.
Posted
We’re a mixed bunch on here, so obviously can’t always agree on certain artists work.
That doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate the effort that has been put in by the author.
Not too long ago, I introduced Lise Temple, a very successful Australian artist, whose work I admired as being fresh and inspiring.
The minuscule response that it received, and all negative, did rather dent my enthusiasm for continuing with this thread, but I put it down to personal preference… nothing more than that!
Posted
Yes Alan, I agree. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in the above post. I was thanking people for the fact that comments WERE made, even though the reception for this artist has been largely lukewarm. None of us expect blanket approval for the artists we chose. I do like much of this artists work, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to. There's the WOW FACTOR to consider (a cliche, but true)...I don't get the WOW factor with this artists work, but still admire it. This series has produced that factor for me several times, often in genre's that aren't my thing.
Posted
Bruet is an interesting character. I like the Bacon and perhaps the Guernica, and his hotel and architectural work is good. I think it's a waste of such good talent, perhaps it's a reflection of modern art circles/schools where you have to be outlandish to get noticed. If it was just a few pastiches amongst some other work...but, never mind - it sells.
The first painter I've come across who doesn't have a wiki page...that's interesting in itself. He seems to be perhaps more private than most artists. Think there's more to him than meets the eye.
Posted
I imagine some aren't commenting because they're trying to absorb what they're looking at, and haven't yet succeeded. His pastiches don't do much for me - other than the Tyrannosaurus in the Fragonard, even while the skill is very obvious. If we marked every painting or artist by the skill of execution, he'd be up there with the very best. Trouble is, we don't. I wonder if he has a definite aim - eg, puncturing pomposity - or just a liking for caricature: at which he's very good. These are not pleasant people he's caricaturing - pervert priests, pomaded and perfumed hags, men in dinner jackets with the expression of boiled fish plus a dash of malevolence: not a few of his women look like ageing drag queens, and perhaps they are.
It's not always useful to look for meaning - given the trouble he clearly takes, he's more than just playing, but it's as play that they come across to me. All I know is, given the cost of oil paint, I can't afford to play on that scale! His work must sell, unless he's the beneficiary of a generous trust fund.... He's also never less than interesting - the teddy bears are perhaps an exception to that: I don't see the point of them, but am probably missing something; easy to do, with a psyche as complex as this one.
Posted
I concur with Tony's comment of 'weirdly, wonderful and fascinating, but can't see it on my wall.' I've no idea of the meaning behind his work if indeed there is any, but if his intention is to shock or provoke a response of any kind he's certainly achieving that. Great conversation piece if you did have one on you wall though!
Posted
Yes, seeking the meaning of his paintings could be troublesome, given the element of surrealism. The paintings he calls 'homage' are the least appealing to me, plonking a Jeff Koons
pop-art inflatable on top of a Van Dyke makes little sense. I prefer those which are essentially a richly painted cartoon, like this...
Collette mentioned Joel Rea, another surrealist whose work is hard to 'read'. Perhaps we shouldn't bother with the whys and wherefores, and just enjoy the work...if we're able.
Collette mentioned Joel Rea, another surrealist whose work is hard to 'read'. Perhaps we shouldn't bother with the whys and wherefores, and just enjoy the work...if we're able.
Posted
I go with Lew on the marmite analogy, not the long winded twaddle that is telling us nothing . Having looked at more of his work I do think he is a superb and highly talented artist, who painting shock , as to why does it really matter if your just looking at them and not on a psychoanalytic day trip . The man paints like that because he chooses to and it makes him money ,not many artists do that these days , long may he continue.
Lew you certainly have injected some life into the thread with your choice of artist this week , thank you good sir .
Edited
by Paul (Dixie) Dean
Posted
Lord love us - who wrote that?? There are times when art criticism so egregiously exposes itself as "I haven't the first glimmerings of a clue what this stuff is about, but I'm going to yammer on in artspeak until I've fooled everyone into thinking me very deep and intellectual": whereas my response to it is that it's not deep, it's just dense, in the most pejorative form of that term I can imagine.
If paintings have to be explained in this sort of codswallop, they've simply failed to communicate; but I doubt that the artist wrote the commentary, so we can forgive him for that, and drive the writer out with staves and scorpions, as they so richly deserve. Especially the scorpions.