Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The greatest?
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 agree too and we've had a very interesting discussion. I still only see rectangles and a black square though - no emotional response at all.
When I come out of the Musee D'Orsay I'm floating six inches off the ground for the next hour. A bloke painting a square canvas black doesn't have the same impact.
Edited
by Peter Smith
Posted
Having looked on-line at some of Mr Scully's work, which seems to consist mainly of checks and stripes, the one reaction I have is that the colours lack harmony. If that was the artist's intention then I suppose he did succeed in stirring up some form of emotional response. But it is not the kind of emotion that would make me want to go back and take a second look, or even hang one of his pictures on my wall. Not that I have a wall large enough for many of his works! Art that endures also stirs up an emotional response, but, for me at least, the big difference is that the paintings in the Musée D'Orsay (for example) stir up emotions that make we want to go back and look again.
Posted
Well, to finish off I’ve got to say again - this , for me, was not what this was about. Two parallel things going on here…..1. If a particular piece or style of art doesn’t “ move” you, then fine - a lot does nothing for me. We are all different. But 2. Don’t dismiss something just because you feel that way, or maybe can’t understand it. The great Art Movements were not accepted at the outset - nb. The Impressionists, Peter. The Black Square by Malevich was probably not painted to “ move” anyone but to make them think ( I wasn’t around at the time , I can only guess but there is hindsight ). I just don’t like dismissing art in that way ( the article about Scully and his art is interesting, it makes sense to me and it’s how he expresses his emotions). Denise’s point is excellent - cave drawings made to express something. To some they may strike a chord, to others a series of handprints, end of story.
As for taking up knitting, try Kaffe Fassett 😉
Words fail me. I suppose the cracks in the paint make it more interesting. 
Self portrait
Portrait of a Russian working man.
Landscape.
Knife grinder.
Clearly an artist who moved on. I don't like the black square, but he was making a statement with it.
Posted
I went with some of our art group to see a Sean Scully exhibition in London some years ago. We didn’t go especially to see his work, but it was on at the same time as another exhibition, not sure which now, possibly the Impressionist Gardens.
Anyhow, do I like his work? Not especially, but can I see anything in it? Yes he is one of those large canvas painters whose work is more impressive in the flesh, probably because of the size, and you can imagine landscapes etc in his work. There was at the time a BBC documentary about Scully, his life and work. You can still access some of this on YouTube, and I recommend it to Peter to have a look. It will probably make you even crosser! 🤭
Posted
Obviously he wanted to express himself in a different way ( photography was more prevalent too so literal interpretation wasn’t as necessary ( though his portrait is not “literal”).Many abstract artists moved on from traditional starting points ( Picasso a famous one ). Russell’s question….I think that if you have seen and acknowledged past work as having some merit, then you may be more open to accepting that what they now do is valid. Abstraction can be hard to understand - I think that you have to be prepared to accept what someone is doing, or trying to do, without dismissing it out of hand or ridiculing it. Whether it does anything for you personally is something entirely different.
Off my soapbox now.
Edited
by Marjorie Firth
Posted
I look at abstract art and don’t think what’s it telling me it’s not a story as I might see in a conventional landscapes, portraits or still life etc but it’s and expression of something the artist feels . Do I understand abstract paintings no not really but then I don’t try to understand them anymore as I found I became frustrated with it, I just accept the shapes, colour and how they interact with each other , if I can see something in the painting that looks like a house etc well that’s a bonus for me . I wouldn’t go out of my way to view abstract but if they were in the gallery I would look at them as I would other artists work, I will say that there are some I just cannot understand or see what is going on in them , the black square is an example. We do have some very good abstract artists on POL , to me it’s one of those difficult subjects to paint hence I don’t do them .