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
Some people go into art purely to sell, they get stuck into formulaic paintings because the market demands it and they produce accordingly. I’m not necessarily talking about the very famous and accepted ones but the ones you see in more local galleries - still demanding a high enough price but known for a certain topic or type of painting, which they churn out incessantly.
How lucky to be able to paint what you want and still support yourself, perhaps with having employment which is separate ( most of us on here). It’s good to read that Sean Scully’s passion for art was a driving force and , of course, he is very fortunate to have “ made it” in the art world. It’s not relevant here whether you do or don’t like his work, I like the point he makes.
Edited
by Marjorie Firth
This post has been removed as it violates our forum rules and guidelines.
Posted
I like the point he makes too Marjorie, even though his art isn't really "my cup of tea", although I quite like the large works Jenny posted, can see them working in a suitable setting. Some excellent points made in this interesting discussion, I can especially relate to seeing the actual works rather than a picture of them. An example is a recent ship expedition where some huge abstract works by a French-American mixed media artist called Agathe Bouton were displayed on one of the stairways. They were basically vertical layers of colour in mainly blues but with some brown, and some texture. I just loved them and kept going back to look at them, whereas I'm sure they wouldn't have had that impact at all had I just seen them on the internet. I imagine that Rothko would have the same effect in the very unlikely event I could see his "in the flesh".
Posted
Another opinion. In the 60s I was working in London, and being an art fan saw/read everything I could about art. Back then, the art establishment (pardon my language) was promoting the likes of Rothko as the 'way forward' for art, and that 'figurative art' was dead. Rampant marketing-speak. Interpret that as rubbish. I saw some examples of abstract expressionism. And was appalled by it. Many years ago I drew a cartoon about a quote by Al Capp, a great American Illustrator...
...for a while, I shared his view. Over the years I've mellowed a little, and do appreciate SOME abstract art. A good point made in this thread is that it can be very effective in the right situation, especially when you are looking at the REAL art. My wife used to like TV programs about interior decor, it often included art, and I had to concede that some abstract art looked good. Here's a photo of an art collectors home...
...I like the abstract in the middle, preferring it to the Hyper-realist painting on the left (odd that, because I like Realist art). On the right is a frame that MAY just have a black canvas in it...can't be sure.
Here's a piece of modern abstract art I like...
...don't know who it's by. No info given. Horror of horrors, it MIGHT even be ai 'art'.
I also like SOME of Picasso's work...
All this is what I think, that matters to me but nobody else. There's art out there for everyone's taste.
(I have to admit that I find the art establishment's views morbidly interesting, even when it's claptrap.)
...for a while, I shared his view. Over the years I've mellowed a little, and do appreciate SOME abstract art. A good point made in this thread is that it can be very effective in the right situation, especially when you are looking at the REAL art. My wife used to like TV programs about interior decor, it often included art, and I had to concede that some abstract art looked good. Here's a photo of an art collectors home...
...I like the abstract in the middle, preferring it to the Hyper-realist painting on the left (odd that, because I like Realist art). On the right is a frame that MAY just have a black canvas in it...can't be sure.
Here's a piece of modern abstract art I like...
...don't know who it's by. No info given. Horror of horrors, it MIGHT even be ai 'art'.
I also like SOME of Picasso's work...
All this is what I think, that matters to me but nobody else. There's art out there for everyone's taste.
(I have to admit that I find the art establishment's views morbidly interesting, even when it's claptrap.)
Posted
Interesting as Alan said “relate to.” This is the problem with abstract art we find it hard to relate to the subject matter because the pictorial language is only within the mind of the producer. There is no common link to shared conceptions in our everyday surroundings. But is it art? Yes because it’s the artist that produces art in whatever form it may appear. We would stagnate without diversity.
Posted
Oh, he really could! Your and my friend Virgil Elliott - we disagree a bit on his work, but I'm not at all sure I disagree all THAT much - believes that Picasso led us all away from traditional oil painting, to our great cost. I have a lot of trouble with that point of view, although - at least I know what he meant: if you think the apogee of the painter's art was Borgereau (other spellings may well be available) you're not going to welcome diversions from it. I'm not so sure I do really enjoy Picasso - other than the hugely powerful Guernica - and to be quite honest I don't know that his departure from figurative painting was a good thing: I suspect though that it was a necessary thing. And I did enjoy his Weeping Woman, at which building workers who discovered it after it had been stolen threw darts...... Lord alone knows what attracts us to paintings; it has to be so different in every case: and I do think Picasso got lazy.... he could make millions from a scrawl on a scrap of paper; if you can do that, it's not hard to understand that a touch of cynical casualness might creep in: and I think it certainly did. But that's the art market for you - apportioning value to anything the Master touched, irrespective of its quality.
Even so - believe what we like, he was a masterful draughtsman when he chose to be: and if we choose to stop our appreciation of him at that point: well - he still showed genius, and an instinctive drawing line. What followed must yield to personal opinion.