Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Three color,s,
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
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Hi, if you were only allowed three primery color,s in watercolor,s, which would you choose-or which would you consider the most ideal for all round use? I have often thought about this as there are many artist,s who would recomend you use certain one,s but which would you consider an all round collection, but this could be difficult as to what your subject is? I admit i am not sure? Harry.
Posted
The post modernists- Post being a very operative word. The Hirst and Ermin era is already over and they are now being 'replaced' by the new moves in Contemporary Art. Street Art is big (Banksy etc)..Art which sets out to show the essence of banality is big too. In my view all contemporary artists shoud do the absolute oppossite of what is accepted..therefore the last decades of neo-post modernism has run its road. What we see now is repitition. variations on theme..
The same boring stuff that has been about since someone decided that Art was a decadent tool to be used by institutions for self gratification (sic: 1919) Sound familiar?..
So.. what next?...Back to authentic genuine Art. One that Gives...and not one that simply takes...the piss.
Posted
I read the article and disagreed with most of it,
The best - absolute best - exhibition I've been to in recent years was of Damien Hirst's works. They were deeply moving. I stood there absorbing their power for a long time. The museum guy who was in the gallery at the time told me and my husband (who didn't 'get' the artwork at all) that he'd never seen an exhibition that polarised opinion so much. There were people like me who stared and stared in awe at this fantastic artwork; and there were people like my husband who couldn't get away soon enough. That's fair enough. He's not an artist or an art critic.
You lot ARE artists. So why do so many of you so dismissive of the greatest of contemporary art? I just don't get it.
Posted
How much of Hirst's original work have you seen? ie, how much have you actually seen 'in the flesh' rather than in magazines/articles/books/on the telly? Which works in particular make you vomit, and why? What is it specifically that you, personally, find repulsive? Much of his work is exquisitely beautiful. Why does beauty make you vomit? Seems a very strange reaction to me.
Posted
I think the problem with the so called innovators in art that in many cases it is a case of the "Emperor's new Clothes" Unfortunately some critics have the ability to brainwash others into seeing something that isn't there. Artistic ability and skill for instance. It seems that technical ability with a brush, drawing and observation are looked down on as being unworthy.
Posted
Watching a program last night, on Monet (real or fake), the art experts (for want of a better word) walked into a gallery dedicated to Monets work. The comment made, that stuck in my mind, was "this is proper art, for people that just want to admire the beauty of the work. You don't need a degree to understand it, you don't need anyone to tell you what it is or what it's about. It is just there to be enjoyed".
That, to me, sums up my feelings towards (most) modern art. For me - i want to be pleased with what I see. I don't want to study for a degree to enjoy itI don't need to be offended. There's plenty of other more important things to get upset about. Art is not brain surgery, much to the annoyance of the pretentious brigade.
Much "modern art" is not new, or cutting edge. It is the artist (for the most part) that has learned to harness the outrage and shock such work can cause. They are not artists, but people that can manipulate the media.
Several years ago there was a series of programs, where the human body was slices and diced in the name of education. This caused outrage and/or facination in equel measure. Shortly after, we had Damien Hurst doing much the same with a half sheep. New? Hardly. Coincidence perhaps?
Garffitii has been around, as an art form, for decades. and yet for some reason, some bloke puts a few stencelled drawings on a wall, and he's cutting edge. Why? seems to me no one would have even noticed, certainly not the press - until "someone" declared it subversive art. I wonder who promoted that? Surely not the artist himself?
Eventually - i believe - the fraud will be exposed, the Emperor's new Clothes will fall away. What then asks C&D? I suspect a return to art that people can admire and just "look at".
Posted
Snag is, I've never seen Hirst's work other than on screen or in newspapers, and its scale makes it impossible to judge that way. I did applaud his foray into painting fairly recently: he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so, and was of course scalded by the critics. The diamond encrusted skull, I should add, did seem meretricious to me - a pointless and obvious statement. But then, as Gore Vidal once said when accused of the same thing, "And a meretricious to you and a happy new year!"
In Emin's case - well, I observe that she seems unable to draw: whether this matters, since drawing isn't primarily what she's about, is a moot point... I don't like the concept behind her work insofar as I understand it, but I take delphambi's point: I don't like my own work being judged on my own inadequate photographic representations, so it's a bit hypocritical to judge others' work based on what I've seen on film or in reproduction.
As I can't afford to buy either artist's work, it's all a bit academic; and on the whole, I'm inclined to let history judge - it does save an awful lot of work.
Posted
Mel. drops a brick in to see what ripples, if any, are created..
Joan Miró i Ferrà [1893 – 1983] was a Spanish Catalan painter, sculptor, and ceramicist born in Barcelona.
Earning international acclaim, his work has been interpreted as Surrealism and a re-creation of the childlike. He expressed contempt for conventional painting methods as simply supporting a bourgeois society.
He was perhaps in favour of all old paintings being cremated. Thus making wall space available for the new?
Now the trouble with living this long is that both he and his art got rather repetitious.
Now just imagine him as a contributor to POL??
Posted
Interesting thread but surely there's a dissonance between what or 'where' practicing artists want to 'go' and where the market will take them.
Much of modern art -and yes I include the Turner Prize - is thought provoking, interesting and often stimulating. I'm not a YBA in any sense of the term, but a traditional painter with an open mind.
If you take Constable's observation that (for him)' painting (art) is just another word for feeling' the works of Emin and Hurst certainly fall into the category of 'Art'.
Just like the work of Bacon they certainly make me feel something, albeit a little uncomfortable. One could argue that Hurst's painting output has been patchy, but it's hard to deny his 3D works lack the capacity to make the viewer feel and react.
I wouldn't put a Bacon or a Hurst (or a Doig or a Saville for that matter) on my lounge wall, but if the 'test' of art is one of engendering an emotional response, he's up with the best of them. That the best emotional response our best artists can engender is morbid revulsion or self obsession is probably a refection on what the market felt it could sell 10 years ago.
If on the other hand the test of great art is that it simply panders to popular or commercial taste then its well to recall that approval of what is approved of is no approval at all.
This is the danger of overly market led art which I touched on in my long neglected blog after a bit of tree skewered by a railing was held up on national TV to be a work of seminal genius.
For the record if the best alternative available to pickled livestock is watercolour sketches of harbours or sub Sickert interiors and figures in oils then I'll have to concede that Hurst's work is what we deserve.
Posted
Interesting thoughts from Rodrigo and Martin. Incidentally, I could happily live with a Doig on my wall; and a Bacon - chance would be a fine thing in either case. Jenny Saville is an impressive painter - whose work I find it hard to like, as it were, but I certainly appreciate it... As ever, much new work is good, much is what we're told is good by the art critics or the art market, and a lot of it is going to have to wait for the passage of time to render it intelligible. I'm quite happy to wait...
Now, how about a Kinnear on the wall - and a couple of Costas, maybe ... I'd be happier with either than with any of the YBAs (or Stuckists) I've seen so far. And I DO have an Alan Owen original!
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2