What makes a painting good?

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
Showing page 4 of 4
Message
And "Well said" Gudrun. We have over the years seen people on this site struggling with all manner of problems, depression and physical illness included, and still posting. As I said previously on a topic (Which I now forget because my memory is no longer good) Live and Let Live!! Please.
There are a lot of ‘shoulds’ here. Shoulds can only limit imagination it seems to me. Why should a painting represent a likeness to it’s subject? There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with works that do that of course, but that paintings should etc. seems to me a very limiting and restricting view. There is also, I think, considerable mixing of art and the art market which are not one and the same thing at all. Art is a product, it always has been. Surely no-one can believe that the development of more expressive/abstract/‘loose’ ways of painting coming as it did concurrently with the development of photography is coincidence? Information about the development of a work or about the artist’s motivation can significantly change the way we see it although I recognise the pretentiousness of many artists’ statements. I’m immediately turned off—and will be likely to give no further thought to the work—when I read “My work attempts to confront…” or “In my work I seek to explore the contradiction…” etc., etc. That said, does it change our feelings about Turner’s work to know that he had himself tied to the mast to experience the force of the storm? Does it change our feelings about Van Gogh’s black crows to know of his psychosis and that it was one of the last paintings he made before killing himself? Likewise does it change our understanding of Holbein’s The Ambasadors to understand that they wished to be seen as prosperous men-of-the-world? And that, as Berger observed, they took care to include all the cultural signifiers of their time to ensure that the message was clear. They didn’t include the globe showing the new world and the other things because they just happened to be on the table and they thought they were pretty. Why did the Egyptians paint the human form in the way they did? It’s a completely impossible position for a human being to get into. Clearly producing an accurate representation was not the main priority—if indeed it was a priority at all. One of my favourite 20C works is Malevich’s Eight Red Rectangles. It didn’t change the way I lived my life but it’s a very interesting image, especially when seen in the context of the time and the culture that produced it. To pretend that any art is not a product of the time and culture that produces it is nonsense, but that still leaves the stage wide open. Making a pencil mark on a clean, fresh piece of paper changes the way we see the paper. Making a second mark changes the way we see the first mark…and so on. Eight Red Rectangles I suggest is no more than a development—an exploration—of this phenomenon. And as someone here has said or implied (I don’t recall who without searching through all the comments again), seeing abstract works in the flesh can very significantly change the way we appreciate and understand them. Finally, many works—some of my own included—can have aspects and qualities that are both 'loose' and 'tight' to varying degrees.
I agree in principal with johndpetty, although having different opionions is what life is all about, is it not? I also understand some things differently (better?) as time goes on. I can, for instance see maybe why Van Gogh sufered such frustration in his work because he saw things differently and needed to paint as he did and not to suit popular convention of his time..In art, having the option to either like or dislike is our best attribute, because how much of what we see would we want hanging on our own walls? We can ( and do) admire in degrees all types of art, just as we can dislike in the same way, although " Two policewomen with learning difficulties" has me completely beaten all ends up...:hehe: Jim.
Yes Jim. " Two policewomen with learning difficulties" made me want to***????? you know. Why would anyone use that as a title for a painting I'll never know. I bet that person doesn't know anyone who has learning difficulties: I do and I found it really upsetting. Is this person real???????
The person is "real" Margaret. Thought with her surname it was a send-up! She has some weird paintings which leave me a little cold. I have just seen the two policewomen on gallery and think it is an insult!! Only my opinion though.
Showing page 4 of 4