Nancy and Olivia
Nancy and Olivia, Alice Neel
collecting colours over a cup of coffee...
If you are a lover of printed words, you would know how much of your time is taken by books alone. Then one day, sooner or later, you discover a huge vacuum within that you know next to nothing about other art forms. This blog is an attempt to fulfil one such lacunae in the art of painting. We intend to look up a random painting and upload it with a link here every day whilst having our daily cuppa coffee. In this way at least we hope to be better acquainted with colours, colourers and the schools than what we are now.If you wish to be a part, you know where to shout.
Find lost art
Pigments
Galleria
-
▼
2006
(165)
-
▼
Sept 2006
(30)
- Ode to Music I
- Aphrodites Mask
- Medea [2]
- Medea [1]
- Medusa's Lair
- Medusa de Moderno
- Athena [2]
- Athena [1]
- Lust...
- Pride...
- Wrath
- Gluttony..
- Envy...
- Sloth...
- Avarice..
- Unconscious Rivals
- Robinson's Wrap
- Portrait of a Girl
- Nancy and Olivia
- Night of the Rich
- Derrida Queries de Man
- The Threatened Swan
- Untitled [7]
- Untitled [6]
- Untitled [5]
- Untitled [4]
- Untitled [3]
- Untitled [2]
- Untitled [1]
- Dream
-
▼
Sept 2006
(30)
3 comments:
this one is very nice too, liked the woman's eyes...
but want to continue the discussion about "understanding" a painting. (I am an engineer so absolute lack of any aesthetics! so pardon my bluntness)
Consider for example, a great artist like Michaelangelo. Now, he is not modern or post modern right? (I forgot his style)... but he is known for the sistine chapel fresco and David and the cross (forgot the name)... he is known for the accuracy of depiction of the human body, which he learnt by disecting corpses!
Now (in this day), if he goes out of his mind, and produces a "modern art" like the "Untitled" ones... how can one establish the value of that piece ? would you consider that to even be a piece of art ?
So, my understanding of the system is: a person becomes famous with some amazing pieces, and later on produces "Untitled" to make some money.
"And art people consider these "untitled" art pieces to be great not because they are very good, but because it was done by someone famous."
The only other explanation given is "art is without reason". Suddenly art feels like religion "You can see God, only if you believe in him!"
btw, I think this is the general thinking of the scientific world.
PS: I am not trolling here but trying desperately to gain some kind of art sense.
Not questioning you guys but just my thoughts hoping that someone reading my comment would answer my question.
:)
Hey again
I really don’t know how to reflect back on your thoughts. Let it however give it a try. From what I have seen of your two comments, it seems you carry a notion of art that art has to be such and such and anything that fails to fit into that cast as impossible to be art.
Art is a creation, implication and interpretation comes later. You cant just sit here and state that since you don’t get it , it cant possibly be art. Art has personal meanings. Some for pure expression some others for lesser reasons. When the whole generation identifies the conscience of the art it becomes famous. There are many other layers obviously all cant be discussed here.
For e.g., Warhol’s Campbell soup could have been blasphemy in Victorian era. One should not commit the mistake of comparing arts of totally different schools and worse timeframes.
However clichéd it may sound, I can only say this, you have to start looking inwards than outwards in the field of art. Hey I like her eyes sounds as banal as I like your tie. I’m sure you can do better than that but while you do I suggest you start asking yourself a few questions ? Why ?? would be a good start. And mind you, the answers would have nothing to do with whether you are an engineer or plumber.
Cheers
Post a Comment