Is anyone out there interested in art? I thought it might be interesting for people to post a work of art that they like. I'm being serious - no pictures of Michelle March etc please

PS http://www.artcyclopedia.com is a good place to start if you're looking for something.

Here's mine. It's called The Last Tenement and it was painted in 1909 by an American called George Wesley Bellows. (For some reason the pic will no longer upload here. But the link still works ...)

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/masterscan ... t-mid.html

One of many...

So many, but I do like this....

Hard to beat him for perspiration and influence on others: The originals do seem too vivid. (This is Turner btw)

One of my favourites;



'Chateau des Pyrenees' by Rene Magritte.

Brilliant idea for a thread, Billy Whiz. I doff me cap to you!

Can I ask folks to say who your chosen work is by, please? I'm a bit rusty on fine art these days.
I think its: Miro; Chagall; Turner then Dali?

Here's a rather apt one from Italian Futurist, Umberto Boccioni, 'The Dynamism of a Soccer Player' (1913).


(clicky)

Always liked this one. A print used to be in the headmaster's office at school.




Christ of St John of the Cross by Salvador Dali

.I was just thinking is there any football related art will be here.
Cheers for that Flyman.That looks like T.Henry's mood nowadays.Confused.

BTW;if he made that picture in 1913,i would say he was really futuristic artist.

I like this, I'm not sure why really but abstract art just looks cool in my opinion

A tediously predictable post from Dot - I'd even asked people not to do that

Mate most of the above might be classed as works of art in certain quarters (not mine) but my work of art is alot more appealing on the eye.
Do you fall in the category of disillusioned persons that believe that Edvard Munch the scream is a masterpiece? And, if you had the money would spend millions on paintings...
Kinell i wouldn't pay 2-bob for a picture a child could paint BETTER , afterall that appears to be the standard.
As for Picasso dont even go there.
I'd give you Constable, now thats an artist..

Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee around a Pomegranate, a Second before Waking Up
1944
Dali

Strangely, this is quite an interesting point made here by Dot.

First off, it demonstrates his lack of education in the visual arts. But it goes further than that.

Dot can see the figurative art of constable as worthy, but not the works of Picasso. Because one is registered by the eye and appreciated for it's aesthetic appeal, the other needs to be 'understood' before it's 'look' can be appreciated.

I am just as un-educated in classical music. I do not have the grounding and education in it, to appreciate it in any other way than the pure 'feel' of some of the music. Give me contemporary guitar sound any day, because I've spent 30 years following it's developement.

...having said that, Dali is complete bollox

I like most of Hockney's work but this always sticks in my mind

do you know what thats called ? i've had one hanging at the top of the stairs for the last 20 years .

just got this on my wall , but it's called Nighthawks . what's the difference between these two ?

No difference - the full title is Nighthawks: Boulevard of Broken Dreams. It's by Edward Hopper. Top choice - although it's a bit difficult to appreciate at the size BFM has it.

Its all opinions but for me its cheesy pap!

Mrs Sp4 loves his stuff, and last Christmas my dad even asked for a print of one of his .

Poor art IMO.

I think that in terms of technique it (the Hopper) is accomplished. In terms of form it looks ok. But, in terms of content it is vapid. We learn nothing of the world in looking at it though, I suppose, it may make some self-reflective.

Never been a great art lover. I'd rather have a beautiful photo on my wall.

I'm not a great fan of sterotypical blonde bimbos but Dot's piece of art is the best on here. Sp4's (constable?) second. I like some Dali's but not the one on here. The cheesy pap one a clear last - you may as well have a Jack Vettawotsit or dogs playing pool.

I'm with Dot on this one I'm afraid.

If a painting has to be understood to be appreciated then it's pretentious twaddle as far as I'm concerned. I hate Picasso and anything in that style, and as for The Scream, it's a hideous painting. There are hundreds of talented painters out there who's work is far superior in my eyes' and yet so called experts will part with Millions to have something like that hung on their wall.

The funniest thing I ever saw a few years ago was an Art critic eulogising about a painting which was effectively hundreds of black squares painted with different brush strokes, to make up one very large black square

He was trying to explain how you could `feel' the artists moods within the painting, and it was valued at a couple of hundred thousand pounds. It was a black square for christs sake.

Turner, Constable, Monet, I can appreciate, Picasso! No!

I remember Thats Life (forgive me, I was young) getting a load of kids to splatter paint on canvas and then they put the pictures in a gallery as modern art and got a load of pretentious art snobs to view them and then filmed them saying how marvellous and clever the paintings were etc. Emperors new clothes.

It's all about levels NFG.

If you don't go beyond the top level, then you're only ever seeing one thing.

It's like only watching the goals and not the whole game.

NFG wrote:

I find your views perplexing, NFG. If a novel, play or poem has to be 'understood', i.e. viewed in a specific context, to be appreciated, would you consider that to be "pretentious twaddle"?
Without knowing about the McCarthy anti-communist witch hunts Miller's 'The Crucible' is just a play about silly girls and superstition, but viewed in context it becomes a more engaging, demanding drama and a political weapon of its time.

Similarly, when one understands that Van Gogh's intention was to paint the God in everything, or that Picasso, in his Cubist period, was painting the world in a post-Einsteinian perspective, whereby no one, single view-point can truly represent our world their works become more than just objects which are either appealing to the eye or not.

murf wrote:
Bypassing the subjective issue of what is beautiful, why a photo not a painting?

Spencer4, I thought your post on Dot's point was spot on.

Isnt that Tiger Woods misses up there?

The fact that you can't tell the difference between an Edward Hopper and those pap pictures of dogs playing pool probably explains why, in your own words, you're not an art lover. (That isn't meant as a judgement, just an observation.)

PS flyman - the content is deliberately vapid! That's the point of it.