Post your favourite work of art here

Post by **Pouzar** » 11 Dec 2006, 07:48

Have had trouble posting on this thread for some technical reason. I've been wanting to tell Tom4 how much I like the Andrew Wyeth painting he first posted. I've never seen that one before and I really like it. Unlike Billy I enjoyed hearing the artist's comments after I had a chance to take in and have an initial reaction. Reading comments by Joyce or Yeats does not spoil or limit there work for me, although i admit I like the opportunity to read and absorb their works before heraing either their comments or ones made by critics.
I've always liked Christina's World and still do, but really appreciate Winter 1946 as well. Thanks.
And thanks Billy for starting this thread.

Post by **Billy Whiz** » 11 Dec 2006, 19:07

Flyman wrote: What I can't understand is why you cannot enjoy the two aspects you mention as two distinct and independent points of referal?

Where did I say that I cannot enjoy both aspects? I said “Some biographical detail can be useful,” and even added: “It's interesting to know that the picture was inspired by the death of his father.” But I also said, “there's a balance to be struck”, and I believe that Wyeth (unless he was misquoted in his remarks – easily done

) overstepped the mark. Background, yes; specific analysis of a particular work, no.

I also agree that , as Doogal says, seeing a painter’s works exhibited side by side helps you to understand it. (Wyeth’s picture of the girl looking towards the house, for example, complements the one of the boy on the hill. She too appears to be lonely and isolated – that, it seems to me, is why she feels trapped, unable to get to the house. So if you look at the two paintings together they feed off each other.)

But moving on … your point about the viewer’s relationship with a painting being an ongoing one actually supports my argument. If you don’t know what a painting is about, then every time you come to it you might think of a new or different interpretation. However, if the artist has already told you exactly what it’s about, even down to what a hill symbolises, then there’s less room for speculation. It can shut down any further avenues of interpretation that you might develop.

Finally, what happens if you don’t see the picture the way the artist intended it to be seen? Does that mean your response isn’t valid? (No.) Does that mean the artist has failed to convey his vision properly? (Not necessarily. The painting starts off as the artist's vision, but there comes a point where it becomes an entity in itself, in the same way that writers talk of characters developing by themselves.) Wyeth says the hill represents his dead father but that image doesn’t work for me at all. The painting does, very much, but not that image. The hill says something else to me. So where do we go from there? Better the artist should just say, “It’s about my father dying,” and leave it at that.

Post by **viddleodge** » 11 Dec 2006, 22:33

Flyman wrote:Who is it by, viddle? And when, if you know? Cheers.

which one do you mean, mate?

Post by **Flyman** » 12 Dec 2006, 00:20

viddleodge wrote:
Flyman wrote:Who is it by, viddle? And when, if you know? Cheers.
which one do you mean, mate?

viddle: The 'who' was in reference to the Broder. I must have not seen the attribution, sorry. The 'when' refers to both, ta.

Billy_Whiz: Fair point, you don't say that you can not enjoy both aspects, but I do get the impression that you find that too much knowledge of the artist's perspective hinders your enjoyment.

I really should have said, "What I can't understand is why one cannot enjoy the two aspects you mention as two distinct and independent points of referal?". My apologies.

However, I feel that you may have read my quote slightly out of context. I wasn't saying "What I can't understand is why you cannot enjoy the two aspects you mention" but "why can one not enjoy these aspects independantly?"

I may have misunderstood you but, aren't you saying that too much info from the artist spoils it for you?

if the artist has already told you exactly what it’s about, even down to what a hill symbolises, then there’s less room for speculation. It can shut down any further avenues of interpretation that you might develop.

I'm just saying that I don't find that to be a problem personally (as far as I am aware, anyway!

). I find that while such info may assist me in understanding a picture intellectually, and that it may affect my approach the next time, it doesn't over-rule or overpower my subjective appreciation in the long term, i.e. I'm not aware that avenues are being shut down.

I wonder if we've not inadvertantly wandered into a second field here - that of 'Artist Appreciation' rather than 'Art Appreciation' where one finds pleasure and stimulation in studying the man himself, his technical ability, his historical and philosophical perspective, his adroitness with allegory, metaphor and symbolism, regardless of any particular painting's affect on oneself? I think we have.

1)

Finally, what happens if you don’t see the picture the way the artist intended it to be seen? Does that mean your response isn’t valid? (No.)

and
2)

Does that mean the artist has failed to convey his vision properly? (Not necessarily. The painting starts off as the artist's vision, but there comes a point where it becomes an entity in itself, in the same way that writers talk of characters developing by themselves.)

1) Tricky question!

In the main, I agree. No. But sometimes, yes!

2) Granted, not necessarily - but I do think this depends on the original intention of the artist. If they want to convey a rather specific message (e.g. 'Guernica' or Duchamp's 'Fountain') and no one gets it, or gets hold of completely the wrong end of the stick then, yes, I think one can say that, on that level at least, the artist has failed in his craft or the viewer has failed in his task .....

I'm on contentious ground here, I know, but bear with me, please ....

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the art world was dominated by the French Salons, an elitist group of worthy, talented, Naturalistic Old Masters who shunned almost anything non-figurative. Their response to the works of Lautrec, van Gogh, the Impressionists, Dada/Surrealists, Expressionists, etc., etc., etc., was to condemn, damn and villify. Was their response valid? Or was it backward, bigoted, self-preserving and impermeable to any new ideas which challenged their conservative view of what constituted art?
Personally, I don't think there was much validity to their response, nor to that of similar bigots today. Having said that, in most cases where the viewer 'doesn't get it' it really doesn't matter one jot.

But sometimes, in some instances, I think it does.

Finally, I too agree with Doogal about the value of seeing an exhibition of an artist's work. To use a musical analogy, it can be like listening to a 'Greatest Hits' album rather than 'Now 63'.

But, hey, that's just my 2p's worth and I don't claim to be anything of an authority on the matter - I just like art.

Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), 'Fountain' (1917), voted 'Most Influential Modern Artwork of All Time' by a panel of 500 art experts in 2004.

Post by **Pouzar** » 12 Dec 2006, 04:34

Hey you ruined my appreciation of this art work by telling me it was called Fountain. I had already decided it was a urinal. What a pisser. Philistine!

Post by **viddleodge** » 12 Dec 2006, 08:26

Flyman wrote:
viddleodge wrote:
Flyman wrote:Who is it by, viddle? And when, if you know? Cheers.
which one do you mean, mate?
viddle: The 'who' was in reference to the Broder. I must have not seen the attribution, sorry. The 'when' refers to both, ta.

oh, broder's my father in law.

contemporary.
http://www.billbroderart.com/

clovis trouille was early to mis 20th century.
http://www.clovis-trouille.net/

i enjoed the wyeth works tom posted too.

Post by **Billy Whiz** » 12 Dec 2006, 10:42

flyman - I don't think we're a million miles away from each other on this, it's mainly a question of degree. It's good fun batting the argument around though.

Their response to the works of Lautrec, van Gogh, the Impressionists, Dada/Surrealists, Expressionists, etc., etc., etc., was to condemn, damn and villify. Was their response valid?

Interesting question. As I said on page 1, I think any response is valid if it's a genuine response to the work, rather than one based on prejudice or preconceptions. The Old Masters were clearly prejudiced against the shock of the new; on the other hand they genuinely didn't like what they saw, and would have provided an eloquent defence of their position. So I guess we might not think their response was valid, but for them it was.

PS Anyone been onto the Google home page today? Thye've incorporated The Scream into their logo

Post by **Flyman** » 12 Dec 2006, 12:09

Yes, Billy_Whiz, we are certainly discussing subtleties.

I had a laugh after posting my last when I re-read your early posts and on page 2 saw this:
Billy_Whiz wrote:

Any interpretation which can be supported by a genuine reference
to the picture is valid. It's only not valid when the interpretation has
more to do with the viewer's preconceptions, rather than a response
to what is actually perceived in the picture.

.... which I think puts it perfectly.
A question remains in my mind as to whether or not known objective facts about a painting constitute a ''viewer's preconceptions''. I'll chew that one over another time, I think.
Thanks again, everyone, for this fascinating thread.

Cheers, viddleodge, I'll take a gander later!

Sorry, Pouzar. I'm a fully paid up member of the Philistine Liberation Organisation.

Post by **tom4nash** » 12 Dec 2006, 18:46

Billy Whiz wrote:PS Anyone been onto the Google home page today? Thye've incorporated The Scream into their logo

They add something to the logo when there's something in particular they want to highlight. They'll have something for Christmas, New Year's, etc.

Dec 12th was the date of Munch's birth.

If you click on the Scream it'll take you to a Google list of Munch sites....

Post by **viddleodge** » 12 Dec 2006, 19:06

tom4nash wrote:
Billy Whiz wrote:PS Anyone been onto the Google home page today? Thye've incorporated The Scream into their logo
They add something to the logo when there's something in particular they want to highlight. They'll have something for Christmas, New Year's, etc.

saw that too. i've saved a few different ones over the months. st. pat's, earth day, etc.

i had an idea for breast cancer awareness day but they rejected that.

Post by **tom4nash** » 12 Dec 2006, 19:26

viddleodge wrote:
tom4nash wrote:
Billy Whiz wrote:PS Anyone been onto the Google home page today? Thye've incorporated The Scream into their logo
They add something to the logo when there's something in particular they want to highlight. They'll have something for Christmas, New Year's, etc.
saw that too. i've saved a few different ones over the months. st. pat's, earth day, etc.

i had an idea for breast cancer awareness day but they rejected that.

Here's one that makes my eyes bug out every year:

National Proctology Week

Post by **Flyman** » 12 Dec 2006, 19:41

I really didn't need to see that, Tom!

Post by **tom4nash** » 12 Dec 2006, 19:48

Flyman wrote:I really didn't need to see that, Tom!

Fine. I'll bloody stay on topic then.

Post by **Billy Whiz** » 12 Dec 2006, 20:36

I wonder what they'll do when it's Britney Spears' birthday?

Post by **tom4nash** » 12 Dec 2006, 20:46

Billy Whiz wrote:I wonder what they'll do when it's Britney Spears' birthday?

Post by **viddleodge** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:15

bosch sometimes appeals to the darkness within ...

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/aklypin/ART/bosch.htm

i suppose it came around a time where scientific and sexual revolution were being quashed by the church. witchcraft was thrown toward feminism to keep women down while heretics from the field of astronomy were beaten with very heavy brows as well. or heironymous just had some seriously gruesome mushies back then!

Post by **Flyman** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:21

I think the living hell of 'The Plague' had something to do with his work, too.

Post by **viddleodge** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:22

i have a jigsaw puzzle of breugel's 'dutch proverbs' which is fun to re-do and re-discover ...

Post by **tom4nash** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:37

Viddle, I love the "Dutch Proverbs". Sent me scrambling to Google for more info. Sad to say, I've never seen it before.

Sadder still, made me think of "Where's Waldo?", too.

Post by **Flyman** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:58

tom4nash wrote:Viddle, I love the "Dutch Proverbs". Sent me scrambling to Google for more info. Sad to say, I've never seen it before.

Sadder still, made me think of "Where's Waldo?", too.

Merry Christmas, tom4nash:

Post by **tom4nash** » 12 Dec 2006, 22:01

Better living through photoshop.

Post by **viddleodge** » 12 Dec 2006, 22:07

tom4nash wrote:Sadder still, made me think of "Where's Waldo?", too.

down under, he's called 'where's wally'.

i love 'the pioneer' by celebrated australian frederick mccubbin ...

also, 'down on his luck' from this page is perfect for my ff performance this week.

Post by **Hamlet** » 12 Dec 2006, 22:25

Flyman wrote:Barry wrote:
but surely the whole idea is that it's up to you to interpret.
I think, Barry, yes, but only to a point ..... Both of our interpretations of what, precisely, is going on are fair enough, but they are just our subjective impressions transposed onto the picture. To the best of my knowledge there is no written account by Munch of what, exactly, our man is so terrified of. That would, surely, have only served to limit and weaken the effect of the piece?

But what isn't subjective is Munch's history, the man's philosophy and his use of a classical structure with an Expressionist style. When you add those aspects into the equation you begin to understand the painting on the painter's terms rather than just through our own interpretation.

So, pushing the case that 'personal interpretation in art is all that is important' to its extreme; to suggest that one could interpret this painting as about anything other than terror would be utterly wrong. That is, while I'm happy to accept your explaination of the unspecified cause of 'The Scream' I'm not prepared to accept just any old interpretation of art as valid just because someone says, "Well art is subjective". Not that subjective, I say! :lol:

Flyman - I've missed the boat on the discussion of 'The Scream' - however:

I think this is interesting, especially with regards to (contradicting) the idea you expressed previously that the two background characters are following the 'protaganist' (for want of a better word). This is a quote from Munch's diary, apparently recalling the scene (from a book on Munch):

"I was out walking with two friends - the sun began to set - suddenly the sky turned blood-red - I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on a fence - there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city - my friends walked on, and there I still stood, trembling with fear - and I sensed an endless scream passing through Nature."

I tend to imagine 'the scream' as an expression of the unceasing struggle against the existential absurd - and the suddenness with which an everyday activity (walking with friends in this case) can suddenly become a gaze into an 'abyss of nothingness' - a manifestation of the meaningless of our foundations. Thus me!

Post by **Flyman** » 13 Dec 2006, 00:25

Hamlet wrote: Flyman -

I've missed the boat on the discussion of 'The Scream' - however:

I think this is interesting, especially with regards to (contradicting) the idea you expressed previously that the two background characters are following the 'protaganist' (for want of a better word). This is a quote from Munch's diary, apparently recalling the scene (from a book on Munch):

"I was out walking with two friends - the sun began to set - suddenly the sky turned blood-red - I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on a fence - there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city - my friends walked on, and there I still stood, trembling with fear - and I sensed an endless scream passing through Nature."

I tend to imagine 'the scream' as an expression of the unceasing struggle against the existential absurd - and the suddenness with which an everyday activity (walking with friends in this case) can suddenly become a gaze into an 'abyss of nothingness' - a manifestation of the meaningless of our foundations. Thus me!

Hi, Hamlet. Thanks very much for your fascinating post.

I shouldn't feel that you've missed the boat re: 'The Scream' if I were you - add whatever you will!

I found your quote from Munch's diary very interesting indeed (though Billy_Whiz may not thank you quite so much!

). It certainly does provide a terrific insight into the mind of the man prior to it's creation!

I must say that I don't really feel contradicted as I did say,

Both of our interpretations of what, precisely, is going on are fair enough, but they are just our subjective impressions transposed onto the picture.

i.e. they have no objective truth to them beyond the fact that they are, truthfully, our impressions.

I do, however, feel enlighted by your quote as it elaborates on our understanding of the psyche of the artist and his motive for painting what he did. Yet, that is not to say that in 'The Scream' he painted a 'photographically' true representation of the events of that day and I suspect that the construction, the form of the piece, carries some artistic licence - but I could well be wrong!

Were there only two ships in the fjord? Were his friends truly walking behind him at the moment of his revelation? Was no one else present? Etc.

Your timing is really impeccable, though, following as it does on our discussion on the effect of such information on the way we each appraise any work of art. You've given us a perfect case for re-examination and reflection! I wonder how this knowledge will affect each of our perceptions?

Fwiw, I think that at the time that I first viewed 'The Scream' 'cognatively' I was reading Kafka's 'The Trial', which could well explain my own, personal, interpretation of the two men in the picture as sinister.

Hamlet wrote:

I tend to imagine 'the scream' as an expression of the unceasing struggle against the existential absurd - and the suddenness with which an everyday activity (walking with friends in this case) can suddenly become a gaze into an 'abyss of nothingness' - a manifestation of the meaningless of our foundations. Thus me!

Nicely put. Your comment reminds me of the lyrics to Joy Division's 'She's Lost Control' (I quote in part)

"And she showed up all the errors and mistakes,
And said I've lost control again.
But she expressed herself in many different ways,
Until she lost control again.
And walked upon the edge of no escape,
And laughed I've lost control.
She's lost control again.
She's lost control.
She's lost control again.
She's lost control."

Why not give us some links of other works you like, Hamlet?

Post by **tom4nash** » 13 Dec 2006, 01:02

I've enjoyed this thread more than any other non-footy thread I can remember. It's jogged my memory about pieces I've seen, thought about what's influenced me, and made me mull over things I haven't thought about in a while. I've really enjoyed seeing pieces I haven't been familiar with before, too.

Thanks, Billy.

I especially enjoy the thoughts on what constitutes art. Being here in the Southern US there's a pervasive amount of folk art. It always brings the topic of what is and isn't art to the forefront when it's brought up here. Since Howard Finster first came to wider attention though REM's and Talking Heads use of his art in the '80's for album covers, it's driven an explosion of so-called "self-taught"artists. With that in mind, a piece from the good Reverend Finster:

Post by **Flyman** » 13 Dec 2006, 01:13

Are the folds in the actual piece, tom4nash?
and it was 'Little Creatures' by Talking Heads, wasn't it? So wish I'd seen them live!

Btw, had a chat tonight with a friend of mine who's job it is to buy art for the Whitworth Gallery in Manchester ( Lucky b1tch!

). She told me of a Sarah Lucas piece with fried eggs and a well placed kebab on a table.

Must see if I can find it online.

I said I'd send her a pic of your Wyeth 'Winter 1946' submission. Interesting how that, in particular, has struck a chord with so many of us.

Post by **tom4nash** » 13 Dec 2006, 01:32

Flyman wrote:Are the folds in the actual piece, tom4nash?
and it was 'Little Creatures' by Talking Heads, wasn't it? So wish I'd seen them live!

Btw, had a chat tonight with a friend of mine who's job it is to buy art for the Whitworth Gallery in Manchester ( Lucky b1tch! ). She told me of a Sarah Lucas piece with fried eggs and a well placed kebab on a table. Must see if I can find it online.

I said I'd send her a pic of your Wyeth 'Winter 1946' submission. Interesting how that, in particular, has struck a chord with so many of us.

Aye, the piece is part of a 25 foot Coke bottle painted by Finster.

The folds are, indeed, part of the overall piece. And, yes, the "Little Creatures" cover is the one they commissioned from him. It won Rolling Stone's "Cover of the Year" in '85. He came to mass attention with REM's "Reckoning" cover that he did with Micheal Stipe. I think it's safe to say that Stipe "discovered" Finster for a wider audience.

I'll PM you the SL piece.

I'm really glad people have found the Wyeth so interesting and moving. How funny that it's in the relatively small NC Museum of Art.

Post by **Billy Whiz** » 13 Dec 2006, 18:17

The pre-Raphaelites, eh? You either love them or hate them. I went through a period of hating them as affected and sentimental, but I’m over that now. Now I just think they’re the ultimate in luxuriantly decadent art. And the most sumptuous of the lot is The Lady of Shallott by John Williams Waterhouse.

Post by **Billy Whiz** » 15 Dec 2006, 00:34

I was going to concentrate on posting pictures from now on but I can't let this go:

Hamlet wrote:This is a quote from Munch's diary, apparently recalling the scene (from a book on Munch):

"I was out walking with two friends - the sun began to set - suddenly the sky turned blood-red - I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on a fence - there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city - my friends walked on, and there I still stood, trembling with fear - and I sensed an endless scream passing through Nature."

This is fantastically strong stuff and with only a little reworking Munch could have turned it into a powerful poem. But to return to my theme (sorry), this is a description of how Munch felt at the time, it is not a description of the painting. The two are not the same thing!

On a mundane level, Munch says he was leaning on a fence - he isn't in the painting. He says his friends had walked on, yet in the painting the two figures are behind the protagonist, who is facing us. Either the man should be facing the other way, or the others should be walking towards us. And would anyone looking at this picture conclude that the two men in the background are the protagonist's friends? I'm sure a lot of people looking at this picture will feel that the terror the man feels has something to do with the men. If we're now told these guys are his friends then that shuts down an avenue of interpretation, and I don't think it should. People should be able to respond to a painting in as many and varied ways as possible, even in different ways at different times, depending on their mood.

By reading Munch's diary we start to ask all sorts of irrelevant questions about the painting, and these confuse our response to it. We end up responding more to the diary than to the painting. This adulterates the artistic experience

Post by **Flyman** » 15 Dec 2006, 01:12

. I'm sooooo enjoying this thread!

Billy_Whiz wrote:

this is a description of how Munch felt at the time, it is not a description of the painting. The two are not the same thing!

Exactly the point I make above, Billy. It may seem ostensibly mundane but is enormously important, imo.

Billy_Whiz wrote:

If we're now told these guys are his friends then that shuts down an avenue of interpretation, and I don't think it should. People should be able to respond to a painting in as many and varied ways as possible, even in different ways at different times, depending on their mood.
By reading Munch's diary we start to ask all sorts of irrelevant questions about the painting, and these confuse our response to it. We end up responding more to the diary than to the painting. This adulterates the artistic experience

What I find difficult to grasp is that, while you know that the diary describes only the psychological origins of the piece, not the finished article, you still seem to find it very difficult to disassociate that knowledge from the act of aesthetic appreciation.

I tend to approach them as two equally interesting facets: one historical and factual; the other contemporary, instantaneous and subjective.
Is there any way that, should you think it worthwhile, you might not contemplate them similarly and put the diary facts aside when viewing?

I really don't feel that the questions we start to ask are exactly irrelevant. They may well lead us to a more profound understanding of the artist and his method of creation, but do I agree that there is a danger that they may confuse our response to it if we are unable to divorce the two when contemplating.

Once again, to be quite clear, I am not playing any sort of 'oneupmanship' games here, but ask the question out of a genuine interest in the nature of aesthetic appreciation, fully accepting that we are all different.

(Love the J.W.Waterhouse, btw, and had already searched, unsuccessfully, for as good a jpg as you found. Excellent!)

Login • Register

Post your favourite work of art here