Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
I've encountered something really interesting lately, was wondering if anyone felt the same way.
As I get better at making art and learn to really see and read other people's artwork, it's been changing my perception of a lot of artists held in high regard by the "art establishment", so to speak. Which is not a huge deal on its own, really - until it comes to quite a few artists I started out completely disliking, and I am now forced to admit that yes, they really were all that and a bag of chips.
For me it was these two:
1. Mr. Van Gogh. I'm a bit ashamed of this one, and I think partially it's because images in books and online don't do his work justice, you really have to see them up close to appreciate how insanely awesome his colors and brushwork are.
2. Gustav Klimt. I don't like the Kiss, never have and probably never will. After I saw Danae and his stuff for the University of Vienna (which was a bit ahead of his time and so sadly got rejected) I was in love with this guy. See here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimt_U...ling_Paintings
Partially, it's probably once the mystery of "how the hell did he make it look like the real thing" is gone, you start to look for other things to appreciate in art, and maybe the things you admire say something about you as an artist.
So I'm really curious if other people feel the same way, and if so, which artist did you start seeing in a new light once you really got into that whole art thing?
Cezanne - I never understood the fuss about him until I saw a real one. It sort of felt like a sledgehammer bashing my head.
Holbien was another.
Just about every artist ever. Before I started learning to draw my reaction was, "Oh, look, a vase of flowers. Boring." These days, I stare at that very same vase of flowers and start losing my shit about colours and reflective lighting and composition and value.
And brush strokes.
I hated brush strokes before I became an artist and now they're usually what I love most about a piece.
Black Spot - I am totally on the same page about Cezanne. Wne you get to see one of those still lives, up close, they are so gorgeous.
Umbravita - I've learned to appreciate more "mundane" subjects more, that's for sure. When you think about it, it's much harder to make really interesting artwork when you're using a subject most people take for granted!
That sounds like my case, I also remember being impressed by overly-rendered stuff. Now I prefer painterly finish.
For me the the brush strokes feel like notes of a music piece: They have a rhythm on their own and some artist know how to put them in the right spot.
I saw Tekkonkinkreet on the TV a couple of days ago. When I was younger I probably would've though it was lazily drawn, but now it's like it... goes straight to the essence, or something.
As for 'proper' painters...
Yeah, that. I feel more sympathetically inclined towards impressionists, too.Just about every artist ever. Before I started learning to draw my reaction was, "Oh, look, a vase of flowers. Boring." These days, I stare at that very same vase of flowers and start losing my shit about colours and reflective lighting and composition and value.
And brush strokes.
i am amazed how many great artists there are from the past that i never heard of til i started studying more seriously.
"Work for your self first. You can paint best the things you like or the things you hate. You cannot paint well when indifferent.
Express a mental opinion about something you are sensitive to in life around you. There is a profound difference between sensitivity and sentimentality."
~ John Sloan Gist of Art
In contrast I loved Dali years ago, but now I don't care for the bulk of his art at all.
My sketchbook http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=128951
Dali was incredible, one in a million. That's my take on it-you can get technical skill with hard work, but that sort of mind is just rare.
Still think picasso was massively overrated-to me he just basically nicked simplistic tribal art and brought it to the west with a huge pricetag, also dont appreciate the precedent he set by doing it.(its not that there isnt a place for this, just that it didnt have to override everything else to the extent which it did,and kind of does)
If anyone wants to post a picasso that will take my breath away-go for it and prove me wrong
Interestingly I havent read it, but heard that in Dalis book of his process he did slate picasso,stating that mimicking reality should be the goal.
Back on topic, I guess pretty much all of the old masters I appreciated greatly before I got into learning art, and still do, possibly more so than I did. And as tastes grow, sadly I have gone off almost all digital work-there are exceptions but its just how I feel on the whole.
The impressionists have grown on me hugely, something pretty special about that work, oh, one guy who I personally think is highly underrated now is mucha- the guy was just spectacular, not sure if there is an artist alive now who could pull of the slav epic...
Also,I think beksinski should have been a household name like the above-and he probably would have been if he was born in the states, or the uk...
His artistic journey is spectacular.
You can find almost all of his artworks here.
Here is a small selection
When it comes to Dali I admire his creativity and skills as a painter. He also has a great range of styles. (He made quite a few cubist paintings himself.)But when it comes to his most famous work like the clocks and the pompous surrealist landscapes something about them just seem gaudy and kitsch to me.
Last edited by Frida Bergholtz; May 25th, 2014 at 11:14 AM. Reason: clarified a thing
My sketchbook http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=128951
okay, granted I do like some of the more impressionist type stuff he produced, still not up there with my favourites though...
Im interested as to how a surreal landscape can be pompous?
and thankyou for your reply, I was beginning to worry that this place has become a bit of a ghost town, which would sadden me quite a bit as its been no end of help over the years
I appreciate clear and simple line drawing and sketches even more than before. It's like a short novels i like to read the most instead 300 page books which is often just stretched shorts, chapter after chapter.
Same principle goes to 3d stuff as i'm doing 3d modelling and animation. i like to watch just plain 3d models with a simple gray material and simple hdri lightning, which gives good understanding of the style, form and effort. Less digital era "smoke and mirrors" in every year (post #15). 90% of commercial entertainment art looks the very same. In comps (front-, mid-, and background in thirds), color palettes, and even subject matters and storytelling. If u take 10 different Korean digital painters, you can see all these insane renderings, but can't tell the difference (in general speaking of course).
I had fresh appreciation for Picasso when I had to paint a cubist work for a school project. Cubism is way harder than it looks...especially making it look interesting.
I think my issue with Picasso (other than the aforementioned jerkiness) is that he tries a lot of different styles and movements on for size, but in each of those styles I have trouble locating what he has contributed of himself other than technique, if that makes sense?
I can see some Surrealism as being a bit on the pompous side, sure. It's like, hey, everybody, come look at me and my psychological hangups and neuroses! They're special because I am an artist!
Yeah, I really don't like Dali.
When I first started all art was pretty much broken into two categories, art that looks like things and art that doesn't. And in all of those works I knew the things I liked. Now that I am developing my own artistic eye I can pull out more specific details or techniques in pieces to enjoy or critique. Therefor I may not like an artist but I do have an educated appreciation for elements in the piece.
But there are so many artists now that are amazing for reasons that are much deeper because I am educated. And a deeper understanding and appreciation for good art leads to new discoveries of art almost everyday. But here are a few of my favorite.
I would have liked these before I knew anything about art because they are "pretty". But now I am blown away by them and could stare at the real thing until my legs gave out, then I would sit and study some more.
My Website I am available for work
Lazar Markovich Lissitzky or any Russian constructavism in general, I'm going into graphic desing and when i first saw it I went " greaaaaat a circle in the middle of a page, art hauh?" but after educating myself on some good 'ol art history, damn.
It made me really look at the design aspects we take for granted, the art was radically different from what came before it, and given the time period carried a ton of metaphors hidden within the designs.
It wasn't the first instance of clean cut advert like commercial art, but it's pretty darn close to the birth of how our commercialized art looks like right now. For any history nerds out there I really recomend looking up the context behind russian constructivision design.
Typography in general, Once you go through graphic design it's like taking the red pill...you start noticing letters EVERYWHERE, I've never been so happy or irritated at street side signs in my life.
Also pointalism...oh look a bunch of dots.....alot harder than it looks, on the same thought imressionism, maybe Claude Monet's bridge over a pond of water lilies doesn't look too great...until you realize how big it is in reality( how can you make something so cool if you can't even see what you're doing as a whole?).
I can go on for days....I'll let myself out.
Last edited by Mraukat; 1 Week Ago at 07:08 PM.
Appreciate more: Monet, and lots of the impressionists and pointillists. They do some pretty interesting things with optical tricks! (See Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing — fascinating book, recommend to everyone.) Also Michelangelo, after seeing an exhibit of his sketches.
Appreciate less: Leonardo da Vinci. Not because he wasn't incredible for his time, but because he was limited by the knowledge and technology of his time: it irks me when people say his work is better than modern artists just because he was an 'old master'. Give me Bouguereau over da Vinci any day.