Ooops, pushed that Post button a wee bit too early. The earliest Kandinsky did not come through, so here we try again. Sorry for the confusion.
Instead, criticize because you don't like what the artist did to the tree, the nude, the flute, the waterfall because......
Ooops, pushed that Post button a wee bit too early. The earliest Kandinsky did not come through, so here we try again. Sorry for the confusion.
Leni
I am bookmarking it. Will be returning later when I have more time.
Bump for later.
Thanks again for posting these threads - they're like an oasis - very refreshing.
Ah Hah - now I know where the monopoly game people got the idea for the design of the board game in that second from last painting in your post #1.
They look like any grade school child who was strung out on LSD could do them.
Instead, criticize because you don't like what the artist did to the tree, the nude, the flute, the waterfall because
All of these have the same features and characteristics (with the exception of the Titian which, while not exactly my style is infinitely better than the rest). They all seem to have fallen out of a drug induced haze. The mind rebells at the loudness and unreality of the colors, shapes etc.
These paintings are meant to be enjoyed for their visual pleasure: the contrast of line against color, very much like the sound of a clarinet with a violin. Music is not “representational.”
That's just it, they give no visual pleasure. While music is not necessarily representational (Although the best music is) it does have harmony and structure and flow. Else it is not music.
These paintings have no structure. They are just seemingly random splashes of paint on canvas. (This applies mostly to the later pictures in the post) They have no harmony, the colors and shapes clash more than fit. Compare the Titian where everything seems to fit together with the Matisse where nothing seems to fit (even though all the 'people' are nude). Matisse was obviously tripped out when he painted this and it was a bad trip.
All of these fail the sofa test. In fact, if it were not for the fact that some sucker would pay big bucks for them I'd burn the lot to make the world a better place by removing the ugliness. (get the feeling I don't care for these at all?)
I'd like to post a section of an email that I sent to another freeper:
"I have been fairly careful to say on these threads that theoretically, there is no reason I see that abstract art cannot be great art. I say this because representational art is abstract in itself, being nothing more than compositions of color shapes (painting). And it follows that the way in which the shapes are arranged (the "abstract" part of the art) is more important to the "art" of the thing than the accuracy of representation."
I mean to say that even with great representational art, it must be the abstract qualities which contribute most to that greatness.
Having said that, it is representational art which is my personal love, has been since I was a child. The artist I am currently enthralled with is Edward Hopper (Thanks to seeing his painting "Groundswell" on one of your threads, Professor). Who freely takes license with reality.
As for the Matisses and the others, it is hard not to like them...even so, I am not yet convinced that they go beyond good art to being great art.
Well, I agree that his figures, abstract as they are, are wonderfully lifelike. Full of movement and charm. I'm glad to know he can draw, it gives me assurance that he made things happen on purpose without total reliance on style. Whether or not he could draw accurately, he was surely successful in his purpose.
I think it very possible that Haals, Velasquez and others would take issue with the assertion that line and color were not freed from each other until the 20th century.