Posted on 01/30/2011 4:36:10 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The only reason I can see that the Gauguin is expected to fetch such a price is the history contained within the imagery. The sunflowers are dead because the famous painter of them is dead also, and this was intended to commemorate his passing.
It’s nice that everyone has different tastes in art.
(I’m not too fond of this one. To my totally untrained eye: Scratchy-itchy in unpleasant colors.)
We finally have a winner here!
Some things come across in a photo on a website, such as composition and subject matter. Color can fall flat or pick up an ugly cast. I don’t see color being able to carry this, it’s just not appealing on any level above and beyond the names associated with it and the moment in time that it represents.
I just saw the Dali exhibit at the High Museum. He is so much more than melted clocks. I could stand and look at the "Temptation of St. Anthony" for hours.
I think Picasso used to take a model to the tavern before a sitting and get her shiftfaced.
No, actually I’m more fond of several modernists than I am of certain impressionists. It’s far more challenging to work sparely than to create complexity, which hides any number of flaws. A stark Picasso stands on it’s own, there is interest as far as the interplay of color theory and even music with his work from the era that you cite. His earlier stuff was actually nearly monochrome and highly textured, which I find appealing as well, more than the work for which he’s famous on some days.
Dali was a bit of a grifter, to be perfectly honest, and it’s hard to separate the man from his work. It’s entertaining to view in an Alice In Wonderland, down the rabbit hole, trippy sort of way. It’s technically proficient and his use of color isn’t bad at all. But, he ain’t no Hieronymus Bosch, that’s for sure.
I think that was the point. It was taking some of Van Gogh's traditional subjects but painting it to reflect his depression and bleakness.
You points may be valid but I have seen composition and subject matter transcended in an original work by an unanticipated size or detail that does not come through in a photograph or even worse a digitized facsimile on a web-page. I suspect in this case color is much more important as it influences the impact of the composition. I know we both would still love to see it on display.
I wouldn’t mind seeing it in person at all, that’s true. In boom times there are often novice art collectors with loads of hot money to bid up works that really don’t merit the attention, but in a down economy such as this, you’d have to assume there’s something actually there. Then again, the hot money isn’t really all gone, either. Obama’s certainly pumping enough of it out, so I don’t know.
Great description. It's like when you go to the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus you can still feel the influence of P. T. Barnum, the grifter. It's just part of the purchase price of the entertainment.
It was this scene of some old park with oddly dressed people enjoying themselves near the water. The colors were odd in that they seemed to be painted in dots.
Not long after, we had a field trip to downtown Chicago; I don't recall if it was a class or a family thing. A major part of the visit was to the Institute. There, I learned that the painting was Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte by Georges Seurat, and I got to see it for my first time in all its glory.
Still later, during my college years in the 60's, I spent time in the windy city on various occasions and paid my second visit to the Institue. When I got to The Painting, and despite having seen it as a kid, I really wasn't prepared for its huge dimensions. The size is part of its impact of course.
I was also fascinated by the other impressionists, of which the Institute has, as you mentioned, an excellent collection.
Just a couple of Christmases ago during a visit with relatives in the area, I scheduled a day in downtown Chicago primarily to revisit the Art Institute and spend more time there than I previously had 40 years before.
There it was; the painting, clearly still the centerpiece of the Institute's collection.
Just watched it. Very good movie.
That being said, the painting does nothing for me. ;o)
It's just very surprisingly out of character. He knew Van Gogh quite well, painted portraits of him and was clearly very profoundly affected. That this comes from his Tahitian period makes it even more of an outlier, these typically are a riot of color.
I tend to associate Gauguin with paintings such as this, which is Les Alyscamps Arles:
There’s a connection locally with the Cone family and that collection has travelled down here, I’ve seen it. They had quite the eye and it was well worth the time.
I saw that painting first hand back in 1968 or so. As an artist myself, I was very impressed, in fact, I actually touched it. Put my finger tip on one of the flowers. Very thick oil painting. I was 18 at the time. Good thing that that was back in the day before cameras everywhere and storm trooper security or I’d still be in the slammer.
Art is subjective, no matter what one’s political philosophy is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.