Thank you, Psalm, for the ping. Whenever I get one of your rare ones, I know the discussion is worthwhile. I haven’t read all the posts on this thread, but I scanned a few. While I can’t share your sentiments re: Kincade [neutral and unobjectionable as they were], it did bring to mind a recent fascinating discussion I had w a real, singularly talented bona fide artist.
It came about when I read an AT article that lumped Jackson Pollock and Pablo Picasso into the same no-talent category. I don’t care for Pollock, and my non-artistic view is that Picasso had real and simply amazing talent. So I asked this artist if he agreed.
He said in art circles the ‘right’ answer is that they’re equally good. He said personally he gives more than a minor edge to Picasso. But he followed that w the part I found extraordinarily fascinating.
Namely, he described the time he viewed Monet’s work firsthand in a gallery. He told me—which I didn’t know—that the famous Haystacks are gargantuan. Just colossal. He said from close at hand they look like nothing more than chaotic colors thrown together; you have to step back at least 20 feet to see the actual haystacks emerge. [Monet had a special pulley system designed to enable him to paint them.]
He said he came away awestruck at Monet’s genius. Then he said he’s never viewed a Pollock at similarly close quarters. He had, however, observed Pollocks’ early work, and told me the man had sufficient artistic ‘chops’ to make it at any type of art he chose: realism, impressionism, etc. He said he was reserving ultimate judgment on his later works until, as he hoped, he one day saw them in a gallery.
Something to think about. My artist friend didn’t change my mind, but he gave me tons of food for deep reflection.
Fwiw.
No doubt, Monet was brilliant.
The soft combinations of colors, the diffuse borders, the subject matter itself leave one with a peace that is practically unmatched.
Van Gogh is now and will always be my favorite.
It makes one wonder about motives. Monet’s works do not make me wonder about past or future or circumstances. But I saw a copy of a simple still life by Van Gogh that showed shoes in a closet and it brought to my imagination ten thousand questions about who wore the shoes, where they were worn, what path they trod...
Picasso had two important qualities. First, he was technically, a great painter.
Secondly, he was crazy.
His artistry takes you to a place where you almost immediately forget the picture and start to reflect (internally reflect) on the meaning.
That’s not always an easy thing to do, even writers have a hard time sometimes of using narrative and making the reader wonder how that reflects them.
I am getting to be an older man now, spent most of my life with computers.
But if I could live my life again, it would be with watercolors at hand.
Your friend is spot on about actually viewing the orignal works. Back in the day I thought Gustav Klimt was an unparalleled genius, and that Egon Schiele was merely a creepy frustrated pornographer. These impressions were based on a LOT of serious study of bookbound reproductions.
I was very fortunate to view many of the originals one summer, and my ranking for these two artists reversed positions. Klimt’s work seemed tight, tentative and too controlled. Looking at the originals the work looked very academic and ‘safe’. Technically proficient, even brilliant, but . . . inert. I was -very- disappointed to see some of these things which had been favorites of mine - in reproduction.
Schiele on the other hand. Incredible. His work was spontaneous, visceral, and atavistic. In all of his works, the sense of the person was there, in an almost confrontational way. Certainly many here would reject a great many of his works based on subject matter, but his work captured power and subtleties in a way that I have only seen one of the Old Masters meet and in that case surpass.