I believe what you told me earlier but it is so hard to believe that Picasso wasn't really strung out on some very hard ass drugs. I do believe Van Gogh was very fond of absinth.
Anyone ever heard of Terrance McKenna? Or more specifically his " stoned ape theory " He postulates that all throughout the history of mankind that our ancestors have used mind altering drugs of many different sorts and he furthermore states that it has affected everything from literature to architecture to poetry to visual forms of art. I think he's on to something. I think a certain percentage of everyone has always been on something.
Yes, I'm familiar, and we'd chatted about it, in the past. But it does not prove, nor even imply, that Picasso was a stoner. First, I think McKenna's theory pertains most exclusively, to hallucinogens. In fact, in the book of his which I'd read, he calls psilocybin, "magic" mushrooms, the "original Tree of Knowledge." But he stipulates much subtler effects, in general, than you are here suggesting. So maybe "the stoned ape," is his other theory, also in that book, that addiction to drugs, is the natural human condition. While this does cover all kinds of drugs, I recall nothing presented in my book's relating of this idea, about this controlling the course of all forms of human development, at least artistically, which seems to be your implication, in deciding to introduce this otherwise off-topic subject. Of course, you didn't say that drugs had done anything more than have an effect on "everything from literature to architecture to poetry to visual forms of art." While I think that statement is manifestly true, it would not equate to the idea that all artistic innovation, has been rooted in drug use. While the various factors, contributing to artistic invention-- including from the mundane; to organic mutations in our genes, affecting perception; and to even speculations of the influence of, because of our capability to access it, Universal knowledge (the Akashic Records)-- is an interesting subject, I think it would be wandering too far afield, unless you were to specifically tie it to a particular artist's work. So if, for example, you were to notice a very frequent motif of mushrooms or mushroom shapes, in a given artist's work, then that would be a most welcomed thing, for you to let us all in on. Barring that, however, can I ask your opinion about the images in my post #95, which was the first set I'd presented, of Dora and Jacquelin, which remind me of the type of symbolic images, one might expect to see on a deck of Tarot cards, for instance. Do you think that's my imagination, or do you think there might be something to the idea, that Picasso thought of his paintings of these two, in a similar way, as each work representing (as based on aspects of the model's character) certain, larger principles?
I certainly like it more than the other painting. The Cubist influence does make it a bit busy but what makes that painting is the interplay and application of color. The translucence of the paint is most atypical of Expressionist work. At last we [inevitably] arrive at Picasso's work. Again, I'm more a fan of his art on a conceptual level, but that of course is purely subjective on my part....
Modern Art, in general, is more manifestly "conceptual," than earlier art; but I understand what you mean. It was only my ability to attend, in person, numerous, major Picasso exhibits, over the years, which allowed me to find a cache of interesting and likeable pieces, by the prolific artist. That is not at all the same as saying that I am fond of his work, in a general sense. Yet, the more of his work I see, the more I find, that is worth viewing. The first exhibit I'd seen in which Picasso was featured, was specifically about Cubism, focused upon the time when Braque and Picasso worked together, at the birth of this movement. I did not care at all, for Braque's work. While it did not make me a fan, at that point, I did find a few of Picasso's works, to have an appeal. Next, I'd seen a large retrospective, looking at all of Picasso's work. This is how I first learned how classifiable, and definable, Picasso's art is, based on the particular woman, which was central to his life, at any given time. Of the more than a half dozen of these, it was only the Dora Maar work, by which I was particularly struck (though the Jacqueline pieces held some appeal, as well). These both represented Picasso's late work. <Google Snip> Did Picasso have a lot of lovers? Pablo Picasso (1881–1973) had complicated relationships with many of the women in his life—he either revered them or abused them, and typically carried on romantic relationships with several women at the same time. He was married twice and had multiple mistresses and it can be argued that his sexuality fueled his art. Oct 19, 2019 https://www.thoughtco.com › picass... Pablo Picasso's Women: Wives, Lovers, and Muses - ThoughtCo <End Snip> Though that Dora Maar work I showed, is considered Surrealist, I feel that some of it also has an Expressionistic character/energy (which seems to be a movement of interest, to you). Would you agree, in the examples, below? This first one, is probably the most obvious case in point: Look not at the subjects' actual expressions, but at the dynamic energy of the line work, and at the bold, Primitivist use of color. I think we get an overt sense of Picasso's subjective feelings, about his subject, which is the primary component of Expressionism. In this next one, it seems to me that Picasso is presenting the subject as a painted, wooden image, or idol. To my mind, it is hard to say, this is not expressing Picasso's own, private emotions. While this one bears more resemblance to other Expressionist work, I don't think it reads of Picasso's personal, experiential perspective, as clearly as the ones, above. Lastly, in this depiction of a fish-woman, my thinking of it, as having some Expressionist characteristics, is the more subjective feeling. I make that connection through the emotional mood, which is the painting's aura. To try to point to specifics would only allow me to mention things, that could be suggestive of the artist's individual view, such as the extemporaneous feel of the lines, in the hands, arms, and body, and the rough application of color, therein. The painting seems equal parts of the subject model, and of Picasso's imagination, instigated by that model.
Can someone please explain to me what makes most of Jackson Pollack's stuff worth several million dollars? I can do just about everything he ever painted but no one has ever offered me penny one for any of them. How does he get people to do that? I mean this seriously.
What year is this work from? So would you say Kandinsky, then began as a Fauvist? The brushwork actually reminds me a bit of the 1905 painting by Vlamick, "Le restaurant de la Machine a Bouvigal." So you, then, I assume, are a fan of Fauvism?
I just came across another Fauvist painting, by Raoul Dufy, which kind of called to my mind, that August Macke painting. What do you think, regarding any similarities?
@Talon , In fact-- and I find this funny as hell-- Macke & Dufy, from their self portraits, look like they could be brothers! Here is the Macke portrait, you'd posted: And here is Dufy's: Resemblance, or not?
I am somewhat familiar with Paik's work, which was somewhat typical of the art and experimentation one saw out of the early wave of media artists during the 1960s and 70s. My own mentor Walter Wright - see Post #68 - was one of those pioneering artists who worked out of The Kitchen in New York. Walter is mentioned in this article where you can also see one of the videos who made with Dmitri Devyatkin back in 1972 called Sachdev: Visual Music at the Mercer Street Kitchen (1971–1973) By Nick Hallett, musician, artist, curator https://onscreen.thekitchen.org/media/visual-music-at-the-mercer-street-kitchen-1971-1973 As you can see, there are some stills of Paik's work there, but what I found more interesting was his comment that “the cathode ray tube will replace the canvas.” First of all, there is no replacing the canvas. What video introduced was a new electronic canvas, and for me the cathode ray tube is the paint brush (which is why I mentioned 'painting with cathode ray tubes' in Post #62) and what you see on the video screen is the "canvas". Yes, I'm splitting hairs here and perhaps it's all semantics because you can see that we are essentially coming from the same conceptual space that sees video as a fascinating new medium and creative frontier. As is the case with other media, you can bring the concepts associated with other media, such as painting and film, to video but just as film is not theater, video exists sui generis. Incidentally, I saw the ads for the Paik special and was looking forward to watching it and then I forgot all about it! Oh well, maybe next time.... Now that you mention it, it does.
Kandinsky's paining is from the around the same time period - 1908 - and I would say his work from that period could be described and/or classified as Fauvist. In general, yes. As I mentioned in an earlier post I'm a BIG fan of color, and the Fauves were all about color. Unfortunately, that came at the expense of form in some cases, but I guess you can't have everything.
Originality, for starters. I wouldn't pay millions for Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon but its value is in its originality.
Maybe I’m just a beer kinda guy trying to evaluate champagne, but I don’t understand what makes those paintings so valuable.
Well not all paintings, will appeal to all viewers. But all paintings-- not just Expressionist ones, which are supposed to be about the artist's individual inner experience-- show you the world, through that artist's eyes. Still, it takes time, to really adopt another's viewpoint, to be willing to (briefly) surrender your own personal way of seeing the world. If one is unwilling to do so, that individual is really closing themself off to appreciating art, and experiencing another perspective. You could almost think of viewing art, like taking a drug. But to get this psychological effect, requires the investment of the adherent's focus, and time: you can't expect to snort a line of art, and be instantly changed. You need to be in a patient place, open to absorbing whatever you see. If you do that, with say, one particular artist's work, or all similar work (like Impressionist winter scenes), for long enough then, when you resume your ordinary life, from my experience, you will retain, for a time, the ability to see your own world, through this new lens, you have acquired. The same way as meditation will change a person's brain waves-- and, with repeated practice, reinforces new patterns-- so will the way you see things, have actually changed! But probably best to start with some work that holds some immediate appeal for you. Is there anything yet posted, in this thread, that comes close to achieving that?
Pablo and his homies were into opium during his youth and the paintings he created during his Blue Period are thought to reflect his opium use. Later on, most notably when he started going abstract with his artwork, he became addicted to coke. Eventually, he got over that and just drank a lot. The good news is that he lived to be 92 so there's hope for all the hardy partiers out there yet. Pablo's drug use had little to nothing to do with the direction (abstraction) he took his art but I'm not going to state that it didn't influence his art at all, because it's pretty clear that it did. He most certainly was [too] fond of The Green Fairy, and the drugs he took for his physical and mental disorders may have influenced his art, too. Even though I hate the taste of Anise I'd be interested to give Absinthe a try (probably once and that's it), but you still can't get the real thing in the U.S.: ILLEGAL ABSINTHE - ABSINTHE LEGAL STATUS IN THE UNITED STATES https://www.originalabsinthe.com/absinthe-blog/absinthe-united-states-legal-status.html
I've never heard of the dude but his theory is legit. There's no question mind-altering drugs have effected everything, most particularly the arts. Speaking from my own personal experience and observations during the time I attended art school, I saw far more artists experimenting with and using mind-altering drugs (particularly psychedelics) than I ever have amongst the general public. Why this would surprise anyone is a mystery to me - artists and mind-altering drugs have gone together far longer than I've been around....
I actually came across another Raoul Dufy, that was structurally reminiscent of the August Macke, Cubist - Expressionist landscape, from 1911 (with Tree of Light? ). Dufy's 1909 Houses in Munich (shown first). Interestingly, this work has a much more Expressionist feel to it, though Dufy was a Fauvist. I would say, it feels more "Expressionist," than the Expressionist Macke's, which has more of a Surrealist feel, to my mind.
To build on that "crossover" concept, from the last post, in which I proposed that Expressionist August Macke's painting, had a pronounced Surrealist appearance (in addition to the Cubist element, mentioned by Talon), I recall I had previously posted about how I had felt some of the "Surrealist" Dora Maar work, by Picasso, had an "Expressionist" energy. So, that brings us to Fauvist Vlamick, whose work I had never before looked at. His stuff seems very interesting, in that, though his principle subject matter, is buildings (& nature), his work is extremely atmospheric, strongly impressing the viewer with the state of mind of, presumably, the painter-- that is, it has a very Expressionist feel-- while also seeming Surreal: dreamlike, & often nightmarish; so he achieves a hat trick syncretism, of "isms." That last one, I could almost imagine being painted by an Impressionist, like Pisarro or Sisley, except for the almost melodramatic lighting: the spots of sun, hitting just a couple of spots, in the left fore- and midground, while one can feel the darkness all around, creeping closer. As I'd said, the environment, the weather, imparts a distinct personality, to each scene. Since there's only room for one more, I'd thought this last one, was closer to a straightforward landscape, but I see that, once again, I can practically hear the chilling music, whispering in the background.
I'll show a little bit more variety, for Vlamick, with my, as yet unposted, leftovers. There is a reflective scene on the water; a Japanese- inspired, covey of homes; a scene with so much sun or moonlight, glaring off the grasses, that they become a rushing torrent; some off-kilter perspectives, worthy of Alfred Hitchcock; and even a few brighter scenes.