Painters and Visual Artists

Does anyone here, enjoy visual arts, other than film & television? I am thinking mostly of painting, drawing, and printing (woodcuts, etc.). Other strictly visual forms are welcome, but let's try to limit ourselves to non moving images.

For no special reason, I will start things off with Gaugin. He is best known for his "primitive" post-Impressionist Tahitian scenes. These rather abstract (undetailed), and flat images, are for the most part, not to my taste, and strike me more as just illustrative, or decorative imagery. Of course, this is just one example of a painter's work presaging the modern art move to abstraction. Renoir is another artist, a bit older (one of the original Impressionists), who also, in his later years, moved from his startlingly intricate brushwork, and complex color palettes, to produce images that were less realistic, more solid & sculptural in their form, and more about of the drafting, and the construction of these shapes, in the overall painting's design. This work, also, I don't care for, in general, the way I love his earlier work. Though to really appreciate Renoir, one has to see the works in person, so your eyes can be drawn into the threadwork, of his intertwining brush strokes.

Gaugin, also, could do lush, and more realistic work, that was not at all cartoonish. In fact, he worked in numerous styles, which are interesting, in their contrast-- being used for different effects. Even though it is only a minority of his works that I enjoy-- and maybe for that very reason-- I'd like to start off with sharing some of those.






Actually, another thing that I just discovered, is that numerous of Gaugin's paintings are very similar to the colored pencil drawing, I did when I was younger, and trying to pursue visual arts, with some seriousness. I will get around, after showing a number of his works, similar to the one above, to include an old drawing of mine, for comparison.

 

Provided there is any interest, I will get around to giving the titles and dates of the paintings; but, for now, I just want to get this thread off the ground. For a general idea, most of the images I grabbed, were from the 1880s and 1890s. Impressionism got started in the 1860s, but didn't come into its own until the 1870s and '80s. (Abstraction, got its foothold with Cubism, around 1910, though I haven't yet shared any of Gaugin's work, leading in that direction.)

 

The connection I see to the way I used to think of my own work, is that these give me a feeling that they are both "real"-- as opposed Surrealist work, which typically looks fake, that is, clearly seem to be representing ideas and imaginary things-- but not the way we generally see reality. So, another way I used to describe my work, was that it looks not like conventional reality, that it has a fantastic quality to it, but looks like it could be wholely real, as on some other world.

To my mind, it includes a greater part of reality, than we get with Photo Realism. It seems to capture a deeper, inner essence, a spirit, if you will, dwelling within these places, in nature. So I think of it as more real than, or beyond, superficial reality.

Of course, the way that Gaugin experiences that spirit, is part of the perception, he's conveying, in the work. So, it may just be that I recognize, and identify with, his impression of of the character of Nature.














Here, I thought, was a perfect place to include a snapshot of my own work, but I don't seem to be able to get my camera to put the picture in the correct disposition, with the top of the picture, at the top of the screen. I've taken the photo with the top at the top, bottom and sides of my shot, in both portrait and landscape directions; yet all images are either sideways or upside down.

In my old phone, I could rotate a phone, 90° at a time, in either direction, to reacclimate a picture, but not on this phone. I tried asking under "help," but I will save that story, for another thread I've been wanting to start, on the ubiquitous incompetence, manifest in our society. Suffice it to say, my record of having never actually received any assistance, from the "help" option, remains unmarred.


Instead, I'll include a few more landscapes, which feel to me, to be alive.

 

OK, I'll start expanding from the landscape painting, I've so far shown.

Here is a nude model, which is really a lovely painting, though I don't know how well it will translate, on the computer screen.





The impression I get, from the frothy look, of the rippled white sheet, beneath the young woman, is that this is meant to evoke that h myth of Aphrodite, who arose from the sea foam, after the Titan Cronus castrated his father, Uranus, and threw his testicles into the ocean.

Here is a little bit more of a closeup:







As a side note, since it is a current issue-- who feels that an image like this should be banned from school books, and for what ages?

I personally think the whole idea of protecting people from nudity is both silly, and has risen to being greatly overdone. There were quite a few of Gaugin's paintings of Tahitian women, which were blurred, on my phone, until I went into my settings, and turned off that feature. But these paintings are far less realistic, than pictures in a National Geographic magazine. Here are a couple that had been covered over, and unviewable:















The next one, is the "Tahitian Eve:"







I'll add a few more scenes, with figures:

 

I don't know how to find it but a number of years ago, I posted some of my portfolio of my original tattoo art mostly in the form of pen and ink and color pencil and drawing pencil.

I was looking for my portfolio the other day I had trouble locating it. It's somewhere around here I'll have to post it again.

I used to tattoo professionally in my early twenties and I have numerous tattoos I did on my own body myself.

But one day I just kind of lost the spirit and I'm ashamed to say I haven't even really drawn anything in well over 10 years.

I would like to try my hand at murals one day and I would also like to get into doing some metal art but it seems that all I do is work and sleep for the most part when I'm not laying around convalescing from a broken ankle.

A few people have told me I have a natural eye for photography. All I do when I take a picture of something and try to get it centered in the frame and look for something interesting.

 

Absolutely. I've got a BfA from one of the finest art schools in the country. Kudos for opening this thread.

Beautiful painting - I haven't seen that one before.

I'm not a big fan of Gaugin's Tahitian paintings either, but by that point in his career he had moved beyond Impressionism and on to a style that was similar to the Fauves. Gaugin's Tahitian scenes are very reminiscent of many of Henri Matisse's paintings.

Since you started with the Impressionists, I'm going to start with a painter who was WAY ahead of his time, the Mannerist painter Domḗnikos Theotokópoulos, aka El Greco (b. 1541- d. 1614). As far as painting is concerned, I consider him the father of Modern Art, and in his paintings you can see how he anticipated the Impressionists and German Expressionists. This is a detail from one of his masterpieces, and you can see how he was already playing with form and color:



Amazing to think he was painting during the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

I like this painting because it illustrates the transition El Greco was making in his work. The man in the background was painted in a style that was more typical of the time, but the women in the foreground are treated in an entirely Modern fashion (shades of Picasso). Again, he's playing with form, and the color is magnificent.



(cont.)

 

More examples of El Greco's Modernistic painting:



Again, WAY ahead of its time, and this portrait is wonderful:



Now he's diffusing form and using color in a manner similar to the Impressionists and Expressionists who came along 200+ years later.

El Greco was an artistic visionary. I have a hard time thinking of any artist who was so far ahead of his/her own time.

 

Photography is a wonderful medium, and some people do have a better eye for it than others.

I had the good fortune of studying under a fantastic color photographer, George Nan, and he really helped me develop my eye for light and color, and I took that and applied it to the work I did in film, video and computer graphics later. The tough part about photography is you have to work with what's out there - it's not like painting where you can create anything out of thin air.

The only exception to that is infrared photography. Whether you're shooting in black and white or color you can create images that can't be found in nature. George Nan liked to work in color infrared and one of my best friends in college worked in black and white infrared and her work was simply amazing. The way B&W infrared can alter light is amazing and she took it to a level I have never seen out of any other photographer. Some of her work was downright ethereal - it was hard to believe that except for the film it was straightforward photography.

This is a cool example of the crazy stuff you can get with B&W infrared:



Working in this requires a serious eye for light and an ability to anticipate what the film is going to do with that light. My friend shot a photo of her boyfriend laying next to a stream on a sunny day where the light was sparkling on the surface of the water and the infrared film made it look like a star field. It was incredible stuff, and it's because she had an exceptional eye for photography. It's funny because when she started school she really wasn't into photography but then she kinda stumbled into it and found her medium.

 

One of the things that I thought made Gaugin a good starting place, is that there were so many directions to go, form there. I had actually been thinking, because of the landscape work that has been the focus, thus far, of going back to the pre-Impressionist, Barbizon painters, like T.H. Rousseau, and Corot, of the Romantic era (though Corot started in a neo-Classical style, and was ultimately one of the grandfathers, or at least great-uncles, of Impressionism; but I'll save my comments on his work, for later). Of course, as I'd already intimated, from Gaugin, it would also be natural to proceed forward, into Expressionism, Cubism, and other Modern Art forms. It's funny you mention Matisse, because he is also an artist I had wanted to highlight who, like Gaugin, I am not a huge fan of all his work, but who I think has some very nice pieces. I was lucky enough to see a vast exhibit at MOMA, featuring the pair of Picasso and Matisse, who clearly paid attention to each others' work. Anyway, that also, I will save, for the appropriate time.

Amazing to think he was painting during the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

I like this painting because it illustrates the transition El Greco was making in his work. The man in the background was painted in a style that was more typical of the time, but the women in the foreground are treated in an entirely Modern fashion (shades of Picasso). Again, he's playing with form, and the color is magnificent.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I've seen El Greco's work, in the Metropolitan Museum, and was very impressed, myself, with how daring he had been, in his use of color. While I think your observations are very true, about the Impressionists & Expressionists, I associated his work, in my own mind, more with the Surrealists.

I am unfortunately pressed for time, right now, so I will end with a thanks for your reply.

 

FatBack! Hey, thanks for the reply-- I'd forgotten to hit "watch thread," so I didn't see your post, until just now (because Talon had quoted me). A former tattoo artist, huh? That's cool. Before you gave up your cable, did you ever see that competition program, for tattooists? I watched one season, but then my cable plan stopped covering the channel, in the basic plan. I think it was called Ink Master, or something like that.

I'm afraid I'm in a rush, right now, but as for photography, if you want to try your hand at it, I highly recommend you get a real camera, a 35mm (referring to the film it uses) SLR (single lens reflex). IOW, not just use your phone, or one of those auto-everything cameras. You have to be able to control your focal point, to do any really uniquely individual type of work, IMHO.

I will touch back with you, later. But thanks, for being the first to officially reply, to my thread.

 

Here are a couple of pieces from a contemporary artist who I'm rather fond of, Njideka Akunyili Crosby. She's a 40 year old artist who was born in Nigeria and currently lives in LA. She works in different media, and these two are mixed media:

 

While I was driving home your comment made me think of the Czech artist Alphonse Mucha. Get a load of the size of these paintings:



The biggest piece I ever painted was 4 by 8 feet, which is tiny compared to Mucha's paintings in The Slav Epic.

Most Westerners know him from his Art Nouveau poster work, which I like, too - his line work is very elegant:

 

Two pieces from The Slav Epic - this one might be my favorite:



Some people might not consider these paintings "fine art", but creating art for art's sake was not Mucha's intent with his Epic. He wanted to create something "accessible" for the Czech people that celebrated their heritage, and who can deny the man had talent out the wazoo?

 

Of course, this is all very Art Nouveau which isn't everybody's cup of meat, but I think they have a very interesting and appealing quality to them. You can tell the artist was a very religious and spiritual man - it shows through the paintings in the Epic.

 

Before we depart Alphonse Mucha's work I wanted to post this ad he did promoting Euripides' tragedy Medea - the expression on her face is just what one would expect from a character who murders her own children (creepy).

Say what you will about Mucha's paintings, but his posters are fantastic...

 

Interesting that the poster is designed as it would be, if it were a stained glass depiction, as in a church window.

The color palette is also strong, the way that, while we see little pure red, it has infused everything in the scene, been soaked up, like so much blood, into the oranges of the background, and the violets, purples, and mauves, of Medea's cloak.

 

While not my favorite type of work, the pastel appearance of the piece, is visually appealing, with the diffused white solidifying in the foreground, to give an excellent impression of space. That is, within its fairly narrow confines, one gets the sense of it being a much broader scene. One might even think that this was a detailed look at a section of a much larger scene.

 

Everything works together, very well, here, in giving a botanical feel. While enjoyable for its decorative aspect, there is clearly more depth to the piece. What are the mixed media, in this and the other work, you showed us, from N.A. Crosby?

 

How does one "learn" to do that? Is it a matter of just experimentation, using yourself & your (hopefully) willing friends? Or did you serve in some sort of apprenticeship?

 

School of hard knocks.
I had always been somewhat artistic growing up but then when I found myself cooling my heels in the clink, I had lots of time on my hands.

I started by tracing other people's drawings on paper and filling it in and then eventually after enough time of doing that I started forming my own ideas of original art.

And then when I eventually started tattooing it was easy enough to find willing subjects to work on for free. Then my work got good enough that I could demand payment.

It is a rather lucrative though forbidden way of making some good money in the pokey.

By the time I got out I was good enough to work in a shop already. I wouldn't say that I was the greatest at the time but I had seen far worse coming out of shops. I understand there are apprenticeships but you will pay good money for them.

Here is the last tattoo I did on myself about 14 years ago.

If I can ever locate my portfolio around this house I will post some of my original pin and ink and color pencil and graphite pencil drawings.

 

Not that I would have ever become a tattoo artist-- I am too fond of being able to erase-- but had I been learning to well express my drawn templates, onto the canvas of skin, I can imagine myself going out to get cheap cuts of pork, with a heavy layer of fat upon them-- chicharrón, and such-- upon which to practice; maybe using food coloring, on the outer fat of a leg of lamb. But I know this "play it safe" attitude, is contrary to the whole tattoo headspace.

 

That's why so many tattoo artists tend to have a percentage of pretty garbage work on their self that they haven't gotten around to fixing up yet.....

I learned on me so you don't have to be the crash test dummy.

 

To clarify what I'd said earlier, I didn't mean that El Greco's techniques, I associated with the Surrealist painters (Dali, etc.), but that the El Greco painting or two, I'd seen in person, had a surreal quality to them. In the examples you provide, I would say the same of your scene of the Holy family, w/ Mary's sister, or whoever, come to see the newborn Jesus; not really so, for some of the others.

Anyway, this, and your kind of surreal photograph, with infra-red film, I will use to bring me back to the same time period in which I'd begun the thread, to talk about actually my favorite group of artists-- who aren't the Impressionists: they are the Naturalists. I'll start with this introductory source, although my understanding of the group differs from the way it is here depicted. This author includes the painters of the Barbizon School, who I'd earlier mentioned-- T.H. Rousseau, and Camille Corot, as well as Millet & Daubigny, whose work I had copied, as an exercise in drafting-- as members of the Naturalist School, for which he puts the origin in the1820s. He also includes the highly influential artist Gustave Courbet, whose work leaves me non-plussed. But I have nowhere, before, heard Courbet referred to as a member of the Naturalist School. I think he really means that these artists inspired the true group, who met and discussed art, much as did the Impressionists, except that the Naturalists did have an acknowledged leader. My own understanding, was that the true "Naturalist" group formed around Jules Bastien- Lepage, in the latter part of the 19th century, roughly parallel with Impressionism. Even though Lepage is not one of my favorites, the whole group has that true surreal quality to their work, that I had spoken about, earlier in the thread: realistic, but with an element of the unreal; the word this author uses, is "hyperreal."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theartstory.org/amp/movement/naturalism/

<Snip>
Naturalism" is a term with a vexed and complex history in art criticism. It has been used since the 17th century to refer to any artwork which attempts to render the reality of its subject-matter without concern for the constraints of convention, or for notions of the 'beautiful'. But since the late 19th century, it has also been used to refer to a movement within painting - initially seen to be based in France, but whose origins and legacies were latterly found to extend all over the world - which attempted to depict the human subject in its formative relationships with natural habitats and social milieus, with a visual accuracy approaching that of photography. Informed by elements of Romanticism and Realism, Naturalism was at one time the dominant trend in Western art, only retrospectively eclipsed by the attention paid to its contemporary movement, Impressionism.

Key Ideas & Accomplishments
Naturalism partly inherited the legacy of Realism, a school of French painting which rose to prominence in the mid-19th century, whose exponents, such as Gustave Courbet, focused on scenes of everyday working life. Naturalism is often equated with Realism, but it was only defined some decades later - experiencing its heyday during the 1870-80s - and was more concerned than the older movement with a hyperreal visual compositional precision; and with integrating the human figure into an enveloping landscape or scenario. In this sense, the unique achievement of Naturalism was perhaps to fuse the ideology of Realism with the techniques and effects of Romantic landscape painting.

Naturalism was one of the first movements in modern art to give expression to nationalist and regionalist sentiments. From the Norwich School of painters based in rural east England to the Peredvizhniki group whose touring exhibitions took them all over Russia, Naturalist artists tethered their aesthetics to particular locations: often rurally located, and always ones with which the artists were deeply and intimately familiar. This was one of the ways in which Naturalist painters helped to democratize art, making its subjects comprehensible and familiar to a larger viewership.

The development of Naturalism, like the evolution of modern art in general, was profoundly impacted by the development of photography. But whereas the general effect of this new technology was to force painters into other areas of creativity than the lifelike representation which the camera could achieve in minutes, Naturalist painters took on the new medium on its own terms, creating works of hypnotically lifelike effect which were unparalleled in art history.
<End>

I will begin with some images of an American Naturalist, Daniel Ridgway Knight who, like all of those I think of as the Naturalist group, travelled to France to study, and at some point came into Lepage's circle. An attribute I have noticed among the Naturalists, has been a Symbolic element, encoded in many of the works, often alluding to the idea of death, and the passing over, to the other side. Here is a painting which I find to cast a potent, arcane hypnotism, in which, correctly or not, I had perceived that idea of the Crossing, called "Hailing the Ferry,"






The rest of these examples, I lazily just grabbed from one museum's site, which has a relatively large collection of Ridgway Knight's work.

 

Picasso...

One can't help but appreciate how innovative he was, but it would be a stretch for me to say I'm a big fan of his work. What I've found more interesting are his thoughts about art, and Picasso's selections in this book are amongst the best:


https://www.amazon.com/Artists-Art-XIV-XX-Century/dp/0394709004

That is one of my all time favorite books and probably the oldest surviving book in my personal library. I bought it back when I was attending art school back in the '80s and I'm amazed that it still can be found, much less purchased. It's a must-read for art students and highly recommended for anyone who appreciates fine art and the thinking behind it. What makes it interesting is that the subject matter involves everything from art itself to philosophy, religion, Mankind, the world, you name it. It's not just a book about the technical aspects of painting, sculpture, etc. - it's much broader and more interesting than that. One of the things Picasso said in that book explaining why he ventured into abstract art is that he wanted to paint what something evoked inside of him, not simply what something looked like. He said if all he was interested in was the challenge of reproducing people, landscapes and objects in the most realistic representation possible he might as well spend all his time trying to draw a perfect circle. I always liked that quote, and it's one of the many great observations he makes in Artists on Art.

Nice - I've never had the opportunity to see his work in person.

I can see what you're sayin about the Surrealists. Salvador Dali clearly used to distort human form and proportions in a manner similar to that of El Greco, and being that Dali was a Spaniard and El Greco worked in Spain I have to assume the former was familiar with the work of the latter.