[Syd]

There are so many "The (...)" thread's; is there an art thread? I haven't seen one, at least. If there is one, -moderators- feel free to remove this one. If not, let's get this going.

Post artsy pictures here with a little description as to why you chose it.

[Abood]

La condition humaine, by René Magritte.



I chose it because it speaks truth: things aren't always what they appear to be.




Bagism appears to be one of those concepts of contemporary art that have no meaning, but it's not.

Bagism is a term which was created by John Lennon and Yoko Ono as part of their extensive peace campaign in the late 1960s. The intent of bagism was to satirize prejudice and stereotyping. Bagism involved literally wearing a bag over one's entire body. According to John and Yoko, by living in a bag, a person could not be judged by others on the basis of skin color, gender, hair length, attire, age, or any other such attributes. It was presented as a form of total communication. Instead of focusing on outward appearance, the listener would hear only the bagist's message.

[Okonkwo]

Impression, soleil levant by Claude Monet.

"Landscape is nothing but an impression, and an instantaneous one, hence this label that was given us, by the way because of me. I had sent a thing done in Le Havre, from my window, sun in the mist and a few masts of boats sticking up in the foreground....They asked me for a title for the catalogue, it couldn't really be taken for a view of Le Havre, and I said: 'Put Impression."
(Claude Monet)



At Eternity's Gate by Vincent Van Gogh. It captures the nature of Existenzangst and despair so perfectly.

[Oxymoron]

He is just upset his foot is on fire.

[Okonkwo]

He is just upset his foot is on fire.

You should become an art critic.

[Abood]

At Eternity's Gate by Vincent Van Gogh. It captures the nature of Existenzangst and despair so perfectly.

So true.

[Nets]

bigger version: http://www.italianprog.com/pictures/qvl2.jpg

[Syd]

He is just upset his foot is on fire.

[Okonkwo]

^ Great picture. Monet's water lilies are superb.



Femme aux Bras Croisés by Picasso.

"An inmate, who recently attempted suicide and now carries the blank but menacing stare of those unfortunates who found themselves at Saint-Lazare during the early 1900s."
(Antonina Vallentin)

Too bad I wasted so much time in Montmartre getting high, I would have loved to go to the Musée Picasso. I really regret that.

[Quantum]

Flaming June, by Frederic Lord Leighton.

[Okonkwo]

Rothko is astonishing, so raw and powerful.

[Nets]

^ For real? I don't get it.

[Okonkwo]

^ For real? I don't get it.

It's unfortunate, but there is nothing to be "gotten" here. Rothko is about emotion and that which cannot be depicted by familiar objects, if the picture doesn't evoke a certain feeling in the viewer, either the artist has failed on some or another level or the viewer is too close-minded and uptight to accept the premise. The art is meant to be an adventure into the unknown, stemming from a lack of a direct association with anything particular in the picture, it's about passion and freedom, anarchy, idiosyncrasy and, in the case of Rothko, nihilism.
That's basically what sets post-19th century art apart from the craft that was art before the Impressionists.

"We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth."

Take a look at an early Rothko where he attempts to evoke the same response with more familiar concepts, certainly as effective but much less unique and creative.

"The exhilarated tragic experience, is for me the only source of art."



Underground Fantasy by Mark Rothko



The Sick Child by Edvard Munch

[Syd]

The Sick Child by Edvard Munch

I see this one being much more powerful than Rothko's work you posted prior to your newest post.

What are your responses to this one, Okonkwo and Nets?



'Magenta, Black, Green on Orange' by Mark Rothko



Another one of Claude Monet's beauties.

[Okonkwo]

I see this one being much more powerful than Rothko's work you posted prior to your newest post.

It's all matter of perspective. Munch is much more direct, that's certain.

What are your responses to this one, Okonkwo and Nets?

Great example and actually one of his most famous works. Rothko shows that he has an absolute control over the colours, he manages to let them work so well together. The green triangular shape is almost out of place which creates this pulse of force and vibration against the orange background, it's intense, it's uneven. The upper half of the painting is much more gentle, the colours are very related, the streaks of white accentuate it, giving it an appearance of movement - the different shapes almost come on to you or submerge deep into the canvas in a perpetual motion.
The two halves basically engage in this playful up and down, there is this steady shift between firmness and immaterial profundity and depth.

[Syd]

Great example and actually one of his most famous works. Rothko shows that he has an absolute control over the colours, he manages to let them work so well together. The green triangular shape is almost out of place which creates this pulse of force and vibration against the orange background, it's intense, it's uneven. The upper half of the painting is much more gentle, the colours are very related, the streaks of white accentuate it, giving it an appearance of movement - the different shapes almost come on to you or submerge deep into the canvas in a perpetual motion.

I agree with all of that, which you just stated; just, I'm wondering what makes you say that Rothke has absolute control over the colours. I see hardly any straight lines and the colours aren't that fantastically selected.

[Okonkwo]

I'm wondering what makes you say that Rothke has absolute control over the colours. I see hardly any straight lines and the colours aren't that fantastically selected.

In my opinion, Rothko knew exactly what effect he wanted to achieve, what emotion he wanted to evoke and what message he wanted to convey. His method of doing that was simply using colours, seeing as how his late work is simply that - colour and shape.
To get to the final point of achieving what the painting is supposed to achieve, Rothko must have known exactly how to combine the colours and shapes to get the effect of movement and pulsation that is so evident in this picture, while he also knew precisely how to change the shapes and colours to convey depth, despair and this overwhelming feeling.



"A painter paints the appearance of things, not their objective correctness, in fact he creates new appearances of things."

Tavern by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner.

[Syd]

To get to the final point of achieving what the painting is supposed to achieve, Rothko must have known exactly how to combine the colours and shapes to get the effect of movement and pulsation that is so evident in this picture, while he also knew precisely how to change the shapes and colours to convey depth, despair and this overwhelming feeling.

It's clear now. I couldn't agree more with you, Okon.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

You guys, how can you be into that Rothko shit? My ex-girlfriend was always going on and on about him, but I truly honestly don't get what all the fuss is about, and I'm not just saying that to be beligerent. I have tried trying to get it, I have tried not trying to get it and just appreciating it, I have tried analyzing it, I have looked at it without any pretenses in my mind and I don't get any emotion from it.

[Okonkwo]

Well C_M, the idea that art is for everybody is nonsense anyway, popular art is an invention of the late 20th-century. Serious art is for the dedicated few, much like classical music.
Now for something neoclassical:



Oath of the Horatii by Jaques-Louis David

Notice the perfect composition and organisation of the painting, it's rational, it's clear, it's definite, it's straight. It signifies strength and determination, one of David's best works in my opinion.