(particularly Visual)

In another thread,

obsessed said:

I enjoy time alone, also. in coffee shops etc...but Hopper's work is usually a celebration of loneliness, at most. I always got that feeling from them...even as a child.
I don't know if I called it lonely, then, but I knew it was foreign. There's an emptiness and stillness to all his work that isn't really inviting. With this woman, you don't sense that there is other life around to observe. I do like his work, though.

Girdle said:

What she really said is here.

Chop Suey....at least there's some socializing goin on.
What I like about Hoopers paintings is the simplicity of his work
and the ordinary everyday people making it easy, I think, to relate.
I can see we're not agreeing on the way we see him, but that's what
makes it interesting....

obsessed said:

We're not supposed to agree. It's art and subjective. Right...that's what makes it interesting. This piece, though, is a little different. At least it's flooded with natural light. That always adds a layer of life to a picture. Still, notice the scale of the people to their environment. This, in combination with much of his other work, says much about him and his view of life.

Girdle said:

I already said that's what makes it interesting....

I disagree that we're not supposed to agree, however....I may actually have felt the
same way about this art as you do....it's certainly not wrong to agree, if it's
sincere. But in this particular case I do disagree.

Art, of course is subjective...music, poetry, paintings, whatever the art
medium....

So what you're saying is that the environment is more important to him than
the people....the people have little meaning...is my synopsis correct?

I never read anything of his life, so fill me in if you have knowledge of this,
or are you too making a conclusion from his artwork alone?

obsessed said:

I knew when I wrote that line, "we're not supposed to agree" that it was wrong, but I thought you would get the point anyway. Of course I meant, the POINT is not to agree...but to be true in the experience.

And no I don't know very much about his personal life. I've read and heard that he was very private, anyway. I know bits about his married life and that he used his wife as subject for nearly all his female figures but not much more.

Most conclusions are from his artwork...and just visual language in general. Even in a film when a person is really small in a shot, it's to say something about their insignificance...or how small they feel etc...

Whether he was aware of this or not, it's pretty consistent in his work. I don't think he felt the environment was more important...it seems his environments reflected the emotion (either his, or the emotion of those times). But they are very often ominous...as if his subjects could easily be lost in them. Perhaps that's how he felt.

Yes, you did already say "that's what makes it interesting" that's why I then said "Right". I agreed with you. Hope that's not a problem.

But really, I find reactions and first reactions to pieces or art interesting. Our personal experiences will cause us to find comfort/discomfort in things that others don't. Sometimes it's very personal...like the colors remind us of something happy, from childhood, even though the subject is a sad one. There are no real absolutes.

Do you remember your first reaction to this Wyeth?
This is one I always believed to be dramatic and almost fantasy like. I was a teen when I learned the story behind it. It changed my entire perception. I still liked it, but for different reasons. Now I'm back to liking it for the same reasons, I did, as a child.

Girdle said:

It's so imagination evoking. I've never heard the story behind it, though.

applekisses said:

It really is.

Her name was Christina Olson (Christina's World - title.). She was paralyzed from polio, and would drag herself across the field. Knowing this, changes everything. The picture is still dramatic, but in an entirely different way.

Girdle said:

Knowing the story, did change the dramatic effect for me.

I like it for it's starkness

This is Lucian freud painting.
Some I like..some I don't.
His grandpa is Sigmund Freud.
At artschool where I went to some paint teachers demanded their students to copy this..
Some did..some didn't.
I went to Venice to look at the old stuff.
But I do like some of Lucians work.

Edvard Munch.
Dead mother.

He has great paintings..the scream being very popular..but some of his less promoted are really great.

Did you?

It does take a moment to settle in...

emile57 said:

Did you?

One of my favorite self portraits.
Albrecht Duhrer. 1500

Hailed in Italy at the time..called an amateur in Germany at the time.
His work rox!

tony23k said:

I looked at his work.Never listened to my teachers when telling me what to paint....(they liked that about me..LOL)
always went my own way.
But went for the old Italian masters and van gogh.
But was always open for anything..same with music..always listen to as much as possible..but get inspired by what touches me..or where I feel force.

emile57 said:

that's the key.

Freud also made a painting of Kate Moss.

tony23k said:

emile57 said:

Wow..of all the filth and hardcore porn on the net..this painting is banned by photobucket..LOL
Thats weird.
Anyway..the painting is here at this site:

http://homepage.mac.com/h...nFreud.jpg
[Edited 10/30/07 6:45am]

Speaking of nudes, this is my fav nude work of art...let's see what photobucket does
with this... lol If they don't recognize that this is an art piece, they
really need a few lessons over there! lol

Michelangelo's Statue of David...I was fortunate enough to see the original
in Florence, Italy in the Galleria dell'Accademia...the unfortunate part
is that there was scaffolding around it on three sides, I believe, at the
time...(I'll have to see if I can dig up the picture I took).

Anyway, the main school of thought is that Michelangelo sculpted this as
David would have looked before the fight with Goliath, but there are
scholars who feel it was sculpted the way he looked after the victory...any
thoughts on this? I have more I'd like to post, but only if discussion would
lead to it.....

The only thing I don't like about this sculpture is that the head and hands are to big.Never seen it in real life..only pics.
I don't remember why he did it..had art history classes but I forgot.
But the head and hands are to big.
I like his paintings.
He was super gay I think and I like that in his work.
He is a genious but when it comes to sculptures I like Rodin alot.

I remember something about his head being big....I guess that he didn't
know for certain where the statue would be placed, and thinking it may end
up on the top of a building (like so many statues did at the time), he felt
looking at it from the ground it would be in proportion then...which I guess
would make sense.

I can't remember either about why the hands were so big...but disregarding
all that, I really love the work...it's beautiful, and even more so in
person.

Btw, I found my shot with the scaffolding....it was the fall of 2003, and they
were almost finished cleaning it for the very first time ever...it took them
roughly 2 years, as they worked on it only when the museum was closed.

Anyway, I won't post the pic....it was somewhat blurred and wouldn't do it
justice anyway.

Other Peoples Art-- that I find interesting, is artwork by the courtroom sketch artist.
I've always wondered what happens to the "famous case" sketches...