Who is your favorite artist?

[cumallday]

My new found fave's Banksy. Check the website www.banksy.co.uk

 

[BlackSnake]

William B...., what the heck...don't remember how to spell his last name

 

[bogusbrig]

Which brings to mind architecture. So long as we are naming artists, let me also name Mies van der Rohe (Farnsworth House, in particular) and Philip Johnson's Glass House. Both very beautiful buildings that are largely impractical as residences. Sounds to me like art.

Both buildings remind me of traditional Japanese architectural design, though of course the Japanese traditionally built in wood, very beautiful with a sensitivity to space but very impractical which is why the Japanese adopted a lot of traditional western design.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

William B...., what the heck...don't remember how to spell his last name

-lake?

 

[oggbashan]

Asides

I've been tring to post this since last night. High winds and rain kept knocking my internet connection offline just as I reached the end of the post...

Minor Artist: John Bratby. He painted portraits of famous people in the 1960s and 1970s in a very individual style. He used false colour and heavy applications of paint to build a picture of the sitter as John saw them, not as they saw themselves, nor how they were seen by the public. Whether he sold the portrait or not depended on what the sitter thought of the completed work. Many didn't sell. My brother has several Bratby portraits and I'm jealous.

Erotic Artists: Vargas for Pin-ups and Eric Stanton for fetish and femdom.

Erotic Photography: Eric Kroll for fetish.

'Normal' Photography: Julia Margaret Cameron; Lewis Carroll; Ansel Adams; Bert Hardy (Picture Post).

Favourite artistic places to visit:
1.The Cast Court at the Victoria and Albert Museum - full sized plaster casts made in the 19th century of major works of scuplture/architectural decoration. They were intended for Art students who couldn't travel Europe to see the originals. In some cases e.g. Trajan's Column the copy is now better than the original. The full size David is stunning and is only one of many major works in the room.
2. The art museum at Lille in France. The place is spacious and usually fairly quiet. There is time to stand and stare without disturbing anyone else.
3. Country Churches. There are hundreds of Churches throughout England and Wales that deserve a visit. Even a small one can repay the effort to study the art work of the building and the memorials.

Og

 

[rawr_rae]

I've been tring to post this since last night. High winds and rain kept knocking my internet connection offline just as I reached the end of the post...

Minor Artist: John Bratby. He painted portraits of famous people in the 1960s and 1970s in a very individual style. He used false colour and heavy applications of paint to build a picture of the sitter as John saw them, not as they saw themselves, nor how they were seen by the public. Whether he sold the portrait or not depended on what the sitter thought of the completed work. Many didn't sell. My brother has several Bratby portraits and I'm jealous.

Erotic Artists: Vargas for Pin-ups and Eric Stanton for fetish and femdom.

Erotic Photography: Eric Kroll for fetish.

'Normal' Photography: Julia Margaret Cameron; Lewis Carroll; Ansel Adams; Bert Hardy (Picture Post).

Favourite artistic places to visit:
1.The Cast Court at the Victoria and Albert Museum - full sized plaster casts made in the 19th century of major works of scuplture/architectural decoration. They were intended for Art students who couldn't travel Europe to see the originals. In some cases e.g. Trajan's Column the copy is now better than the original. The full size David is stunning and is only one of many major works in the room.
2. The art museum at Lille in France. The place is spacious and usually fairly quiet. There is time to stand and stare without disturbing anyone else.
3. Country Churches. There are hundreds of Churches throughout England and Wales that deserve a visit. Even a small one can repay the effort to study the art work of the building and the memorials.

Og

I really want to visit England to view all of the Churches, among other things. Quick question: They were made during the Gothic period, right? Because I absolutely love the gloriously dark, yet romantic gestures seen in that period's architecture. It amazes me.

Also, was this John Bratby fellow influenced by Andy Warhol?

 

[oggbashan]

I really want to visit England to view all of the Churches, among other things. Quick question: They were made during the Gothic period, right? Because I absolutely love the gloriously dark, yet romantic gestures seen in that period's architecture. It amazes me.

Some few are Gothic. They range from Saxon (pre-1066) to ones still being built. Some of them are a mixture of styles over the ages. Within 25 miles of me are a church built on Roman foundations about 300AD; a Norman one with Viking ironwork; a Saxon one gaudily over-restored by the Victorians; one built by Augustus Pugin; and one dedicated by an English saint to another English saint. Their variety gives them character.

Also, was this John Bratby fellow influenced by Andy Warhol?

No. I think he was influenced by bottles of gin...

Og

 

[rawr_rae]

Some few are Gothic. They range from Saxon (pre-1066) to ones still being built. Some of them are a mixture of styles over the ages. Within 25 miles of me are a church built on Roman foundations about 300AD; a Norman one with Viking ironwork; a Saxon one gaudily over-restored by the Victorians; one built by Augustus Pugin; and one dedicated by an English saint to another English saint. Their variety gives them character.




No. I think he was influenced by bottles of gin...

Og

Ah, okay. Thank ya sir.

-Rae

 

[shereads]

Gaughin is decorative as can be, and available in sofa-sized art. I have an enlarged detail from one of his paintings. Two women are looking over their shoulders toward the viewer, as if he's caught them stealing his mangos.

This art goes well with Marvin Gaye.

 

[shereads]

William B...

ougereau.

Too many cherubs. Swarms of them, like mosquitos.

His sassy Victorian nudes make me smile. They seem to be having so much fun posing, you just know they've been reading dirty stories.

 

[Misty_Morning]

.....

 

[neonlyte]

Lucky duck. I wish my school had focused more on materials for the arts. I had average materials, but a wonderful teacher. She explored many mediums with us, from photography to paint to sculpture to Primsacolor to chalk. It was wonderful. It was my favorite class all throughout high school. And I know whatcha mean about having to buy your own materials, except I didn't really mind either...

I can't believe they were trying to compare Brit museums and galleries to US ones. The fact that they stated that American ones got the better exhibits is an atrocity. To put a price or demand on art is just strange to me. Although I realize that politics and art go hand in hand.

Well, I am hopeful that people will eventually realize the importance of art. As long as people never stop fighting for it.

-Rae

Copied this over from the moods thread 'cos I thought it sat better in this thread.

It is depressing the way art is a marginalised subject in lower education. It starts well, infants and juniors, drops off with seniors and, judging by the way UK Schools of Art are going, Fine Art (Painting and Sculpture specifically) is becoming taboo. Design is the buzz word, Schools of Art are churning out designers rather than artists whose economic contribution to a nation is regarded as zero.

Never mind their moral, spiritual, pleasurable, enjoyable contribution, if it can't be measured by money it ain't worth teaching.

Having got the *rant* over - I highlighted the middle part of you post Rae, a discussion you were having with falling-gee. There is some truth in the reported 'purchasing of major exhibitions' but it's a distortion of what is actually happening.

Large galleries - Tate Modern - are squeezing the life out of small galleries. There are only so many people wanting to visit galleries, if you make a mega-gallery and pitch it as a 'day out' event, those same people tend not to visit the smaller galleries. In the Bond Street area of London, and Hoxton area - of White Cube Gallery fame (Tracy Emin, Sam Taylor-Wood, Damien Hirst) there are twenty or more galleries in each location to visit. Used to be that a day out was tripping from one to the next, spreading yourself. Now people go to Tate Modern (4 million last year) and miss out on the smaller galleries.

If you are applying for money to stage an exhibition in the UK - even a major travelling exhibition - your visitor numbers will dictate, to some degree, how much money the Arts Board may grant you. With falling numbers of visitors in smaller galleries, it threatens a diminishing spiral. They can't attract the visitors and can't raise the money to put on the exhibitions to attract the visitors.

The other problem for the Major Shows is insurance and security. Insurance premiums have gone mad, to give you some idea, my wife is largely an installation artist, her works are not readily saleable or collectable, but we can no longer afford to insure her work in her studio, last quoted premium was £10k! Rose fivefold in two years. Famed works will not be loaned to any gallery which does not have serious security systems installed. Thus once again the big galleries win out over the small, it is less a factor of 'buying the shows' than having the financial muscle to stage the shows, pay the insurance premiums and satisfy everybody the work will be as safe as if in Fort Knox.

Serious thinking needs to be done about getting audiences back into the smaller galleries before we find we only have mega-galleries offering work for public view.

 

[tanyachrs]

I've never been in a gallery (assuming gallery means a place where art is sold). I'd feel bad about going when I knew I wasn't going to buy anything. It's not like a museum, right? They don't want you there to oggle, do they? I can imagine being more comfortable in a really big one. It's like Wal-Mart vs. a little boutique. As soon as I walk into a small store I feel like it's going to be awkward to get out without buying something.

 

[rawr_rae]

Copied this over from the moods thread 'cos I thought it sat better in this thread.

It is depressing the way art is a marginalised subject in lower education. It starts well, infants and juniors, drops off with seniors and, judging by the way UK Schools of Art are going, Fine Art (Painting and Sculpture specifically) is becoming taboo. Design is the buzz word, Schools of Art are churning out designers rather than artists whose economic contribution to a nation is regarded as zero.

Never mind their moral, spiritual, pleasurable, enjoyable contribution, if it can't be measured by money it ain't worth teaching.

Having got the *rant* over - I highlighted the middle part of you post Rae, a discussion you were having with falling-gee. There is some truth in the reported 'purchasing of major exhibitions' but it's a distortion of what is actually happening.

Large galleries - Tate Modern - are squeezing the life out of small galleries. There are only so many people wanting to visit galleries, if you make a mega-gallery and pitch it as a 'day out' event, those same people tend not to visit the smaller galleries. In the Bond Street area of London, and Hoxton area - of White Cube Gallery fame (Tracy Emin, Sam Taylor-Wood, Damien Hirst) there are twenty or more galleries in each location to visit. Used to be that a day out was tripping from one to the next, spreading yourself. Now people go to Tate Modern (4 million last year) and miss out on the smaller galleries.

If you are applying for money to stage an exhibition in the UK - even a major travelling exhibition - your visitor numbers will dictate, to some degree, how much money the Arts Board may grant you. With falling numbers of visitors in smaller galleries, it threatens a diminishing spiral. They can't attract the visitors and can't raise the money to put on the exhibitions to attract the visitors.

The other problem for the Major Shows is insurance and security. Insurance premiums have gone mad, to give you some idea, my wife is largely an installation artist, her works are not readily saleable or collectable, but we can no longer afford to insure her work in her studio, last quoted premium was £10k! Rose fivefold in two years. Famed works will not be loaned to any gallery which does not have serious security systems installed. Thus once again the big galleries win out over the small, it is less a factor of 'buying the shows' than having the financial muscle to stage the shows, pay the insurance premiums and satisfy everybody the work will be as safe as if in Fort Knox.

Serious thinking needs to be done about getting audiences back into the smaller galleries before we find we only have mega-galleries offering work for public view.

This is so depressing. I think a huge factor in the diminishing economic and social status of these smaller galleries correlates to the huge decline in Fine Arts education. People these days want to stick to the familiar, and it is much easier to go view an exhibit on VanGogh than go observe an artist on the rise who is perhaps lesser known. People do not appreciate art in the same manner as in the past, and for this I think smaller galleries are suffering.

Because these larger galleries have the financial resources to commision the works of famous artists such as VanGogh or or Rembrandt, society as a whole flocks into these museums or galleries. This popularity leaves the smaller galleries in the dark, which is so heartbreaking. There are wonderful present-day artists out there trying to make a name for themselves, just like your wife, and I want to do everything in my power as soon as I become a curator to see that they get the respect and following that they deserve.

I wish your wife much luck. And I hope that drastic changes can be made in the art world to ensure the status of smaller galleries. I know I won't stop fighting.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

This is so depressing. I think a huge factor in the diminishing economic and social status of these smaller galleries correlates to the huge decline in Fine Arts education. People these days want to stick to the familiar, and it is much easier to go view an exhibit on VanGogh than go observe an artist on the rise who is perhaps lesser known. People do not appreciate art in the same manner as in the past, and for this I think smaller galleries are suffering.

Because these larger galleries have the financial resources to commision the works of famous artists such as VanGogh or or Rembrandt, society as a whole flocks into these museums or galleries. This popularity leaves the smaller galleries in the dark, which is so heartbreaking. There are wonderful present-day artists out there trying to make a name for themselves, just like your wife, and I want to do everything in my power as soon as I become a curator to see that they get the respect and following that they deserve.

I wish your wife much luck. And I hope that drastic changes can be made in the art world to ensure the status of smaller galleries. I know I won't stop fighting.

I think another, perhaps smaller factor is that, at least in my humble opinon, some of the 'art' that is being pawned nowday is nonsence and turns people off to art in general.

Like Simon Pope's "Gallery Space Recall" exhibit in Whales. It was an empty room where viewers were supposed to remember theit favorite piece of art so that the peice could exist in both places at once. Pulease.

Or perhaps you'd prefer Performance artist Kira O'Reilly's show "Inthewrongplaceness," it consisted of a naked woman cradling a dead pig for four hours at a time. Yeah, that's art.

I'm not saying that all new art is like this because obviously it's not. I work right up the street from RISDI, (The Rhode Island School of Design) and frequent a little cafe that display the work of local artists, mostly students. Many of the works are wonderful and I wish I had a place in my home to display more of them because I would buy them. But sadly most of them will never be able to make a go of it because publicity hacks like the above grab headlines with nonsence and make a mockery of it all.

 

[rawr_rae]

I think another, perhaps smaller factor is that, at least in my humble opinon, some of the 'art' that is being pawned nowday is nonsence and turns people off to art in general.

Like Simon Pope's "Gallery Space Recall" exhibit in Whales. It was an empty room where viewers were supposed to remember theit favorite piece of art so that the peice could exist in both places at once. Pulease.

Or perhaps you'd prefer Performance artist Kira O'Reilly's show "Inthewrongplaceness," it consisted of a naked woman cradling a dead pig for four hours at a time. Yeah, that's art.

I'm not saying that all new art is like this because obviously it's not. I work right up the street from RISDI, (The Rhode Island School of Design) and frequent a little cafe that display the work of local artists, mostly students. Many of the works are wonderful and I wish I had a place in my home to display more of them because I would buy them. But sadly most of them will never be able to make a go of it because publicity hacks like the above grab headlines with nonsence and make a mockery of it all.

Oh, I agree. Crap art really pisses me off. I think these artists take advantage of the "freedom" of artistic expression, and run wild. They kind of skew Duchamp's method of contextual art, transforming absolute crap or nonsense into "art." It really gives true artists a bad rep, and makes the public think that any eight year old can scrawl down some scribblings and call it fine art.

I'm a bit unsure on my stance about this one, though. I really try not to be hard on artists, because I consider myself one. I wouldn't want to create something that I thought was truly innovative, and then have someone absolutely tear it to shreds. I think art is very subjective, and holds many different meanings for many different people. But who am I? Some first year college student.... <le sigh>

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

I've never been in a gallery (assuming gallery means a place where art is sold). I'd feel bad about going when I knew I wasn't going to buy anything. It's not like a museum, right? They don't want you there to oggle, do they? I can imagine being more comfortable in a really big one. It's like Wal-Mart vs. a little boutique. As soon as I walk into a small store I feel like it's going to be awkward to get out without buying something.

I wouldn't worry about it -- just as most stores are quite happy for you browse, (they figure you might eventually end up buying or recommending something if you do), so art galleries want you to browse.

I saw the most fantastic gallery in Oxford Street (London's busiest shopping street) the other day. Sure all the stuff was for sale, but I didn't feel any pressure at all to buy, and in fact I took photos of the pieces there and they were cool with that.

 

[pathsoflight]

favorite painters: Georges Seurat; Piet Mondrian; Henri Matisse

favorite photographers: Andre Kertesz; Yousef Karsh, Henri-Cartier Bresson; Alfred Stieglitz; Diane Arbus; Sally Mann

(while we're on the subject of the creative arts)

favorite poets: Rainer Maria Rilke; Robinson Jeffers; Theodore Roethke

favorite novelists: John Steinbeck; Harper Lee; John Irving

favorite composers: Dave Beethoven ... no, wait ... that's not right .... maybe it's Ludwig ; Claude Debussy; Hector Berlioz

R

 

[The_Darkness]

Brom. Hands down.

He does a lot of illustration for fantasy subjects and his compositions and treatments of light and shade are some of the best I've ever seen.

 

[pathsoflight]

Definitely - just because an item (how's that for a sterile term?) has the artifacts, the appearance, of art about it doesn't mean that it's a creative artistic expression. Plus, there are degrees to all expression. There IS some differentiation between great, mediocre and in-name-only art.

In part, it's a function of what the artist has invested in the "art" - and what he/she calls us to invest ... whether a gently nudging invitation or a sharp demand to make a choice.

In encountering art - creative expression - intimate abandonment - I am called to react, respond, interact, grow, weep, scoff ... to BE transformed into something other than I was a moment before.

R

Oh, I agree. Crap art really pisses me off. I think these artists take advantage of the "freedom" of artistic expression, and run wild. They kind of skew Duchamp's method of contextual art, transforming absolute crap or nonsense into "art." It really gives true artists a bad rep, and makes the public think that any eight year old can scrawl down some scribblings and call it fine art.

I'm a bit unsure on my stance about this one, though. I really try not to be hard on artists, because I consider myself one. I wouldn't want to create something that I thought was truly innovative, and then have someone absolutely tear it to shreds. I think art is very subjective, and holds many different meanings for many different people. But who am I? Some first year college student.... <le sigh>