Re: Cryptic Ned Asks

1

I semi-recently had the Rothko thing happen for the first time, looking at one in person.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
2

I really like the Filippo Lippi / Botticelli thread in early Renaissance art, in part for irreducible "it's pretty" reasons, in part because it seems like there was a fairly sharp break from past more stylized ways of depicting people into something with a lot more personality in all the faces.

There was some earlier thread where someone was touting Fra Angelico as being a highlight of art in Florence, IIRC. I went to the San Marco museum last time I was there and it's good stuff but didn't hit me the same way.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
3

I really like Diego Velázquez. I'm not terribly good at talking about art, but what I like is that his paintings are very realistic (almost photo-like) and very detailed.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
4

Botticelli thread

Briefly confused here.


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
5

Recently a lot of stuff at the Jay DeFeo exhibit at SFMOMA really struck me as beautiful. I've been thinking about trying to catch it at the Whitney as well, but I probably won't manage to (if I were going to, it would probably have to be this Saturday, but I'll probably be too tired to bother).


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
6

I like the guy who painted youngish women with long hair and the habit of wearing gauzy or little clothing.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
7

Another painting that kind of unexpectedly knocked me for a loop when I saw it was Goya's black painting with the dog.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
8

I really like sixteenth-century European painters, especially El Greco and Bosch. That sort of balance of naturalistic and stylized representation particularly appeals to me.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
9

T-I-T-I-A-N


Posted by: OPINIONATED E. BUZZ MILLER | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
10

Is that Mannerism, or am I confused? And does Armsmasher still lurk, because he should be schooling us.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
11

Oh hell, everything. There is a guy who has been posting to rec.fine-arts for over a decade, whenever he gets a complete set

Currently in 30 min rotation as wallpaper:

Anna Chromy (100)
Stuart Davis (355)
Maynard Dixon
Dufy (155)
Laura Knight
Levitan
Richard Lindner (109)
Maija Tabaka
Morandi
Guy Rose
Dali
Enrique Grau
Tisnikar
Thiebaud (110)
Tom Mielko
George Tooker
Joyce Treiman
Ambrose Webster
And a fuckton of captures and Japanese Landscapes and maps

7500 jpgs loaded


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
12

Oh, also Vienna Secession stuff (Klimt, Schiele, etc.) for pretty much the same reason.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
13

And recently there was an Yves Klein fire painting at MOCA that really hit me too. Only one of them, though; the others I could take or leave.

The trouble with commenting on this thread is, I have a lot of strong opinions/feelings about art but no words that are very useful for talking about them.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
14

My untrained tastes tend towards representational paintings: scenes from everyday life, people at work, cities/streets/buildings, some kinds of landscapes and portraits. I tend not to like courtly-looking stuff or still lives of flowers and fruits, or many of the versions of the biblical scenes you see over and over in Renaissance art (museums).

And this applies pretty much only to European traditions. I don't know anything about and haven't seen enough of other kinds of painting to even try to be specific. It's basically a lot of snap choose one: [like | don't like] judgments on a case by case basis.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
15

Is that Mannerism, or am I confused?

El Greco yes, Bosch no. And I think of Bosch as mostly fifteenth-century although I guess he overlapped both. Comparing the two seems odd to me, but I guess whatever works for teo.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
16

Oh hey can anyone tell me what art I should be looking at when I'm skipping out on the conference I'm going to in Barcelona in a few weeks?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
17

There's this Picasso guy...


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
18

I like me some Turner.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
19

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Picasso, but IIRC the Barcelona museum is chronological so you can see his work develop/change over time.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
20

The Míro museum is spiffy. And in case it hadn't occurred to you maybe give the sagrada familia a visit.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
21

Park Güell and La Sagrada Família are on my list, but aside from that I know nothing. On refresh: oh, I guess there is a Picasso museum. Somehow I feel like I've already seen all the most interesting Picasso stuff elsewhere and most of it hasn't really done much for me? Sounds philistinish, I know. Guernica was pretty damned impressive.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
22

If I went back I'd probably try to see as much Gaudi stuff as I could find/be allowed to see.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
23

Vermeer painting brick (View of Delft, The Little Street).


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
24

I like Turner a whole lot. Rfts is into Lucien Freud. Together, we fight crime!


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
25

I'm in Barnett Newman's camp.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
26

Miró sounds like more fun than Picasso.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
27

Also endorse the Miro museum. I think I spent more time on history stuff when I visited. Also, just walking around.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
28

22 is true.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
29

Oh, and the 1999 Champions League final was on when I was there. Pretty sure there were more cops around than in Watertown.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
30

I think I don't relate to visual art quite as I'm supposed to. I like it, but I get what I get out of it very quickly and I don't have a lot to say about it.

That said, I suppose I like early modernist stuff, same as in other arts, post-impressionist on up through I don't know what exactly, and I know very little about the last half century. No real through-line to my likes that I can think of. Gaugin, Kandinsky and Malevich, Mondrian, DiChirico and other surrealists...sort of high school art history stuff.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
31

And other severe-but-not-too-severe AbEx stuff; Elegies to the Spanish Republic, e.g. I got a book called Abstraction and the Holocaust a few years ago which is pretty interesting.

I like the Italian Futurists, too.

I wish I had noted, when I saw it, the name of a gigantic, nearly all black, textured painting at the Art Institute of Chicago. But I didn't!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
32

I know and recommend this artist. I like this one.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
33

14 And this applies pretty much only to European traditions.

I wish knew more about others. I <3 the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco but despite spending an inordinate amount of time there (not much time, really, but a surprisingly large fraction of the time I've ever spent within SF city limits) I don't think I can name any of the artists whose work impressed me and I can't really intelligently place any of it in any context.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
34

El Greco yes, Bosch no. And I think of Bosch as mostly fifteenth-century although I guess he overlapped both. Comparing the two seems odd to me, but I guess whatever works for teo.

Yeah, some poking around on Wikipedia just now reveals that El Greco is considered Mannerist, while Bosch is more associated with the earlier Netherlandish styles (which I also like). I think I may associate them largely because most examples of both that I've seen in person were at the Prado, and I was very impressed with them there.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
35

Oh, yeah, Turner. Prior to udcon 2 (or ... 1?) Armsmasher took several persons around a Turner show at one of those museums they've got over there.

I suspect I'd enjoy looking at "Portrait of Madame X" if I had the chance.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
36

31.3 is going to drive me nuts now because I feel like I should know what it is.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
37

32: That's a lot of viscera.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
38

23: I like Vermeer a lot, although one show I really enjoyed was a collection of urban scenes by Dutch Golden Age painters, most of whom I had never heard of, and many of which had that ridiculous level of minute brick-detail which was common to the era.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
39

There are too many great painters to list. Richter is not overrated. Frank Stella. Agnes Martin.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
40

I suspect I'd enjoy looking at "Portrait of Madame X" if I had the chance.

Such chances are not so hard to come by.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
41

I thought I'd learn more about Chinese paintings when I went to the palace museum in Taipei (full of stuff the GMD took out of mainland China) but the main thing I learned was that the paintings were in storage during the building renovation. The jade cabbage was pretty cool, though. Also, the similar sculpture of a piece of meat.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
42

Also, in the American division, Edward Hopper and Winslow Homer.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
43

21: I liked that the Picasso museum had a pretty big collection of relatively unimportant things and arranged them chronologically. I also loved that.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
44

And Bob Ross. Can't forget the happy little trees.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
45

The "artistic community" really rated those artists (mentioned in the OP) in the 1860s (or at least one artistic community did...)

(Also: yes, it does make you a Norman Rockwell fan and also arguably some kind of moral monster.)

Personally, fuck, Gerhard Richter's slick. Bacon. Auerbach. 20th century European high modernist painting is kinda inexorably astonishing as, like, this apotheosis of a tradition. (I know, I know. Me and Clem in the corner.)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
46

I go to galleries and museums for the articles.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
47

On my recent trip to Philadelphia I went to the new Barnes, which was interesting but most of that French Impressionist stuff doesn't do much for me. Also most of the antiquities were fake, which was kind of hilarious.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
48

46: Objets d'art?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
49

More broadly: I enjoy looking at paintings that hold my attention. Usually they don't hold my attention with narrative or particular details; they demand it with their overall visual effect, and then they maintain it because there is something going on that I can't understand. (Some critic, maybe Jerry Saltz, called this the "Whoa. What?" effect.) I also love portraits, which at their best have similar effects for me as an Agnes Martin.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
50

And the guy with the Jesus brings the Constitution paintings, can't forget him.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
51

44 is right.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
52

(Agnes Martin is so so nice.)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
53

nosflow: is this your nearly all black textured painting? Google image search turns up some other photos of it that look less like solid black squares. I think this is the one I remember as being pretty striking.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
54

Francis Bacon before 1970, painting not reproduction. Gerhard Richter, also does not reproduce.

Egon Schiele, this Klimt

Yuan paintings, bamboo and wildlife, not so much landscapes. Zhao Mengfu, Guan Daosheng. Hard to find good reproductions, and the actual paintings are hostaged in basements, incredible hassle to see them.

Northern renaissance, Breugel pere until 1620. Caravaggio's nice.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
55

Vermeer for me. I used to visit this one relatively often on free admission days. In college I really liked Max Beckmann, but he doesn't speak to me as much any more. I still like Gerhard Richter a lot, but I prefer different pieces than I used to.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
56

Bob lists Thiebaud. I once spent hours in a haze of delight at a Thiebaud show in DC; emerged extremely hungry. Really nice.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
57

53: May be! I sort of remember some red in a lower corner, and more protuberant paint (you know, owing to many layers, or something, though that may not be coming through in the image), but I may be conflating things; anyway, I definitely esteem that image.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
58

Always worth going to look at a Vermeer.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
59

Ah, "A vertical white line to the right of center and a thin streak of red-orange along the left side provide the sole interruptions in the black fiel", I didn't notice that at first because of the grey patch in the lower right. That must be it.

Thanks!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
60

So, for those keep track at home, essear's powers include identifying either (a) abstract artworks or (b) Veronica Mars episodes based on very sketchy descriptions.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
61

Just read the thread-- concur on El Greco, the later the better as his eyes got worse.

Here is a landscape, 500 years before French impressionism:
http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=4612

Stuart Pearson Wright does nice portraits. Julian Schnabel is pretty good.

http://www.andydenzler.com/html/paintings-01.html
http://www.wissenskunst.ch/uk/bibliography/35/


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
62

60: Yet he persists in working in science, wasting his life.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
63

Over ten years ago I read a fascinating article in some art magazine (Frieze, I think?) in which they had polled different people about what piece of art they would most like to own. They had divided the results into responses from gallerists, artists, and people not professionally involved in the art world. Most of the responses weren't particular pieces but rather "a painting by [artist]" or more specific categories like "a Warhol screen print." The most curious thing was how very many gallerists mentioned Gerhard Richter's Betty.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
64

"Betty" would be an amazing piece to live with. I think of recent artists, I would most want to own a Richter, but I would have a hard time deciding between a figurative one (Nude on Staircase or a Baader-Meinhof one or the Sonic Youth candle one) and a squeegee painting. Although apparently with a bit of experimentation you can make your own squeegee Richter painting.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
65

"Betty" has something for everyone. Figurative and something interesting is going on!


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
66

Is Apo here or do I have to find a link to the guy who paints by with his asshole?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
67

By numbers or by candlelight?


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
68

Like a spray gun.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
69
What painters' paintings do you enjoy looking at?

John Singer Sargent.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
70

I like that we now have an opportunity to gauge whether the Unfoggetariat is, on average, more interested in art or toilets. I think toilets are marginally ahead.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
71

I'd like to own this.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
72

70: Duchamp for comity?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
73

72: Or maybe?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
74

If I had to own one painting and stare at it, it would probably be something from this period of Gauguin

This is another favorite

But I like variety


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
75

Barcelona! Yes, the Sagrada Familia is in-comp-ar-a-ble, not just for Gaudí, but for the modern contributions by Subirachs and others - unusual to get such a stark sense of a cathedral as something made by a collective, over centuries. Casa Mila is another great Gaudí. The Fundació Antoni Tàpies was closed when I was there, but if you like abstract canvases with rope and wire and paint globs (I really do), check it out.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
76

Of Sargent, I so much like
this.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
77

Also, Girl With a Pearl Earring is in SF right now and they've splashed it all over the city buses and every single bulletin board in every single coffee shop and eight different kinds of tote bag, and I thought, Jesus Christ; but then last month I went to see it displayed in its shrine-like exhibit room, and the blue headband against the black field left me completely thick of tongue. Remembering one's youth on one's deathbed must be a little like that. My mom burst into tears.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
78

I'm weirdly fond of Daybreak. Original copies are common enough that actually owning one wouldn't be out of the question.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
79

Revealed preference suggests I'm with nosflow - the background on my desktop at work is an Italian Futurist painting I haven't found online yet - but I think it's only a subset of Futurist work that I have in mind, and that has exemplars in other movements too. Depictions of light or motion over time, several moments layered rather than a snapshot, are the key - the one I use at the office operates on a principle similar to the one that produced this painting, but is more humanized, with pedestrians and a streetlamp.


Posted by: joyslinger | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
80

49 sounds right. You look at it because it seems like you know what it's doing, but then there's something surprising. Turner is also like this.

I asked because I started looking through Wikipedia to get a course in art history, which movements occurred when, which were considered advances and which regressive, and so forth. Some people just hit me with how unpredictable they are, and some amaze with how formulaic they are. This doesn't seem to be correlated with their reputation. As Teo suggests above, the Barnes Foundation has about 400,000 Auguste Renoir paintings that all look the same and all feature young women with vaguely misshapen spherical heads.

What also hit me: There are so many painters with Wikipedia pages, and they painted so much stuff! I could get a real painting with real provenance, which also looks really nice and rewards extended study, by someone who was considered the poor man's John Constable, or someone who was really really famous in Sweden 120 years ago, for only like $4,000 at a Christie's auction. And if you have real money, why would you buy trendy stuff you don't understand for $100,000 when you could get something historically significant?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
81

For Barcelona, definitely the Miro museum. They had a series of his sketches, labeled in English, Spanish and Catalan, in one room: the Catalan information on one said something like "llapis, sense data." I was still a bit jetlagged and pondered it for a long time before I realized it was all written in the same language, one that I can't read all that well.

The big art museum on Montjuïc has a fantastic medieval cartoon painting of a martyr getting sawed in half. It is a little sad that that's my firmest memory of the museum.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
82

Oh yeah, those martyrs! Them are four terrible ways to go.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
83

Wait, you're two different people? Did I know this?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
84

81.2: For a long time my most prominent memory from the Cloisters was of a panel depicting the Harrowing of Hell, strictly because I relished the comic-book-ness of Jesus' kicking down a door and squashing demons.


Posted by: joyslinger | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
85

As Teo suggests above, the Barnes Foundation has about 400,000 Auguste Renoir paintings that all look the same and all feature young women with vaguely misshapen spherical heads.

This is exactly right. The women are all naked, too.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
86

A look at Renoir's Wikipedia page reveals that he painted lots of other stuff in addition to female nudes, so the abundance of the latter at the Barnes may say more about Barnes than about Renoir.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
87

We've been married a while, and we have a bit of a hive mind about Barcelona. Also, we're sitting next to each other typing right now.

In fact, when I saw the first "lourdes kayak" comment on the sidebar my blood froze, because I was sure I had made an idiot of myself and was being viciously mocked by the locals. I am slowly getting used to it.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
88

essear should dress in red and walk around, drunk, singing "taking over, taking over, taking over Barcelona".


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
89

You know what the best purchase, including bikes, was that I've made in recent years? A painting by mcmc, that's what. I love it. And nearly every time I walk by it, I stop to look at it.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
90

For the articles, I mean.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
91

Actually, I like mcmc's paintings too!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
92

lk and lk are married? I missed that completely.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
93

This is a good thread: keep it coming with the links to paintings you like, o commenters. I enjoy sampling various things.

A little surprised to see a Maxfield Parrish fan upthread. He was probably my first love, when I first liked something enough to start collecting images.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
94

Further to the complaint about Renoir, I have a book of Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood paintings, and basically everything in it is great except the things by Millais. It's like I've deemed him to be a phony. Why is he the most famous one of the bunch? (other than Rossetti)

And this weird offering is one of those that stands out as self-evidently great.

It depresses me that all the art books are about the same brand-name artists. Especially nowadays when it's easy to publish things with full-color illustrations, as all the websites based on blogs in the Cheezburger network can testify. Why can't I buy a barebones book of the 50 greatest paintings of Carel Willink? (to cite one of the people I'd never heard of a couple weeks ago, who now seems to be amazing)

Taschen should expand its product line by a hundredfold.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
95

Other admirers of Vermeer: what do you make of the The Allegory of Faith? I find it sort of amazing, in a completely different way than Vermeer usually amazes, but the last time I saw it with someone at the Met she snorted, and it's not like I can't understand the impulse.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
96

Allegory paintings in general tend to befuddle me. They're often kind of interesting but also usually cluttered and hard to make sense of.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
97

Look at these paintings by Arkhip Kuinji. Dark landscapes! Why did none of those guys in the Hudson River School think to paint DARK landscapes. Their stuff all looks the same. The Peredvishniki, they were far more interesting.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
98

Like this one, where I never really figured out how the different characters were relating to each other and what it was supposed to convey.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
99

I don't know what work I'd want to own. Oh I thought of something I found very gripping lately, but I'm not going to be able to remember the name of the artist, and anyway it was a particularly silly answer for "art you'd like to own" on account of being an installation.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
100

I'd love to have Robert Wilson's video portrait of Princess Caroline but one might eventually tire of even the Vertigo score.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
101

98: Yeah, that one is multiply oriented in a way one isn't used to. I like Salvator Rosa's The Genius of Salvator Rosa, because of the title obvs, but also because the composition is much more accessible: here are a bunch of allegorized temperamental traits, all ministering to my half-clad, laureled Genius.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
102

||

OpenSSH sure is puritanical, what with its warning that "IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY!".

|>


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
103

I've always loved Goya's war paintings, which motivated me to read Robert Hughes's biography; the biography, spent a lot of time explaining the visual language of his *formal portraits*, which was my way in to enjoying the sort of galleries I used to speed-walk through.

In the staid and old-fashioned category, I have a soft spot for Caspar David Friedrich.

Favorite contemporary painters, in terms of pure visual enjoyment: Pierre Soulages, Howard Hodgkin, Barnett Newman, Pollack, Rothko. Rothko is so good he makes it seem too easy---"ho hum, here's another mystical sensory experience"---while Pollack somehow feels like he's worked hard to create my mystical sensory experience. Running across an "unsuccessful" Rothko can be kind of jarring, while an unsuccessful Pollack puts me in the mood of "interesting try, old chap, keep it up".

Also good: Jasper Johns and Paul Klee (both visually ugly, I think, but somehow rewarding in small doses), Louis Morris, Richter. LB: Franz Kline may work with your "walk it back to representational" thing.


Posted by: Scomber mix | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
104

The canonical Francisco Goya is a hell of a painting.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
105

104 posted before I saw 103.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
106

I thought that was going to be Saturn.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
107

I found a lot to like in the Hughes Goya book, though I wish he'd tried harder to find a word other than "perky" for La maja desnuda.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:51 PM
horizontal rule
108

I think all the Goya was the highlight of my visit to Madrid.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 9:55 PM
horizontal rule
109

80 -- the art history on Wikipedia is kinda atrocious, to be fair. I wouldn't trust it very far, especially because it's quite overrun with people who have, uh, crank views on art history. Also quality of reproductions is quite bad often.

94 -- two issues I guess. The first is that even a bare bones book can be both quite expensive AND bad enough to damage a reputation, and secondly I just don't think you'd sell enough to cover the costs.

Artworks I'd like to own? A tabletop Caro would be nice to actually own, I think.

Ohh! McCahons. They're really nice to look at. Victory Over Death & Practical Religion II are stunning.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
110

104: My parents had framed reproductions of "3rd of May 1808" and "The Snowstorm (Winter)", and they hung both on the same wall in the study. When my little sister was born, that's where the crib went, right under the Goyas.


Posted by: Scomber mix | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
111

I saw one of the Antony Gormley "Field" installations once. Someone went to enough effort to photograph it and put it on a large-format postcard in the museum gift shop, which makes it sound like the 109.3 bar isn't hard to clear.

Failing to buy this postcard is the worst negative two euros I ever spent; there's no way to obtain a printed image of this artwork without buying a $50 book and cutting it up sacrilegiously. But, I mean, Gormley (like most major artists these days) has a web page---how hard would it be to have an e-commerce section to sell me a poster or coffee mug or something? There must be some sense that "Unlike Thomas Kinkade, my art is pure and only intended for highbrow museum viewing. Or museum gift shops! Postcards are 2€."


Posted by: Scomber mix | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 10:54 PM
horizontal rule
112

Mostly two kinds of art in the house: Native silk screen prints from the PNW & Monte Dolack posters. Also two commissioned pieces: a buffalo hide with a Plains design (this requires a space 9 feet square), etched glass (not yet complete) for a kitchen window.

Out on the loose, I tend towards the 17th century Dutch, but can be talked into Albert Bierstadt pretty easily. Fiat lux.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 11:14 PM
horizontal rule
113

The wife likes odd looking sticks, and tree bark, and stuff like that. Of which we have plenty.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 11:22 PM
horizontal rule
114

Vermeer and Cassatt, though the latter only in person.

Many of the surrealists.

I find Mondrian boring as hell in museums but would love to have one on my wall at home. Same with Rothko.


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 11:32 PM
horizontal rule
115

By "in person" I mean the painting, not the artist.


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 11:32 PM
horizontal rule
116

how hard would it be to have an e-commerce section to sell me a poster or coffee mug or something?

I think it would be pretty tricky, mostly for the reasons Keir describes in 109. Your Gormley example doesn't really answer the concern -- Field is not a painting or a photo, so that there's no chance of confusion that a photograph of the installation is a reproduction of the installation itself. You can tell at a glance that it's not the piece, it's at best a visual description of the piece.

I had a conversation this afternoon with someone who is a visual artist, working on collaboration involving numerous drawings printed on large format fiber paper. The printing process takes hours and hours per print, and it's an integral part of the piece. The end result is very beautiful, and the piece would be totally diminished by mass reproduction on cheap paper and on a small scale. That's fine for Rubens or Degas or whomever -- their reputations are already made, and anyway they're dead and their gallerists can't protest. But you can imagine that it would be really important, for a contemporary artist, that viewers first become acquainted with their work in the format in which they are intended to be seen.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 04-23-13 11:34 PM
horizontal rule
117

109: Crappy Wikipedia pages don't just happen, you know.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 12:33 AM
horizontal rule
118

I think if an artist is running into the problem of people first being acquainted with their art from coffee mugs, then pretty much they've already made their reputation.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 12:42 AM
horizontal rule
119

What everybody says about Gaudí. If you're in a hurry La Pedrera and La Casa Batlló are on the same street.

If I was forced to pick one painter, it would probably have to be Goya, because he's so damn various (you could say the same of Picasso, who would be another candidate). That said, I once viewed all the Misfortunes of War in the same visit, and I was ready to slit my wrists.

The only style I really don't much care for is Impressionism/Post-Impressionism. Don't know why, it always seems clunky to me.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:13 AM
horizontal rule
120

re: 2 - I was never a fan of that style [much more of a modernist] until I saw the big 'blockbuster' Botticellis (and Lippis, for that matter) in the flesh, a couple of years ago, and saw them in a completely new light. Much more interesting both in terms of technique and in terms of subject than I would have expected from seeing small reproductions. Same with Giotto and Fra Angelico and others of the same sort of period, although more Botticelli.

Also, as per Smearcases's 30, I like a lot of early 20th century stuff. When in Florence a couple of years ago (same trip as above) we stumbled on a small temporary exhibition of Russian stuff, largely Suprematist and Constructivist stuff, and it was like a cool drink after all the acres of Renaissance stuff.

The other that blew me away and which was a surprise (as I'm generally 'modernist' in taste) was Caravaggio.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:29 AM
horizontal rule
121

Also, I agree with Chris Y re: Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. Although I did go through a (late teenage) phase of like some Fauvist stuff I've sort of gone off that, too.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:30 AM
horizontal rule
122

If you're going to the Sagrada Familia, BOOK IN ADVANCE because the queue is unbelievable.

Goya, definitely. His portrait of Wellington is great and the sketch is even better; Wellington staring out of the painting, eyes wide with exhaustion.
Breughel.
Raeburn (for patriotic reasons, of course).
Turner.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:48 AM
horizontal rule
123

122. IMHO if you want Scottish portrait painters, Allan Ramsay > Raeburn.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 2:14 AM
horizontal rule
124

re: Turner

Only the later stuff, though. All the interminable faux-Claude stuff is a bit tedious.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 2:24 AM
horizontal rule
125

124: yeah. But the Temeraire, and "Rain, Steam and Speed" are terrific.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 2:47 AM
horizontal rule
126

re: 125

Yeah. We went to the big Tate Britain Turner ('... and the Masters') exhibition a year or so back. I really like the very late stuff, but everything earlier is a bit crap. His tributes to, say, Rembrandt or Claude tended to show up as a bit shit by comparison to the paintings that inspired them.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 2:55 AM
horizontal rule
127

Painters:

Turner
Caravaggio
Canaletto
Van Gogh
Most Futurism (horrible worldview, but I love the aesthetic anyway)
Braque


Posted by: Ginger | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 3:17 AM
horizontal rule
128

Oh, and Lowry.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 3:18 AM
horizontal rule
129

Yeah, I liked the Lowry museum in Salford much more than I thought I was going to.

Ugh, I always feel so uncultured. When I am old and live by myself I will have time to wander round galleries at my own fucking pace, and pontificate about art. I do like stuff, but I'm not very interested in knowing who did it or remembering any details about it (ditto actors, films, music, etc - am I history's greatest monster?).

I like Lucian Freud (like rfts) and Kid D watched a documentary about him with me last year and then we went to an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery of his stuff. She loved it - towards the end we were looking through some books about him, and there was a photo of him painting himself by looking in a mirror, and she gazed at it and then breathed, "he's just magnificent". So what else should I take her to see given that she loves Freud, and clearly has a far more visual response than my other kids?


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 3:44 AM
horizontal rule
130

Other admirers of Vermeer: what do you make of the The Allegory of Faith?

I find it difficult to like the same way as other Vermeers, because I don't get any sense of the woman's inner life, or not one I can relate to, anyway. I've not seen it in person, though.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 4:19 AM
horizontal rule
131

In terms of photography, I tend to like the pre-WWII 'modernist' stuff a great deal. Moholy-Nagy, Munkacsi, Rodchenko, and the like. The Royal Academy had an exhibition a year or so back of Hungarian photography. The Hungarians seem to have been everywhere. So Brassais, Robert Capa, Moholy-Nagy, Munkacsi, et al were all Hungarian. Some of that stuff was amazing.

And also I like a lot of the post-WWII American and British stuff that was more rooted in portrait and commercial/fashion photography. So people like Saul Leiter, Irving Penn, Avedon, etc. And also people with more a 'reportage' style, like Salgado. I'm much less a fan of conceptual 'art' photography as it has evolved since the 1970s. Not because it's conceptual -- so were Moholy-Nagy, and the like -- but because it seems (to me) to be lazy and glib.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 4:43 AM
horizontal rule
132

I do like stuff, but I'm not very interested in knowing who did it or remembering any details about it (ditto actors, films, music, etc - am I history's greatest monster?).

I can't really help doing that. My brain seems to work that way. I just remember trivia or facts of that nature, without any effort. I'll remember who the assistant producer was on an album I sort of like, or who was the cinematographer on some shitty film, and so on. All without making much effort to think about it at all. My wife, who is much better read in art history than I am, and who is more knowledgeable about most pre-20th c. art than I am, gets irritated by it.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:11 AM
horizontal rule
133

Looking around our apartment, I find that the most represented artists are Tweety's grandmother (two watercolors), Bernd and Hilla Becher (a big mounted poster and a panel I tore out of an exhibit brochure and framed), and mcmc (a print and a small painting). Someday we'll buy a big mcmc painting, and then she'll be the most represented artist!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:20 AM
horizontal rule
134

Blume wasn't counting my office, which would put Sifu Tweety solidly in the lead with two drawings and a painting.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:29 AM
horizontal rule
135

I really love painting, as a form, but it was because my mother was an art student and kept her sanity during a hard stretch of motherhood, when I was little, taking us to museums a lot. Later, she volunteered at our school to come in with big giant prints of famous paintings from the library to lecture about them. I have favorite painters, but way, way too many to list.

I suspect everyone has an art medium they just don't "get"--poetry, orchestral music, or something. For me, it's architecture. I feel like I know a lot of people who can't even stand to be in our campus;s brutalist library because it's unappealing to them on the outside, and I really don't have strong reactions that way.


Posted by: AWB | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:31 AM
horizontal rule
136

Dear Italian Renaissance:

I like paintings of the Baby Jesus. Do you have any?

Keep on rockin',

Flippanter


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:37 AM
horizontal rule
137

Also, Chardin. I went to the big Chardin exhibit at the Met several years ago four or five times.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:39 AM
horizontal rule
138

135

I suspect everyone has an art medium they just don't "get"-- ...

Things like literature and music have popular forms with wide exposure. Painting not so much leaving me with basically no knowledge or opinions at all.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:05 AM
horizontal rule
139

Things like literature and music have popular forms with wide exposure. Painting not so much leaving me with basically no knowledge or opinions at all.

Sounds like you're blessedly unexposed to Thomas Kinkade.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:08 AM
horizontal rule
140

Things like literature and music have popular forms with wide exposure. Painting not so much

Display advertising?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:12 AM
horizontal rule
141

140

Display advertising?

Not really. With popular music or fiction I know the names of some of the artists. With display ads I have no idea. Are there famous display ad artists?

Somebody writes the copy for print ads but that is quite a bit farther from literature than popular fiction is.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:25 AM
horizontal rule
142

Who is painting's E.L. James or Taylor Swift, is Shearer's question.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
143

That is an interesting question. Popular visual art seems to slide into kitsch a lot faster than literature or pop music. Thomas Kinkade, as mentioned above? Precious Moments, inspirational posters, paintings of Jesus?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:35 AM
horizontal rule
144

With popular music or fiction I know the names of some of the artists. With display ads I have no idea

I bet you don't know the names of the songwriters, though.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:40 AM
horizontal rule
145

Things like literature and music have popular forms with wide exposure. Painting not so much

Maybe you could peruse more graffiti.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:40 AM
horizontal rule
146

I suspect everyone has an art medium they just don't "get"...

I feel like I miss a lot in a bunch of different artistic fields. Architecture works best for me in terms of gut-punchiness, though I hate a lot of things that get rave reviews from the cognoscenti. I've never encountered opera I could stand to listen to for more than a few seconds. Painting is right in the middle, though I have a very strong negative reaction to Picasso.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:45 AM
horizontal rule
147

Maybe you could peruse more graffiti.

Good point. There's always Banksy.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:46 AM
horizontal rule
148

Popular visual art seems to slide into kitsch a lot faster than literature or pop music. Thomas Kinkade, as mentioned above?

This was my initial concern. One of the painters I like the best is James Tissot. The paintings seem to contain a story. Is James Tissot the Victorian equivalent of Thomas Kinkade? I'm pretty sure Lawrence Alma-Tadema is, and I like his stuff too.

But these things aren't popular at all anymore. What is popular from that era now is, like, Cezanne. Which seems to me like it wouldn't appeal to the mass audience at all, instead it appeals to the purists.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
149

Against better judgement, as 138 is almost certainly trolling:

Photography and the mechanical reproduction of images both had a lot of influence on painting. Compare J-L David or Gainsborough, maybe Hogarth, with Monet to see how painters responded to photography. Compare TL Lautrec's paintings with his incredibly accomplished (commercial) lithographs or read Walter Benjamin for early reproduction.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:51 AM
horizontal rule
150

There shouldn't be a negative reaction to 138, assuming we're talking about current painters. Who is there that people should be highly aware of? Murakami? Gerhard Richter? There's no middlebrow culture anymore, these people aren't on the front page of Yahoo News.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
151

I agree: whether or not 138 was meant as trolling, it's an interesting question.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 6:59 AM
horizontal rule
152

150. Patrick Nagel or Anne Geddes for instance, maybe not to know them by name. A physical painting changed meaning pretty drastically with lithography and mass production.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
153

I wonder about illustrators, too. Ludwig Bemelmans isn't exactly a household name, but lots of people know the Madeline books. Maurice Sendak?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
154

And interesting across media.

This is not a thesis I'm going to put forward with any degree of confidence, but it seems to me that 150 is right: in literature, maybe as well as in graphic arts, somewhere around Modernism a sharper division opened up between popular entertainment and serious Art than had previously existed. Like, there's no popular poetry anymore outside of song lyrics -- people who read anything at all used to read poetry; bad poetry, competent poetry, genuinely good poetry, but there was a continuum from popular nonsense up to the stuff that's survived as serious literature. While there may be good contemporary poetry, no one much reads it except other poets.

Visual arts seem to me to be similar -- largely limited to a conversation between people seriously involved in the art world, and once you get outside of that small circle of intense interest, there's nothing but commercial design.

TV is really the only place I can think of (well, prose fiction I suppose as well, but the split I talked about above is going on there too) where there's some volume of material that's aiming at that middle-brow space where it's clearly the same thing as popular entertainment but it also has serious ambitions as art -- stuff like The Wire. I don't watch much of it, but it seems to exist.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
155

There's no middlebrow culture anymore

Not sure about this. The annual Royal Academy exhibition, frex, is always rammed and I dare say its American equivalent is too. I've no idea who all those people are, or whether they know the names under the pictures they're looking at, but they're the apotheosis of middlebrow. That public must get its information somewhere.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
156

154: comics.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
157

Murakami did sorta make the news in NYC once.
"You snooze, you lose, buddy. Forget it."


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
158

Popular visual art seems to slide into kitsch a lot faster than literature or pop music. Thomas Kinkade, as mentioned above? Precious Moments, inspirational posters, paintings of Jesus?

I get coffee from a place that calls itself a gallery several times a week. In my opinion, everything I've seen there has been shit. Not in a kitschy-like-Kinkade way, though.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
159

Yeah, I don't think in the UK at least you can assume that "high art" painting isn't also popular. Probably helped by the fact that most of the big museums are free (at least for permanent collections). The big name exhibits, your Monets, Picassos, Turners, etc are always jam packed and it's not all toffs.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
160

158.link: Isn't David Lynch already David Lynch meets Leave it to Beaver?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
161

153: I recommend the Bemelmans Bar to all comers.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
162

154.3: I get the sense that 'serious' art is a bit of a circlejerk, deliberately alienating to people not part of the club.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
163

159: But that's not really what I'm talking about -- not that the public's lost interest in high art, but that contemporary art has changed to be less connected to popular entertainment. People going to see Monet, Picasso, and Turner are looking back to before that split happened. (I really shouldn't be arguing this, I honestly don't know what I'm talking about.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:24 AM
horizontal rule
164

154. The images that people care about now are mass-produced, usually anonymously, and are seen as disposable. "Clever" T-shirts, posters, tumblr backrounds, a video with a particular visual style are all examples of what I am thinking of. Most middling-stable people that I know have photographs or reproductions of old works on their walls.

Much of their literary culture is also anonymously produced and disposable-- sitcoms, DK illustrated books, magazine articles.

I was thinking about this the other day-- the death of the author was once a theoretical construction, an abstraction that took some work to percieve. Conicidentally also a power fantasy of the early communists, but is now a boring everyday reality under high capitalism.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
165

What chris and Ginger Yellow said. Big galleries in Britain are busy, and Tate Modern is wildly popular. Big new exhibitions sell out to a mass audience.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
166

154:Film.

162: Well, yeah.

163:Remember, the impressionists barely sold before say 1900, so 25-50 years for greatness to get widely recognized is not unusual.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
167

163. I don't think what happens at the RA really qualifies as "high art", or not most of it. Aspirational, maybe?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:33 AM
horizontal rule
168

Hrm. In NY, while big exhibitions are crowded, I wouldn't think of that as meaning much -- the city's big enough that you can do an awful lot of crowding with a very very tiny percentage of the population. But it could obviously be totally different in the UK.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
169

168. OK. In Malaga, a smallish town, the Picasso Museum (it's his birthplace) is elbow to elbow tourists of all nationalities


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
170

163. I do not think that Jeff Koons or other bullshit superstar artists are worth thinking about, there's a lot of worthwhile contemporary art which is worthwhile and is not alienating. Banksy's already been mentioned, film and video directors are another place where carefully constructed images are created for an attentive audience.

Museums and galleries don't mean what they used to, but I see that as a direct consequence of mechanical reproduction of images rather than anything stemming from modernism.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:41 AM
horizontal rule
171

154:We vastly overrate our long-form TV series in America because our artfilm culture is horrible. This is not as much the case overseas, and I think an appreciation of artfilm in say Germany makes their best television better that America's. Heimat and BerlinAlexanderplatz.

America really sucks.

Can't find the article at Tyler Cowen's about how the vast Chinese film market is now getting bored with American action blockbusters and watching domestic made personal dramas instead.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
172

168: Big exhibitions are always super-popular here, too. As are evening hours st the art museums.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:49 AM
horizontal rule
173

Ahh Here NYT

When "Iron Man 3," an action heavyweight from Disney's Marvel Entertainment, opens in coming days, it will slug it out with a small, domestically made romance called "So Young," about a Chinese woman who reconnects with her college sweethearts. It is hard to be certain which film will be the underdog.

Now "So Young" may be pablum. But that there is a viable market for such movies means that good artfilms with such subject matter can get financed and distributed, which is barely the case in America. It is the case in China, Japan, Korea. Movies for and about women get made. Quality TV for and about women gets made.

Hell, we barely have any decent long-form tv series for and about women, without a high-concept fantasy hook.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
174

Fuck off, bob


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
175

I suspect everyone has an art medium they just don't "get"--poetry, orchestral music, or something.

Poetry, yep. I like this and that but on the whole I don't enjoy it and don't feel enriched by it.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
176

?? bob's coherent and nearly relevant. Wrong about the sexism (I draw your attention to the Lifetime channel, bob, and let me also say that Dallas and its hideous spinoffs ran a lot of perfume and depilatory ads), but otherwise fine. bob's worthwhile on film and TV.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
177

173 -- the art film market abroad isn't more viable because Americans are uniquely unsophisticated, it's because foreign governments abroad sponsor and pay for art movies. Which, to be clear, the US should also do.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
178

I don't see how "America sucks for the following reasons" is relevant to the question "What visual art do you like".

Now, posts 11 and 74, those are great.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
179

I think an appreciation of artfilm in say Germany makes their best television better that America's. Heimat and BerlinAlexanderplatz.

While crazy things exist on German television now and then (I'm thinking more of things like Alexander Kluge's show than of your examples), it's mostly crap like Tatort and Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
180

Anybody, so long as they painted on black velvet.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
181

First Friday of every month, most of the art galleries, and a number of spaces that aren't art galleries at all, open from 5-8. Local artists mostly, with a broad definition of local. Counting the places that aren't signed up with the cultural council, we're talking maybe 20-25 venues. All packed. As are the sidewalks between venues.

And not just for the wine, and the growlers of local beer -- my artist friends tell me some stuff actually gets sold.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
182

Suggesting that somebody wakes hung over and in bed with a painting they can't stand sober.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
183

re: 175

Yup, me too. There's the occasional thing I like (sometimes quite a bit), but I've never really gotten it as an art form, except when sung. I've a few big blockbuster poetry anthologies that I dip into now and again, but I rarely find much that is much better than passably OK.

Opera, ditto. Although in the case of opera, there are lots of individual arias I like, and some whole operas that are pretty good, but as a form I find it largely irritating. Or the hit-to-miss ratio is unusually poor for me compared to most other art forms.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
184

I get coffee from a place that calls itself a gallery several times a week. In my opinion, everything I've seen there has been shit.

Oh god, you should(n't) see some of the "galleries" around here. Nigh suicide-inducing.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
185

I don't see how "America sucks for the following reasons" is relevant to the question "What visual art do you like".

How could I possibly approach that latter question without referencing the cinematic and electronic?

Walter Benjamin rules, and we have moved two stages past oils and watercolors on the walls, and one stage past mass reproduction into god-knows-what. Mass distribution? Obviously the world-of-available-and-accessed-images on the Internets is a quantitative become qualitative change for all of us, so catastrophic (in radical change sense) as to mark, I think, a change in consciousness, a phenomenological disruption.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
186

There are many many paintings I love, but somehow I find it hard to imagine hanging the kinds of paintings I love* in my house -- so many are just of a scale and weight that would overwhelm any living space I would actually inhabit.

*Many watercolors, for me, feel more like drawings than like paintings, or at least they class more naturally with drawings than with oils.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
187

It's interesting, I've long liked but known next to nothing, really, about contemporary painting and sculpture. I've had a lot of contact with that world recently, and sort of like being ignorant -- it keeps me from being a blowhard or have an overly conditioned response and makes the appreciation feel more pure. The downside is that I really don't know anything and can barely remember artists' names.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
188

I presume everyone of us could easily loop the last minutes of L'Eclisse and have it repeatedly playing in wide screen on our living-room walls.

We don't. Why not?

Or any of a billion other clips.

185:I have a personal problem with exclusively possessing any art I would think worth looking at. Not so much in keeping others from it, as in what enjoying that power or privilege would say and mean about, and do to, me. "Mine" damages me, I think.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
189

If I had the last minutes of L'Eclisse playing, we couldn't play Lego Star Wars on the Wii.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
190

We don't. Why not?

Because it's really different to loop a part of a narrative than to look at a still picture?

Also, I have definitely told here before of the Italian restaurant in the jetBlue terminal at JFK, where their art is just that: a bunch of flatscreens playing a loop of parts of Roman Holiday, 8 1/2, and... the final scene of La Notte?!!*

*marital rape


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
191

I went once to a house of a rich dude who had bought some video art and had it on display. It was ... kind of annoying in the context of a private home, and I like a lot of video art when seen in galleries. For example, this.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
192

There's the occasional thing I like (sometimes quite a bit), but I've never really gotten it as an art form, except when sung.

Right, yeah. T. S. Eliot...Evgenii Onegin...some e.e. cummings. Some of it is hard to resist but mostly I just don't have a use for it. Unless it's sung, as you say.

As to opera, yeah, it's rarely all that good. I just find it exceptionally exciting when it is. The worst thing about it is the culture around it, which is to say the people who like it.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
193

Italian/French artfilm is my blind genre. If I'm a loop something on my wall, it's Paradjanov or Preston Sturges and betwixt lies an abyss.

Re: 154, high/low is complicated but of course Bob's right to point to moving pictures as our current medium gluing the two together. Prose fiction had that job for about a century; in 1811 you have Coleridge convinced that novel-reading "occasions in time the entire destruction of the powers of the mind," but by the 1830s or so Schlegel and Walter Scott have convinced everybody otherwise. Or to be less history-of-ideas about it, once technological change has given printed narrative a wider reach, people make use of it who might once have been snooty.

I think there might be a story to tell about a new high/low split in the vernacular tongue emerging right when everyone stopped learning the classical languages.


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
194

Opera, ditto. Although in the case of opera, there are lots of individual arias I like, and some whole operas that are pretty good, but as a form I find it largely irritating. Or the hit-to-miss ratio is unusually poor for me compared to most other art forms.

Pretty much word for word. I love most Mozart operas, and almost nothing else. I find in most cases the narrative and the musical form are dissonant in a way that I can't get over.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
195

If only there was a way to commision a golf- and football-themed opera. Maybe as a can't-fail way to lose money for some tax advantage.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
196

Ben Elton would probably write one if asked.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
197

192 last -- I have never heard such homophobia on this blog!

I like opera a lot (though in my general "no desire to be a superfan/collector/connoisseur" way) but it definitely requires basically ignoring the plots except in maybe a kinda squinting way that pretends that they are hinting at something good. A lot like rock lyrics, which are necessary but mostly terrible.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
198

Maybe as a can't-fail way to lose money for some tax advantage.

Never put your own money in the show!


Posted by: Opinionated Max Bialystock | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
199

I am something of a superfan who ignores the plot most of the time. I couldn't tell you in any great detail what happens in some of my very favorites. Not all libretti are bad, though. I think that gets overstated.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
200

Not at all irrelevant to this thread: we used to fund high art in this country through the CIA.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
201

Next we'll be funding CIA spy work through Kickstarter.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
202

|| Meanwhile the carnival that is the Montana legislature continues to entertain. The House has gone home, and won't be back until 2015. Not before congratulating themselves on not expanding Medicaid, which would have extended coverage to 70,000 people and created a thousands of jobs. Take that, Obama! They did pass a budget, though, with the gov, R moderates, and Ds putting together a deal late last night. So, over to the Senate, which has to have a 2/3 procedural vote to suspend the rules and consider the budget. And keeps falling short, with R extremists unable to support the thing. And just barely fell short on a motion to go home without a budget. (Note, this isn't like the feds where budget is just a formality. This is the real deal.) So maybe we can have our own little shutdown. |>


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
203

"Hey, I'm [name elided], and me and my friends were thinking: what if we got off the couch and assassinated Salvador Allende? Pretty cool, right? Problem is, assassination is pretty expensive and we're still paying off our loans, living on Avenue D, and eating at Dojo. So I had this idea--I said 'I bet there are people out there who would chip in to see a cutting-edge assassination.' That's where you come in. Response to our previous assassinations has gone totally viral. This is gonna be big, and you can be a part of it. Chip in five bucks and cover some photocopies; chip in a hundred and we're that much closer to funding the weapons part of this crazy dream! Friends have told us we've got our heads in the clouds. Here's your chance to help us prove them wrong."


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
204

Given the CIA's use of militias hostile to the US's perceived enemies, and allowing these groups to do their won fundraising, kickstarter, where donors write their names down, would actually be a big step forward.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
205

Thread has slowed down. From Beach Beneath the Street

Jorn's antipathy for Bill's new Bauhaus prompted him to revise and elaborate his own writings on form, eventually published by the Situationist International as For Form. Jorn is not as optimistic about postwar culture as Bill. "Culture no longer takes place in a situation, because we can only speak of a situation when there is an event, and an act only becomes an event at the moment it is able to trigger sensation." Jorn's own art, like his collective actions, are attempts to reignite sensation through experiments in emergent form. Jorn thinks of movement and matter rather like Lautréamont's starlings, where discernible form emerges out of random movements of definite proportions. "This new view of the whole leads us to the awareness of a new dynamic method in formal and artistic creation. But this also teaches us that we must throw ourselves into the confusion and act directly on the contradictions by creating new ones, if we want to fertilize development."

1) You can google Asger Jorn and Bill Max for the oppositional nature of their art

2) First quote: An "event" demands a narrative, history and consequences, embedding in social time and space, to become part of the culture. Not something inherent, but added to it, in a panic mode. See Obsidian Wings today on the Boston Bombings.

3) I don't think emergent form needs technically random movements. A large enough data set or informational base becomes incomprehensible and choices from within it become arbitrary and unjustifiable. Synthetic reason is crowd-sourced.

4) Revolution emerges when we abandon choice and identity. Like the starlings. Or something.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
206

I Like This A Lot


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
207

144

I bet you don't know the names of the songwriters, though.

Mostly not except when they are also the performer.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
208

If I had the last minutes of L'Eclisse playing, we couldn't play Lego Star Wars on the Wii.

I don't have the last minutes of L'Eclisse playing, and Lego Star Wars still confuses the hell out of me. I think I may hate it even more than I hated Lego Indiana Jones.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
209

I've never tried Lego Indiana Jones, but Halo seems a bit much for a first grader. We compromised.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
210

Lego Halo can't be that far behind, right?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
211

My first grader is obsessed with Skylanders Giants. He doesn't even have it, but he has friends that do.

Its a cool concept - toys that are used to interface with the video game. But I don't want to pay through the nose for each additional toy/game character.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
212

It isn't a cool concept, it's a fucking racket and I hate them so much.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
213

Parts of it are cool, I suppose. You hardly ever have to make tricky jumps and it is set up so you can play without falling over the edge even if you're four (which is when we started with the original). Also, Puddy is one of the voices.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
214

Gormley is a superstar. Like, fuck-off super star. I'd say that most adult Britons have a vague knowledge of at least one of his works. (Which kinda replies to 111, but also to the "how popular is contemporary art" and I think the short answer to that is: massively. I mean, look at the YBAs.)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 04-24-13 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
215

214 is right. Everyone would know the Angel of the North, probably the statues on Corby beach (Another Place), and maybe some others. The YBAs remain huge, and Saatchi is much more famous as a collector of art than as a Tory-enabling ad man.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 2:15 AM
horizontal rule
216

Similarly, Grayson Perry is a genuinely famous.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 2:23 AM
horizontal rule
217

Still reading about Debord, still thinking:

Because it's really different to loop a part of a narrative than to look at a still picture?

I chose the last minutes of L'Eclisse for its lack of narrative. It could be Phillip Glass, or a travelogue through Yosemite, of a live-cam of an urban space. Or a clip that is indeed narrative, with people talking, maybe muted.

Well, we have aquariums. But movement on our walls might be too distracting? Why?

But okay, we want our interior private spaces to be static and well-defined (y'all have kids, I have dogs, so I won't say quiet, but the roles are predictable), but are reasonably comfortable ignoring movement, people, surprises in public or semi-private spaces. Are we different there? I know my identity is different in the parks, there is less around that is mine, that defines me.

Are most people's homes/interior spaces relatively fixed and static? Do very few of us change the wall decorations or object arrangements daily or weekly? Why?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 3:44 AM
horizontal rule
218

I like that Smearcase overlooks the words and plot in opera. I was so excited to see Ainadamar a few years ago and then couldn't make my brain stop gabbing about how awful the lyrics were and how easy it would be to improve them into something lyrical and then I felt bad about that.

I don't think I've ever been in a museum room where I couldn't find anything that held my interest, but I'm also not sure what consistently takes my breath away. I generally get so much more emotionally involved in material culture, all the pitchers and tiny stitches and ancient musical instruments and so on.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 3:53 AM
horizontal rule
219

215: Not to put too fine a point on it, but I thought Saatchi's greatest claim to notoriety was being so bald in his pursuit of Nigella Lawson that her then-dying-of-cancer husband was moved to comment if not approvingly, at least fatalistically.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 6:07 AM
horizontal rule
220

It could be Phillip Glass
It could get some wind for the sailboat.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
221

It could be Phillip Glass
It could get some wind for the sailboat.

It puts the lotion in the basket.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
222

Or else it gets thirty minutes of minimalist composition again.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
223

WTF? Someone just erased the future!


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
224

The future can never be known within any clarity, MAE. Any glimpses we think we see are just hopes, illusions, vague impressions of what may be.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
225

I detect the omniscient and omnipresent Hand of Neb.


Posted by: God | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
226

?!?!?!


Posted by: ? | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
227

I blame my comet comment, which stopped the thread from achieving circularity.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
228

Just as we were approaching the singularity.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
229

I detect the omniscient and omnipresent Hand of Neb.

That's right, laydeez.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
230

Well, MAE will always have the satisfaction of having left the highest ever comment, even if the record has been erased.

For the rest of you, I offer low hanging fruit.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-25-13 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
231

Gormley is a superstar. Like, fuck-off super star. I'd say that most adult Britons have a vague knowledge of at least one of his works

ISTR this coming up before and suggesting the definition that a well-known artist should have these things be true about themselves:
1) a random member of the public has a good chance of naming one work by them
2) a random member of the public, shown their most famous work, has a good chance of naming the artist

So that gets you Banksy and Damien Hirst, I think. Not sure it gets you Gormley though: everyone knows the Angel of the North, but how many people know who it's by?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 2:03 AM
horizontal rule
232

What's Hirst's most famous work? The pickled cow?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 2:10 AM
horizontal rule
233

That or the shark, I reckon.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 2:27 AM
horizontal rule
234

See, I know those things, but I can't remember (if I ever knew) what they're actually called in the catalogue, so to speak. Does that count?

Most of Banky's work doesn't even have formal names AFAIK.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 2:32 AM
horizontal rule
235

The shark is called something like 'The impossibility of death in the mind of someone living.' (Deliberately not googling to check)

I went to the big Hirst exhibition last year and liked it more than I was expecting. Some dreadful crap but some of the pieces really worked.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 2:43 AM
horizontal rule
236

Speaking of popular visual art, I went to the Light Show at the Hayward last night. Great stuff, and a wider variety of artists than I was expecting. I had got it into my head that it was going to be Flavin and a handful of others, but it's basically one work by each artist, for a total of a couple dozen. I was particularly impressed/struck by Eliasson's Model For A Timeless Garden and Jim Campbell's Exploded View (Commuters).


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 3:22 AM
horizontal rule
237

See, I know those things, but I can't remember (if I ever knew) what they're actually called in the catalogue, so to speak. Does that count?

Oh, I think so. No one knows the real name of a lot of famous paintings: Rembrant's Night Watch is called something like "The TA Unit Of Mynheer Someone van Other Having a Quijet Pijnt" and the Laughing Cavalier has a real name that completely escapes me.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 4:21 AM
horizontal rule
238

"The Shooting Company of Frans Banning Cocq" apparently, which probably explains why it's known in English as something else. Wikipedia also says that when it was cleaned in the 1940s it turned out to depict a scene in broad daylight and it was only the darkened varnish that made people think it was a night scene.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 4:35 AM
horizontal rule
239

Also, rather than a bunch of men in hats, it turned out to be a still life centered on a dead pheasant.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 5:03 AM
horizontal rule
240

"The Shooting Company of Frans Banning Cocq" apparently,

Also, rather than a bunch of men in hats, it turned out to be a still life centered on a bunch of very low hanging fruit.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 6:34 AM
horizontal rule
241

I'm sure there's another good cocq joke in there somewhere if someone cares to find it.


Posted by: Barry Freed | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
242

If only Frans hadn't Banned Cocq we could find out.


Posted by: joyslinger | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
243

Le Cocq Sportif


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
244

The physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living.


Posted by: Keir. | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 6:38 PM
horizontal rule
245

Didn't Frans just liberate Cocq? Matrimonially speaking.

Hirst's butterfly "stained-glass" windows are astonishingly beautiful. And of course quite violent.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 04-26-13 6:56 PM
horizontal rule