linebaugh
Well-known member
Did we ever see the fruits of that?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Not an original idea: this is just cancelling which everyone <30 yrs does
woops
is not like other people
version
Well-known member
‘Fit of pique’: lost vorticist masterpiece found under portrait by contemporary
Atlantic City by Helen Saunders discovered under Praxitella by Wyndham Lewis, who may have painted over it on purpose
www.theguardian.com
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I went 'off' art for some reason maybe 5 or 6 months ago. But my Tate membership rolled over the other week and I thought well I might as well go and see some exhibitions now that I've paid for a year of them – went to see Sickert at Tate Britain and enjoyed a lot more than I expected.
This was the highlight for me, in room 1 (maybe cos I wasn't fatigued/hungry/need a piss by that point, as often happens to me at exhibitions)
www.tate.org.uk
The recreation obviously doesn't do it justice. The real thing seemed to crackle with life. Also I loved the conceit of it – that this is just one small piece of a huge Biblical painting. ("He intended that it should look like part of a larger wall-painting and observed, 'We cannot well have pictures on a large scale nowadays, but we can have small fragments of pictures on a colossal scale'. Abraham was an Old Testament patriarch, but it is not known why Sickert chose this title, or why he felt it applicable to himself.")
This was the highlight for me, in room 1 (maybe cos I wasn't fatigued/hungry/need a piss by that point, as often happens to me at exhibitions)
‘The Servant of Abraham‘, Walter Richard Sickert, 1929 | Tate
‘The Servant of Abraham‘, Walter Richard Sickert, 1929
The recreation obviously doesn't do it justice. The real thing seemed to crackle with life. Also I loved the conceit of it – that this is just one small piece of a huge Biblical painting. ("He intended that it should look like part of a larger wall-painting and observed, 'We cannot well have pictures on a large scale nowadays, but we can have small fragments of pictures on a colossal scale'. Abraham was an Old Testament patriarch, but it is not known why Sickert chose this title, or why he felt it applicable to himself.")
Last edited:
jenks
thread death
I felt that whole exhibition crackled with life. Much more so that the Munch I saw at the Courtauld.I went 'off' art for some reason maybe 5 or 6 months ago. But my Tate membership rolled over the other week and I thought well I might as well go and see some exhibitions now that I've paid for a year of them – went to see Sickert at Tate Britain and enjoyed a lot more than I expected.
This was the highlight for me, in room 1 (maybe cos I wasn't fatigued/hungry/need a piss by that point, as often happens to me at exhibitions)
‘The Servant of Abraham‘, Walter Richard Sickert, 1929 | Tate
‘The Servant of Abraham‘, Walter Richard Sickert, 1929
The recreation obviously doesn't do it justice. The real thing seemed to crackle with life. Also I loved the conceit of it – that this is just one small piece of a huge Biblical painting. ("He intended that it should look like part of a larger wall-painting and observed, 'We cannot well have pictures on a large scale nowadays, but we can have small fragments of pictures on a colossal scale'. Abraham was an Old Testament patriarch, but it is not known why Sickert chose this title, or why he felt it applicable to himself.")
I’ve just been in the Guggenheim in Bilbao. And I’m not the first to think that the building is better than what’s inside. Always the same post 1950 - the returns are less surefire.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I'm interested in going back to the Courtauld but my friend tells me the Munch exhibition is pretty tiny
Saying that, I felt like the Sickert was too big. Perhaps an exhibition that big is best visited a few times so you can take it all in without pining for a sandwich or a poo
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Sickert doesn't fit this bill exactly but I was going to say one of the appealing things about his paintings is how (one assumes) purposively ugly they are
Another inheritance (I'm fully qualified to speculate) from Degas, who certainly didn't paint as ugly as Sickert did (the british palette of shit brown and drizzle grey) but started introducing asymmetry and weird framings and 'accidental' elements into his paintings, to capture the sense of life
There are two degas things in the sickert exhibition, both setting the template for some of sickert's best work (theatrical crowds / nude women in unglamorous poses and circumstances) and are two of the best things in the whole exhibition
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Here's a good harrowing crucifixion by a Russian https://arthive.com/nikolaige/works/395731~The_crucifixion
Two touches here 1. the bare background against the pebbly tussocky ground – as bleak as an industrial estate, you can imagine discarded fag butts and crisp packets blowing around the crosses 2. the roman with his back turned, uninterested in the agony happening behind him (auden on brueghel)
jenks
thread death
Yep the Munch is very small. Sometimes that’s great. I saw a Hals at the Wallace which probably only had 16 paintings but the curation was excellent and made the small number a rich and rewarding experience.
woops
is not like other people
i know your proid of youre poor diet but this is a new low
luka
Well-known member
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I was looking at some photos I took in Budapest in 2019 and stumbled across this Finnish artist
en.wikipedia.org
