Painting

mixed_biscuits

_________________________

Is it just me or does this guy suck?
He's one of the few artists who I don't think I could emulate even if I tried all day.

I think his trademark muscular style is perfect for war and about as far as you can get from Hirst's whimsical dot paintings. I would start a war just to get a few more paintings out of him.

1689954637583.jpeg
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
is that Russel Crowe?
I asked Stable Diffusion to do a Howson painting of Russell Crowe but then I thought this would be inauthentic so I asked Peter Howson to ask Stable Diffusion to do a Peter Howson painting of Russell Crowe.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Carel_Fabritius_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
I read something about Degas admiring Daumier's lithographs the other day so I ordered a book of said lithographs off t'internet.

A literary discussion in the second Gallery
1280px-Honor%C3%A9_Daumier%2C_A_literary_discussion_in_the_second_Gallery%2C_published_in_Le_Charivari_%281864%29%2C_lithograph.jpg


What time is it please?
1024px-Honor%C3%A9_Daumier%2C_What_Time_is_it_Please%2C_published_in_le_Charivari_%281839%29%2C_lithograph%2C_24.1_x_19.8_cm._Cleveland_Museum_of_Art.jpg


I think they're wonderful. They're often very funny and full of beautifully observed images of human character, behaviour and facial expression (obviously quite exaggerated as they're caricatures). Plus they're just great drawings.

They remind me very strongly of Dickens—pompous lawyers, for example (see below). And Daumier—like Dickens—sometimes depicted tragic events without any humour, just moral outrage, as in the second lithograph here which Baudelaire said showed Daumier was "really a great artist".

s-l1200.webp


Rue-Transnonain-lithograph-Honore-Daumier-Washington-DC-1834.jpg


I dug out my collection of Baudelaire's essays last night and he writes about Daumier at length in "Some French Caricaturists". Here's a snippet:

"To conclude, Daumier extended greatly the limits of his art. He has made a serious art of it; he is a great caricaturist. To assess his true worth, he needs to be analysed both as an artist and as a moralist. As artist, Daumier's distinguished mark is sureness of hand. He draws like the great masters. His drawing is rich and flowing, it is an uninterrupted improvisation and yet it is not just chic. He has a a wonderful and almost divine visual memory, which takes the place of the model. All his figures stand firmly and are faithfully portrayed in movement. His gift of observation is so sure that it would be quite impossible to find in his drawings a single head that does not seem to fit on the body that carries it. A given nose, a given forehead, an eye, foot hand; it is all the logic of the scholar transplanted into a light and fleeting art, which competes with the mobility of life itself."
 

luka

Well-known member
I read something about Degas admiring Daumier's lithographs the other day so I ordered a book of said lithographs off t'internet.

A literary discussion in the second Gallery
1280px-Honor%C3%A9_Daumier%2C_A_literary_discussion_in_the_second_Gallery%2C_published_in_Le_Charivari_%281864%29%2C_lithograph.jpg


What time is it please?
1024px-Honor%C3%A9_Daumier%2C_What_Time_is_it_Please%2C_published_in_le_Charivari_%281839%29%2C_lithograph%2C_24.1_x_19.8_cm._Cleveland_Museum_of_Art.jpg


I think they're wonderful. They're often very funny and full of beautifully observed images of human character, behaviour and facial expression (obviously quite exaggerated as they're caricatures). Plus they're just great drawings.

They remind me very strongly of Dickens—pompous lawyers, for example (see below). And Daumier—like Dickens—sometimes depicted tragic events without any humour, just moral outrage, as in the second lithograph here which Baudelaire said showed Daumier was "really a great artist".

s-l1200.webp


Rue-Transnonain-lithograph-Honore-Daumier-Washington-DC-1834.jpg


I dug out my collection of Baudelaire's essays last night and he writes about Daumier at length in "Some French Caricaturists". Here's a snippet:

"To conclude, Daumier extended greatly the limits of his art. He has made a serious art of it; he is a great caricaturist. To assess his true worth, he needs to be analysed both as an artist and as a moralist. As artist, Daumier's distinguished mark is sureness of hand. He draws like the great masters. His drawing is rich and flowing, it is an uninterrupted improvisation and yet it is not just chic. He has a a wonderful and almost divine visual memory, which takes the place of the model. All his figures stand firmly and are faithfully portrayed in movement. His gift of observation is so sure that it would be quite impossible to find in his drawings a single head that does not seem to fit on the body that carries it. A given nose, a given forehead, an eye, foot hand; it is all the logic of the scholar transplanted into a light and fleeting art, which competes with the mobility of life itself."
took him 5 years look
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
A similar contemporary genius is David Squires, whose column/comic in a paper I apparently can't name on here anymore I often read despite knowing and caring nearly toss all about football
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Well actually looking at his pics now I can see he's artistically not fit to lick Daumier's 19th century hessian boots

But he's got the knack of making a man larf with funny faces so
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Got unholy stoned last night and wound up looking at a lot of art. It's a shame I have to smoke the demon weed from time to time to get excited about art, but there it is.

I discovered this painter, who apparently first learned to paint from Ian Dury https://www.humphreyocean.com/works/paintings/

The biggest revelation to me was flipping through a book about Monet I have and have never looked at much.

I've always appreciated Monet, obviously, but with brain-melting skunk to aid me, I felt that I really "got" what was so brilliant about him.

The impressionists are clearly victims of commercialisation, esp. when they're painting in bright colours that can look a bit saccharine when they're slapped on a biscuit tin or a tea towel, and that includes Monet (probably especially applies to him and Renoir).

So it's not always easy to see just how great they often were. I prescribe amnesia or silver haze.

default.jpg


Also Pisarro

1-the-little-bridge-pontoise-1875-camille-pissarro.jpg
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Wandered around the Nat Gal yesterday on a fairly mild dose of magic mushrooms. I wasn't tripping really (no visuals) but I was very much buzzing and highly susceptible. A bit like being stoned but without the paranoia.

Anyway, I found much to interest and thrill me, and a few paintings I stood in front of actually made me (no doubt thanks to my drug intake) feel intensely moved and excited.

No photo can possibly replicate the effect of standing in front of these paintings, which seem to me to be better lit than they were before (the gallery was recently refurbished so a lot of stuff has been moved about).

Firstly, the Van Gogh, which I was so delighted by that I briefly felt like crying:


And then this Turner, which I just thought was the coolest looking thing imaginable—the fireworks display of cloud and sunlight and mist.


In general I think being intoxicated as I was took me back to 'first principles'—i.e. not primarily looking for indicators of a particular period, a 'meaning' and so on, but appreciating paintings as sensory experiences.

I had that sort of return to naivety that psychedelics can induce, where it struck me with the force of a new discovery that the people in these paintings don't exist, it's all an illusion, isn't that amazing, isn't that fucking cool?

Left after two hours because I had to but would happily have spent hours more in there. It's one of my favourite places in THE WORLD.
 
Top