Personally, I like the piece but I couldnt live with it. It simply wouldnt match my decor and would probably be too big to put into my bedroom (where I keep a collage of things that I personally like but may not fit in with the rest of the house).
I love the period dress and the garden lamps. It has an 'innocence' about it that I find somewhat wistful. He he I feel like I'm back in Humanities class...this is fun.
I dont know how to post pictures so someone else will have to give us another one to look at.
1) An amazing piece of work. I love things from the post civil war reconstruction period that have a focus on the reintroduction of light(masterfully rendered!) child like innocense and natural richness and beauty. Is a very hopeful and forward looking painting that was a theme after the incredibly dark and destructive times of the recent 1860's ...
It still emanates those same qualities (at least to me) in almost a timeless way although it is fairly easy to date it from in being a product of that period.
No matter--yes its a great piece.
2) Well hell yeah Id enjoy living with it!
I'll put right up in the trailer next to the dogs playing poker!
seriously--I'd love to live with it but I dont have the right context and space for it, if I lived in a large Victorian Home and had an ..i dunno..a large mahogany walled relaxed library or something like that where it had time--I'd take it---but I dont have the library or any other appropriate space for it to really work at the moment and somehow itwouldnt seem right hanging over my tool bench...
3)Like I said, its a very hopeful painting, that plays to the virtue of....not innocence exactly---maybe....say....simplicity and or purity.
The light in the lanterns as well as from the children seems to emanate from within. They are clothed in pure white and the lanterns they hold ( a message of some sort?) also emanate the light that they have placed there--they almost imply
Centuries previous always seemed to have angels with simple light filled halos, winged, arriving from someplace else with whatever message they had to deliver, portrayed in a more strictly religious context.......This seems to take out the religious context and "sees" the renewed message of hope in the simplest things of everyday life, -- two young girls in a garden---if we keep our eyes open to see, and find the 'message' within that new (for the time) context.
The image is almost archetypical that appears all through history in one form or another, every generaton seems to need to find an example that works in their own time. Sargent did good to find it in his...it spiritualizes a simple moment--and move that experience from religion to everyday.
as far as my feelings for the painting...Im too moody, I vassilate(sp). I obviously appreciate the message and the paint craft in it, I can 'see it" appreciate it and feel what it offers one second, and then think it a bit sappy and sentimental the next.
Thats not to downgrade the painting, nor have less appreciation of it but its in a way an amazingly conceived and executed period piece that depending on me may or may not have immediate relevance
Anyone own a Gauguin? I think he died in the West Indies chasing the female art market in 1903. Post Impressionist. Also lived in Copenhagen, a great city to visit...if you like blondes? But I'm sure the WC taught you all that, that is if you were taking notes?
I could live with it (no - it doesn't go with my decor and its way too big for my walls but I can dream...)
I look at it from the POV of the problem of painting this scene. The evening light, the reflected light of the lanterns on sleeves and faces - all just astound me.
Hopefully there will be more on this painting. If not, someone please post one tomorrow.
Yea but what do I know? I just took a few moments to muse some on it and ramble a little, Good art to me always has a different thing to unveil, awaken or remind you of depending on where you are.... thats part of what makes art interesting to me, The observer can also take part in the creative process to some degree in the experience of viewing it
I dont think any one interpretation or feeling is necessarily set in stone.
If it were a different day or I really didnt take the real time to actually look and experience it I may have said it would make a nice postcard :)
But thats one of the underlying points, is that art (or spiritual moments or whatever you want to call it) are all around us, Whether I see the things around me as art or a 'postcard' is up to me.
I really dont know anything about art and could be way way off base, doojable asked I just gave a few thoughts of what ran, walked, crawled and zapped through my mind
That's about how I feel Mstar. I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to interpret a piece of art. You either like it or you don't. You either see stuff in it or you don't. It either moves you in some way or it doesn't. Simple.
What do you do now? I'd say, please start looking for a piece of art to post. Please.
It's a nice picture, painted around the time my cottage was built except that my cottage is far too small for something of that size! A smaller print would be nice here. The glow of the lanterns is warming and hopeful. The little girl's face (the one facing the viewer) is sweet. I like it more as I look at it more often.
Would the full size version be a little overpowering?
Not sure if I would give it house room as it doesn't appeal particularly to any emotional area. It's just nice to look at.
My house is filled with things that people have given me/old family pieces. They have an emotional investment.
(PS I have a rose just that color pink in the garden, too)
Sargent is one of my favorite painters of all time. Definitely a great one. So, sorry for the art-gasm that follows.
This painting is not one of my favorites, but it is an excellent painting and I like it. IMO though, it does not display Sargent's greatest attribute. His handle on light is superb as always and that is one of the great things about him. Although, i think his greatest qualities as a painter is his ability to get just the right amount of detail with as few strokes as possible. It is like great poetry, saying the most with as few words as possible.
I would take the painting... no doubt, but there are others I'd rather have and so as to not take up a ton of space I will post one of his I would really like to live with and then just have post a bunch of links to other works of his, because if you haven't seen them you need to. One of my favorites of Sargent's work would be his "Daughters of Edward Darley Boit."
... through the eye of the beholder... I tend to look at art in the same way I approach my own art. I don't necessarily enjoy a piece because I like the subject matter. Rather I look at all paintings first abstractly, in a compositional sense... how it is laid out and put together and the spacial and organizational choices the artist made, the impact and skill in the line of the work (both in the actuall line and in the implied lines of the composition). Secondly, I look at the technique and what I like most is what I said above... saying the most with as few strokes as possible... the "hand" of the artist. So in light of that, I feel that the lily painting is almost overworked for Sargent. I much more enjoy his "Study of the Vicker's Children". In that one you can see how it is much flatter and "unfinished" looking, but you see his process, his decisions, how he is unafraid to paint right over areas and rework it quickly as he goes. I think I might like more of Sargent's "studies" than many of his more finished paintings.
In the painting of the Boit Daughters you see that abstract quality of his composition that I like. His geometric breakup of the composition is quite clear, simplistic, and striking and they are not without purpose. It is a simple relatively flat backdrop but creates areas of interest that move the viewer across the canvas. Plus, what the hell is that orange triangle over on the right? A screen? Just a random orange triangle? It's a bold choice no matter and it balances the girl on the left and as you "read" the painting (for most of us from left to right) it keeps you in the frame and brings you back down to that cute little girl and the beauty of that persian rug. The rug and the huge vessels are classic Sargent in that simplistic stroke, yet giving you just the right amount of detail. You see the same in the simple strokes of light bouncing around highlights in room. The figures, while life-like (I'm sure they look just as the girls did), to those of us who don't know them it is less about the figures and more about the rhythm of those white dresses and for Sargent, I would say, it was the same- less about the individuals and more about the composition.
The limited palette again lends to the abstract qualities of this painting. Those blue, brown, and orange colors are actually very modern and contemporary today.
Another beautiful thing he does in many of these paintings is his treatment of the edges of the canvas. In the Boit Daughters you see everything contained within the canvas with the exception of that vase on the right going off the page, but again the orange triangle keeps things in the frame. You see this sort of thing in the "Fumee d'Ambre Gris" painting (the capital on the upper right peeking in), the painting of Robert Stevenson (lady on the right and furniture on the left), and the bottom border of the Pailleron Children. He did this little compositional trick all the time and it works really well.
Wow Lindy! Thanks so much for all of that. Someday we need to compare notes on JSS - also my favorite artist.
I recently got to see quite a few of his paintings while I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. I'll add one last tidbit:
JSS was fanatic about having the same light hitting his canvas as was hitting his subject (not always easy to do.) He painted most of his portraits at near full size and would position the canvas so that it was close to the subject and, while painting, would run back a few paces until the image he was painting and the subject appeared to be the same size. Once he figured out his next stroke he would run up to the painting, brush in hand and make his strokes.
The watercolors that JSS did were also quite something. I'll post one or two of those later on in the thread.
Anyway - who would like to post the next piece?
*I'm sure that information about art and artists will surface on this thread, but by no means does that mean the original intent of the thread is to be abandoned. The same questions apply. If you really like or don't like a piece - feel free to say so.
That was quite a breakdown on this painting. Me I'm a bit more simplistic. I like it but it doesnt flip any switches for me. I like the detail that he put into the vases and the rug and in the hair of the girls but as you said Lindy the rest of it is kind of flat and I understand that that was the artists intent but it kind of makes me feel kinda flat. I liked the first one better. It had more depth to me. But hey I'm just a looker and not a doer when it comes to this kind of painting.
I saw several of his works at the MOMA in NYC a few years ago.
I left with the distinct impression that someone had been blowing smoke up my azz.
Just how is it that drizzling paint on a canvas is art?
I'm sorry, when it takes a self-important, snobbish, condescending dweeb with a Doctorate in Art History a half an hour to explain to the unwashed heathen (like me) why a given work of art is "Important" or "Vitally important" to the collective Ouevre of "art", I'm afraid something is missing. That something is some indication of talent or ability on the part of the artist.
I don't get it at all. Pollock, Jasper Johns, even Andy Warhol did little that impressed me much. But, whuddu I know? I'm not an art Historian.
Wolfe's essay ridicules the wide-spread influence of a few elite art critics upon contemporary art. Wolfe contends that someday their theories will be regarded as the works of art and the paintings and sculptures as illustrations of them.
I highly recommend it to anyone frustrated with the trend that Modern Art needs to be "explained."
The Painted Word charts the erratic course of the social history of Modern Art from its beginnings in revolution—a revolution against literary content in art—to its present state, in which it has become, quite unconsciously, a parody of itself, obsessedly devoted to the pronouncements of certain guru-critics, to the point of reductio ad absurdum, to the point where—turnabout being fair play—it has become as literary, as academic, as mannered, as clubby, as the salon painting against which it first rebelled.
Soon after Modern Art developed, it became fashionable. Society (le beau monde, Cultureburg) and art critics attached themselves to it like pilot fish; but then they grew, and grew, and grew, until—as Abstract Expressionism gave way to Pop, as Pop spawned Op, as Op fell before Minimal opposition, as what was Minimal became no more than Conceptual—Art began to serve fashion and theory. The shark vanished and left the pond to le beau monde and to the critics, custodians of the painted Word. Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Leo Steinberg—these are the big fish, Wolfe argues, not Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, or Jasper Johns. The argument is utterly convincing . .
I think what she needs is a photo shop make-over, especially the hairstyle. As for "La Gio Conda"s complexion, painted 1503-1506, she has always been described as a bit ambiguous. Maybe because too many men have tried to dissect her true nature and never invited her out for that long awaited "pizza"?
I like it - but don't love it. I've grown up admiring this painting. Oddly enough, I'm more drawn to her hands than I am to her face. Even though most people focus on her enigmatic look, I've always admired how peaceful her hands look.
I could live with it.
I feel fairly peaceful when I look at this painting.
I won't even begin to broach all the various and sundry theories about the subject of this painting. (Which run the gamut from "Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo" to
the theory that this is really a self-portrait of sorts. Supposedly DaVinci painted himself - as a woman.)
Mona is alright. It is a nice warm painting and like Dooj I tend to focus on her hands, I think they're lovely. Could I live with it, ya I could endure it in the house.
I don't much care for her. I find her sterile and stuffy! I couldn't live with it, but if you gave it to me, I'd take it. (Sell it and buy something else I liked better - tee hee)
Thanks for this thread Dooj! I've learned a lot and I'm learning to look at these things a bit differently. I do not know enought about any art to post a picture of it.....and I'm not going to tell you that I don't know much about art "but I know what I like"....because that's not true. I have a lot to learn.....so, come youse guyz....get busy and post and discuss another one.....Lindyhopper?????? Dooj???? Mstar????
Okay - Since his name came up in that quote from The Painted Word, I'll post a painting by Wilhelm deKooning.
Warning! I don't like this artist myself. But I thought I'd put this out there to see what attention tit draws:
Two Trees on Mary Street:
I don't like it.
It makes me feel very nervous. Like I've had too much coffee and taken a bottle of No-Doz.
I could not live with it.
Feel free to comment but I'd actually like to hear from someone that likes this piece. It's always interesting to me when I hear someone describe a work that I don't like but they do. That doesn't mean that you can't say you don't like it - I'm just hoping to draw in some of the Modern Art lovers into this thread.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
12
61
18
Popular Days
Jun 15
13
Jun 11
13
Jun 7
13
Jun 8
12
Top Posters In This Topic
George Aar 21 posts
mstar1 12 posts
doojable 61 posts
Eyesopen 18 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2008
13 posts
Jun 11 2008
13 posts
Jun 7 2008
13 posts
Jun 8 2008
12 posts
Posted Images
Eyesopen
Personally, I like the piece but I couldnt live with it. It simply wouldnt match my decor and would probably be too big to put into my bedroom (where I keep a collage of things that I personally like but may not fit in with the rest of the house).
I love the period dress and the garden lamps. It has an 'innocence' about it that I find somewhat wistful. He he I feel like I'm back in Humanities class...this is fun.
I dont know how to post pictures so someone else will have to give us another one to look at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
1) An amazing piece of work. I love things from the post civil war reconstruction period that have a focus on the reintroduction of light(masterfully rendered!) child like innocense and natural richness and beauty. Is a very hopeful and forward looking painting that was a theme after the incredibly dark and destructive times of the recent 1860's ...
It still emanates those same qualities (at least to me) in almost a timeless way although it is fairly easy to date it from in being a product of that period.
No matter--yes its a great piece.
2) Well hell yeah Id enjoy living with it!
I'll put right up in the trailer next to the dogs playing poker!
seriously--I'd love to live with it but I dont have the right context and space for it, if I lived in a large Victorian Home and had an ..i dunno..a large mahogany walled relaxed library or something like that where it had time--I'd take it---but I dont have the library or any other appropriate space for it to really work at the moment and somehow itwouldnt seem right hanging over my tool bench...
3)Like I said, its a very hopeful painting, that plays to the virtue of....not innocence exactly---maybe....say....simplicity and or purity.
The light in the lanterns as well as from the children seems to emanate from within. They are clothed in pure white and the lanterns they hold ( a message of some sort?) also emanate the light that they have placed there--they almost imply
Centuries previous always seemed to have angels with simple light filled halos, winged, arriving from someplace else with whatever message they had to deliver, portrayed in a more strictly religious context.......This seems to take out the religious context and "sees" the renewed message of hope in the simplest things of everyday life, -- two young girls in a garden---if we keep our eyes open to see, and find the 'message' within that new (for the time) context.
The image is almost archetypical that appears all through history in one form or another, every generaton seems to need to find an example that works in their own time. Sargent did good to find it in his...it spiritualizes a simple moment--and move that experience from religion to everyday.
as far as my feelings for the painting...Im too moody, I vassilate(sp). I obviously appreciate the message and the paint craft in it, I can 'see it" appreciate it and feel what it offers one second, and then think it a bit sappy and sentimental the next.
Thats not to downgrade the painting, nor have less appreciation of it but its in a way an amazingly conceived and executed period piece that depending on me may or may not have immediate relevance
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Nice Thread!
Besides visiting a million and one art museums in Europe the last 30 years or so... I live 5 km from this joint!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont-Aven
Anyone own a Gauguin? I think he died in the West Indies chasing the female art market in 1903. Post Impressionist. Also lived in Copenhagen, a great city to visit...if you like blondes? But I'm sure the WC taught you all that, that is if you were taking notes?
Le Bump
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I could not live with it but I think my mom would like it,shes an artist,its too perfect for me, I like Pollack and stuff like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Wow MStar you saw a whole lot more than I did! I guess it just didnt hit that spark for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Thanks guys and gals! :)
Personally, I like the piece.
I could live with it (no - it doesn't go with my decor and its way too big for my walls but I can dream...)
I look at it from the POV of the problem of painting this scene. The evening light, the reflected light of the lanterns on sleeves and faces - all just astound me.
Hopefully there will be more on this painting. If not, someone please post one tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Yea but what do I know? I just took a few moments to muse some on it and ramble a little, Good art to me always has a different thing to unveil, awaken or remind you of depending on where you are.... thats part of what makes art interesting to me, The observer can also take part in the creative process to some degree in the experience of viewing it
I dont think any one interpretation or feeling is necessarily set in stone.
If it were a different day or I really didnt take the real time to actually look and experience it I may have said it would make a nice postcard :)
But thats one of the underlying points, is that art (or spiritual moments or whatever you want to call it) are all around us, Whether I see the things around me as art or a 'postcard' is up to me.
I really dont know anything about art and could be way way off base, doojable asked I just gave a few thoughts of what ran, walked, crawled and zapped through my mind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
That's about how I feel Mstar. I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to interpret a piece of art. You either like it or you don't. You either see stuff in it or you don't. It either moves you in some way or it doesn't. Simple.
What do you do now? I'd say, please start looking for a piece of art to post. Please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It's a nice picture, painted around the time my cottage was built except that my cottage is far too small for something of that size! A smaller print would be nice here. The glow of the lanterns is warming and hopeful. The little girl's face (the one facing the viewer) is sweet. I like it more as I look at it more often.
Would the full size version be a little overpowering?
Not sure if I would give it house room as it doesn't appeal particularly to any emotional area. It's just nice to look at.
My house is filled with things that people have given me/old family pieces. They have an emotional investment.
(PS I have a rose just that color pink in the garden, too)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
1.Do you like it or hate it?
I like it a lot, especially the depth that is focused in the center. Also, the lighting is really warm and inviting.
It has a very soft, inviting texture to it.
2. Could you live with it?
Absolutely!(of course, I actually would have no where to display it.)
I think it would be best displayed in a setting that would maximize natural lighting that would approximate the lighting of the work.
3. What does it make you feel?
A sense of innocence lost but not forgotten.
Actually, it reminds me of an Iris DeMent song called Childhood Memories.
I wish I could stand in front of the real thing and get a feel for the texture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Sargent is one of my favorite painters of all time. Definitely a great one. So, sorry for the art-gasm that follows.
This painting is not one of my favorites, but it is an excellent painting and I like it. IMO though, it does not display Sargent's greatest attribute. His handle on light is superb as always and that is one of the great things about him. Although, i think his greatest qualities as a painter is his ability to get just the right amount of detail with as few strokes as possible. It is like great poetry, saying the most with as few words as possible.
I would take the painting... no doubt, but there are others I'd rather have and so as to not take up a ton of space I will post one of his I would really like to live with and then just have post a bunch of links to other works of his, because if you haven't seen them you need to. One of my favorites of Sargent's work would be his "Daughters of Edward Darley Boit."
... through the eye of the beholder... I tend to look at art in the same way I approach my own art. I don't necessarily enjoy a piece because I like the subject matter. Rather I look at all paintings first abstractly, in a compositional sense... how it is laid out and put together and the spacial and organizational choices the artist made, the impact and skill in the line of the work (both in the actuall line and in the implied lines of the composition). Secondly, I look at the technique and what I like most is what I said above... saying the most with as few strokes as possible... the "hand" of the artist. So in light of that, I feel that the lily painting is almost overworked for Sargent. I much more enjoy his "Study of the Vicker's Children". In that one you can see how it is much flatter and "unfinished" looking, but you see his process, his decisions, how he is unafraid to paint right over areas and rework it quickly as he goes. I think I might like more of Sargent's "studies" than many of his more finished paintings.
In the painting of the Boit Daughters you see that abstract quality of his composition that I like. His geometric breakup of the composition is quite clear, simplistic, and striking and they are not without purpose. It is a simple relatively flat backdrop but creates areas of interest that move the viewer across the canvas. Plus, what the hell is that orange triangle over on the right? A screen? Just a random orange triangle? It's a bold choice no matter and it balances the girl on the left and as you "read" the painting (for most of us from left to right) it keeps you in the frame and brings you back down to that cute little girl and the beauty of that persian rug. The rug and the huge vessels are classic Sargent in that simplistic stroke, yet giving you just the right amount of detail. You see the same in the simple strokes of light bouncing around highlights in room. The figures, while life-like (I'm sure they look just as the girls did), to those of us who don't know them it is less about the figures and more about the rhythm of those white dresses and for Sargent, I would say, it was the same- less about the individuals and more about the composition.
The limited palette again lends to the abstract qualities of this painting. Those blue, brown, and orange colors are actually very modern and contemporary today.
I could go on...
Take a look at these other Sargent works.
another favorite..the Pailleron kids
a simple "sketch" of a young man and a woman
another great abstract composition of a landscape
another favorite
a fantastic painting in white- Fumée d'Ambre Gris. I love the rug and floor again on this one.
Another beautiful thing he does in many of these paintings is his treatment of the edges of the canvas. In the Boit Daughters you see everything contained within the canvas with the exception of that vase on the right going off the page, but again the orange triangle keeps things in the frame. You see this sort of thing in the "Fumee d'Ambre Gris" painting (the capital on the upper right peeking in), the painting of Robert Stevenson (lady on the right and furniture on the left), and the bottom border of the Pailleron Children. He did this little compositional trick all the time and it works really well.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Wow Lindy! Thanks so much for all of that. Someday we need to compare notes on JSS - also my favorite artist.
I recently got to see quite a few of his paintings while I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. I'll add one last tidbit:
JSS was fanatic about having the same light hitting his canvas as was hitting his subject (not always easy to do.) He painted most of his portraits at near full size and would position the canvas so that it was close to the subject and, while painting, would run back a few paces until the image he was painting and the subject appeared to be the same size. Once he figured out his next stroke he would run up to the painting, brush in hand and make his strokes.
The watercolors that JSS did were also quite something. I'll post one or two of those later on in the thread.
Anyway - who would like to post the next piece?
*I'm sure that information about art and artists will surface on this thread, but by no means does that mean the original intent of the thread is to be abandoned. The same questions apply. If you really like or don't like a piece - feel free to say so.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
reminds me of alice in wonderland,it is cute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
That was quite a breakdown on this painting. Me I'm a bit more simplistic. I like it but it doesnt flip any switches for me. I like the detail that he put into the vases and the rug and in the hair of the girls but as you said Lindy the rest of it is kind of flat and I understand that that was the artists intent but it kind of makes me feel kinda flat. I liked the first one better. It had more depth to me. But hey I'm just a looker and not a doer when it comes to this kind of painting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I really admire the ability of an artist like this:
http://www.sai.msu.su/wm/paint/auth/vermee...er.milkmaid.jpg
Can't you feel the warmth of the sunshine on her shoulder? It amazes me how the appearance of light can be so
effectively portrayed with just oil on canvas.
Could I live with this? Hell yeah. Send a couple over. I've got the wallspace.
I can't say much of anything good about this sort of "stuff":
http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/lm1024.jpg
I saw several of his works at the MOMA in NYC a few years ago.
I left with the distinct impression that someone had been blowing smoke up my azz.
Just how is it that drizzling paint on a canvas is art?
I'm sorry, when it takes a self-important, snobbish, condescending dweeb with a Doctorate in Art History a half an hour to explain to the unwashed heathen (like me) why a given work of art is "Important" or "Vitally important" to the collective Ouevre of "art", I'm afraid something is missing. That something is some indication of talent or ability on the part of the artist.
I don't get it at all. Pollock, Jasper Johns, even Andy Warhol did little that impressed me much. But, whuddu I know? I'm not an art Historian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
George - Get your hands on a book entitled, The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe.
Here
Here's a brief insight into the book:
I highly recommend it to anyone frustrated with the trend that Modern Art needs to be "explained."
Edited to add:
I found more on this book Here
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
This is an old smiling old favorite... I just can't remember her name...?
http://avline.abacusline.co.uk/pictures/jpeg/pics/mona.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I think I dated her in High School, Bumpy.
Of course, she had zits then.
(and she always wanted to go out for pizza, IIRC)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
I think what she needs is a photo shop make-over, especially the hairstyle. As for "La Gio Conda"s complexion, painted 1503-1506, she has always been described as a bit ambiguous. Maybe because too many men have tried to dissect her true nature and never invited her out for that long awaited "pizza"?
I think she would have been a cheap date!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Okay
Art:
"La Gioconda" AKA "The Mona Lisa"
I like it - but don't love it. I've grown up admiring this painting. Oddly enough, I'm more drawn to her hands than I am to her face. Even though most people focus on her enigmatic look, I've always admired how peaceful her hands look.
I could live with it.
I feel fairly peaceful when I look at this painting.
I won't even begin to broach all the various and sundry theories about the subject of this painting. (Which run the gamut from "Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo" to
the theory that this is really a self-portrait of sorts. Supposedly DaVinci painted himself - as a woman.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Mona is alright. It is a nice warm painting and like Dooj I tend to focus on her hands, I think they're lovely. Could I live with it, ya I could endure it in the house.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I don't much care for her. I find her sterile and stuffy! I couldn't live with it, but if you gave it to me, I'd take it. (Sell it and buy something else I liked better - tee hee)
Thanks for this thread Dooj! I've learned a lot and I'm learning to look at these things a bit differently. I do not know enought about any art to post a picture of it.....and I'm not going to tell you that I don't know much about art "but I know what I like"....because that's not true. I have a lot to learn.....so, come youse guyz....get busy and post and discuss another one.....Lindyhopper?????? Dooj???? Mstar????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
could i live with it?
sure,but i'd live alot more comfortable after i sold her!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Okay - Since his name came up in that quote from The Painted Word, I'll post a painting by Wilhelm deKooning.
Warning! I don't like this artist myself. But I thought I'd put this out there to see what attention tit draws:
Two Trees on Mary Street:
I don't like it.
It makes me feel very nervous. Like I've had too much coffee and taken a bottle of No-Doz.
I could not live with it.
Feel free to comment but I'd actually like to hear from someone that likes this piece. It's always interesting to me when I hear someone describe a work that I don't like but they do. That doesn't mean that you can't say you don't like it - I'm just hoping to draw in some of the Modern Art lovers into this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.