This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

What Are Your Top Five Favorite Paintings?

25 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Mine would be as follows:

5) Gustav Klimt's "Philosophy."

4) William Blake's "The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed With the Sun."

3) Zdzislaw Beksinski's "AA78."

2) Thomas Cole's "Destruction" (from The Course of Empire series).

1) Francisco Goya's "Witches' Sabbath."

Edited by DeadCanDance
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ah, I will post the five paintings that have unduly affected me the most in my entire life. Not necessarily the favorite ones I use as a wallpaper. :finger:

5. Amore e Pische, by Bouguereau

Bouguereau_first_kiss.jpg

4. The Last Judgment by Michaelangelo

(partial)

Michelangelo,_Giudizio_Universale_03.jpg

3. The Tower of Babel by Bruegel

tower-of-babel-bruegel.jpg

2.

The Judgement of Paris by Enrique Simone

enrique_simonet_-_el_juicio_de_paris_-_19041.jpg

1. Sleep of Reason by Goya

goya_sleep_of_reason.jpg

Honorary mention:

LOBO issue #1 cover, by Simon Bisley

lobo-1-1-lobo-simon-bisley.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We both identified a Goya painting as number one. A man after mine own heart.

On that note, whenever I gaze upon Goya's "The Colossus," I cannot but think of it as the concrete manifestation of Schopenhauer's Will on the earth.

Edited by DeadCanDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The most impressive paintings I've ever seen aren't masterworks so favored by art historians. They're simple watercolor paintings in the children books on Greek Mythology:

Hal Frenck. He illustrated I. M. Richardson's books, and those watercolors have remained with me ever since then. :mrgreen:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice thread, :dcd: Just not that crazy about any of the stuff posted so far, I'm afraid. :sadcheer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not necessarily my five favorite ("five favorites" is way too reductive and limiting), but a five-set selection of paintings I love:

guernica3.jpg

old_peasant.jpg

jasper_johns_gallery_16.jpg

File9639-1.jpg

black-and-white-png.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My basic beef with the paintings listed by :dcd: and :heretic: is that they are far too illustrational for my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would have to say, the thing I think about when I like art, is simple lines, like the Uffington White Horse.

-Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

horse.jpg

:thumb:

Reminds me of Picasso's increasingly stripped-down bull drawings, which I'll post tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My basic beef with the paintings listed by :dcd: and :heretic: is that they are far too illustrational for my taste.

That's quite fine, I'm more interested in your reasons for each paintings.

I did explain the reasons for each painting I listed to a friend in private and they are largely biographical. Your reasons for each painting will exceed no more than that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In the film "Art School Confidential," one of the antagonists of the film called Picasso 'Pic-asshole' and said he was an "untalented little dwarf."

:(

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In the film "Art School Confidential," one of the antagonists of the film called Picasso 'Pic-asshole' and said he was an "untalented little dwarf."

:(

:heh: :heh: "Untalented little dwarf"; I like that putdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Give me some time, editing Dave's Sandal. Then I'll give my reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

*Bump*

Heretic and I have been discussing (arguing about) art in chat so I thought I'd reopen this thread and continue the chat discussion (argument) here. More later. 

Edited by davidm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

God, I hate  Bouguereau. :puker:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My basic beef with the paintings listed by :dcd: and :heretic: is that they are far too illustrational for my taste.

 

That's quite fine, I'm more interested in your reasons for each paintings.

 

I did explain the reasons for each painting I listed to a friend in private and they are largely biographical. Your reasons for each painting will exceed no more than that either.

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just to note, the works I posted in no way constitute my "five favorite paintings," just specimens of work that I like. I don't find it possible to make such a list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I like art that is transgressive. Unfortunately, such art may no longer be possible today, since all boundaries have been transgressed! Beyond these transgressed borders lies … nothing. Nothing at all. Like Hamlet's Undiscovered Country, like death itself, it may be that the next country of art is not so much undiscovered as undiscoverable, because, like the afterlife, it fails to exist. 

 

An artist like Bouguereau represents the apotheosis of a long line of artistic degeneration: Mighty Rembrandt turns in his grave. Finally, the artist, this Bouguereau,  brings to perfect fruition mindless idealization, empty prettiness, the triumph of surface over substance, of superficiality over depth. But then -- BAM! -- as though wielding Thor's hammer, the Impressionists come along and shatter art into millions of pixels of color, instigating a revolution in color and pictorial conception. A hundred fifty years later, we still have Impressionist painters, but their works are a dime a dozen, and no one cares or should care. Been there, done that. 

 

Then Van Gogh comes along and answers the petit bourgeois Bouguereau and his cloying confederates by painting The Potato Eaters. Even his brother hated it! It is ugly. And so Van Gogh introduces ugliness into the art canon, a strand of creation that Picasso will pick up and refine decades later. See his Weeping Woman, for instance. And so much else!

 

But Van Gogh then meets the Impressionists and abjures his own creations, contemptuously deeming them "brown-gravy" works, in the same way that in poetry, Van Gogh's contemporary, Rimbaud, abandons his own art and dismisses his work as "dishwater."

 

Van Gogh does not abandon art, however, but learning from the Impressionists he transcends them and produces his own magisterial works of color expressiveness that no one had ever seen or even imagined before. After Van Gogh dies, one of his idiot relatives proposes destroying all of the artist's works, so misunderstood were they. Fortunately this doesn't happen. Van Gogh's efforts spawn the Fauves, the Wild Beasts. Then Picasso comes along and (descending from Cézanne) does to form, what the Impressionists and Van Gogh did to color. We get Cubism, and then we get, for the first time in Kandinsky, non-representational art. Art is off to the races. The 20th century represents the great triumph of artistic transgression, the rebuttal to the banalities of Bouguereau and so many other hacks. We get German expressionism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, maximalism, pop art, postmodern art, on and on … and now we are run into the ditch.

 

In transgressing no borders, artists like Bouguereau negatively inspired the artists of the future to transgress all borders. However, having transgressed all borders, the artists of the last century and a half have left no borders to transgress! So pictorial art, like literature, is dead; to be sure great works are always turned out, but none of them will have the impact of the works of the past. As Henry Miller remarked about poetry in Time of the Assassins, his famous study of Rimbaud, What is the voice of poetry, above the roar of the atomic bomb? 

 

The only future I can see for transgressive art is the merging of Man with Technology; i.e., metaphorically merging Rimbaud with the atom bomb.

Edited by davidm
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great essay. Couldn't agree more  :cheers: 

Will this serve as an epilogue to your series on modern art? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, I will have to finish that, won't I? :doh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Does this mean we are not going to argue and fight? :confused:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Does this mean we are not going to argue and fight? :confused:

 

No reason, since your last substantial post actually confirms my thesis of cynical reason in America culture. :deal:

That's the difference between drunk debating in chat and posting in the thread soberly. :rofl:

Edited by The Heretic
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I liked your essay, but I would contest parts of it. The fact that the U.S. shifted from a creditor to a debtor nation in 1985 does not, in my view, mean the U.S. stopped being an empire. It really depends on how you define the word "empire." If by "empire" we mean the old colonial model of European powers that physically controlled overseas territory, then certainly all empires collapsed after World War II. If we simply define "empire" as "creditor nation," then, yes, the American empire ended in 1985. But I see no reason to do that. There's nothing wrong with debt per se, provided it can be serviced. It just seems to me that the U.S. borrows to finance its empire. But it's a different kind of empire. I would say that the empire today is the empire of transnational finance -- i.e., globalism. Globalism just is the empire, and the U.S. (along with other nations, certainly) remains at the forefront of this. Greece, for example, is no longer an independent nation, and its democracy is a sick and irrelevant joke. Greece is a colony of the empire of transnational finance, its people locked forever in indentured servitude that is hardly a step ahead of real slavery.

 

What has all this to do with art? Good question. When I come up with an answer, I'll let you know. :) But, seriously, I think there is an answer, or several answers, which touch on the interesting problem: Just what is the relation of art (and here I mean art in the broad sense; not just pictorial art, but literature, music, high art and popular art, etc. etc.) to the "real world"? So I'll try to offer some tentative answers -- opinions, really -- in a later post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here are some long-standing ideas about the relation of Art (in the broad sense, not just pictorial art) and the world at large:

 

Art tracks the contemporary world; comments on it, elucidates it, gives it form and meaning.

 

Art anticipates the world to come; i.e., the notion of the artist as a seer.

 

Art retroactively reconstructs what has already happened, trying to give form and meaning to the past.

 

And as I write down these well-worn tropes, I feel keenly how explanatorily futile all of them are. They are little more than cliches. 

 

Moreover, on my notion expressed upthread that art is dead, one might argue similarly for religion, philosophy, and even science. If this is even approximately right, what might it say about our world and where it might be headed?

Edited by davidm
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A post human future of Pantheonic proportions. :mrgreen: Will post at length after the games, but first, does the second part of the blog, regarding the generational decline of aesthetics, complement your recent post on the final exhaustion of art as a visual medium? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0