Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Mem, Aug 12, 2007.
or list your own
[sorry for the repeat posting, I ran out of time filling out the previous poll]
For me it's Rembrant. Anyone who can paint a portrait so well that it almost looks like a photo is a genius in my eyes.
Van Gogh Starry Starry Night
YouTube - Starry Starry Night
is there a competition bewteen you and AVALONLOVELOVE to see who can create the most polls?
Photo realistic representation is a skill that can be learned, that in itself would not make Rembrandt a genius.
It's not something that I can learn. I can't paint a nose that doesn't look like a bell pepper.
Rembrant is a artistic MASTER.
My second favorite is Van Gogh.
I admire all the artists you've listed in the poll, although I'm not sure any of them are my personal favorite. When I was a teenager I'd probably have said my favorite artist was Marc Chagall. While I still love Chagall, nowadays I'd probably say my favorite painter is Anselm Kiefer, and I also like Francis Bacon's work a lot.
Being a dancer I also have a soft spot for Degas' work, of course. :tongue:
How do you feel about Maxfield Parrish? I saw a show of his works in Philly a while back and it was awesome.
I disagree, photo realistic representation is not something that just anyone can learn. Some people have an inate talent, natural ability or whatever. If you take the average man off the street and give him the best teachers and supplys he still isnt going to be able to depict a person realistically.
One of my favorite painters is Artemisia Gentileschi.
I love the way she uses light and depicts women so strongly. I identify with and perhaps envy her a bit. She is the first woman in recorded history to have taken her rapist to court. . . and WIN! Given we are talking about the early 17th century this is quite remarkable.
Judith Slaying Holofernes (Naples version)
This is a dramatic and brutally graphic version of this biblical scene, but less so than a larger and even bloodier setting by Artemisia around 1620. She based her first glimpse on Caravaggio's famous painting from c. 1598-1599, but enlivens the action with realism and powerful female protagonists.
Judith was a Jewish widow of noble rank in Bethulia, a town besieged by the army of the Assyrian general Holofernes. She approached his tent as an emissary and captivated him with her beauty. He ordered a feast with much wine. After he passed out in his tent, Judith and her maid Abra saw their opportunity. Judith decapitated Holofernes with his sword and smuggled his head back to Bethulia. On seeing her trophy, the townsfolk routed the leaderless Assyrians. The story is an allegory picturing Judith as Judaism in triumph over its pagan enemy.
Artemisia may have painted the scene during or just after the trial of Tassi for raping her. He denied the charges but couldn't shrug off his record of sex crimes. He had previously served time for raping his sister-in-law and conspiring to murder his wife, whom he "acquired" by rape.
It appears that after a long period of sexual harassment by Tassi and the other male artists in his studio, he violated Artemisia's virginity, a requisite for marriage between decent people. A consensual sexual relationship continued because he promised to marry her. It is likely that Artemisia hoped that he would marry her to restore her reputation. Her father discovered the assault and charged Tassi with rape.
The trial was a painful public humiliation for Artemisia. During the proceedings, she underwent vaginal examination and torture with thumbscrews. She was accused of being unchaste when she met Tassi and also of promiscuity. He also attacked her professional reputation. A transcript of the seven-month court case survives.
It was not until recent years that research by Lapierre revealed that Tassi was found guilty. He was given the choice of five years hard labour or exile from Rome. He choose the latter, but he was back in Rome within 4 months, probably due to influence in high places.
Is this painting Artemisia's means of brandishing symbolic justice for herself and other victims?
I hate to be a nudge . . . but it's driving me crazy!
The 4th artist on your list, his name is Michaelangelo Buonarrotti. NOT Michael Angelo. :redface:
Yes, but he is commonly known by most as Michael Angelo and not as Buonarrotti.
Vermeer. If you can appreciate Dutch painters such as Rembrandt, you should look carefully at the very few known works by another famous Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. Although his portraits are not as striking in deep contrast as Rembrandt's, his meticulous, soft, but deft brush stroke is incomparable to almost any other artist's.
Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni is known the world over as: Michelangelo (one name, not two)
Harry Clarke. Photorealistic he is not. And a good thing, too. (This board doesn't do carriage returns very well, does it?)
Yes, he has that famous girl with a pearl painting. I think I recall one of his famous works is a ship in a storm.
I don't have a favourite painting as such, instead there are certain things I like about certain types of painter, I find a lot of the renaissance painters incredibly skilled technically but I find their subject matter limited and sombre, I enjoy the prettiness often found in Pre-Raphaelite paintings but they're fairly often executed with no great skill and by painters who have a limited repertoire. In some abstract paintings what I enjoy is the sense of movement, obviously the colour and the way that they encourage one to think and find one's own meaning in the work. I enjoy the dainty use of colour and the melting fluidity often found in Impressionist pieces and in Surreal paintings I enjoy the sense of fun the painter imbues them with and that they often challenge 'traditional' ideas.
I am partial to the works of Sandro Botticelli, I have a poster of his "Birth Of Venus" on my wall.
Frederick Maxfield Parrish was a particular favorite when I was in college. It was very interesting to me, how well he did the folds in a robe by just foreshortening the dots on the fabric.
I like Artemisia's work, and she had a very interesting life. I did have a copy of the Italian film based on her, loaned it and didn't get it back.
I think it is still a mystery what became of the work she did in England, presumably disappeared during the interregnum.
One more time for clarity! His first name is Michaelangelo; that is one word, not two. You can argue with me on this until the cows come home mem0101. I'm not backing down on this one; because I know for a fact I am correct. Before you take this one more step, you need to know that one of my three degrees is in art history. I am not an expert in all genres of art but the baroque and renaissance are areas in which I am extremely comfortable. :smile:
Thank you HardGuard! :veryhappy: Please don't confuse the OP with middle names LOL his poor little brain might explode.:biggrin1:
I think I love you more today than yesterday. :kiss: Awesome body and cock and you know about art! Talk about a winning trifecta!
I saw a Vermeer exhibit when it was in Washington, DC in early 1996. I was working on my MAT in Museum Education.
My friend Mia and I were the only snow bunnies in the class. We walked 2.5 miles through the snow to see the show. She was from detroit and me being from NJ we were the only ones that had proper snow attire. That was also the year Newt Gingrich (a.k.a. satan) closed the government for a couple of weeks. Can you say ruined internship? :tongue: