Painters and Visual Artists

Nice work - some of it reminds me a lot of Cezanne:

 

@DEFinning Here are three black and white versions of your picture. The first one below merely had the color saturation and vibrancy turned all the way down. The next two had the contrast and black levels adjusted a little bit.

 

Thanks. I think your bottom version is the most effective.

 

No problemo.

 

Nice job of showing that there's more to getting a nice Grayscale than just switching Modes.

And now for the Impasto version, layin' the paint down thick

 

Here's a Cubist piece by a painter that people usually either love or hate - Marc Chagall:



His stuff is pretty primitive, but I like the folksy and whimsical imagery in his paintings.

Buuuuut, what really interests me is the work he's done outside of painting, such as stained glass:



Not your usual rather rigid fare - his glass work is real fluid and organic, much like his paintings....

(cont. below)

 

Nice detail:



I must say that stained glass is a medium that really suited Chagall, perhaps even more so than painting,,,,

 

I am not a fan of Chagall's, but then I have only seen a relatively limited amount of his work, for that very reason. I will disagree with you, however, about his stained glass work being especially notable. One of the benefits of the lead lines, in the glass, is to provide contrast. That is, the black lines serve to heighten the intensity of the color. I think these almost monochromatic windows, have far less "punch" to them, than the particulate images of kaleidoscopic colors, which are more traditional, of the medium.




While it might be pleasant, this pastel look, I think fails to capture the fire, which is attainable, with stained glass.

The only window in your posts which I thought possessed some of that striking brilliance, is this one:

 

Well, this is one of the interesting things about art-- its individual appeal (or lack, thereof). One's artistic tastes can give a perhaps more detailed, or at least differently oriented, look into that person's psyche, than any ink blot test.

Primitive is certainly an appropriate word, for Chagall's aesthetic. From my perspective, I would say that the word "crude," is often more fitting. His use of color, not infrequently, I would call garish. When it is less bold, however, it can strike me as merely decorative.

Nevertheless, if one looks at enough of any decent artist's work, it is not unlikely, one will find some worthwhile pieces. Here are a few that I have just come across; the first is one that would have fallen into my "decorative" category, except that I like the way the the figures seem to fit together, like puzzle pieces:







This next one, "The Yellow Fish," uses a similar color palette, but impresses me with much more depth of substance. Giving the brushwork a scale-like appearance, was clever, & effective. And I do like Chagall's technique of blending faint images, into the backgrounds of some of his paintings, as he does here, with the house, and with the ornaments, seemingly hanging from a Christmas tree (thereby depicting the fish, in that same, decorative manner).







The realism of the face, here, excels the depictions I would normally expect from Chagall. Abraham's entire figure, has a real character, that saturates the entire piece.The way the texture of his hair, matches that of the surrounding greenery, helps pull the scene together, nicely.









The same Old Testament scene, but shown in a starkly different way. While it is the color, which is striking, it would not have near that effect, without the uncharacteristically detailed drawing of Abraham, Chagall puts within that bloody color.








I highlighted your comment about his "folksy" imagery, because I wonder if Chagall's symbolism & subject matter, might be a big part of what others find appealing, about his work. Since so many of his scenes are drawn from the Hebrew Old Testament, and since I think that you may have Israeli connections, yourself, I am curious as to how you see that relating, to your fondness for Chagall.



Here is a non religious work, that is both visually seizing, yet has something more, IMO-- a distinct vibe, a psychological energy, with an intensity of feeling-- elevating it (above what might otherwise come across as a child's crayon drawing).






I'll have to leave it there, for now, but I've got plenty of more Chagall images, of various types, we can discuss.

 

@Talon -- Chagall, continued. Post #2.


Here is another example of that almost subliminal (or sub-visual?) inclusion, by Chagall, of other images, in the background (mentioned in my prior post, regarding The Yellow Fish). While I appreciate this spectres in the mist quality, it's not enough for me to say that I particularly like this piece.









Appealing-- no doubt. But a little more superficial; what I would think of more as decorative art. All right, though.










No one can say that this next visually striking work, isn't at least interesting. That talonlike root, grasping the spherical form, puts me in mind of imagery, as by Hieronymus Bosch.







This one is effective at evoking fish imagery, with the gestural, taillike legs, and undulating shape of the figure. There also appears, to my mind, to be many round or oval shapes, suggesting the idea of eggs (or roe). Putting these two together, I think of sperm; and I see it following a channel-- that darkness along the inside of his arched form, as a stream-- heading towards that lighter part of the sky's tunnel, toward procreation.

Despite all that interesting ideological content, I'm not crazy about it, as a work of art. I will go back to find the title, however, to see if that leads to any more insight.








This is fine but, again, not great, IMO. Note, though, the similar body position here, with the character, above.








This Cubist rendition of Adam & Eve is pretty good, though not a lot different from what one might see in Picasso's Cubist stuff. The color is perhaps a bit brighter, here.

























More to come.

 

Marc Chagall, post #3. @Talon



Going to my initial comment, about the personal element in appraising art, there's something I like this piece, but cannot really point to a good reason for this, other than that it took me in; that is, I felt as if I could see it as Chagall did. But I feel that this might have been coincidental; meaning that Chagall happened at that time, to be within a frame of mental perspective, with which I could identify.

Incidentally, your description from earlier, "fluid," seems very applicable here, to me, not with regard to the outlines, but in the texture of the entire image.








This one seems rather atypical of Chagall, but has a very distinct flavor to it, which I appreciate (though it certainly has a very "illustrative" feel to it).






Except for the phony looking rainbow, I would really like this painting.






This is pretty good. It actually reminds me, because of a quality in the line drawing, a bit of the drawings I'd copied from either Daubigny or Millet (or maybe, a little of each). Again, not typical of Chagall's work.







I could see this image, appealing to any who are especially partial to Van Gogh's work.






There were obviously deeper ideas, on Chagall's mind, while painting this next one. To make a quick speculation-- from the apparent cave paintings, on the sky, and the bride & groom, imposed upon the tree top (somewhat reminiscent of a bouquet)-- I'll guess that this work is about humanity's being wedded to nature, being the subtext to why the fruit bowl still life, in the foreground, is such a staple of painters' work: not just that it is an easily found and cooperative model, but that it appeals to a deep connection in our psyche, as being our original food source (before we much later turned to hunting quadrupeds).

Still, this piece "reads" to me, maybe because of the color, more as a decorative work.








Another piece I like, but that comes across as decorative art, despite that clearly Chagall must have used deeper ideas, to undergird it.





I don't especially care for this, but I'll note that Jacob and the angelic figures, evoke flames, licking upward, around the ladder.






The color is very rich but, once more, to me, the image is purely superficial. There are elements within it, however, which one must assume have symbolic significance. I am guessing that these are not just personal, but cultural symbols. That's why I'd be interested in hearing what you take from this image.

 

Chagall-- post #4.
@Talon


Let me begin with recounting that the title of the piece, I'd speculated about seeming to be stretching its fish imagery, to possibly suggest sperm, was "Lamentations of Jerimiah." What he'd been lamenting, was the Babylonians overrunning Israel, causing them to suffer, and taking many Hebrews away, as slaves. I can see a connection, there, between this Diaspora, and semen, but I can't say that was clearly what Chagall had been thinking.

This painting of Job, though, is interesting in regard of it also evoking fish imagery, esp. the hand but also with the seaweedy hairs (and the wrinkles by the nose, that resemble catfish whiskers). I also find it kind of amusing, that the color palette is restricted to the traditional Xmas colors of red & green-- considering the association I'd felt, of The Yellow Fish with a Christmas ornament.









But I'll begin proper, with this interesting Cubist piece, which combines a texturing of the surfaces, to create a Pointillist effect. It is best looked at from a little bit further away (or else, reduced in size).












I'm not a big fan of Pointilism, though I love its creator Seurat's drawings. That is something I intend to get to, at some point, in this thread. I did once use pastel to do a copy of this Pointilist piece, by Charles Angrand, Le Accident.








But, back to Chagall. All the rest of these, regardless of whatever symbolic, or psychological, or visual attributes they have, seem somewhat decorative, in function.





















So many male chicken heads (the forum will edit out, the word ****).




















This one looks something from the animated movie, "Yellow Submarine."

 

Chagall, post #5.

Here is actually a very nice painting, I hadn't appreciated,on first glance.








Other than that, though, there are a lot of specific images, we see symbolically repeated, again & again. The bride & groom, a flower bouquet, clowns, chickens, doves, donkeys and the like, goats, painters, crucifixions, angels, violins...








I see Chagall likes those asses, in the air:







This one has an Escher-esque twist to it:







Or, was the first one meant to be a goat, as a reference to Jewish Passover?


A few of these would, BTW, probably also work as Tarot cards.

 

Here are a couple of paintings, inspired by Chagall. The first is called The Cathedral of All Saints, by Brynna Carpenter Nardine.













And here area few, miscellaneous Chagall, I have left over:





















P.S.-- Incidentally, for anyone who cares to contribute to speculations about the painting of the yellow fish-- note that it is up against a reflective surface.

 

I don't know if "notable" was the best choice of words in this case, given how notable Chagall's stained glass work is:

....

What I find interesting is that Chagall, unlike so many other painters, was willing to step outside of painting and experiment and work in other media.

I think that's a perfectly valid criticism of some of his stained glass work, and I would add that some of his compositions are far too busy for that medium (imo). On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, there is something to be said for the untraditional nature of the work that is effective and appealing, and I think the detail I posted earlier (I'll post it here again) is a good example of that:



Here he did use the black effectively (imo) and by simplifying the design it made easier to appreciate what he did with the colorization and stippling of the glass.

It's a good example of less being more, particularly if one is not into busy compositions...

 

This is true and particularly true with Chagall, imo, and you did a nice job of finding and posting some of his nicer pieces, many of which I haven't seen before.

The spiritual quality (less so the Biblical for me) of some of his paintings is nice in that it gives the work a surreal/otherwordly look and feel to them, but personally it's the "folksy" imagery I tend to find more appealing. I suspect it's all reminiscent and evocative of Chagall's early life in Russia (presumably rural Russia), and the imagery perfectly fits his style. I would say my fondness for that imagery in his work has to do with the fact that I lived my early years in a rural area of Virginia that sadly has been lost to development and have returned to the country in my later years where I currently live, so that is where the personal connection on my part is made (I have no connections to Israel, or Russia for that matter). Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, many of his paintings have a whimsical, light-hearted and perhaps even childlike nature about them that I appreciate. It's a nice break from the helter-skelter and negative aspects of Modern life and the Information Age, just as this art thread is a nice break from the politics we typically discuss and debate here in the Political Forum.

 

My mistake, then-- but thanks for the explanation. I'd thought I'd recalled you being a staunch Israel defender which hinted at the possibility, in my mind, that you might be Jewish. That's why I'd been wondering if there were Jewish cultural motifs, used in his paintings, of which I would be missing the significance. But that plays no part in your own appreciation of Chagall's work-- you see the chickens and other animals, for example, as being whimsical.

 

No problem. As you can see, there are Jewish cultural (and religious) motifs throughout Chagall's work, and if I recall correctly from reading his writings his paintings were a vehicle for presenting and preserving those motifs. His life story is quite interesting, as are his reflections on his artwork.

Certainly, the depictions of farm animals, rural villages, peasants, etc., are whimsical, but it's primarily his overall style and how he treats/renders those subjects that I find whimsical. It has a lot to do with the elements of his style that we discussed earlier, the crude/primitive perhaps childlike quality of the drawings that are reminiscent of folk art, the dreamy quality of his paintings, etc., etc. Then there's the way he "layered-in" (for lack of a better term) the elements in his paintings - what you referred to as "almost subliminal (or sub-visual?) inclusion". I guess you might say it's the overall effect I find whimsical, and the whimsically rendered elements within the painting all contribute to creating that effect/mood.

 

I'm going to take a departure from painting for a moment to post some photographs by the Hungarian-French artist Gyula Halász, aka Brassaï. @Steve N and @FatBack might find this hi photographs interesting, too.

While Brassaï worked in various media, I think it's his photography that truly stands out - clearly had the exceptional eye for light and texture that all great photographers possess. Here are a few photos that are on display at the MoMA in New York:


Fireworks on the Night of Longchamp, 1936


Avenue de l'Observatoire. (Brouillard sur Paris, avenue de l'Observatoire), 1934

(cont. below)

 

Brassaï continued:


A Morris column in the fog, Avenue de l'Observatoire, 1934

This is probably the weakest of the pieces I'm posting - the lighting is somewhat flat, and I suspect the cloudy sky had something to do with that - but the reflections in the water make the photo somewhat striking:

Place de la Concorde, Paris, 1945

The light and texture in this next photo are real nice, and the cornettes on the nuns are like flowers amongst the other plants:


Exotic Garden, Monaco, 1946

 

Apologies for my horrendous typing in #169.

 

Some of the paintings being shown here, I just don’t get it. As I said earlier, Hunter Biden’s work isn’t bad at all, he’s pretty good with colors and design.

 

What do you guys think of this one? Macy’s parade 1942.

 

Why don't you point to those paintings, specifically, so we could discuss them? I would not assume, that there is not a mixture of opinions, on most images in the thread.

If you are referring to all those recent Chagall images-- I wanted to represent his work, for that very purpose, of comparing notes. It is Talon, who is his fan; I am not. I found a few nice pieces, others that were OK, and some I offered just as examples of certain ideas. So, to your comment I quoted, there's not much anyone can say. But you could get multiple perspectives, if you quoted the posts, & designated those images, you find most perplexing.

 

The color doesn't look quite realistic, to me, though it's impossible to know that it hadn't looked that way. Because it's such a weird image, to begin with, having the color of the duck seem extra vivid, only contributes to the sense of oddity, of the image, and so is a plus.