|
Post by pieter on Sept 18, 2006 13:56:06 GMT -7
Pieter, thanks for your creative material. Carl Carl, You are welcome, there is a link between art and science, and that is the metaphysics and the chemical and technical side of art. I am not a technician nor a scientifically skilled person, but I know that in the past art and science were closer connected. Strange enough many scientists are painters or Musicians in their spare time. Is it their longing for harmony, perfection, and esthectics that drive them to art? I just don't know. Pieter
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Sept 19, 2006 11:17:18 GMT -7
there is a link between art and science, and the link is sometimes very intimate. Some of the pictures by JAckson Pollock are just like graphic representation of a fractal. And Pollock painted them BEFORE the fractals were calculated...
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Sept 19, 2006 11:57:47 GMT -7
there is a link between art and science, and the link is sometimes very intimate. Some of the pictures by JAckson Pollock are just like graphic representation of a fractal. And Pollock painted them BEFORE the fractals were calculated... Wojtek, Yes, you are right, because Jackson Pollock had a sort of method for hos drip (and action) paintings, in which repated movements created certain abstract patterns. Those have both organical as mechanical effects, because in his intuitive movement above the paintings he tried to control his muscles of his body, his arms and the hand that hold the brush, and which he moved above the painting as he stood bowed over it. I saw documentries of Pollock, the movie and some of his paintings in real, they look very dynamic, feel energetic, and are in a way timeless in their abstraction. That is my personal feeling about Jackson Pollock (colored with the art history lectures I had on my art academy ofcourse). Have you had the chance to see his work in Poland or abroad? It is a combination of the scale, intensity of the movement and color that makes his work impressive. That is differant from seeing him in a book. Pieter
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Sept 19, 2006 15:00:03 GMT -7
Pieter , I never saw the original works of Pollock. Sincerely . I am not his admirerer that much. I was just fascinated by how his pictures resemble fractals , but also histological views of tissues etc.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Sept 20, 2006 8:33:18 GMT -7
Pieter , I never saw the original works of Pollock. Sincerely . I am not his admirerer that much. I was just fascinated by how his pictures resemble fractals , but also histological views of tissues etc. Wojtek, I was fascinated by the energy, dynamics and authenticity of his work when I started studying in Amsterdam. Then the American Abstract expressionists Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Helen Frankenthaler, Hans Hofmann ( www.pbs.org/hanshofmann/selected_works_001.html ), Franz Kline, Morris Louis, Robert Motherwell, Barnett Newman, Ad Reinhardt ( Black paintings) and Clyfford Still. Next to that I was inspired by the Western-European Cobra (Copenhagen, Brussels and Amsterdam) movement of Dutch, Danish and Belgian Abstract painting artists, because in Amsterdam galeries and Dutch, Belgian and Danish museums (The Hague; Appel, Amsterdam Stedelijk has an Apple room, Oostende in Belgium and the Modern museum in Copenhagen). It was to much though and to merchandised in Amsterdam (Commercial exploitation fame Appel and Corneille) so that I got alienated from it. But I never stopped liking Karel Appel, Pierre Alechinsky, Christian Dotremont and the poet and painter Lucebert. I only disliked the circus around Corneille. Jackson Pollock was just one element of a greater movement, and a lot of the artists I mentione here above I consider more important than Pollock for art history. Pollocks drip and action painting was what the Punk music was for the development of music, an important element in the time that it existed, an energy drink for later performers, but not important in the development of art and music. Pieter Links: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBRA_%28avant-garde_movement%29www.cobra-museum.nl/
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Sept 20, 2006 15:20:34 GMT -7
Pieter, I did not know any of these names! Till now I thought that Jackson Pollock was the most important in postmodern art of painting. So thank you. As you already know I am not that fond generally of the very 'modern' abstractionist art - but there are exeptions and some pictures I do like very much. I don't know if by professionals Vasil Kandynski is 'modern' artist but that would be somewhere the most far of 'modernity' I generally like. Am I a petrified fossil already Ah!, one of my favourite artists is Marc Chagall.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Sept 20, 2006 17:24:27 GMT -7
Pieter, I did not know any of these names! Till now I thought that Jackson Pollock was the most important in postmodern art of painting. So thank you. As you already know I am not that fond generally of the very 'modern' abstractionist art - but there are exeptions and some pictures I do like very much. I don't know if by professionals Vasil Kandynski is 'modern' artist but that would be somewhere the most far of 'modernity' I generally like. Am I a petrified fossil already Ah!, one of my favourite artists is Marc Chagall. Wojtek, You are a free and educated man, so you may like what you want. I do know people who do not like Modern art at all, and only like Renaissance, Midieval (Gothic, Roman), Baroc, Roccoco, Clasicism, Romantic art of the 19th century, symbolism, and maybe Jugenstil and Art Nouveau. Vasil Kandynski was seen as very modern in his time, the first half of the twentieth century with his abstract paintings, his color use, his way of painting (brush technique), and his subjects (color opera and etc). Marc Chagall is not one of my favorites, it is maybe to ectasy, another world. He and his loved one flying in the air. Then I prefer the watercolor (gouaches) of Charlotte Salomon I saw in the Jewish historian museum in Amsterdam. www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Charlotte_Salomon/charlotte_salomon.htmlChaim Soutine; www.abcgallery.com/S/soutine/soutine.htmlGustav klimt ( www.gustavklimtcollection.com/ ), and especially Fernand Leger; www.roland-collection.com/rolandcollection/section/19/520.htmand the Fauvist painter Henri Matisse www.abcgallery.com/M/matisse/matisse.htmlPieter
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Sept 21, 2006 5:39:57 GMT -7
When you mention Matisse and Kimt I sigh with relief. I feel firm ground under my feet again
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Sept 21, 2006 10:10:46 GMT -7
Wojtek, Just like in any other profession in fine arts you have such greet painters, scuplturists, photographers and architects. Many people know a lot about writers, philosophers, poets, moviemakers, scientists or great leaders, because I am a generalist and ecclectic (autodidact) I know a little bit of everything, but a little bit more about art and art history, than about other topics (mentioned and not mentioned). Klimt is an amazing Modern realist, who knew how to portray, the delicacy and sensuality of women, the decay, the Post Habsburg atmosphere towards the new Austrian republic before and during the first world war. His realism is amazing, if you look at the " Adele Bloch-Bauer I", it is an amazing painting, in it's anatomic perfection, the pale white skinned lady with a little rouge in het facial make up, her black staring eyes, the gesture of her arms, wrists, hands and fingers. Jugenstil decoration of the black, white & Golden dress with abstract patterns in it. He new how to paint the atmosphere of his time, how to paint ladies, how to show that thin line between eroticism and death in that time. Pieter Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gustav_Klimt_046.jpg
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 8, 2006 18:24:34 GMT -7
Pieter, so your persoanl top two would be Rembrandt and VvGogh. I must confess that especially the Night Watch which I have seen in Rijksmuseum impreseed my a lot, yes. But I prefer van Gogh and Jan Vermeer. Why in your opinion Holland has so many outstanding painters? Wojtek, I have no idea why Holland has had so many outstanding painters, because many countries have outstanding paintings. It must have something to do with the powerful postition of the Dutch Seven Provinces, The Trade Republic of the 17th century (The Golden Century), when there was a mass production of Dutch painters, and a lot of their paintings were spread over Europe in houses of the European nobility, palaces and aristocrats and merchants. It was fashion then to buy Dutch paintings. So I think it has an economical reason. Before that age and after the 17th century the Italian, French, German and English painters came more into the picture. Also the Fact that you had a Southern and Northern Renaissance in painting may have add to the fact of the succes of Dutch painting in that time? In the 19th century Dutch painting was back with George Hendrik Breitner, Willem Wittsen, Isaac Israƫls, Hendrik Willem Mesdag and others. In the 20th century you got the Toorop family with Jan and Charley Toorop and their son, Edgar Fernhout. In the same time you had Piet Mondriaan and Karel Willink. 19th century: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hendrik_Breitnerwww.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_artists/00016980?lang=nlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Israelsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Willem_Mesdagwww.devalk.com/kunstenaars/sluyters/sluyters.html20th century: www.mmkarnhem.nl/link_van_banner_FERNHOUT.htmlwww.the-artfile.nl/ArtFile/artiesten/mondriaan/mondriaan.htmwww.carel-willink.nl/
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Dec 10, 2006 10:49:09 GMT -7
Thanks for your answer Pieter. Another theory simply states that the demand for good painting was great due to relative richness of Netherlands at that time. In my opinion it is not enough, though. Your Jan Vermeer is one of my most favourite painters. Here are his complete works online www.mystudios.com/vermeer/index.html
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 10, 2006 14:31:04 GMT -7
Wojtek,
One of the few things I like about my country is the special Dutch light, and that really exists, that light exists because of the flatness and the enormous amount of water in my country. The North sea climate, the low lands and the rivers that flow through that country create a bright, clear sky with beautiful skyscapes. Next to that Holland, Friesland and Flanders in the territory of the Low lands (Netherlands) have lovely towns like Delft, Gouda, Leiden, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Dordrecht, Leeuwarden (Ljouwert), Sneek (Snits), Antwerp, Gent and Brugge. The Netherlands werer pitoresque, and less industrialized than nowadays, and a good subject for city, landscape and naval paintings. Vermeer was a real genious and master of the fine arts, he especially was very good in painting that Dutch light in Dutch house interiors, and portraying Dutch scenes.
I may criticize my country a lot overhere on this forum, but in the same time I love my little country a lot, and am proud of compatriots like Vermeer, Rembrandt and Van Gogh.
Pieter
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 10, 2006 14:37:13 GMT -7
P.S.- I count Flanders to the Low lands, because before 1830 Flanders was a part of the Netherlands, and because we share culture, art, language, literature and other things. But in Art history Dutch masters and Flemish masters are mentioned seperately. For instance Rembrandt is a Dutch master and Rubens is a Flemish master.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Dec 10, 2006 14:50:53 GMT -7
|
|