Art (Contemporary and Otherwise)

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Crouching Female Nude, Bending Forward(1912) Egon Schiele

[lost53]

What I would most like to have on my wall....

This is always changing...

But right now Robert Frank's 4 photographs of the couple in Venice...

Sorry can't find it online, only page 19 of "black and white things"

Although it is a series, and normally I don't like that with photo's- as the whole art of photography is select and shoot.. Sorry, but the work has such a completnes about it.

[Fade to Black]

i don't think i've seen that one, do you have a link to the image?

[TypicalFashion]

Richard Colman

too big?

[thehouseofdis]

too big

[Fade to Black]

Although it is a series, and normally I don't like that with photo's- as the whole art of photography is select and shoot.. Sorry, but the work has such a completnes about it.

i agree with the bolded part.

[MoFiya]

Didn't know where to post this. I don't have a 'favorite' art-piece but this photograph x giacometti is definitely an inspiration

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Since it is his birthday ...

Seven Bathers(C.1900) Paul Cézanne


To be able to portray groups of people in a picture without
falling into the boredom of narration or as Valéry said -
to give the sensation without the boredom of its conveyance -
is one of Cézanne's great achievements.

[Acéphale]

/\

█ from Cézanne's Doubt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty

« It is Cézanne's genius that when the overall composition of the picture is seen globally, perspectival distortions are no longer visible in their own right but rather contribute, as they do in natural vision, to impression of an emerging order, an object in the act of appearing, organizing itself before our eyes. In the same way, the contour of an object conceived as a line encircling the object belongs not to the visible we but to geometry. If one outlines the shape of an apple with a continuous line, one makes an object of the shape, whereas the contour is rather ideal limit toward which the sides of the apple recede in depth. Not to indicate any shape would be to deprive the objects of their identity. To trace just a single outline sacrifices depth—that is, the dimension in which the thing is presented not as spread out before us but as an inexhaustible reality full of reserves. That is why Cézanne follows the swell of the object in modulated colors and indicates several outlines in blue. Rebounding among these, one's glance captures a shape that emerges from among them all, just as it does in perception. »

[Chinorlz]

Been a big Banksy fan for years now and just watched Exit Through The Gift Shop.

Got to see his work IRL last time I was in Boston. A real pleasure.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

/\

█ from Cézanne's Doubt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty

« It is Cézanne's genius that when the overall composition of the picture is seen globally, perspectival distortions are no longer visible in their own right but rather contribute, as they do in natural vision, to impression of an emerging order, an object in the act of appearing, organizing itself before our eyes. In the same way, the contour of an object conceived as a line encircling the object belongs not to the visible we but to geometry. If one outlines the shape of an apple with a continuous line, one makes an object of the shape, whereas the contour is rather ideal limit toward which the sides of the apple recede in depth. Not to indicate any shape would be to deprive the objects of their identity. To trace just a single outline sacrifices depth—that is, the dimension in which the thing is presented not as spread out before us but as an inexhaustible reality full of reserves. That is why Cézanne follows the swell of the object in modulated colors and indicates several outlines in blue. Rebounding among these, one's glance captures a shape that emerges from among them all, just as it does in perception. »

There are two ways of going beyond figuration (that is, beyond both the illustrative and the figurative): either toward abstract form or toward the Figure. Cézanne gave a simple name to this way of the Figure: sensation. The Figure is the sensible form related to a sensation; it acts immediately upon the nervous system, which is of the flesh, whereas abstract form is addressed to the head, and acts through the intermediary of the brain, which is closer to the bone. Certainly Cézanne did not invent this way of sensation in painting, but he gave it an unprecedented status. Sensation is the opposite of the facile and the ready-made, the cliche, but also of the "sensational," the spontaneous, etc. Sensation has one face turned toward the subject (the nervous system, vital movement, "instinct," "temperament" - a whole vocabulary common to both Naturalism and Cézanne) and one face turned toward the object (the "fact," the place, the event). Or rather, it has no faces at all, it is both things indissolubly, it is Being-in-the-Word, as the phenomenologists say: at one and the same time I become in the sensation and something happens through the sensation, one through the other, one in the other. And at the limit, it is the same body which, being both subject and object, gives and receives the sensation. As a spectator, I experience the sensation only by entering the painting, by reaching the unity of the sensing and the sensed. This was Cézanne’s lesson against the Impressionists: sensation is not in the ‘free’ or disembodied play of light and color (impressions); on the contrary, it is in the body, even the body of an apple. Color is in the body, sensation is in the body, and not in the air. Sensation is what is painted. What is painted on the canvas is the body, not insofar as it is represented as an object, but insofar as it is experienced as sustaining this sensation (what Lawrence, speaking of Cézanne, called “the appleyness of the apple”)

- Gilles Deleuze Francis Bacon: The logic Of Sensation(1981)

[pierrot]

I've always been a sucker for Sargent

[thaiison]

Chinorlz, what did you think of the documentary? i thought it was great, lots of nice portraits and interviews and i loved how much it contained. starting of with a bit confused, but then really evolved into something deep and to see the evolution of the artists thoughts and especially Thierry was really interesting

[Chinorlz]

Chinorlz, what did you think of the documentary? i thought it was great, lots of nice portraits and interviews and i loved how much it contained. starting of with a bit confused, but then really evolved into something deep and to see the evolution of the artists thoughts and especially Thierry was really interesting

Yes! Someone else who watched it :)

I thought it was a very neat look at some footage of Banksy, Invader and others putting up their work around the world.

At the same time, I've come to find out that the entire "documentary" is potentially a giant hoax or at least half-hoax. Thierry's back story is dubious at best (how does he afford to just travel? His "store" is never really talked about or shown except a warehouse with piles and piles of clothes behind him.) and as a person, he's almost too ridiculous. Not to mention that he's the "cousin" of Invader? Too unlikely.

Folks like Fairey, Banksy and Invader likely wouldn't have really wanted someone like Thierry around nor would they have much incentive to allow him to film. These guys all have people that document their work as they put it up... they wouldn't need or want someone else around that.

Even Theirry's name he gives himself adds evidence to suggest the entire thing is a hoax and Banksy's continued commentary and poking-fun at the art world. Mr. Brainwash. The LA show he puts on is full of photoshopped, almost formulaic work that is derivative of Banksy, Warhol and others. The only hands-on work he does is sprinkle some paint on some posters. The show cost him $$$$ just to put on... where is the money coming from?

Someone online commented that the work is almost Banksy-trying-not-to-be-Banksy. The Banksy piece "I can't believe you morons actually buy this shit" kept coming to mind after I watched the film and accepted it at face value.

Thierry has been curiously absent from the public eye. Was he an actor? Or is he Banksy himself being nutty?

After all these questions were raised, it made the movie all that more intriguing as a piece. The parts showing Banksy's "studio" were also apparently not real according to some people on some discussion boards.

In the end I really enjoyed the film both at face value and almost even moreso after all the reading. He's certainly one of my favorite artists out there

[DmD]

This is always changing...

But right now Robert Frank's 4 photographs of the couple in Venice...

Sorry can't find it online, only page 19 of "black and white things"

Although it is a series, and normally I don't like that with photo's- as the whole art of photography is select and shoot.. Sorry, but the work has such a completnes about it.

I'm not sure I understand the statement in bold. That may be true of the "snapshot aesthetic" (Eggleston, Winogrand) or those that the ascribe to the notions of a "decisive moment" (Brassai). But there is a significant amount of important work that I would certainly include in the "whole art of photography" that is certainly not "select and shoot". The Bechers, Burtynsky and Sanders are a few that come to mind.

The Bechers
Burtynsky
Sanders