[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]wow, after Dr Who last night it all makes sense.
Loved Dr Who last night. Cried my heart out at the end! Its the paradox of Van Gogh that gets to me every time. That one who shone so brightly could have been in such pain. Oh wouldn't it have been great to have been able to show him how his work would be regarded after his death?
The Crivelli was actually an altar piece - a religious work designed to portray the Annunciation and convey the message of the Church.
Anyway, a fantastic drawing construction let alone the detailing of the actual painting work itself.
Personally, as a painting I find it far too "busy", too many focal points to distract the eye - not my cup of tea at all.
is that a spaceship ? And what is a peacock doing half the way up the side of a building ? As said above, too busy for me. Liked the van Gogh one though.
agree a bit too busy the two figures in the corridor look like a couple of transfers that have been added later the van Gogh never seen before and thinks its very good
Not so much for the song ......... but for the sheer quantity of Van Gogh paintings that are presented, a handful of which I wasn't familiar with; you can always pause the vid and enlarge to full screen to study an individual painting.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]is that a spaceship ? And what is a peacock doing half the way up the side of a building ? As said above, too busy for me. Liked the van Gogh one though.
I think that is God telling Mary she is going to be the mother of Christ.
No idea what the peacock and other birds mean. Kimbo?
It is busy as people have said. It was, I think, painted for people who were largely illiterate but who would understand the symbols. We don't and we are used to captions so it seems strange.
'Here... you see all the motifs that I treated between 1905 and 1914, aside from my impressions of Venice. I have painted so many of these water lilies, always shifting my vantage point, changing the motif according to the seasons of the year and then according to the different effects of light the seasons create as they change. And, of course, the effect does change, constantly, not only from one season to another, but from one minute to the next as well, for the water flowers are far from being the whole spectacle; indeed, they are only its accompaniment. the basic element of the motif is the mirror of water, whose appearance changes at every instant because of the way bits of the sky are reflected in it, giving it life and movement. The passing cloud, the fresh breeze, the threat or arrival of a rainstorm, the sudden fierce gust of wind, the fading or suddenly refulgent light all these things, unnoticed by the untutored eye, create changes in colour and alter the surface of the water. It can be smooth, unruffled, and then, suddenly, there will be a ripple, a movement that breaks up into almost imperceptible wavelets or seems to crease the surface slowly, making it look like a wide piece of watered silk. The same for the colours, for the changes of light and shade, the reflections. To make anything at all out of all this constant change you have to have five or six canvases on which to work at the same time, and you have to move from one to the other, turning back hastily to the first as soon as the interrupted effect reappears' (Monet, quoted in C. Stuckey (ed.), Monet: A Retrospective, New York, 1985, p. 289).
Could be yours as it is up for auction on 23rd of June. The price?..........£40 million estimate.
With all the detail I can't explain the one massive error of detail. The peacock is clearly throwing a shadow on the front of the building. Given the era we have to assume this is a shadow cast by the sun. The figures in the alley throw a shadow on the wall of the building on the right. Yet the building on the left appears to throw no shadow. Is this deliberate and symbolic?
Isn't there a shadow cast by the building behind the knelling angel and saint?
Re:Monet. He was also progressively going blind while painting that series. There is a huge canvas in the National Gallery on it own in a room. Worth popping in just for that.
The picture above of this particular Nymphéas is relatively small and is currently on show to members of the public at Christies Auctioneers on King Street. One of the perks of my job is that i get to see some incredible pieces of art work that are put up for auction.
Re:Monet. He was also progressively going blind while painting that series. There is a huge canvas in the National Gallery on it own in a room. Worth popping in just for that.
You could have had a great laugh if you knew him at that time.... "What do you think of my new painting?"
Sorry mate, it's sh*t, I'd do it again if I were you.
not being an art buff i was wondering did any artist make money during thier liftime and then live it up it just seems that in most cases they didnt have a pot and nearly all died with nothing but thier love of painting hope im wrong and some artists lived like rock stars or footballers of today
[cite]Posted By: dartfordgent[/cite]not being an art buff i was wondering did any artist make money during thier liftime and then live it up it just seems that in most cases they didnt have a pot and nearly all died with nothing but thier love of painting hope im wrong and some artists lived like rock stars or footballers of today
Andy Warhol did.
Turner died at his mistresses house and was very rich by the end.
Richard Dadd on the other hand was in Bedlem and then Broadmoor for over 20 years but he did come from Chatham ; - )
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Isn't there a shadow cast by the building behind the knelling angel and saint?
All the shadows in the picture suggest the sun is behind the artist's/viewer's left shoulder, in which case the wall of the building on the right facing the alley should have quite a lot of shadow. Looking at it again maybe the artist has deliberately depicted the shadows of the sun so that he can show the golden light is not from the sun. So the wall of the building is being engulfed in the light from the source of the golden light and it is a light that casts no shadows.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
Richard Dadd on the other hand was in Bedlem and then Broadmoor for over 20 years but he did come from Chatham ; - )
Fascinating picture. Even without any knowledge of Dadd's life, the grass in the foreground certainly has an unnerving effect on the viewer and surely must be indicative of a disturbed mind.
Whilst walking the North Downs Way a few years ago, my companion insisted that we detour to find the spot where Richard Dadd murdered his father. Fortunately we both finished the walk without anything untoward occuring.
[cite]Posted By: dartfordgent[/cite]not being an art buff i was wondering did any artist make money during thier liftime and then live it up it just seems that in most cases they didnt have a pot and nearly all died with nothing but thier love of painting hope im wrong and some artists lived like rock stars or footballers of today
I heard Jack Vettriano was thinking of putting together a consortium to launch a takeover.
Well some people try to pick up girls
And get called assholes
This never happened to Pablo Picasso
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare and
So Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole
Well the girls would turn the color
Of the avacado when he would drive
Down their street in his El Dorado
He could walk down you street
And girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole
Not like you
Alright
Well he was only 5'3"
But girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole
Not in New York
Comments
Loved Dr Who last night. Cried my heart out at the end! Its the paradox of Van Gogh that gets to me every time. That one who shone so brightly could have been in such pain. Oh wouldn't it have been great to have been able to show him how his work would be regarded after his death?
Fascinating that you are doing that degree. Tell us more.
Doing a night class, difficult to fit it around footie games!
This is a marginal masterpiece which us normally at the National Gallery, by Carlo Crivelli, full of symbolism
OOps keep posting on Hubby's account!
I have a whole book of Annunciation pictures. Will have to look this one up but feel a bit lost not getting all the symbols.
The Crivelli was actually an altar piece - a religious work designed to portray the Annunciation and convey the message of the Church.
Anyway, a fantastic drawing construction let alone the detailing of the actual painting work itself.
Personally, as a painting I find it far too "busy", too many focal points to distract the eye - not my cup of tea at all.
But nevertheless a fascinating piece of work.
Not so much for the song ......... but for the sheer quantity of Van Gogh paintings that are presented, a handful of which I wasn't familiar with; you can always pause the vid and enlarge to full screen to study an individual painting.
So thanks for that link, Henry!
I think that is God telling Mary she is going to be the mother of Christ.
No idea what the peacock and other birds mean. Kimbo?
It is busy as people have said. It was, I think, painted for people who were largely illiterate but who would understand the symbols. We don't and we are used to captions so it seems strange.
Claude Monet (1840-1926)
Nymphéas
1906
'Here... you see all the motifs that I treated between 1905 and 1914, aside from my impressions of Venice. I have painted so many of these water lilies, always shifting my vantage point, changing the motif according to the seasons of the year and then according to the different effects of light the seasons create as they change. And, of course, the effect does change, constantly, not only from one season to another, but from one minute to the next as well, for the water flowers are far from being the whole spectacle; indeed, they are only its accompaniment. the basic element of the motif is the mirror of water, whose appearance changes at every instant because of the way bits of the sky are reflected in it, giving it life and movement. The passing cloud, the fresh breeze, the threat or arrival of a rainstorm, the sudden fierce gust of wind, the fading or suddenly refulgent light all these things, unnoticed by the untutored eye, create changes in colour and alter the surface of the water. It can be smooth, unruffled, and then, suddenly, there will be a ripple, a movement that breaks up into almost imperceptible wavelets or seems to crease the surface slowly, making it look like a wide piece of watered silk. The same for the colours, for the changes of light and shade, the reflections. To make anything at all out of all this constant change you have to have five or six canvases on which to work at the same time, and you have to move from one to the other, turning back hastily to the first as soon as the interrupted effect reappears' (Monet, quoted in C. Stuckey (ed.), Monet: A Retrospective, New York, 1985, p. 289).
Could be yours as it is up for auction on 23rd of June. The price?..........£40 million estimate.
Discuss.......
With all the detail I can't explain the one massive error of detail. The peacock is clearly throwing a shadow on the front of the building. Given the era we have to assume this is a shadow cast by the sun. The figures in the alley throw a shadow on the wall of the building on the right. Yet the building on the left appears to throw no shadow. Is this deliberate and symbolic?
Re:Monet. He was also progressively going blind while painting that series. There is a huge canvas in the National Gallery on it own in a room. Worth popping in just for that.
You could have had a great laugh if you knew him at that time.... "What do you think of my new painting?"
Sorry mate, it's sh*t, I'd do it again if I were you.
Andy Warhol did.
Turner died at his mistresses house and was very rich by the end.
Richard Dadd on the other hand was in Bedlem and then Broadmoor for over 20 years but he did come from Chatham ; - )
A Dadd Painting
All the shadows in the picture suggest the sun is behind the artist's/viewer's left shoulder, in which case the wall of the building on the right facing the alley should have quite a lot of shadow. Looking at it again maybe the artist has deliberately depicted the shadows of the sun so that he can show the golden light is not from the sun. So the wall of the building is being engulfed in the light from the source of the golden light and it is a light that casts no shadows.
My favorite artist, Edward Hopper, always paid special attention to light and shadow.
Fascinating picture. Even without any knowledge of Dadd's life, the grass in the foreground certainly has an unnerving effect on the viewer and surely must be indicative of a disturbed mind.
Whilst walking the North Downs Way a few years ago, my companion insisted that we detour to find the spot where Richard Dadd murdered his father. Fortunately we both finished the walk without anything untoward occuring.
I heard Jack Vettriano was thinking of putting together a consortium to launch a takeover.
Personally I'm a fan of Mark Rothko.
Nice and calming, 'speshially the ones at Tate Modern.
This was my favourite when I was at school, Surprised! By Henri Rousseau. How the hell do you paint rain?
Salvador Dali was another artist who made money and lived it up.
And get called assholes
This never happened to Pablo Picasso
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare and
So Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole
Well the girls would turn the color
Of the avacado when he would drive
Down their street in his El Dorado
He could walk down you street
And girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole
Not like you
Alright
Well he was only 5'3"
But girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole
Not in New York