Post a controversial opinion

feel like historically that's not wildly controversial but yeah the mythology and the popularity are more grating than the pictures themselves

don mclean speaks for us all

anyone see that movie Loving Vincent out right now? playing at the art house here, I heard it's animated, kinda curious but ehhh, willing to be swayed by positive notices

both the Pialat + Altman Van Gogh movies from the 90's were quite memorable imo.

did a museum tour with someone recently who tried to say how much of a joke and a bad artist Rousseau and i was very much gtfo with that trash

good British music 1964-1984 R.I.P. #tombstone

although it did pick up a bit with grindcore and goth metal. #napalmdeath #godflesh #mydyingbride

van gogh sucks

the van gogh adulation industry sucks, but he had no part in creating it. he only ever sold one of his paintings during his lifetime. but stand for a while in front of one of his original paintings and you'll get a clearer idea of why he didn't suck as an artist.

van gogh is awesome sauce.

i want to make an art movie that is just close-ups of people around the world saying his name. that would be the best art movie. 4 hour running time.

I just go with Van Go. Better to say it totally wrong than only partially right.

Van Gogh sucked until I was in front of one tbh and I'd be reasonably quick to handwave that type of cliche away most of the time.

there's something about being in front of a great work of art that is truly moving

https://media.giphy.com/media/MS8UECLiPreNi/giphy.gif

I like Van Gogh enough but I get a lot more out of idk Monet or even Grant Wood.

most paintings look a lot better in person and seeing a pretty good local artist's show is more compelling than looking at pictures of paintings in books

Cleveland Museum of Art has a gallery with Grant Wood's January hanging on a wall adjacent to John Rogers Cox's Gray and Gold and I could spend all day in there.

http://www.thegroundmag.com/wp-content/uploads/January-Grant-Wood-1940-The-GROUND.jpg

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/09/77/e7/77/cleveland-museum-of-art.jpg

I never considered Van Gogh to be a visceral artist until I saw his work in person. The texture involved in his work does not come across in photographs and was something I wasn't prepared for; it made me re-evaluate almost every preconceived notion I had about paintings and altered how I view them, regardless of the artist.

His letters to his brother are also good.

This is not controversial - they are in the canon.

i was lucky enough to see Goya's paintings at the Prado when i was a teen and jesus talk about having to be there. seeing those in person is a whole other world of cool.

i was also lucky enough to see the NYC Munch show when I was a kid and it totally blew my mind. and, again, so much more powerful up close.

van gogh in real life is hypnotic to the extreme.

The worst artist just to see prints of is probably Rothko, a postage stamp copy doesn't convey anything about his paintings. I have also seen some stunning Caravaggio paintings in the flesh, where his his use of light + stunning imagery is completely wtf in the flesh. It is almost like seeing the first photojournalism.

Comments re: the importance of seeing art in person is OTM. Also, part of the problem with posthumous assessment of an artist's work is that we sometimes get overexposed to work they never intended for public consumption. My appreciation for Picasso increased tenfold once I had a better understanding of the finished work he put out in his own lifetime.

he loved colour and he let it show

Rothko is indeed insanely bad at smaller scale. I remember seeing a poster, similar to this, on someone's wall and going "wtf": https://a.1stdibscdn.com/archivesE/upload/a_1212/a_16370531489265149864/20170307_162705_l.jpg

the best Rothko exhibit I saw was at SF MoMA in a gallery with huge walls, one work per wall in the room, and the paintings were probably eight feet by ten feet

yeah, you have stand in front of a Rothko to really feel it, and I never cared much about his work until I saw it London in the 90's.

I love Goya but I thought one painting looked better in flatter reproduction. Rubens was the one I've seen who benefited most from seeing the real thing.

A lot of people exaggerate about how much you need to see the originals because usually you can get huge enjoyment out of the reproductions.

I sometimes wonder if there isn't enough completist art books with all the images or at least all the greatest hits because you're expected to travel and see it all for real. Fingers crossed art galleries aren't bombed.
Really annoys me when I can't find a book with enough images by a canonical artist. Maybe it's hard to get decent scans of them all.

art galleries are such a crap shoot, especially if it's something you visit as a one-off on a trip

history museums are a little better because you can at least absorb some information and context, but if you're in the wrong mood or not familiar with the space you end up trying to take in _all the art_ and then thinking later that a couple things actually connected with you, why did you spend all that time wandering around?

it's best, for me, when there's a good local art museum you can visit somewhat regularly, maybe see a featured exhibit a few times, and decide which old friends you want to visit while you're there

The internet was the best thing to happen for art. You can see anything you want in good reproductions, whereas even with access to a good university library, a lot of the reproductions in the older books will be in black and white or poor colour quality.

ppl who talk about how you -need- to go see an artwork or whatever in person are insufferable

xxp to mh going to my local in small bursts is mainly what i do, but do all galleries have a problem with reflections of the lighting on the pictures if you stand at the wrong spot, find that v distracting

xpost How dare they, amirite

you don't need to see any artwork, but some art is a lot more exciting in person compared to reproductions

ppl who talk about how you -need- to go see an artwork or whatever in person are insufferable

― sleepingbag, Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:44 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"omg you have to try this, here, taste this, cmon try it, here, taste it, COME ON!!!"

xxp to NV, a lot of galleries don't!

I go to a lot of very dark art spaces, though, so take it with a grain of salt

man, I want to go to an art museum now

xp agreed on those people, it's one of the reasons I avoid artist talks at times or leave before they take questions, because some people ask questions because they enjoy their own voices

worst ever was a question that began with a run-on intro about how they stayed at X hotel and Y music was playing and it set the scene for Z and jesus christ is there a question in here

seeing art in museums >>>>>>>>>>> hearing music at concerts/shows

It's the insistence that the reproductions don't work or matter at all that's annoying. It can be similar to that "you're not a real fan if you haven't met this criteria" thing.

I pretty much never bother going because I don't have faith in the nearby galleries but maybe I've missed a lot.

I dearly miss being in art school and going to openings every Friday. Like working on some shit and wandering downstairs to the gallery at some point, having a drink and poring over a goodly amount of not-great stuff but then a couple of really amazing and inspiring pieces and then feeling inspired to wander back upstairs and work harder on some shit. Meeeeeemories...

there are many musical acts I'd gladly see in a venue with a hundred people, and some of them completely lose the impact at any scale larger than that

seeing art in museums >>>>>>>>>>> hearing music at concerts/shows

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:53 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Absolutely.

you can walk around more, talk to people, not get pushed one way or another, and you can still drink.

xp agreed and conversely listening to music on your laptop >>>>>>>> looking at art on your laptop

Getting back to controversial opinions....no fuckit I'm not touching it

Art viewing would be an excellent use for VR, come to think of it. If it could accurately recreate gallery lighting conditions and the scale of the piece.

I strongly recommend that you all see some professional opera singers tear up a stage live

so much music from the 20th century onwards is specifically designed for reproduction in a way that's true of very little visual art

in retrospect, some live shows I've attended really tried their best to recreate the aesthetic of listening to music at home alone in the dark

apparently, a controversial opinion: opera is just as immediate and relatable as popular music and people refuse to engage with it because they've been taught that it's Not For Them