Now to open a can of worms. I have an art question. I recently saw Van Gogh's Chair for the first time in the flesh. I've seen it in books a few times and been utterly underwhelmed by it. I've learned that that doesn't mean much. Art doesn't translate into books at all well. I could never see the big deal about Rubens until I saw his work not only in the flesh but in context with other work of the same period. Wow, he is amazing. One the other hand, the chair leaves me cold and somewhat confused. I just don't see what the big deal is. It is wonky, with cartoon outlining and the pipe and tobacco on it look really flat, maybe unfinished, maybe an after thought. So can anyone explain what the deal is? Why is this a great piece of art? I've tried asking all the arty people I know but they seem to be as bemused as I am. Is it just luck of the draw? Once you are famous all your work is good by association maybe. In a similar thought I wonder what Rodin thinks of his sketches being on display in the Royal Academy. Some of them look like the very preliminary sketches I do when I am just trying to hold on to an idea. I think I would be mortified if they ever escaped into a gallery. If I ever get that famous, I must remember to burn all my sketch books.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
What a difference a day makes
Well things seem to have improved a bit today. I got to have a lovely chat with a fellow quilter, who might be interested in me basting her quilts for her. I've got the borders on the class sample and most of the quilting done, and I had a couple of phone calls from friends. All in all a much better day. To round it off we had tickets for a concert, and it was good.
Now to open a can of worms. I have an art question. I recently saw Van Gogh's Chair for the first time in the flesh. I've seen it in books a few times and been utterly underwhelmed by it. I've learned that that doesn't mean much. Art doesn't translate into books at all well. I could never see the big deal about Rubens until I saw his work not only in the flesh but in context with other work of the same period. Wow, he is amazing. One the other hand, the chair leaves me cold and somewhat confused. I just don't see what the big deal is. It is wonky, with cartoon outlining and the pipe and tobacco on it look really flat, maybe unfinished, maybe an after thought. So can anyone explain what the deal is? Why is this a great piece of art? I've tried asking all the arty people I know but they seem to be as bemused as I am. Is it just luck of the draw? Once you are famous all your work is good by association maybe. In a similar thought I wonder what Rodin thinks of his sketches being on display in the Royal Academy. Some of them look like the very preliminary sketches I do when I am just trying to hold on to an idea. I think I would be mortified if they ever escaped into a gallery. If I ever get that famous, I must remember to burn all my sketch books.
Now to open a can of worms. I have an art question. I recently saw Van Gogh's Chair for the first time in the flesh. I've seen it in books a few times and been utterly underwhelmed by it. I've learned that that doesn't mean much. Art doesn't translate into books at all well. I could never see the big deal about Rubens until I saw his work not only in the flesh but in context with other work of the same period. Wow, he is amazing. One the other hand, the chair leaves me cold and somewhat confused. I just don't see what the big deal is. It is wonky, with cartoon outlining and the pipe and tobacco on it look really flat, maybe unfinished, maybe an after thought. So can anyone explain what the deal is? Why is this a great piece of art? I've tried asking all the arty people I know but they seem to be as bemused as I am. Is it just luck of the draw? Once you are famous all your work is good by association maybe. In a similar thought I wonder what Rodin thinks of his sketches being on display in the Royal Academy. Some of them look like the very preliminary sketches I do when I am just trying to hold on to an idea. I think I would be mortified if they ever escaped into a gallery. If I ever get that famous, I must remember to burn all my sketch books.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Glad you are having a better day. Sometimes it doesn't take much to turn things around.
I really like the class sample, can't for the life of me see the mistake you say you left in!! :)
I havn't been to a good concert in ages. Who did you go and see?
I've only seen Van Gogh's chair in books but it's certainly not one of his more interesting pieces. Then again I'm the person who thought his Field of Corn with Crows, or whatever it is actually called, was quite pretty and happy. This is the one he painted to express the depths of his depression shortly before his suicide. Oops!!!!
Rodin's sketches are interesting, not as great art but to show the processes behind great art but that doesn't apply in any way to the chair. It's considered art because it was painted by someone who has been decided on as a great artist. Same way that pickled calves are art if Damien Hurst has had it pickled.
Please don't burn your sketch books- I love looking at that kind of "art" not because it is great art, but because it reminds me that even great artists have to slog through preliminary processes to get to the "great" stuff- just like all the rest of us who are still trying to find our great art! Like Dormouse said, they are about the process, not the art.
And thank you for the link in the previous post. It was so relevant for me I've printed it to remind me to just keep at it.
Glad you are feeling better- and, your jabberwocky is very interesting!
Ferret, thank you for visiting my blog and for your nice comments. I didn't see an email addy so I am thanking you here. I like your what you are doing with your art.
Post a Comment