Does Personality Or Life Story Of An Artist Influence You?

I like to draw information from the life of the artist to see how he/she was influenced by their road of life. Ive always like Camille Pisarro . His work seems to have a feeling of greyness about it , and as you see his life, there wasnt much color in that either.
Eakins and Hopper are another 2 favorites . I fashion mental pictures of them in their elements when they were at their prime.

Another 2 Picabia and Duchamp, to me , were a pair of 1920s "bikers" who were self destructive. Their work complements each others.
Arthur Dove and Charles Demuth were two gay friends . Demuths work delved into the homoerotic , almost cartoon with explicit homosexual themes.. His major works were more staid and taken into flights of dada, regionalism, cubiswm, colorist . Dove, less so.
I like to read about the lives, loves, and thoughts of the artists
Pollocks work was a collaboration that owed its strength to Thomas Benton( more as a symbol), his wife, his entourage of fellow abstract expressionists and a few horny patrons. So I think he has to be seen in the context of the time he was alive.
I find myself personally revolted by the all absorbing narcissism of Picasso. That he was a giant in the field goes so beyond mere talent. I feel that, like Mailers book suggested, he was always the center of attention , a boy (and man) circus of delight. He always strove to be the center of attention and , even though Im sure Id stay far away from him if he were alive. (mostly caue I feel he had some of the same attributes as presidential candidates) , his work is gigantic in its scope. Heres a guy that was creating new breakthrough stuff into his 80s.

Ill talk about Kathe Kollwitz later.

Wow FM great thoughts you have given me lots to think about as well.

As for Picasso I was fortunate to know a good friend of his who had known him prior to WWII and this person said of Picasso, "he was not able to stop he drew all the time even during dinner, on the napkins, on the table cloth on anything".

I feel sympathetic to Van Gogh, as an instance, but I would love his works even if I didn't. Picasso on the other hand, I don't like and I have never really liked his work. The more I learn of the history of many of his paintings, the less I like them. Much of his stuff I would not have around the house.

Van Gogh didn't become popular until Iring Stone's biographical novel, "Lust for Life," published in 1934.

Leonard Bernstein went to Vienna in the fifties, and that great orchestra had never played Mahler, because he was a Jew. Once Bernstein introduced Mahler to the orchestra, they loved him.

On the other hand, I heard that the Israel Philharmonic won't play Wagner, because he was anti-Semitic.

You have to separate the man from the music or other art.

Oftentimes the life of an artist will help me to understand why they made certain moves in their work. For me, knowing their history is kind of like putting the missing pieces of a puzzle together.

Coulber21 are you saying that the art of Irving Stone let to the art of Vincent Van Gogh being accepted because of his personal story?

It is rather a quandary for me, as to whether
I want to know about the artist's background
and what circumstances led to the work, or to
just let the work speak to me
(and the background I bring to the work) on its own face value.

van Goghh's work was appreciating very steeply in Germany well before WWI and during the post war illusory economic boom, Vab Gogh works were surpassing those of the better known Impressionists like Cezanne. During the early teen, 2 brothhers in Germany , the dealers Rene and Emille Schuffenecker , and later in the 1920s the German dealer Otto Wacker, had flooded the market with at least 45 total paintings that were fake Van Gogh paintings. Irving Stone, it had been said, became intrigued by these stories of fakery and the number of phony van Goghs that were out there at the ascending prices.
It could be inferred that van Goghs popularity was the inspiration for Stone's work.

Today, a fake van Gogh by Shhuffenecker or Wacker
would be quite valuable in themselves.

some really interesting comments and viewpoints

certainly Picasso's ego affects my attitude to his work, I find him very unlikeable. He was immensely gifted but also a brilliant con merchant and freely admitted as much. I don't actually like much of his work, whilst appreciating its quality. Knowing his history and understanding the breakdown of relationships through his paintings of his mistresses is interesting and certainly adds to the understanding.

Maggie Hamblings earthy incisive personality mirrors her work and adds an extra dimension. Her drawings have so much insight into character.

I doubt if Rodin was a very 'nice' man but i still love his drawings.

John Berger talks about Van Gogh in Ways of Seeing and quotes the Cornfield with Crows - often claimed to be his last work and showing his dark mood, Berger says it wasn't his last work at all and without that background the threat is not necessarily there - a windswept cornfield with swirling birds - hardly gloomy or sad? I don't know who is right but it does show how concepts and knowledge about an artist influence the way we read paintings doesn't it?

Interesting topic. I remember in the fifties when I wanted to BE "a painter" because it seemed such a romantic social identity. I had read Somerset Maugm's Moon and Sixpence (spelling?) and thought of how "meaningful" had been the life quest of a man like Gauguin. After a while, however, I realized the falisity of this ideal. I wanted to be a painter, not so much to paint. Since then I have not been very interested in the personalities and lives of painters--only their paintings. You know, when I think of it, the world is SO full of really good painters and the paintings they have borne. The latter is what counts. Very frankly, the truly successful paintings of the myriad of artists who will remain anonymous remain just as successful and as valuable as if their creators had been famous.
Regarding Picasso. He painted SO much that I feel he did not invest himself equally in every work. Yet when I examine each painting carefully, I am amazed by the many clever and beautiful ways he solved problems. He was the most inventive of painters, one leap of faith after another. Braque, by contrast, invested himself more in every work. He seems to have ploughed slowly down a deep groove. Depth rather than invention was his goal. I love the works of both painters. And I hope that all of us will leave works behind us that will have value even after we have been forgotten. That's part of what children are for.

I remember being entranced by the Venus de Willendorf-like paintings of De Kooning....which to me were such powerful and exhuberant examples of expressionist abandon.....

I was disappointed when I subsequently read.....
WARNING SPOILER>>>>>>that he had been
abused by his mother..... the paintings then looked like monsters to me ..... not what I had envisioned at all. It wasn't that they lacked quality....I just preferred what I brought to the paintings. In hindsight, I dont regret the knowledge, but my initial impression was changed forever<<<<<<<<<<<.........

Shepaints, I DO think, however, that once a painting exists it is subject to the creative projections of viewers. YOUR inititial response to deKooning's work remains a valid alternative creative meaning. I do not think we either GET the painter's point or miss the painting altogether. When I really enjoy a work of painting or music I DO feel that I am being actively creative, not just passively receptive. What if it were discovered that the story of deKooning's maternal abuse was a hoax, would you return to your original response?

sp I had problems with De Kooning too - for awhile. Then I just got over it as artists come from all types of families and and all walks of life. I just decided to enjoy his work.

As a child, 7 or 8, I saved to buy small books of Klee and Miro to copy with my crayons and water paints. I suspect it was the color but maybe more who knows.

Miro was heavy into drugs does that make his work less important or viable. And of course we have Dali to kick around the block re drug use.

Joanne, I'm surprised to hear about drug use among Spaniards. That's just not my image of them. Learn something everyday.

What I'm saying is that the divinity in a piece of art or music is not lessened by the personal history of the artist or composer. You have to keep them separate. Very few of us are saints.

Many artists have had great struggles in their lives, and their personal histories may be tragic. You don't get get inspirition by lying in a bed all day eating bon-bons; you get it by going to heaven and hell, which sometimes means drug use. Artists and composers are the shamans of the Western World, and in many cases, this means experiencing the extremes of human consciousness, whether willingly or not.

Genius and immense talent helps too.

Thank you coluber2001 for the extended explanation. My favorite part is where you say, .

While I do not believe suffering is a necessary thing I do believe suffering is a part of life and art can be a way to deal with pain.

For me to paint is to be nowhere, unaware of the passage of time and having a of blank mind. A real break from my own way to busy mind.

JL....if that story was a hoax then I would
probably still see the monsters De Koonings work!! It is very powerful, just not the pretty package
of my original interpretation.....

On the other hand, I was positively entranced
when I read that Pollock was influenced by the rituals of shamen and went around sprinkling sand etc. on his work in a little shaman-like dance!

Shepaints, the ferocity of the faces of deKooning's "Women" series suggested to me his perception (or imagination) of the power of women. That by itself is not negative. But what I really appreciate about his work is its aesthetic dynamic and color. I could appreciate his work just about as much upsidedown (the paintings, not me).

JLN...I like your interpretation of the power of
women in DK's work. For me, the ferocity of his images suggests abuse of power which makes them very disturbing, but the energy of the paint
and his brushstrokes is utterly awesome!