Major influences on "modern" art?: Your thoughts.

I paint so infrequently that to say I paint is a real stretch! When I do use paints, watercolor is my medium, and I favor landscape--and portraits of people whom I imagine. Drawings I do fairly often, but these are usually sketches to explain a design or idea when spoken conversation is inadequate or too slow.

Do you paint?

Just took a look at a good reproduction of Picasso's first Blue Period painting, "Evocation--The Burial of Casagemas" (1901). Here, subtle things do happen with the blues. However, when I look at the other Blue paintings, the subtlety is gone, replaced by what you correctly refer to as "simple tonal values." Thank you for inspiring me to look at these works!

Although the fauves and Expressionists were deeply concerned with color, it's fairly often with an in-your-face attitude. This attitude was definitely worth having--once--but is it worth sustaining after the point has been made? I do confess to loving most work by Emil Nolde; it wears very well for me.

I am a major Rothko fan. Talk about subtleties!

I would agree with you that some of Picasso's color is "loud and garish," but Picasso had a distinct fauve personality, which he liked to display in various ways--some of them unpleasant. Also, what I perceive as garish may be just the quality that a particular form elicited for him. Dunno. I do know that, were I able to collect Picasso, I'd be wishing for drawings, not paintings. Many of his drawings are stupendous. Also, I believe that his success ratio is greater with drawing than with painting.

About the doodles Picasso would make. These were frequently spur-of-the-moment presents for friends or for people who needed money--or amusements for his children. Picasso could be very generous if you didn't want something from him. On the other hand, if you did want something, he'd put you through flaming hoops--and still might not give it to you!

When I studied Picasso the person--not always an admirable guy!--the anecdotes that spoke to me most tellingly of his personality concerned his boxing matches at local nightspots in Paris, when the artist was young and broke. He'd take a reluctant Fernande with him on these outings, and, being the wrong build for the sport--not to mention untrained--he'd be soundly beaten. Afterwards, he'd drag himself home to paint all night. In a few days, he'd go out and be thrashed again--always convinced, of course, that, this time, he'd prevail. He couldn't seem to accept the fact that, in certain contexts, he'd be a loser. And, of course, when he'd lose, he'd tell himself that the unnecessary pain was making him the real winner!

What is your favorite Braque? His early work is definitely an influence on modern art.

Vivian, you as if Miklos paints. Well, he certainly does with words. In case he's too modest, have a look at this. It refers, I suppose to a painting byMarsden Hartley (a favorite of mine) of Mount Katahdin in Maine.

Katahdin: 1942.

Here
is Katahdin
before
we fractured the world
into elements
and geometries.

Here is Katahdin
when
you could see
the shifts
in the restless
original structure
of things.

When clouds
were blue rock,
and woods
were fire,
and mountains
were heavy air
that rolled
in purple water.

That's painting with a great palette.
I obtained copies of some of Miklos' more than a year ago. They continue to move me.

Vivien, please give Miklos your website. His poetry is verbal painting; your paintings are visual poetry.

Miklos, when I end a conversaton with "Enough about me!" (as you just did), I follow it with "What do YOU think about me?"

By the way, Vivien, you mentioned one of my favorite colorists, Morandi. Such subtlety. The other three are Diebenkorn, Avery, and, of course, Matisse.

I agree with your three, JL..

Great, Osso. That means I've got good taste.

Well, I miscounted, I meant your four!

Braque's work looks so incredibly serious. In this respect he is more like Cezanne than many of his generation. Braque's work is rarely "pretty," rarely decorative. If I had to describe it in one word, I'd choose the unglamorous "thoughtful." Each work seems a meditation, for himself more than for others. With some exceptions (e.g., The Pink Tablecloth, 1933) his work shows a relative absence of the passion so characteristic of Picasso and Matisse. But this "lack" is no failing in his case. Picasso and Matisse are primarily Dionysian while Braque is primarily Apollonian, always sober in the pursuit of beauty.

JLN, So glad that you enjoy the Hartley poem. I love his work. He should have been a major influence on modern art--but, alas, he spent the most productive part of his later life searching for a sense of family (eminently worthy goal) in Nova Scotia, which is, even today, many hours NE of the nearest major art scene, Boston. He died in 1943, in Ellsworth, Maine, about 20 minutes from our present house, sick with congestive heart failure, emotionally beaten (two favorite members of the Canadian family who took him in had drowned at sea), and broke. The sort of end you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. Did you know that Hartley wrote quite a bit of poetry? His subjects are excellent, and his imagery is, unsurprisingly, brilliant, but you might find his 19th-century-style diction a distraction.

Concerning Braque, I think your word "thoughtful" is right on.
And his work has this quality throughout his career. In the mid-60's, not too long after the artist's death, there was a first-rate exhibition of his late work at The Philips in Washington. Roomsfull of rich, quiet beauty! I was there for hours. There is a nice catalogue of the show, but, in those pre-blockbuster years, the museum did not have the funding to reproduce more than a few of these "meditations" (another fine choice of words, JLN!) in color. Braque loses a great deal when copied in B&W, but I still study that catalogue, as it is a particularly fine grouping of paintings, and I can turn the gray images to color in my memory. You probably could do the same, because I'm sure you know these works from a different context.

Diebenkorn! The first job I had after undergraduate study was at the Smithsonian in what was then called the National Collection of Fine Arts (now, I think, titled the National Museum of American Art). I was the lowest of the low, the newest research assistant, and, until there was work suitable for my uncertain research skills, I was used to help hang exhibitions. One morning, I had been struggling to get a large Bengstrom (sp.?) called "Buddy" into the best height relative to the other works along a wall. Because "Buddy" had sergeant's stripes as a prominent feature, there were optical illusions galore. Every person who passed me suggested yet another height! When I broke for lunch, a sandwich on the gallery floor, I looked up right into a glorious Diebenkorn. Took my breath away! I'd never seen one, much less in the flesh. Immediately, I tracked down the curator of 20th-century Painting and demanded "Who IS this Richard Diebenkorn? I want one of these!" I was told that I had very good taste, but that I had missed the boat by about five years on purchase--unless a very rich uncle favored me in his will. Diebenkorn has wondrous color--and structure. A formidable painter. Is there a particular catalogue of Diebenkorn that you would recommend?

I do hope that Vivien will point me to the website. I'd really love to see it. Thank you for urging her.

I agree with your choice of colourists and would add Modigliani - his paintings have a beautiful glow from within when seen in reality.

I don't know Avery though - American? what is his full name? I'd like to take a look. I love Diebenkorn's work. The only Avery I know is a photographer.

Yes the Expressionists used colour at high volume! ( I sometimes like to)

As jln kindly said, yes I paint (using any and all media). I tend to work in series, exploring a theme in various media including printmaking, though I haven't done any printmaking for a while. I have some collagraph plates ready to print but haven't managed to get to the print workshop.

Thoughtful is a good description of Braque and that is probably what appeals to me, his colours have more subtlety and his paint handling I find much more satisfying. I particularly like his late works - I went to an exhibition at the Royal Academy a few years back and they had his series on billiard tables and some landscapes that were quite impressionist/post impressionist. I can't find any illustrations of them online. Virtually any of his cubist works I prefer to Picasso's.

Picasso said that when he died it would be 'like a great ship going down' and that many would go down with him - correct if you look at the suicides and wrecked lives of his family and partners.

jln is right, your writing is beautiful miklos - would you pm the titles etc so that I can track some down? (I've pm'd you my website as we aren't allowed to post them). Critical comment is welcome

I hope I've answered everything

I'm going with Cezanne as one one artist who began pushing out the envelope, at least towards cubism and abstraction. He went beyond the impressionist's concentration on color and light and began distorting the images as he saw it in his mind. However, as far as shaking up convention and pushing the creative mind into the future, I could easily go with the Duchamp. It definitely changed the creative focus dramatically. Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns owe a lot to Duchamp. Duchamp was even creating Op Art earlier in his career.

BTW, this has nothing to do with whether one likes Duchamp's work or not -- this is a strictly academic question. Today, "Fountain" appears rather benign if not banal but perhaps that was Duchamp's original intellectual intent. His writing are available and they are fascinating.

Vivien, MILTON Avery. He mixes colors that seem from another world, so subtle and often beyond my imagination. I've tried to approximate his wonderful "blends." At present I have a bad painting that I can't do much to salvage because to do so would risk the loss of some of these "precious" blends that have become for me more important than the painting itself. This, I believe, is what the Buddhists call the destructive force of "attachment."

Miklos, I made an investment in the revised and expanded "Richard Diebenkorn", by Gerald Nordland (Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. 1987. Never regretted it.
Diebenkorn's later Ocean Park series constitutes his most famous output. While they are magnificent for their variations on a general theme and show his genius as a colorist, I prefer his earlier works, the sensuous Albuquerque, Urbana and Berkely series. They move me at least as much as do the great works (e.g., Untitled 1948, Mailbox 1948, Attic 1949, and Excavation, 1950) of de Kooning--who, by the way, might be included in my list of favorite colorists. Diebenkorn is also a magnificent drawer of the human figure. We were privileged a month ago to have an exhibition of line drawings of his beloved wife, Phylllis.

Lightwizard, I think we are essentially in agreement. I said earlier that Duchamp influenced how we THINK about art; Cezanne did that as well, but he influenced how we actually PAINT (excluding such contemporary mediums of expression as installations, videos, etc.).

Cezanne's technique is without a doubt still influencing the way today's artists paint. Duchamp was not about technique particularly but about ideas. The painterly quality expressed by many art critics and historians is straight out of Cezanne. His desire to infuse his imagery with the look that it was painted is still extraordinary today and seldom reached. The advent of photography may be the single crucial inspiration for artists to depart from realistic depictions of their subjects.

Vivien, Thanks very much for sending me your website address!
When I tried to reply, the administration sent me a message that, as a Newbie, I do not yet have PM privileges. Therefore, I sent my comments to your btopenworld address. I'm hoping that you can pick it up. I greatly enjoyed visiting your galleries!

mmm - I haven't received it - I'll pm you my address as you can receive them - I didn't know you couldn't post while a newbie - I suppose it is a protective issue.

Having enjoyed discussions with Miklos for years now (Abuzz, and I thought A2K), it seems very odd to label him a "newbie."

I sure have the same problem. Glad Miklos is back!

I think you have to have 500 posts now to have pm privileges... Let's keep Miklos talking!!

500? That's a lot of posts!

Lightwizard, I agree that Duchamp is an important influence on modern art, but, as seems to be the case with you, I am much more interested in what he wrote and said than in his artworks. Also, as you say above, his impact has little to do with whether or not one likes his visual artworks. In fact, I doubt that he expected anyone to "like" this art. Perhaps, he sought negative response--strong negative response, which may be a form of admiration.


I do not return to Duchamp's urinal in the way I return to "Desmoiselles d'Avignon" or a late Cezanne. The urinal, unlike the Picasso or the Cezanne, started losing its impact after one viewing, but I think of the ferment that all of those single viewings may have begun. What R. Mutt said with his work is important, but, as some have suggested in this thread, it's intellectual and very concise. In fact, it's like an apophthegm.

Of course, Duchamp was a very bright fellow. His urinal reached more eyes and minds than any written schema would. The urinal may be an example of extreme intellectual shorthand.