De Stijl!! What style of art do you favor and why?

so LW, you think I could corner the Kinkade market if I act fast? Could there be $ to be made here?

Maybe minus $3000. or $4000. Easier to go burn it in the street. He's working on being a marketing has-been with those plein air paintings. More like plain hot air.

(You were being facetious, right?)

He's obviously got some elves painting these up -- probably $10.00 an hour starving European artists:

(The composition in that one is so far off it's painful.)

That's neat, dys.

You are cowboy-ish.

Is there anyone you hate more than Kinkaede (sp), LW? There's got to be somebody.

Not a facetious bone in my body!

<blink>

Kinkade represents the face of junk decorator art that permeates the business. He's known as "Pet Rock of the Art Industry." He's managed to garner prices that the work just plain doesn't warrant considering how they are produced (they are mass produced cheap lithographs pasted onto canvas and touched up by a staff of elves). I would say anyone who lauds his work should definitely own a hundred of them. That'll cost ya, though, and don't don't get a flame near the cheap plastic frame 'cause it'll destroy your "art." Come to think of it, please do. The lawsuits against him could likely take back a great portion of the money he's bilked out of unwary, unknowledgable buyers who were sold by a shark salesperson in a gallery. His galleries have nearly all closed and those carrying the work have pared it back to almost nil.
Nobody's buying on those amateurish plein air paintings. Bye, bye Kinkade -- another fad down the drain.

lot's of interesting artists have been mentioned,

I think there is a division between art I find interesting and like and art I desperately want to own and enjoy, stuff that I really relate to.

I can appreciate most of the stuff shown so far on the first level.

Unlike ebeth who likes clean lines I like painterly work - the gloops and abstract qualities of a Rembrandt when you stand close are just luscious, as you move back it resolves into intricate lace or the lines in a face and he moves you into the sitters personal space.

Turner is all air and light and I love his more abstract paintings and sketch books - they are so contemporary - but not so much the allegorical and historical stuff.

Schiele has the most wonderful incisive lines and so do Rodin's drawings.

I like art nouvea, secession stuff, Klimt - but they are decorative and not so deep as Turner/Rembrandt etc

I don't like the moralistic undertones of Victorian stuff like the pre-Raphaelites and am with farmer on only being able to take a limited number, I appreciate their skill though. I went on a trip to Liverpool and there was some superb work in the Tate at the time and on the way back we went to the Lady Lever museum in Port Sunlight (full of pre-Raphaelite stuff) we were tired and it felt like too much chocolate and we whizzed through quickly, unable to take too much of it.

I like Rothko and Diebenkorn but Hopper doesn't reach me the same - I appreciate the skill and the atmosphere but don't want to own one - give me a Rothko or a Diebenkorn please though!

Contemporary British artists I like are David Prentice, Kurt Jackson, David Tress, Ross Loveday, Fred Cuming, Kyffin Williams, Barbara Rae, Ethel Walker, Rose Hilton, Len Tabner and many others.

link to David Tress

link to barbara rae

link to ross loveday

link to Fred Cuming

I haven't put links to prentice and jackson as I've done that often in the past and they can be found on other threads.

I find conceptual art is often so shallow - you look - the idea is simplistic, you take it in and that's IT. No further appeal. Good paintings are sustaining, I want to look at them again and again, noticing different things, appreciating colours, marks, ideas etc

Great, Vivien! So glad you showed up. I'm glad to have the links--those are ...even more...artists I hadn't heard of yet.

I like Rothko, as well. Sort of serene...or at least not jangling. Sad, though.

The color fields I can easily see just sinking in to them--lush color. But, the story of his donation to the Four Seasons...(he was a little petulant, no?)

A good story, I think.

Say everything anytime. You are full of interesting insights, I bet.

I like his Orange and Yellow.

Rothko was asked to do a few pieces for the Four Seasons, and agreed.

He began having second thoughts--not wanting to have his works only viewable by the bourgeosie--and went to the Four Seasons to check out the clientele. Sure nuff, they were all too well heeled for his tastes-- so he tried to get out of the contract with the Four Seasons. (He had a serious conflict with locking art away from the masses.)

No way was the Four Seasons letting him out of the commission. So, after a bit of deliberation--he painted some crappy paintings--ugly, "unappetizing' color fields...

So, the FS took them anyway--and were not aware Rothko had tried to make them crappy.

Rothko goes to see them, and their affect. He was not pleased that people seemed pleased--

So, he launched a productive period of work, earned enough money and bought his Four Seasons work back.

He offered them free to a museum, packed them with loving care, and was found the next day in a pool of his blood.

thanks for the explanation, I'd never heard the story.

One of Walter's favorites: Hundertwasser.

Looks like another Secession.

I am really liking this style.

Silkscreen.

Rothko's Orange and Yellow

Ummm, I have Rothko calendar above the computer at work. As it happens, that room has fairly dim light, at this point, and the calendar photos have an added ethereality.

I think I only got up to the 1600's in listing a few favorite artists. Will have to get back to this one of these days...

There was one site specific installation that I found very impressive.

Ann Hamilton's "myein".

She represented the US at the Venice Biennale in 1999--and it was unforgettable to me.

The site was a Georgian rotunda type smallish building that evokes a Washington DC type government building. She used a new method of creating a sliver of cascading water--mixed with soapy fluid to mutate the appearance of what is on the other side-- (Political statement coming--hers, not mine)

Inside, gentle light tufts of fushia powder float periodically from the ceiling over the walls--and the fushia powder glides down the walls, catching on raised braille dots--which cover the walls and speak of all manner of human suffering. All around the walls. Very lightly, in a whispery murmur, women's voices are reading Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Just viewing the tape is compelling.

She also creates installations that incorporate textiles.... Hard to explain. But, funny how normal things can be arranged to communicate unexpected messages.

Of course, she also takes pictures with her mouth...

Still here.
Still reading.
Still looking.

Was in a fabulous Art Deco building in downtown Toronto today. Was tempted to pull out my camera, but I'd have been late for my meeting. I'm definitely more attracted to art/design that is part of something functional than 'just' art.

I do like, even love, some paintings, but overall, I get more of a kick out of beautiful functional objects. Egyptian death masks, Chinese funeral attendants ... those sorts of things make me happy. Working duck and goose decoys vs decorative objects.

but always looking at it all.

<nods at ehBeth>

I don't yet get pleasure of just looking at Art Deco art (as you describe), but like you, that style is one of my favorite architectural styles.

<smiles> I describe it that way, too. "It makes me happy." Medieval architecture, ornate thingamabobs... I don't know about a lot of the thingamabobs you describe. I'm going to start a list of the doo-dads you mention.

Loved your funky Secession lamp.

When I walk (exercise) in the neighborhood, I'm forever staring at people's entryways and gardens. They likely think I'm casing them for a robbery... Love to see choices people make and how they form a style.... This style planter evokes this mood--but this one says...

Makes me happy.