Yes, yes, yes (can you top that?)
To change the subject, how's this work by Oscar Bluemner as a dramatic work of expressionism?
http://borghi.org/images/Bluemner.snow.jpeg
Looks to me like a good combo of munchian and jlnobodian...
anyway, strong image!
I must admit I am a lot suspicious about the hoopla about Bluemner. Suddenly, in art magazines, I see articles, ads, illustrations...about this guy...more than is normal...like he has a cartel that is investing in and pushing his work... There is something about this business of "spin" and "selling" that is pretty tawdry.
His work is typical expressionist derived, nothing more...and certainly competent, yes more.
Thanks, Osso. I hope that's so.
SG, the first I've heard of this guy (is he alive? I don't get around much) is in this month's Art in America, a full page blurb for his show at the Whitney Museum of American Art. I got this image from Google. I wonder I'll find on the Whitney website:
www.whitney.org Here goes.
I don't know anything about hoopla re bluemner - that was just a visceral take. Sure, feeding drama in cartoonish way..
I didn't dislike it. (Give me time...)
It isn't my own interest.
But, and still... it got my attention. It did remind me of munch, perhaps because it referenced on purpose, or not.
I may think of it as more graphics oriented but I don't-not-like it.
Will be interested in your link, jl.
Not much, but I found that he was in Stieglitz's stable. Funny that I don't recall him.
Cartoon ref may sound perjorative - it reminds me of something in my past. I had small acquaintance with fables and childrens' book illustrations.. maybe the memory is more recent.. but somehow it pulls me in that direction. The thing with Munch couldn't be more clear but who was first? (sorry, stupid re history). The thing with jln - well, you're not derivative, or not more so than anyone else. Let's say certain images come to mind to more than one person, given the sun is universal.
I agree with the general opinion - an immediate reaction of 'interesting?' followed immediately by a feeling of 'I'm not sure, it's a bit shallow and designed'. Attractive, graphic but not deep.
Bluemner died in 1938. Over 300 images of his work may be found on Google search. Click on
images, after typing Bluemner's name in search box.
What I referred to before is the way that art administrators at the top jobs in their professions do to up the market value and movement of work...several institutions cooperate in promoting a particular artist.
It happened to me once in LA, it took me by surprise (even tho I was the happy beneficiary), but left me quite paranoid at the goings on in the art world and market.
Notice how my principal response to Trieff and Bluemner was to the effect of their "design" (GS and Vivien are right there). I must grant that that IS my central bias--design is for painting what melody is for music (neither are guarantees of "depth" but oh so important for me). Most of my paintings give much attention to overall design, to the "first impression" they might give. That may be shallow if that were my--or Trieff's or Bluemner's--sole standard in producing an artistic image. When I first take in the images in question (of Trieff and Bluemner), I must confess that my second look(s) are a bit less appreciative (especially after taking into account the responses of others--I'm such a wus). But, especially with Bluemner's work, I must look more. Another of Stieglitz's stable has had a more last effect on me: Arthur Dove.
Notice how my principal response to Trieff and Bluemner was to the effect of their "design" (GS and Vivien are right there). I must grant that that IS my central bias--design is for painting what melody is for music (neither are guarantees of "depth" but oh so important for me). Most of my paintings give much attention to overall design, to the "first impression" they might give. That may be shallow if that were my--or Trieff's or Bluemner's--sole standard in producing an artistic image. When I first take in the images in question (of Trieff and Bluemner), I must confess that my second look(s) are a bit less appreciative (especially after taking into account the responses of others--I'm such a wus). But, especially with Bluemner's work, I must look more. Another of Stieglitz's stable has had a more enduring or consistent effect on me: Arthur Dove.
Dove is a genius, in a way...he was a pure abstractionist before most even in the field knew or could understand what he was about.
And his paintings are so...o....o musical.
I'd never heard of Dove and went of to google his name. Very very much of its era isn't it? and a bit deeper than those we are currently discussing, but very designed.
We all design to a degree - the composition, the way we move the viewers eye around the painting, the twist we give to colours. Some things don't go deeper but design is not in itself something 'bad'.
To appreciate Dove...one must realize that he was working with abstraction in 1912...abstraction derived from natural forms to be sure (as was Kandinsky) but nevertheless many years in advance of successful abstract movements.
He also worked with mixed media...earlier than other artists were prone to do so.
He was a trailblazer...in a quiet way...I personally like his Foghorn, his moonscapes, his wood pile, his thunder shower...and a host of other works of his. See Google images...Arthur Dove images.
I agree, GS, that that historical knowledge guides one's intellectual appreciation of Dove's work, but it has little or no effect on my aesthetic enjoyment (appreciation?). Our school has a painting by Dove in its permanent collection. I'm drawn to look at it occasionally despite the fact that it has become darkened over the years--it's like a sacred artifact to me--I wonder if he did something wrong with his use of the medium). His work has for me some of the esoteric yet humble (surrealistic) effect of Baziote's oeuvre. Thanks for the Google reminder; I enjoyed a half-hour trip through it.
By the way, folks, does this Picasso remind anyone of Trieff's two women paintings (ignoring the obvious differences, of course)?
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/200/6729/640/NY-picasso.jpg
goodstein-shapiro wrote:To appreciate Dove...one must realize that he was working with abstraction in 1912...abstraction derived from natural forms to be sure (as was Kandinsky) but nevertheless many years in advance of successful abstract movements.
He also worked with mixed media...earlier than other artists were prone to do so.
He was a trailblazer...in a quiet way...I personally like his Foghorn, his moonscapes, his wood pile, his thunder shower...and a host of other works of his. See Google images...Arthur Dove images.
yes, I suppose I am judging it having seen a lot of work that followed and am not giving enough credit for the originality in its day. It's easy to forget the context and judge in the here and now. I used google image when I searched - a very useful tool and - it even finds me!
(and you - lots of images for you).
yes
