Great artists?

well lets have a little bit about you for our files.

What "popular" artists do you think dont make it to greatness?

Well, the one that sparked the post off was Frida Kahlo, but there is Van Gogh too.

Hmm.
I guess I agree with Kahlo (spelling is not my friend). He5r work, to me is a kind of naive mannerism . but van Gogh, I think maybe we should look at his work in a post Impressionist context. He was searching for something else. He like many of the artists of the time were trying to pain many of a scenes dimensions and chronicle time by its interplay with light.
van Gogh was a good drafstman if you just look at his early pencil sketches.

My idea of "not so good , even though popular" is Keith Haring, he never went beyond one thing.Kinda like Hieronimus Bosch.
My all time favorites are those that have honestly tried to convey an emotion within their work. Like Edward Hopper (loneliness and identity),Goya, Picabia, for deconstructing the machine age, Vermeer, just for his ability to capture the teeniest slips of light, Srgent, for his early non portrait stuff, Others like Frank Frazetta, George Morrison, Radu Vero, Rico Lebrun (these favs change with the seasons) and , of course Guy Cohalech and Robert Bateman (I do a lot of wildlife and I like the action poses that require quick sketching ).Vivien introduced me to an English artists work David Prentice, He is truly the master of the Statement made about Cezanne "He tries to paint the next moment in time"

Im not big fan of Redon, Klimt, Frankenthaler,Rivera and Ruiz, Baziotes (even though he ws one of my teachers as a kid), Leonard Baskin, Franz Kline, Pollock, Wyeth.

Il have to have a look at the artists you listed.

A thing I can remember e about Van Gogh is someoen saying that he cant do perspective.
As an artist shouldnt he be able to do that?

Thats a bit of misunderstanding by your friend. His sketches were well done in perspective, like his "Rocks at Montmajour" or "Landscape with Railway Carriages"
His "bedroom at Arles' and other overexaggerated perspective paintings were done as a trick with foreshortening(I believe but I could be wrong)
I look at the "Harvest" or the "Sower" and see someone with good perspective skills

I would say that what makes an artist great is his/her ability to communicate truth in a totally new way that influences many other artists.

An artist is more than a craftsman. Ability to handle perspective (or mix colors, or paint inside the lines, etc.) is the mark of a craftsman. Great artists usually master their craft, but not always. And that doesn't make them any less great.

Then youre saying that great artists rely on "dumb luck" sometimes . I cant agree. When an artist messes with perspective its not cause they dont know it, and those that do , to me, can never be great.

If there were no Peggy Guggenheim, would Jackson Pollock be celebrated?
I still dont "get" Keith Haring. Maybe one piece of chalk people on a canvas, but he made an entire career of it and became an icon.
Does the art admiring public know anything? Is art many times just a great joke on the gullible. I think theres some of that.

Like giving Kahlo a "naive mannerism' or "Outsider art" gives it a context and therefore credibility. Maybe its just bad.

I agree with you generally, Farmer, much as usual, though not necessarily about every one of the artists... but am a bit lost on this. You don't mean an artist who knows perspective can never be great, do you? Or what?

"When an artist messes with perspective its not cause they dont know it, and those that do , to me, can never be great." ??

I'm guessing you mean those who don't know it and mess it up can't be great... or..

wow , osso, I need constant editors about me . Yes that should have been "dont", will never be great.OY

well, another art thread DOA

Edward Hopper. My favourite artist. Saw an exhibition of his work at Tate Modern. Now that's 'art'.
And Jack Vetriano, another great.

I'd like to say that great artists are those who have love for their thing they do, "neither a lofty degree of intelligence, or imagination, or both make up the genius. Love, love, love is the soul of genius." Wolfie
The more love you have in what you do, the better you will get at it, and the more arts you do, the more of an artist you are, see like a uomo universalis.

I like surrealism, because you need to have good imagination, like Escher, Delvaux, Rops, Dali,... and Einstein has a famous quote on imagination, speaking 'bout that dude, he had to hold a rock, because when he was concentrating, and examining problems while centered at Alpha brain wave, he could fall asleep, so he'd drop the rock, BANG
Anyway, that's also an art, but actually more for him alone, to see what a mighty brain like that can think of.

Other greatest artist from this time, I must say Rodney Mullen on his skateboard, Marti Kuopa, Dave Mirra,... all the BMX'ers, Surfers, snowboarders, or great sports, like turntablism or breakdancing or graffiti, computer animated cartoon designers,...

I also like Monet, Lautrec, Schiele, Tim Burton, Russell Banks, Mozart, Joe Eigo, Frank Black, Johnny Cash, Django, Dave Chappelle, Horta, Lennon, Von Trier, Jim Carey, and many many more artists

I agree with a lot that Farmer said. To be great an artist has to have something to convey, and has to hold your interest and make you want to look again.

I do like Van Gogh, maybe not among the very top echelon but very good. His sunflowers blaze off the wall when you see them in real life and reproductions can only give a pale imitation.

Major greats have to be Rembrandt - the pathos in his self portraits, the way he gets into the personal space of his sitters and exposes character and the way he uses paint - look at one in real life and the way the paint is applied is luscious - areas of thin scrubbed paint and areas of gloopy thick paint that coalesce into intricate lace as you step away. I love painterly painting

So .... IMO Hopper and co are good but not anywhere near that level.

You have to look at how imaginative and innovative they were in the context of their times as well.

Only time will tell who will survive from today and I don't think it will be the likes of Haring - one simplistic idea, rather boring and a lot of hype.

There are lots of very good painters here producing fantastic work but lots of them will be forgotten. Only a very few make it to 'immortality'.

I think Lucian Freud will be one - his work is sometimes too brutal for my taste but I have to admire the sheer power and skill of it.


mmmm power - that's something that the best work has in common - the power to make you look again at something or to see beneath the skin or to show you the horror or beauty so strongly that it makes a real impression on you. It can be a quiet power like Gwen John or Diebenkorn, it doesn't have to shout or a cutting incisive power like Schiele or Freud etc They have an insight into what they portray that goes way beyond the ordinary.

I suppose it helps if you are in the forefront of a style change. The Impressionists were denounced at first, but now they're popular. Then the Post-Impressionists including Van Gogh. Of course, one gains super popularity if your art sells well, and it becomes a commodity, an investment. There may have been many great artists in Van Gogh's time, maybe better artists that nobody ever heard of. We tend to worship popularity, and the popularity is gained by selling. But greatness is not always recognized.

Pollock was at the forefront of abstract expressionism. Thanks to Peggy Guggemheim, he was recognized, but he could just as easily ended up as a dead end of annonomity. That's what happens to most artists.

Think of music. Everybody thinks of Beethoven as a great composer, even though most of us have probably never heard a complete symphony of his. What about Mahler or Prokokiev? Fewer have even heard of them much less listened to them. They are great but less popular.

So I guess greatness is different from popularity. It's easier to be popular than great, and to be great doesn't mean popularity.

By the way, Farmerman. When did you become Balderick? Hilarious!

greatness is definitely different from popularity. Impressionism wasn't popular - the heavier more pedantic work of its predecessors was.

Gwen John wasn't popular in her lifetime but persisted in her own unique quiet style - her brother Augustus John, who was famous and popular said that she was the better painter and her work would endure and become appreciated, which it has over the years.

Being in the forefront of change only makes you famous for a while but time sorts of the truly great and they are often very different people.

I find the pre Raphaelits work far too sentimental and sickly, even if the actual painting quality is excellent. They are far too heavy on mawkish sentiment for me. They were very popular in their day.

Today fame is strange, it doesn't necessarily depend on ability but hype and is often fleeting. I think a lot of conceptual work will disappear, virtually without trace in the history of art, the good stuff will survive.

It's interesting how I feel that I can't say anything about art right now--except that Haring is B.S.. I feel like anything I might say--other than the forgoing--would be in absolute need of qualification.
For example, the other day, I looked through a book on the paintings of Norman Rockwell. They looked wonderful to me. He was clearly a masterful craftsman, notwithstanding his sentimental subject matter. And somedays I love some of the work of Frankenthaler, other days it seems vacuous.
I always love the early works of Diebenkorn, and I almost always love the work of deKooning, but today I can't say why. Tomorrow perhaps.
I'm sure everyone knows that Van Gogh sold only one painting during his lifetime. Success has nothing to do with Success.