Reply
Tue 15 Jul, 2003 01:08 pm
Since seeing his work in a museum, I have been a big fan of contemporary artist Claudio Bravo. He secludes himself from society and the art world, oblivious to modern trends. He is also very smart, if you can get a chance to read quotes by him. Unfortunately, most of the sites on him aren't in English. Although, looking at the library yesterday Iv'e discovered there are a couple books that have been published on him.
http://www.puc.cl/faba/ARTE/MUSEO/MuseoExpoBravoI.html
I saw "Venus" in person. It is huge and magnificently executed. I think he is the modern equivalent to an old master.
He he, I'm seeing double...
Look at the two links posted here.
Okay, so I had a blonde moment. Jeez!
art
Wonderful craftsmanship. He would have made a good photographer--great compositions (for photography). After the first few minutes of studying the samples presented, they became banal and too slick. Somewhat like watching a magnificent juggler. At first amazement, then yawn.
He reminds me of a fellow we have had booked to show with us who just cancelled (grrrrrrrr) for reasons having to do with keeping his job at the University and having their gallery being his sole rep. Well, that person's work is much more spare, re the groupings Let me not give a link, as I am a little pissy about it this minute. Later in the thread maybe, since I think he is great and wish him well past this minute in time.
But I like much of what I see in Bravo's work, right now...will re look later. By definition, this kind of work is not as expressive as some, but that expression that is there seems to tingle.
After I sent that off, I re looked, and back off from full enthusiasm. It is not as au pointe as the person's who I happen to be annoyed with, which I like because of his tendency to be abstract at the same time the works do pristine rendering.
Anybody know Morandi's work? An italian almost hermit painter who did bottles over and over again...still life/abstract. I have some little clue what art historians think of Morandi, but from my glimmers the consensus seems to be good. Different than this, if you look at it, but some of the same urges to paint...and yet not.
So, what, this work here shows great ability, has a lot of polish. It is only when you look at more and more that you see it might be missing something.
I recently cast some cloud of my own wonder on a painter apparently everybody else on the art topics apprises extremely highly, and felt that I had better get batches of arguments together to not quite like something.
I'd rather we not be afraid to not like here, and not have to defend that in wise words at the time.
In this case, I do like Bravo's work, I just back off of my first post of a few minutes ago.
Re: art
JLNobody wrote:Wonderful craftsmanship. He would have made a good photographer--great compositions (for photography). After the first few minutes of studying the samples presented, they became banal and too slick. Somewhat like watching a magnificent juggler. At first amazement, then yawn.
I, think there is a lot to be missed looking at them on the internet. I find them kind of boring on the internet. In person, they are much stronger pieces and differ greatly from photography in their color and surface (oil retains light). If you ever get the chance to see one in person, I think you may have a better opinion. Of course, it was a few years ago when I saw "Venus," so maybe my eye has gotten better since then, eh?
ossobuco wrote:After I sent that off, I re looked, and back off from full enthusiasm. It is not as au pointe as the person's who I happen to be annoyed with, which I like because of his tendency to be abstract at the same time the works do pristine rendering.
Anybody know Morandi's work? An italian almost hermit painter who did bottles over and over again...still life/abstract. I have some little clue what art historians think of Morandi, but from my glimmers the consensus seems to be good. Different than this, if you look at it, but some of the same urges to paint...and yet not.
So, what, this work here shows great ability, has a lot of polish. It is only when you look at more and more that you see it might be missing something.
I recently cast some cloud of my own wonder on a painter apparently everybody else on the art topics apprises extremely highly, and felt that I had better get batches of arguments together to not quite like something.
I'd rather we not be afraid to not like here, and not have to defend that in wise words at the time.
In this case, I do like Bravo's work, I just back off of my first post of a few minutes ago.
What is au pointe?
Could I see a link to his work? Are you a gallery owner?
I would love some links to Morandi.
I don't think it's important to like or not like, what's important is to be able to articulate why you like somthing, or why you don't.
Yes, I saw the person I am pissed at's work today, large and under good light, and still think it is strong. I agree with you, Portal, about large and a good light
and the work of Bravo hitting you.
Actually, the good news is that any of this hits...any of us.
art
Osso, I prefer Morandi's work. It takes greater advantage of he expressive power of paint(erliness) with its "imperfections." I do feel that "perfection" is banal.
But I do acknowledge, Portal Star, that my opinion might change (at least a bit) upon seeing Bravo's work in real life.
art
Osso, I prefer Morandi's work. It takes greater advantage of the expressive power of paint(erliness) with its "imperfections." I do feel that "perfection" tend to be banal.
But I do acknowledge, Portal Star, that my opinion might change (at least a bit) upon seeing Bravo's work in real life.
Au pointe is to the point.
I prefer to be able to give momentary or lengthy emotional or academic responses as I wish, and wish that for others here; I understand that articulating is important for you, Portal. I am borderline bored with articulating, I do it all day.
Didn't mean to sound quite that putoffish, portal, but I don't want to go on at length about my qualms about this or that work. First of all, that may change.
Secondly, I want to not slur by my views any sincere artist's work here.
Also, I am not an art historian.
Also, I am not an art critic.
I am just a painter.
Yes I have a gallery. It is not online and I am not promoting it here.
Mostly I am enthused about everybody trying all sorts of things in all kinds of art.
I just can't do somersaults if that is not what I feel.
I don't feel I owe anyone an explanation for my not somersaulting. Nor do you to me.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/morandi.html
I lived with a man for two years who thought Bravo was wonderful and painted in a very similar style. He didn't have quite the level of polish shown in "Venus", for example, but was very, very good. (Received a commission to paint the wife of some major University donor before he graduated from college.)
I dislike his work and dislike Bravo's for the same reason, but am trying to be fair about the emotions involved. Basically, I find it a shame that such technical mastery stops short of showing any soul, elevating itself beyond a pretty picture. It's just a tiny bit too smug, too attention-seeking.
Intelligent discussion and critiques are how I learn about art from other artists. I feel that every critique Iv'e ever had has been helpful to be, good or bad, because it's a thermometer of the temprements and ideals of the public and artistic community.
Sozobe: 'Basically, I find it a shame that such technical mastery stops short of showing any soul, elevating itself beyond a pretty picture. It's just a tiny bit too smug, too attention-seeking. '
Why doesn't it show soul? What could he do that would make it show soul? Is it possible to have very naturalistically rendered art that carries statements other than beauty? What makes it smug/ attention seeking?
I agree with the tone of the others - the work is very accomplished and technically able - but - no passion or excitement or mood or interesting surface or mystery.
I love Morandi's work - now that does have a mood, an extra quality and a quiet passion about the subjects and the paint itself.
I know i am judging from a small reproduction on screen which cannot hope to do the paintings justice - if i saw them in reality I might change my mind.
Think of the paint quality and passion in a Rembrandt - when you stand back you see intricate lace and jewels - when you move close you see globs and trails of paint - very abstract and very contemporary. a person has a real character, they have lived, they have personality, they are a specific person rather than a generic representation - 'pretty woman'.
Somehow i see these works as having every detail clear and painted - no mysterious blurring of dark against dark and light against light - I may be wrong? They leave the viewer nothing to do. Everything is clinically presented and therefore they aren't sustaining, they don't invite you to look again and again.
I agree, Vivien. I have seen several of these works in high-quality art books, which is still not nearly as interesting as the real thing, but gives more detail than onscreen.
Personality vs. surface is a lot of what I have in mind, too.
The two paintings I like the best are the one with sponges, and the annunciation-type scene, all period costume, with the assistant-type in modern-day dress bringing the lamb. Both of those use some contrast to make you look again -- the near-perfect reproduction of a Renaissance-type painting, complete with chiarascuro (sp?) and foreshortening and very careful composition, but whoops, that guys wearing headphones and jeans. It's cool that he kind of blends at first. But it's still a little one-note, a little smug, a little smirky, rather than being something that conveys more depth. You do a double-take, but not a triple-, quadruple, etc.
I know that one well, but the sponges one is new to me, and I like that it is less smirky, and more subtle. Old Master technique in portraying a tower of garishly colored plastic sponges. It adds a lot to the otherwise unremarkable portrait.
What I wish Bravo would do is rather than ape Old Masters, do more of that (is he still alive?) -- take that wonderful technique and use it in some fresh and modern way. The Old Masters were groundbreaking in their own time.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace