Claudio Bravo

Link the the image I was referring to (not annunciation but temptation):

http://www.puc.cl/faba/ARTE/FOTOS/FULL/CBRAVO/cb.32.jpg

0 Replies

"Everything is clinically presented and therefore they aren't sustaining, they don't invite you to look again and again."
-Vivien ( I think...)

Is it possible for somthing to be -so- clinically presented, that that is remarkable? Maybe you look again and again with disbelief, caught in the intricate details of the process of representation, like in some op art. I think some of his paintings look bored, methodological, finicky... I see this as symptoms of both his seclusion and painting obsession. I'll bet he doesn't even have a t.v.. I find the nuances of color and light very interesting. Like I said before, I'd need to see it in person again to give it a good just look. I wonder how much somthing's attractiveness in print/on the internet accounts for it's artistic success these days. I'll bet reproduction quality has large impact on the vibrant color usage and somewhat flat style popularizing today's paintings.

It's funny, the two paintings that you like are my two least favorite! Although, those two seem to tie in the most to other contemporary works. To each their own.

0 Replies

so clinically presented that it is remarkable ..... quote Portal

Yes it is - Salvador Dali for instance - but there is more going on in his paintings, underlying tensions, stories, therefore they are more sustaining.

0 Replies

Hmm. I see what you mean. Dali' had different goals though. He sort of had to be representative b/c his work was so out there! It was the only accurate style he could use for what he wanted to accomplish: unbelieveably real dreamlike sequences. Surrealism. But I don't see his work as clinical for the sake of perfection of subject, I see it as clinical to facilitate his real obsession: believeably altering reality for his viewers.

BTW, I love dali's Dante illustrations (they are hard to find on the net) it is these that made me believe he was truly a genious. they are expressive, clever, succinct, and look effortless. They were in a traveling show (I saw them at the Dali' museum) but if they ever come around again, I recommend seeing them.

0 Replies

We all have different interests. I would like all of us on the artists' forum to be able to just grunt or nod a no, or exclaim, or explain in a sentence or explain at length, give links, and not have dumps on one or the other for their level of interest or their data back up for their present opinion.

I would like to see a river of pros and cons and cons changing to pros or maybe not, and links and new thoughts and begrudging retractions and new views and revisions of the new views.

Whatever.
This is not academe here, this is for expressing views and feelings.
Not just for Claudio Bravo, but for art works in general.

Perhaps the forum participants all want a defense of views. I just want to promote the figuring out of views.

This riff isn't so apropo of the immediate posts here, which are great.
More that I am thinking how the forum should work. People should be able to riff at will, and be succinct at will.

0 Replies

(For what it's worth, I've been enjoying this discussion a lot.)

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Hmm. I see what you mean. Dali' had different goals though. He sort of had to be representative b/c his work was so out there! It was the only accurate style he could use for what he wanted to accomplish: unbelieveably real dreamlike sequences. Surrealism. But I don't see his work as clinical for the sake of perfection of subject, I see it as clinical to facilitate his real obsession: believeably altering reality for his viewers.

yes Sozobe and Osso I'm enjoying this discussion 'cos we are all arguing our corner whilst respecting the views of others and some interesting angles have come up.

I don't totally agree that Dali 'had' to work in a representational way because the sequences were dreamlike - though I appreciate what you mean - compare the work of Odile Redon - very soft, colourist, surreal and utterly different but still about dreams and altered reality.

Note to viv _ I fixed the code error in your quoted passage ... hope that's ok w/you.
timber

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

We all have different interests. I would like all of us on the artists' forum to be able to just grunt or nod a no, or exclaim, or explain in a sentence or explain at length, give links, and not have dumps on one or the other for their level of interest or their data back up for their present opinion...
This riff isn't so apropo of the immediate posts here, which are great.
More that I am thinking how the forum should work. People should be able to riff at will, and be succinct at will.

We -are- on a academic discussion site. People don't learn about art and about each other from statements like "It sucks... That's all I have to say, or I like it... That's all I have to say." That doesn't benefit the speaker because they don't learn about themselves and their feelings, and they get no practice in articulation. The reader doesn't get much out a statement like that. I don't believe in "dumps" as in, insulting another person because of their views, but a little academic discussion brings better insight to both parties, and makes for more interesting worthwhile forums.
If you can sum up your views into being succint, good.
If you like somthing and can't figure out why, you can say "I like this, but I can't figure out why."
If this site consisted of "This sucks" "No it doesn't...." I wouldn't be posting on it.

0 Replies

Vivien:
"I don't totally agree that Dali 'had' to work in a representational way because the sequences were dreamlike - though I appreciate what you mean - compare the work of Odile Redon - very soft, colourist, surreal and utterly different but still about dreams and altered reality.[/color][/quote]

I -love- Redon. I think he is different, because his paintings have a different effect. You look at them, you feel them and speculate about them, but you don't feel like you're there. Dali's style is a way to catapult you into the landscape by tricking your senses. By making the scene visually beliveable, you feel like you are really looking onto the scene, like you could stand in it, like you are there with these melting watches and grotesque bodies. Dali and Redon's work are two different sides of surrealism.

http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10078000/10078845.jpg

For example, this painting wouldn't have that sense of (what's the word for this?) somthing that's going to happen at any moment had he painted like Redon:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/redon/

His works are soft and very dreamlike, but in that nice/strange moment after awakening when they're all hazy and strange sort of way.

0 Replies

you make some good points.

I think i find a frozen moment of super reality, actually less real. The human eye could never ever see the tigers leaping as clearly as in this painting - they would be a blur of orange and black, I find the way Monet and Redon paint, closer to the way that the human eye takes in features not directly focused on - if that makes sense?

no right or wrong way, merely personal reactions to images.

0 Replies

Hmm. That's a really interesting point. I might have to play with that in my painting. I guess as you paint your eye focuses on each object individually as it is painted, and therefore represents them all in focus. I don't think photographic focus accurately replicates the focus of the human eye either. That'd surely be an interesting way to make a focal point! Smile

I wonder though, don't your eyes put the other objects out of focus as it looks at one? Wouldn't it treat the canvas like it would the original (real) image field, not focusing on all objects at the same time? I think the object you're not looking at in a painting is slightly blurred.

On Dali's painting: I don't think the tigers would look like they were frozen in a moment in time if they were blurred. They would appear to be in motion while everything else was still. That would have given a different effect to the painting, a feeling like the tigers were what was going to destroy the dream, whereas this way you don't know what will wake her. The fish? The ants? The tigers? The gun? Who knows.

0 Replies

art
I can't help seeing Dali's work as that of a very talented teen-ager, one who wants to awestrike his friends by painting very realistic but equally unreal scenes on the door of his truck. In short, I cannot take his work seriously. I certainly do not count him among the great surrealists.

0 Replies

This is not, actually, an academic discussion site.

The posters here can be succinct or explicit in outline form.

Posters can be expressive or defend their thesis or theses.
Posters can say a word or many.
Please do not make rules for all of us, portal star.

Words that are not explanatory except by some sort of exhalation, such as 'sucks', will not convince anyone. But those are allowed.

0 Replies

Some of us might prefer poetic words....

or profligate words

or pissing words

or pointedly attacking words.

all ok.

0 Replies

Yes, a person should have every right to showcase their stupidity. That may not be the best course of action, is what I was trying to say. How could I create rules? There are no guns in the chat room, and I don't kow how to code. I'm making suggestions.

0 Replies

Hypothecating, an apparently dismayed Osso wrote:

... all ok.

to which

in reply Portal Star wrote:

... a person should have every right to showcase their stupidity.

Just an observation here ... "Its "All OK" to "Showcase Stupidity" only insofar as that showcasing is done within the parameters of The TOS, and it is preferable that all interaction conforms to The Guidelines for Debate[/i]. Even in the Chat Room, decorum and propriety should be observed (and in PMs, as well). If an issue arises causing you discomfort or unease in regard to the manner of interaction by any member, bring that issue, as succinctly and with as much pertinent detail as may be practical (Thread titles, URL's, cut-and-pastes, etc, as appropriate), to the attention of any of the MODERATORS, who DO "Have Guns".

0 Replies

Portal: a painting would have to be very large - huge - like the old masters - for the eye to unfocus in the way I mean and even lookikng directly at the tiger, because of the swift movement you couldn't see it like that. It simply isn't possible - nor the ants come to that - they scurry fast and you don't catch the whole detail. Yes it is a project worth trying, to catch a true sense of movement.

0 Replies

Re: art

JLNobody wrote:

I can't help seeing Dali's work as that of a very talented teen-ager, one who wants to awestrike his friends by painting very realistic but equally unreal scenes on the door of his truck. In short, I cannot take his work seriously. I certainly do not count him among the great surrealists.

it does have that effect on me too!

0 Replies

Interesting points about what is more "real" -- to capture every detail and let the eye operate as it would in "real" life, or to be more impressionistic about it, how your eye would capture everything at one specific moment. I've had this internal debate when painting outside, in interesting light -- but wait, if I'm trying to capture that light, and I'm IN the light, won't what I'm painting be affected by the light, too, so it will end up being just normal and not capturing the light at all?? Confused

0 Replies

- no - look at Turner's sketchbooks, the work of Kurt Jackson, Monet .... all about light and colour and place ...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know