Splash!

[reohn2]

Hockney's stuff always looks like commercial graphic art to me, as if designed for a poster or a greetings card. It's nice, but that's about it.

I saw a documentary about him a couple of years back and in it he was outdoors looking at a landscape, probably in East Yorkshire, prior to painting it, and pointing out that most people would see just shades of green but he was seeing purple and red and God knows what. And that's how he painted it. It looked nothing like any real landscape I've ever seen, so to me the only thing he "captured" was stuff in his head. Maybe we should say he was painting what he felt rather than saw in a literal sense, but it did nothing for me. It was a case of The Emperor's New Clothes, with people raving about how wonderful it is, and me muttering to myself "but it isn't actually very good".

Before I saw a van Gogh in the flesh(paint?)I thought 'that's nice',once I'd seen his work for real I stood there and thought WOW!!!

[pwa]

Hockney's stuff always looks like commercial graphic art to me, as if designed for a poster or a greetings card. It's nice, but that's about it.

I saw a documentary about him a couple of years back and in it he was outdoors looking at a landscape, probably in East Yorkshire, prior to painting it, and pointing out that most people would see just shades of green but he was seeing purple and red and God knows what. And that's how he painted it. It looked nothing like any real landscape I've ever seen, so to me the only thing he "captured" was stuff in his head. Maybe we should say he was painting what he felt rather than saw in a literal sense, but it did nothing for me. It was a case of The Emperor's New Clothes, with people raving about how wonderful it is, and me muttering to myself "but it isn't actually very good".

Before I saw a van Gogh in the flesh(paint?)I thought 'that's nice',once I'd seen his work for real I stood there and thought WOW!!!

I like VG. Hockney's stuff seems flatter and less interesting. But I am sceptical about the real intrinsic value of any work of art. I think it is our culture that declares one piece valuable and another not, and there is a lot of arbitrariness about it. VG's stuff only came to prominence through the insistence of his daughter-in-law who cared for it and promoted it after his death. He could easily have remained in obscurity. I was in the National Gallery last summer and quite frankly I wouldn't give wall space to 90% of what's in there, but our culture has decided that these pieces are significant and worthy of a prominent wall. It doesn't bother me, but I find it amusing.

I stood in front of The Haywain and admired the way the landscape had been captured, especially the clouds, and it is a fine image. But that is all. It is nearly as good as looking at a real landscape in the real world. Nearly. Even with Turner, whose images I usually love, they are surpassed by the real thing out in the real world. Seeing the real sun puncture through real early morning mist is even better than a Turner image of that happening.

[Vorpal]

Me? I like art, from the stuff that kids create, to the masters. I like creating, even if I'm not very good at it, and I like encouraging others to create.

I have some art hanging on my walls. I also have a couple of my own photographs enlarged and hung. Is that art? One is kind of artsy & doesn't have any pets or children in

Some of the art on my walls was done by people I know. Some was bought in an auction. Some is to remind me of something. Some is just nicely framed posters.

I don't have have millions to spend on a painting. Even if I did, I would not buy that particular painting, except maybe to set it on loan with a museum. Why? I like the painting. In artistic terms, I think it's really interesting, but it's not really my style in terms of decor. My style is more 'cluttered with books and knick knacks' So, something with bold colours & clean lines like that would be as out of place as a fish out of water.

That's what I think (R2, you did ask )

[reohn2]

PWA
The thing with art(art in general or individual pieces)is that everyone's view of it is different for a multitude of reasons,I've seen some truly beautiful art works that I can appreciate for a lot less than the £500 NA mentions up thread,but wouldn't buy them as they don't appeal.
Turner is undoubtably one of the finest landscape artists but I believe some of his more abstract work was met with abject derision by the art world and public a like at the time.
Art is a conundrum because people all have different Ideas of what appeals to them as an individual made worse by the false money tree of investors,and others with their head up their own buttock orifice.
All that said thw fact remains that someone somewhere thought Splash worth the £23million outlay for whatever reason.
Personally it doesn't appeal.

[al_yrpal]

I think we paid about £500 for this painting, just because we really liked it. Its 3 feet square. Lots of people who come to our house really like it. It gives me pleasure every day.

I reaaly like Jake Winkles stuff. He painted this as a commission for us inspired by one of my photos of a Rockhopper Penguin colony.

One of my more bizzare efforts.? Inspired by one of my friends photo panorama of a place called Dzongri in the himalayas.

And a little selection of my efforts, oils, acrylics and watercolour..

Lastly an aborigine painting from Oz, me with the artist..A lovely chap with his grandson. This one hangs in our hall. He taught me to throw a boomerang properly!

I love painting, most of what I do is rubbish but going out in the summer sitting and painting gives me intense pleasure. I take an A5 watercolour pad, lining pens and do pen and washes of what appeals to me. I do a drawing, and take a photo and finish off the painting in the evening. I think its more satisfying than just taking photos.

Show us your stuff you own or did, and why you like it...?

Al

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
And that's exactly the sort of stuff you expect to see from an amateur artist, Wouldn't bother me to hang some of that on my wall at all.
So I have one complaint about the last one if I tap the photo on my mobile my browser freezes, complaints must be some voodoo magic or other

[reohn2]

It seems we're trying to define 'quality',something which can only be defined in reference to something else but not in isolation.
Each piece of art is unique so can't be judged for it's 'quality',only by personal opinion whether that be positive,negative or passive.
Even if it's not perceived as quality by a society's art 'experts' or none experts FTM it's only their opinion at the time and not a definitive absolute.

[mercalia]

I think we paid about £500 for this painting, just because we really liked it. Its 3 feet square. Lots of people who come to our house really like it. It gives me pleasure every day.

20200213_093053.jpg

I reaaly like Jake Winkles stuff. He painted this as a commission for us inspired by one of my photos of a Rockhopper Penguin colony.

20200213_093216.jpg

One of my more bizzare efforts.? Inspired by one of my friends photo panorama of a place called Dzongri in the himalayas.

20200213_094112.jpg

And a little selection of my efforts, oils, acrylics and watercolour..

20200213_093247.jpg

Lastly an aborigine painting from Oz, me with the artist..A lovely chap with his grandson. This one hangs in our hall. He taught me to throw a boomerang properly!

P1010792.JPG

I love painting, most of what I do is rubbish but going out in the summer sitting and painting gives me intense pleasure. I take an A5 watercolour pad, lining pens and do pen and washes of what appeals to me. I do a drawing, and take a photo and finish off the painting in the evening. I think its more satisfying than just taking photos.

Show us your stuff you own or did, and why you like it...?

Al

I think I will have to post a few of my art photos I used to take long time ago. Maybe some one will cough up some money?

[millimole]

Before I saw a van Gogh in the flesh(paint?)I thought 'that's nice',once I'd seen his work for real I stood there and thought WOW!!!

I had an equal and opposite reaction - I'd seen several reproductions (during the Art History half of my degree) of Gustave Courbet's 'Origin of the World'.
In print its a pretty grim painting, but in the real world it's genuinely AAGH! There's not enough mind bleach for the experience of that!

[reohn2]

Before I saw a van Gogh in the flesh(paint?)I thought 'that's nice',once I'd seen his work for real I stood there and thought WOW!!!

I had an equal and opposite reaction - I'd seen several reproductions (during the Art History half of my degree) of Gustave Courbet's 'Origin of the World'.
In print its a pretty grim painting, but in the real world it's genuinely AAGH! There's not enough mind bleach for the experience of that!

Having googled it(that's googled)

On second thoughts it's not as bad as it could've been

[Vorpal]

Before I saw a van Gogh in the flesh(paint?)I thought 'that's nice',once I'd seen his work for real I stood there and thought WOW!!!

When I was about 14, I had recently had an essay assignment about art in my English class. I had chosen to discuss pointillism. Of the topics available to us, that seemed the least worst to a 14 year old me

Doing my research for the essay, I had looked through pictures of Seurat's art. Although I thought that pointillism itself was really cool, I wasn't actually that impressed with pictures of Seurat's artwork. But after the assignment, my class had a trip to the Art Institute of Chicago. We had several hours to there. Some of it was organised, but we had about 3 hours to browse on our own. I didn't realise that I had spent more than a hour of my time stood in front of A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte until someone came looking for me.

[reohn2]

Vorpal
I take your point(sorry)

[Bonefishblues]

It seems we're trying to define 'quality',something which can only be defined in reference to something else but not in isolation.
Each piece of art is unique so can't be judged for it's 'quality',only by personal opinion whether that be positive,negative or passive.
Even if it's not perceived as quality by a society's art 'experts' or none experts FTM it's only their opinion at the time and not a definitive absolute.

Buy/look at/hang what you like, unless you're trying to invest, in which case still buy what you like.

[reohn2]

It seems we're trying to define 'quality',something which can only be defined in reference to something else but not in isolation.
Each piece of art is unique so can't be judged for it's 'quality',only by personal opinion whether that be positive,negative or passive.
Even if it's not perceived as quality by a society's art 'experts' or none experts FTM it's only their opinion at the time and not a definitive absolute.

Buy/look at/hang what you like,

Quite!

unless you're trying to invest, in which case still buy what you like.

Ah,now that's another matter entirely.
If you're investing you buy what gives the best return,which as an investment strategy is the best quality.

[Bonefishblues]

It seems we're trying to define 'quality',something which can only be defined in reference to something else but not in isolation.
Each piece of art is unique so can't be judged for it's 'quality',only by personal opinion whether that be positive,negative or passive.
Even if it's not perceived as quality by a society's art 'experts' or none experts FTM it's only their opinion at the time and not a definitive absolute.

Buy/look at/hang what you like,

Quite!

unless you're trying to invest, in which case still buy what you like.

Ah,now that's another matter entirely.
If you're investing you buy what gives the best return,which as an investment strategy is the best quality.

My point was even if 'investing' find something of quality that you like, too - there's plenty around, after all!