The Fine Art Thread

[Dolemite]

Originally posted by diffusionx

That is beautiful.

Nobody really gives Medieval Art the time of day anymore, which is a shame, because its obviously brilliant in so many ways.

Actually, there's a Medieval Art and Architecture Museum called The Cliosters that's not too far from where I live that I've been to several times. It's amazing, you'd probably love it. It's located in a castle that's actually made up of several different sections of various buildings and castles brought over from Europe. Here's the link to their site: http://www.metmuseum.org/collections...ment.asp?dep=7

[Diff-chan]

Dolemite, Ive never been there... been to the Met, but not to there. Maybe Ill go one day.

The portal sculptures, way back when, used to be painted in various colors, red, gold, etc., which made them look that much more lively and eye-popping. The paint doesnt survive today, but if you can imagine it, the effect is likely even more powerful than what we see of Gothic sculpture today.

[Gymkata]

Originally posted by Lobo
M. C. Escher is probably my favorite artist. His spatial illusions, impossible buildings, and tessellations are all a mix of mathematics and art.

I think that Leonardo Da Vinci is interesting, yet Escher takes the cake. I could look at some of his work and ponder endlessly about It.

[BioMechanic]

My favorite painters are:

Jean-Leon Gerome

Pygmalion & Galatea


Thumbs Down!
(supposedly helped inspire Ridley Scott w/Gladiator; I loved the painting before that)


Vermeer
(best use of lighting IMO)

The Astronomer


(unsure of title)


and George Inness
(best landscapes ever IMO, pix don't do the textures and lighting justice. I'm very lucky that my work has a couple originals in the Art Collection)

Lackawanna Valley


(not sure of the name of this one, sorry)

I also love Escher, Hopper, and Rubens.

[Regus]

Great thread. Ahh, thank you Art History 1, or else I would not of been able to post in this thread.

Okay, In response to some of the earlier works posted here, I just wanted to toss in my two cents. Maybe it's because I haven't studied it yet, and I lack a understanding as to why this particular form of art is good, but I find, for the most part, modern art to be pure crap. I can remember walking through the modern art section of the Met and seeing paintings on the wall that were just one solid color, and nothing more, and thinking to myself "Why the hell is this here?". The same goes with the random splashes of paint that Pollock does, or any of those other abstract shapes people make.


Anyway.


Right now I'll just post a bunch of sculptures I think are cool.


Apparently there is a copy with him looking in another direction.

- The Hellenistic Period -

The Great Altar of Zeus:






Dying Gaul


Gallic chieftain killing himself and his wife


Nike of Samothrace


Terme Boxer


Athandoros, Hagesandros, and Polydoros of Rhodes



- The early Roman Empire -


Portrait of Augustus as a general, man I wish I could find a better picture of this.








There's also this amazing looking peice called the Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus, but I can't find any pictures of it, it's a shame too because it's stunning.



Oh, and if you ever do go to the Met, be sure to check out the Lamassu!


They've got two of them, and I think they are so damn cool.



And I love Escher as well.

[BioMechanic]

Nice shots, Regus. Nike of Samothrace is gorgeous.

In response to your modern art vs. classical ("fine") art question, you may find The Romantic Manifesto by the philosopher Ayn Rand worth reading. She puts forth some very interesting arguments; for example, she doesn't really consider photography to be art because the reproductive process takes place within a machine (i.e. the camera) instead of the more artistic & organic eye-brain-hand process.

Case in point: put an apple on a table. Have ten random people take a picture of it with the same camera & lighting, at the same angle. The ten results will be practically identical. But give the ten people a pen & paper and have them draw the apple from an identical viewpoint, and you'd more than likely get ten completely different-looking results. Which method is more artistic?

Sometimes her writing style is overly dense (thank goodness the book's relatively thin), but she's got some fascinating insights to the definition of art.

And yes, JM, a great thread indeed.

[Klonoa]

Originally posted by BioMechanic


Pygmalion & Galatea

Lovely.

[JM]

Yeah, Pygmalion & Galatea was a very popular subject at one time. I think most of the Pre-Raphaelites had a go at that one.

JM

[Regus]

but she's got some fascinating insights to the definition of art.

Well, as far as I know "art" is just the communication of an idea, so photography falls into that catagory.

[icepop]

I don't know if anyone here likes Canadian art. Does anyone like the Group of Seven? I really like the bold painting style and it also reminds me of being at my cottage on Georgian Bay.

Here's a couple to give you an idea.





I also like Emily Carr:



Not Canadian, but I also really like Georgia OKeefe: