So here's the assignment Per gave us.
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these artists, so I'll try and kick it off.
For me Tintoretto & Michelangelo seem too busy and at odds with modern social sensibility. Not a style that I'd put on my walls.
I like Modigliani and the license taken with proportion. When I went to Santa Fe a few weeks back I saw some work by Miguel Martinez from Taos, he also takes license with proportion, truly interesting.
Brancusi & Mondrian I'm not getting.
Edward Weston's study of shape is interesting, as is how he worked to get a photo. Actually have one of the Daybooks, not what I expected, I wanted to learn about photography, he wanted to talk about getting laid.
Georgia O'Keefe is cool, I actually knew an old priest that knew her, she was part of his parish. Saw some work of hers compared with the photos she took of the scenes she wanted to paint. Again proportion was manipulated for effect, taller hills and the like. 2D seems to profit from exaggeration. The other thing that I learned looking at her work was that simplification helps. Compared with her photos which were pretty straight B&W from a Lieca, her paintings had lots fewer details; not so many bushes and the like, cleaner is probably a good way to put it.
I've been playing with out-of-focus to try and mimic this to a point and making some progress but the details in her paintings are sharp so I'm thinking I may need to do a multiple exposure.
Gene Kloss I don't know about so much.
Ralph Gibson is interesting, details, framing/context, hands.
St. Ansel, well I may get flamed for this, I like a lot of his work, like the shapes of the Bristlecone Pines, but the Snake river with the Tetons in the background just screams to me "background for portrait/vacation snapshot". Everything is just too darn clear for my taste.
What struck me about Nick Ut when I Googled was that he is famous for one shot. It provides a good lesson in that if you are there at the right time with the camera in hand...
Arnold Newman is special, like his style a bunch. Portraits with context, great framing, great composition. I fell like I know, at least in part, who the people in his portraits are.
Kandinsky, is a mess, just my opinion.
Robert Mapplethorpe doesn't give me enough context.
I like Minor White's work more than Ansel's, it seems more social, more composed (shapes/graphics), and less postcardy, if that makes sense.
I think Miro and Kandinsky were using the same substances. Most of the stuff is a bit too far out for me.
I like Frederick Evans, based on the limited stuff I found, for similar reason to why I like Newman.
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these artists, so I'll try and kick it off.
For me Tintoretto & Michelangelo seem too busy and at odds with modern social sensibility. Not a style that I'd put on my walls.
I like Modigliani and the license taken with proportion. When I went to Santa Fe a few weeks back I saw some work by Miguel Martinez from Taos, he also takes license with proportion, truly interesting.
Brancusi & Mondrian I'm not getting.
Edward Weston's study of shape is interesting, as is how he worked to get a photo. Actually have one of the Daybooks, not what I expected, I wanted to learn about photography, he wanted to talk about getting laid.
Georgia O'Keefe is cool, I actually knew an old priest that knew her, she was part of his parish. Saw some work of hers compared with the photos she took of the scenes she wanted to paint. Again proportion was manipulated for effect, taller hills and the like. 2D seems to profit from exaggeration. The other thing that I learned looking at her work was that simplification helps. Compared with her photos which were pretty straight B&W from a Lieca, her paintings had lots fewer details; not so many bushes and the like, cleaner is probably a good way to put it.
I've been playing with out-of-focus to try and mimic this to a point and making some progress but the details in her paintings are sharp so I'm thinking I may need to do a multiple exposure.
Gene Kloss I don't know about so much.
Ralph Gibson is interesting, details, framing/context, hands.
St. Ansel, well I may get flamed for this, I like a lot of his work, like the shapes of the Bristlecone Pines, but the Snake river with the Tetons in the background just screams to me "background for portrait/vacation snapshot". Everything is just too darn clear for my taste.
What struck me about Nick Ut when I Googled was that he is famous for one shot. It provides a good lesson in that if you are there at the right time with the camera in hand...
Arnold Newman is special, like his style a bunch. Portraits with context, great framing, great composition. I fell like I know, at least in part, who the people in his portraits are.
Kandinsky, is a mess, just my opinion.
Robert Mapplethorpe doesn't give me enough context.
I like Minor White's work more than Ansel's, it seems more social, more composed (shapes/graphics), and less postcardy, if that makes sense.
I think Miro and Kandinsky were using the same substances. Most of the stuff is a bit too far out for me.
I like Frederick Evans, based on the limited stuff I found, for similar reason to why I like Newman.
