Replies: 15 Comments
on Friday, September 16th, rt said
right on baron baby!
I really think Michael is running low on blog topics... gotta say sumthin to keep his name out there!
Speaking critically...is it just me or is the stuff on the right hand side of this websites opening page gettin pretty dog darn weak??!! I mean whoa! They really are puttin some kitcsh on that front page !!!
on Thursday, September 15th, Ed Baron said
As an artist's agent, art collector, art lover and supporter of artists let me just say that art should and does extend beyond the ordinary subject matter depending on the technique employed by the artist to express subjective interests.
Traditionally art collectors, true collectors that is, who purchase art because the image connects them to something meaningful, do not as a rule, rant and rave about art that does not appeal to them.
I am at a loss to imagine what the significance can be? An art collector usually simply won't buy art that is not of interest.
Art has always been the most democratic of creative practices.
Why are so many individuals setting themselves up as critics?
Artists in the long run must fend for themselves in our society.
The tradition of animals in art is as ancient as drawings on cave walls.
on Thursday, September 15th, rena said
Great Artist from Tel Aviv
on Thursday, September 15th, Paul said
Its good Michael,to say what we dont like from time to time,but often,opposits attract,as soon as one formulates a dislike,one sees a charm there that we never noticed before,so Ive learnt never to say never.
on Tuesday, September 13th, glam said
Shallow collectors gibbering garbish make me hurl.
Who cares Michael? Michael does! Michael loves seeing his name on dee een-tor-nut!
on Tuesday, September 13th, ellenfisch@aol.com">Ellen Fisch said
Michael-
I believe that most artists create art because they have to. Frequently esoteric subject matter is not at hand, or, God forbid, an artist gets a substantial COMMISSION to paint a dog or cat. I painted commissioned animal portraits for fourteen years. I did it for two reasons: I need to paint every day and (shocker) I need to support myself. The knowledge that I gained from painting these nobel and beautiful animals added greatly to my skill as an artist. I happen to find beauty and challenge in whatever subject matter is at hand. But, I must also paint some subjects that sell. The ultimate goal for me, and many other artists whom I know is to create. Starving went out with the idea that painting is romantic; it is very gratifying, but hard work.
on Tuesday, September 13th, jose said
Back in the 90’s I stumbled upon an unexpected painting by Portuguese artist Gustavo Fernandes: an asian rhinoceros [the one that looks like it’s covered in several coats of armour] running along a beach on a sunny day. The size of the piece, the mastery of his technique and the bizarreness of the situation brought the whole thing together and was drawing ooohs! and aaahs! from the audience. It’s a painting that has stuck to my mind ever since.
on Tuesday, September 13th, Barney Davey said
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is no accounting for taste--especially when it comes to art. Your blog begs a larger question as a dog a bone, what is art?
on Monday, September 12th, Michael Fornadley said
Everything Michael mentioned is in Diego Velazquez's masterpiece "Las Meninas". Dogs, wide eyed children playing in a domestic setting. Include the mythological works in the background and the flower arrangement on the central figure and that about covers it. Have to agree with Walter that it isn't the subject matter but on what level it is tackled, ever study a Cezanne apple and pear still life and you would get were we are coming from. Bad art is always going to be bad art no matter the image, the problem of it fooling the public and selling is something we all got to live with.
on Monday, September 12th, Olga said
Bravo, Andrew! I love this "AN EX BODY MAN AND AVID ART COLLECTOR". Sounds familiar :). Ha-ha!
Nevertheless...Some thoughts here are interesting. For instance, how to capture music on canvas.
on Monday, September 12th, Andrew said
Well, Michael, I guess we all know what you don't like. What is it then, that you do like? Unfortunately, my question is directed to a wall, because we already know you don't respond to comments. A signpost of the status quo, or just the posture of one who desires above all else to join their ranks?
sincerely, Andrew
ANDREW WIELAWSKI IS AN EX BODY MAN AND AVID ART COLLECTOR
on Monday, September 12th, Hyacinthe Baron said
HYACINTHE BARON
September 12th comment www.wwar.com
Good one Michael. What is needed is a separate category and name for art of which any artist worth their salt would call Schlock, yes, don’t be afraid to use the term. Just try to ignore the fact that the Keene images and the images of “Light”and such ilk, oddly enough sell more than any other art image reproductions.
So the judgment is not against the artists and creators of such works but against the uneducated public that responds with love and desire to share their lives with such pictures.
Is there something being missed here? “Genuine” artists, and there seems to be a major distinction being made here, even though Titian and Tintoretto and other artists painted dogs and horses and often at the behest of their patrons, what then is the “qualifying” difference?
Velvet paintings? Yuck. My mother had one of a Matador over her couch. And a black panther ceramic on her Bauhaus coffee table. Are they not a favorite among certain cultures?
Who is thejudge and jury here?
Is it not up to artists to proceed toward perfecting technique to go beyond the ordinary and the trite to achieve a validity that will be recognized by even the lovers of shallow representations of big eyed children and doggies and horsies?
I encourage all artists who feel they have achieved an inherent integrity of the images they create and arrived at a valid status in their art to share them with the internet world by emailing a jpg. image of one art work to barongallery@aol.com">barongallery@aol.com, where subject to curatorial review it will be given a free posting on the CREATIVITY BANK on www.barongallery.com.
Looking forward.
on Monday, September 12th, walt said
It all depends on how said animal is depicted. Picasso's Goat scupture gets at something 'real' about the goat's nature. Balthus manages to get his cat's to become his alter-ego rather than the cute furry family pet. I doubt you'd want Balthus as your family pet.
There is a new trend in depicting dogs and cats a la Warhol in contemporary painting. I think it is pure marketing as everyone knows that in this society we spend an inordinant amount of money on our love surrogates. Can't get along with your hubby? Get a poodle.
on Monday, September 12th, Gabriella said
Michael;
I could add some other items to your list of pictorial cliches - fluffy plein air paintings of turgid skies and an undefined stand of unidentifiable trees, groupings of pears or apples (which are fast becoming the flower paintings of today), and my all time favourite - women in loose white dresses and picture hats, seen from behind, wafting though gardens in full bloom.
And, you guessed it, people love them, buy them and hang them!
on Monday, September 12th, - said
A tansid reptillian squanders aimlessly through pastoral boundries of simplicity.
Mine eyes focus on levels of vermilitude whilst the mind strains for deeper meaning.
Over head, beacons scan in search of that bird of wisdom, never more for it to land.
The cave wall animal so mysterious and revered but the canvass animal, scorned!
