If naming one’s favourite painting is difficult, I have no hesitation about naming Picasso (1881-1973) as my favourite artist. A supernaturally gifted draughtsman and an underrated colourist; the most prolific of all major painters; and a protean talent, he could do just about anything he turned his hand to, and do it exceptionally well (although he rarely embraced abstraction).
Garçon à la pipe (1905) is a highlight of his Rose Period, and was painted when he was just 24.
While I appreciate old masters and the like, If I could have any paintings on my wall, this would be top of the list.
Another favourite that I keep going back to - if I may be so bold - is one of my own from a few years ago.
Messing about with the properties of oil and acrylic, how the pigments are suspended and then dry. I had a few lucky ones that wrinkled in an interesting way. So I did a series of wrinkly abstracts !
Which this was the best one.
Spirit of '76 - Archibald MacNeal Willard
I first saw this painting in the late 50’s when my father brought me to Abbot Hall during Marblehead Race Week (sailboat racing). I have re-visited Abbot Hall several times over the years to view the painting. I enjoy the painting and also enjoy the sentimental memories attached from my first visit.
Abbott Hall is located in Marblehead, Massachusetts.
Mr H is probably my favourite living artists and I love this painting of his parents. I could look at this for hours, his Mum all prim and upright, his Dad almost a broken/bent man. So many levels in this for me and so much more than is on the canvas.
Cookusai?
G
Still life was a genre imagined up by the Dutch. No better place to see this than at the Rijksmuseum.
This Jan Lievens still life is a relatively large piece.
The best are postcard sized with details that send eyes and mind into a very small boggling Arena.
Whilst I am absolutely in love with music, visual art largely leaves me cold, and I fnd very, very few paintings do anything for me other than maybe for some
Landscapes: “that’s a nice picture,- nearly as good as a photo”.
Portraits: the artist has managed to capture an amazing skin tone”
Impressionist, occasionally: “that’s quite an interesting image”.
The worst is abstract art, all too often leading to thoughts of: “that was obviously painted by a 5 year old” or: “anyone who pays for that is an idiot”.
Old Masters: having in the last couple of years tried to see a bit more art, notably having guided visits to the Uffizi gallery in Florence, and on another occasion the Vatican collection, some I could appreciate, some left me thinking “inot another picture of…”, but a few were more interesting, and one particularly stood out for me, Botticelli’s Venus:
This is one of very few paintings that I have thought I really would like to have a copy on my wall at home - but only if it could be life size (~6ft high).
One other painting that I particularly liked that I saw a couple of years ago at a local exhibition was one of Roger Dean’s
This is another picture that I think would look great on the wall, again it would have to be full size to be effective (about 3ft high), and well illuminated - and critical would be accuracy of colour, as it was the richness of the blue in particular that made the picture in the original (I’d appreciate the original, but at or approaching the price of a piece of hifi kit I know where my money woyld prefer to go!)
It is not hard to say tgat Venus is my favourite painting, as it held me spellbound in front of the original.
@Innocent_Bystander - interesting post and perspective. I studied the History of Art at University, and thus I understand that one really has to be taught how to look at art in order to understand it, or indeed to appreciate it beyond the level that you describe in your post above.
The best way of beginning to understand the visual arts, if you’re interested, is to read Sir Ernst Gombrich’s magisterial The Story of Art (1950) - exquisitely written and fascinating, and the most important and influential tome on the visual arts ever penned.
This won’t help if you don’t go to galleries in the first place but for the big exhibitions there are usually audio guides where the curator, other academics, people who knew the artist or indeed the artist in person talk about some of the paintings. These are always a big help in understanding why what you are looking at is important and often very interesting, for example Hockney talking about some of his paintings and why exactly he painted it like that. Or in a rather different example, Elton John talking about why he collected this or that photograph and then the curator explaining why it was important and chosen for the exhibition (both of these were Tate).
Anyway it’s a very good use for £4 or £5 if a guide is available.
Best
David
Matthew Collings was on last night. I liked the various series he did but don’t see so much of him these days.
G
@TheKevster and @davidhendon, thanks for your responses. I suppose my problem is paintings have never inspired enough interest to make me want to spend time learning. Maybe because I grew up in a world where at school you chose art OR science, and I was science through and through. If I was simply no good at art…
I think the first art gallery I went to was the Louvre when I was about 35,
and being unimpressed - even the Mona Lisa (smaller than I expected, and probably not helped by at that time only viewable from maybe 8 feet away through bulletproof glass). It didn’t make we want to go to another gallery.
I went into the gallery in Florence because it fitted with being there - and was glad I did. And the guide there was good, pointing out features we would otherwise have missed (of course focussing in the lewd!).
Vatican gallery fitted with a visit to Rome, and again I enjoyed it as part of the culture of the place, rather than specifically for its paintings.
I also went to a Picasso gallery when I was in Barcelona, again as part of the place - and was pleasantly surprised that I didn’t find it all bad!
There have been a few TV programs about art in past couple of years that I watched, or at least started watching, but they didn’t inspire, too dry and detailed perhaps. I think I need a concise art appreciation for art dislikers TV programme! I’d certainly give it a watch if one was on.
Meanwhile it is interesting to look at this thread, even if often thinking: Really? (If only to acknowledge something is different with my perspective - notcritical if those who like.)
