The Friday Afternoon Challenge returns! Today for all you art detectives: Paintings with a Past

[CTyankee]

The following works have a story of their own (and not just about their subjects). Something interesting happened to them...what was it?

(and let’s respect our fellow DUers and NOT cheat...)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

[Mz Pip]

1. #5 is the Rothko Chapel

Rothko committed suicide before this place of meditation was completed.

[CTyankee]

2. It is. But what is the story connected to the paintings themselves in that chapel...

[Mz Pip]

5. Not sure if these are the ones

that were commissioned for a NYC restaurant for a lot of money and Rothko ended up backing out because he didn't like the idea of his painting being in that kind of environment.

[CTyankee]

9. Those were the Seagram's murals...quite a story there. They are now in 3 different museums.

One is the Tate Modern in London.

These are different, as you can see, no frames within frames as in the Seagrams. These are called "color field" paintings.

Here's a hint: it's more about what the viewers do when they see the painting...

[glinda]

It caused a new way of viewing art and other art related things by placement and proximity. Rothko

is one of my favorite painters. I cried when I saw his work. B U T-ful.

[CTyankee]

23. That's right! People break down and cry in front of his works.

This phenomenon is explored in “Pictures and Tears: A Study of people who cry in front of Paintings” by James Elkins.

[glinda]

25. So what was their conclusion in regards to people crying in front of Rothkos?

[CTyankee]

27. The power of art. It's a phenomenon. Not unheard of.

Did you ever hear of "Stendhalismo"? it is a phenomenon in Florence, Italy, named after the French writer who went weak in the knees and became overwhelmed in Santa Croce in Florence. Florence's docs chalked it up to fatigue and dehydration. This author disagrees.

The Rothkos make people cry, according to this author, because they are either "too full" of sadness or "too empty." It's very interesting. I recommend the book. You might also be interested in "The Power of Art" by Simon Schama. It is a PBS series as well as a book. Get the Rothko segment on youtube.

I actually experienced this phenomenon in the Van Gogh Museum recently on a trip to Holland. I was viewing one of his golden wheat fields (I don't even recall its title) and I simply broke down into tears. I believe it is because it was the last day of a journey full of some of the most incredibly beautiful art in the world, including Vermeers and Rembrandts. Very intense. But my tears were an overflow of joy, I believe...

[glinda]

29. Interesting. I cried as a reaction to the color precision and size as it relates

to a variety of color theories. Immensely pure and moving for me as a painter. So not "emptiness" in my case. And actually not totally about sadness. It was the overall effect of choice.

[CTyankee]

34. So it was an "overload" of the effect of choice?

[glinda]

42. Basically in short. The "act/choices" and the result. I found his work communicated

very strongly to me as a "painter". Sure a certain sense of taking in consideration "emotions" but moreover the "grandness" of those choices to arrive there and the beauty of execution.

[CTyankee]

44. I can see, altho I am not an artist, how that could simply overwhelm you!

It can engulf you...

thank you for your input....I appreciate your view as an artist and I do "get" it...

[glinda]

54. In Rothko's case it is about what is left out rather than what is contained in.

[CTyankee]

59. In his book, Elkins makes both points with examples of what people actually

told him about how the Rothkos made them cry. Elkins is an art historian who posits that art "education" deadens us to any primal feelings about painting, while putting no barriers to our crying in movies or at music events. It is an interesting read and a recently published book. I found it at my library. Read it if you can. If you do, pm me about your conclusions. I'd love to know what you, as an artist, think about what he says!

[glinda]

71. If I get a chance. The discussion of Art is very complex IMHO functioning

upon many levels as well as can be parsed to the "times" "Theory" "Aesthetics", "History",etc..... and any combination of things with or without the audience.
I will attempt to review some things on the web. After years of being buried under mounds of art books and books in general, I have a difficult time picking up an Art related book. I tend to do a lot of research wherever my fancy and desire takes me.
Will PM you if I come up with any thoughts on his work. What is the Title?

[CTyankee]

73. “Pictures and Tears: A Study of people who cry in front of Paintings” by James Elkins.

I have also enjoyed the two books on art by the late writer, John Updike and also Peter Schjeldahl who writes short art show reviews for the New Yorker. Both writers are very unstuffy and unacademic.

On my recent Holland trip I met a woman who was a Building Inspector for the city of Las Vegas. She had just been in Roumania observing the restoration of "painted monasteries." Here was a woman, essentially a "hard hat" working in a rough world with men inspecting plumbing, electrical wiring and structural integrity. Her esthetic sensibility grew out of her fascination with all things mechanical and I knew she could see art in a very different, but wonderful, way than I could. It was enlightening to talk with her!

[glinda]

74. Fascinating....very wonderful.

[marions ghost]

37. you may not believe this CTyankee

but...I am sitting here with my sister and I was reading DU and came upon the challenge. We were looking at the Rothko paintings and reading the post about how people cry in front of certain famous paintings.

OK so then...she says, "That happened to me at the Van Gogh Museum in Holland." (we had not read your post here about Stendhal phenom) I said "what painting was it?" And she said, the one with the crows flying over the field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatfield_with_Crows

And THEN we read down to see your post about the same painting...where you did the same thing !?! :wow:

[CTyankee]

39. Hate to say this, but it wasn't that one...it wasn't one that was very "special" and that one is!

My crying was as a result, I think, of an overload of beautiful works of art in a compressed amount of time. I was on overload. I had been in the Rembrandt House, the Haarlem Museum (Franz Hals), the Mauritshus House in the Hague (Girl with Pearl Earring and View of Delft, et al), the Boisjman Museum, the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh.

Having said that, I do think that the Van Gogh has a special effect on people. It is pretty vast and by the end of it, you are spent of so much emotion you feel a bit limp. What power art has over us!

[gratuitous]

3. Painting number 2

When the snoozing woman woke up to find all those people staring at her exposed boobie, she went medieval on their collective ass in a manner that would have done Samuel L. Jackson proud.

[CTyankee]

4. don't you love the guy trying to get under her dress?

Not too suave...

[jberryhill]

6. Is 5 the one that was hung upside down for a month?

Number 4 is another one by that Dutch guy, though.

[CTyankee]

12. No, but I do know THAT story and it's VERY funny!

No. 4 is by one of those Dutch guys but what happened to it?

[jberryhill]

17. What happened to it?

It got painted by that Dutch guy! Duh.

[CTyankee]

19. No, what happened is in the the Guinness Book of World Records, my friend...

you might be surprised to find out...

[jberryhill]

26. Ah! He won the record for eating herring!

Either that or #4 was the one which hung upside down for a month.

Since it was "Portrait of Young Man Upside Down", but the workers hanging it didn't understand Dutch since they weren't drunk enough.

[CTyankee]

28. You know, it's funny, I recently went to Holland and didn't have herring once!

I was kinda disappointed.

but no, not herring eating.

I'll give you a hint. This painting is conveniently small in size...

[jberryhill]

30. He was sawed off the end of Night Watch to make it fit someplace else?

[CTyankee]

33. Actually, he did saw off part of the Night Watch. This however

is not the Night Watch.

[jberryhill]

48. Then it's the part that was sawed off, lol /nt

[CTyankee]

50. Actually, it's "The Takeaway Rembrandt." Stolen FOUR times from the same museum in London.

Guinness had it listed as the most stolen painting of all times...

not a good track record for that museum (Dulwich)...

[jberryhill]

53. They should have never sawed it off in the first place!

Did you get over to Rembrandtplein?

[CTyankee]

69. I did when I was there with my mother (a very LONG time ago) at age 16,

but this was a boat trip down the canals of Holland. I was at the Rembrandt house (it was cool to see his bed and his studio), the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum. The rest of the time I was visiting the towns where the Dutch artists of the Golden Age lived and painted. That included Haarlem, Delft,the Hague, Gouda (a gem) and Leiden (my least favorite). The Hague got my vote for most impressive. The Mauritshuis is a fabulous house museum and has Girl with Pearl Earring and View of Delft (a stunner).

I saw a LOT of water and the boat was small and spartan (but hey, it was half price so I coped!). Floating down canals isn't the worst way of seeing a country...

[glinda]

7. #1 is a Gainsborough. It sparked a hat frenzy for those wanting the same hat .

"Gainsborough Hat." because the Duchess of Devonshire wore it in the painting. Oh I soooo love fashion.

[CTyankee]

13. Really? I will take your word for it, but wasn't what I was going for...

[glinda]

18. Would I lie to you? ha. I still got it right though. hehe

[CTyankee]

20. No wonder Keira Knightly loved it so much...

[glinda]

21. She did? Was it in Pride & Prejudice? I have no clue....

[CTyankee]

24. No, altho that is a great guess...

and that is ONE serious hat!

[glinda]

22. delete-dupe computer glitch

[Mz Pip]

8. #3

Girl with a Mandolin by Picasso. Not sure of the story other than it was never finished.

[glinda]

11. Picasso ripped off Braque. He ripped off everyone.

[CTyankee]

15. No. But you are edging toward the correct answer!

[CTyankee]

16. No, sorry...

[glinda]

31. It allowed the viewer to view the subject on several planes, flat ones.

[CTyankee]

36. I am sorry, but this is not the case...

the answer is painful, I believe...

[hfojvt]

10. aha #1 is

Whistler's mother

[jberryhill]

14. I thought it was his aunt from Gainesville, Georgia

[elleng]

32. HEY!

:hi:

#4, some Rembrandt??? (Or some other Dutchman???)

[CTyankee]

35. Of course, but this painting has a "special" category...

the hint was it was conveniently small. The back story on it is in the Guinness World Book of Records. Put those two together and what do you come up with?

[elleng]

41. Oh Yea, THAT!

Rembrandt portrait of Jacob de Gheyn III has been stolen (and recovered) FOUR times – it’s in the Guiness Book of world records!!!

:hi:

[CTyankee]

43. GREAT!

Stolen from the same damn museum FOUR times (the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London). For that reason it has been dubbed "the takeaway Rembrandt"!

You'd think that after at least the SECOND robbery the museum would get real...but obviously NOT...

[elleng]

46. Right, LOUSY security system!

Another small museum famous for heist: Gardner, in Boston

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-11-26/justice/ctv.traces.museum.heist_1_thieves-biggest-art-heist-rembrandt?_s=PM:LAW

[CTyankee]

47. You got that right! What a loss!

They had a lousy board of directors, too. Bunch of idiots.

But you really have to wonder about the Dulwich. How could they preside over FOUR robberies of the same painting? It's incredible...

[elleng]

55. Dunno!

Rembrandt's small early Portrait of Jacob de Gheyn III has been stolen and recovered four times, most recently in 1983, and is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most frequently stolen artwork in the world. It has variously been recovered from a left-luggage office in West Germany in 1986; returned anonymously; found on the back of a bicycle; and discovered under a bench in a graveyard in nearby Streatham. The painting is now closely guarded by an upgraded security system.

(Wiki)

[marions ghost]

38. #1 Duchess of Devonshire by Gainsborough

And here is the story:

Adam Worth, a master criminal with a history of robbing banks and forging documents, stole Thomas Gainsborough’s ” Duchess of Devonshire” to get the bail money needed to release his jailed brother. When the brother got out of prison on his own, Worth initially kept the painting, but later sold it for a ransom. He died a year later with little money to speak of. Fun Fact: Worth was the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes’ arch nemesis, Dr. Moriarty, in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novels.

http://designcrave.com/2009-06-11/art-theft-the-10-most-stunning-art-thefts-in-world-history/

[CTyankee]

40. Yep, that's funny...and here's more...

She is an ancestor of Princess Diana. In 1876 this painting was stolen from Christie’s auction house in London before it could be delivered to American industrialist Junius Morgan who bought it for his son Pierpont. Twenty five years later the painting was ransomed and retrieved in a Chicago hotel room. More on this fascinating back story here http://onelondonone.blogspot.com/2010/05/duchess-of-devonshire-stolen.html.. Georgiana’s story is also a book and 2008 movie starring Keira Knightly as Georgiana.

[CTyankee]

45. Hey, we have #s 2, 3 and 6 left to identify...

Here are hints...

#2: some people die before finishing stuff...

#3: some people are dishonest...

#6: some people like that pose...

[reACTIONary]

49. Girl with a Mandolin (Fanny Tellier)' Picaso

The painting is unfinished --- yet to our modern sensibilities it seems to be a completed statement.

[CTyankee]

51. It is not by Picasso. Nor is it by Bracque (even tho it is "signed" by Bracque).

Sorry...you have been fooled...and it is easy to see why. Here is the real Picasso so you can compare the two: .

[reACTIONary]

52. OK, I'll take a wild a** guess...

... I'll go with my gut and say it's by Marcel Duchamp. That was my first impression. But I don't have a clue about a story, because it's just a guess.

[CTyankee]

62. It does look like Duchamps, esp. Nude Descending a Staircase.

Obviously, Duchamps was an early admirer of cubism but then wound up in the DaDa movement.

As noted below, it is a forgery by a man named John Myatt. He stole the design from Picasso but signed it "Bracque" (who was an early studio partner of Picasso when they pioneered Cubism).

Separately, you can easily get fooled, but up close side by side you see the differences.

Amazing to me how far these forgers can go before getting caught...

[horseshoecrab]

58. #2

Good to see you CTyankee. :hi:

#2 is The Feast of the Gods by Renaissance master, Giovanni Bellini, as well as others.

Bellini died in 1516 two years after finishing Feast. The painting was changed, probably for decorative purposes by Dosso Dossi. It was then altered again by Titian. Bellini originally intended that only a grove of trees would provide the background of The Feast of the Gods.

horseshoecrab






edit for spelling

[CTyankee]

61. I'd love to read your source! Is it online?

[horseshoecrab]

64. Yes, here you go...

Hi CTyankee.

I searched on the two figures (Mercury and the child, Bacchus) that I recognized for sure, and the artist, Bellini.
The crystalline colors are so clear and beautiful, and that was a clue to include Bellini in the search.

Mercury wears the helmet and holds the caduceus. He isn't wearing his wings on his helmet or his winged sandals/feet. Just as well since he is clearly buzzed and shouldn't be "driving!" Bacchus, with grape leaf wreath on his head, is depicted as a child - something that Bellini and others have done. When Bacchus is portrayed as a child that's a clue that this is a Winter Solstice party.

The search became: Bellini, Mercury, Bacchus, and yielded fast results:

http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg17/gg17-1138.html

This link to the National Gallery also identifies the gods and other woodland deities in the painting, as well as info about Bellini's original artwork and the info that Dossi was an artist-in-residence of the court and Titian was Bellini's student. (Some sources name Dossi as Bellini's student as well. The link includes an x-ray of the painting which clearly shows Bellini's original intent of a continuous grove of trees in the background.

Great challenge CTyankee! :-)


horseshoecrab

edited to correct a word

[Sheepshank]

56. 3. A Picasso forgery

by Myatt, which he signed "Braque."

I wish I was smart enough to have known this off the top of my head, but alas.....but the forgery reading was fascinating

Myatt, forged perhpas 200 paintings, rocking the behind the scenes culture of the art world. In the case of this 20th century forger he worked with another guy that found ingenious ways to get an 'authentication' stamp from galleries on the forgeries. It had come to the point that many a curator confessed that they could not tell which works in their care were forgeries and which were the real thing. It is impossible to say at this time how many millions of dollars have exhanged hands buying and selling the forgeries.

From my own perspective, I found it fascinating to see the known forgeries side by side with the originals. The differences are very clear and stark.

http://www.museum-security.org/myatt-drewe.htm

While this research may seem like 'cheating' to some, I must admit that now I've done some reading, I don't think it would be cheating in the future.

[CTyankee]

60. No, you certainly did NOT cheat! Honest research is fine and I do it all the time!

I find all kinds of interesting stuff when I follow an intriguing work or a subject and end up with great information and stories about art.

What I am talking about is using a google trick to find the source of the image. It's lazy and not research.

I give clues so that people on the thread CAN research and put things together. It's fun!

[Angry Dragon]

57. #2

I do not know who painted it

The grove of trees on the left cover up a building of some kind
possibly a fort or ruins

[CTyankee]

63. Can ANYONE guess #6?

We haven't had a nibble on this one and I thought this would be one of the first guessed!

It is easily researched. I found it on one of the many art blogs I visit almost daily.

Hint: start with the pose...

[horseshoecrab]

65. #6

Is #6 an N.C. Wyeth illustration for Treasure Island or Kidnapped?


horseshoecrab

[CTyankee]

66. Interesting guess...but not the right one...

[horseshoecrab]

67. hmmm....

Well then the pose looks like Gulliver's Travels - (Without the ropes and Lilliputians around. :-) )

Also looks like the man is "playing possum," with his hand on sword hilt.

[XemaSab]

68. Is #6 a Dutch "Vanitas" painting?

:shrug:

[CTyankee]

70. No, as I point out in my Answers thread, it is called "Dead Soldier" and is

by an unknown Italian painter of the 17th century. It's "past" is that it was once thought to be by Velazquez and was highly revered by Manet who painted his famous "Dead Matador" based on it. Here is the Manet work:

[xchrom]

72. recommend

[CTyankee]

75. thanks, exchrom!

Hope you enjoyed it!

[yoyossarian]

76. Yeah, I cry whenever I look at Rothko's work...

It's just so fuckin' feeble, there's nothing to it, and here I am tearing out my soul and offering it to the world, bucking the system with my images rather than doing nice safe non-images like he did, thus proving himself a perfect servant to the upper-class, who reward any artist for saying NOTHING with their work rather than (heaven forbid!) trying to make people think... and I have been piss-poor my entire life, and Rothko died in a big pile of money, I'm guessing... and I only want money for the good it can do in the world, and maybe to buy some decent supplies or a decent hovel once in a while... yeah, I break down and cry my freakin' eyes out, if I don't actually throw up my entire endocrine system, whenever I view that no-talent political operative disguised as an artist hanging in museums and being taken seriously by otherwise intelligent people who've been so over-educated in the subject of art that they can't tell SHIT when they see it... it just breaks my heart.

On the other hand, I LOVE going to exhibitions of Jackson Pollock's works, because if I see something I REALLY don't like, I can spit on it and not get caught.

Just an opinion from an absolute nobody who did the image below:

[CTyankee]

77. Not everyone cries at Rothkos, you know. And nobody requires you to cry at ANY artist's works,

do they?

Please, my art challenge is a gentle place, available to all for their input and their talent. I am sorry that you view it as you do, but if you do, I do not wish you ill.

There are differing opinions on Pollack's works as well as Rothko so it works both ways. Your favorite work may not be others' work and vice versa. So what?

And the end of the day, we are all human beings...right?

[yoyossarian]

78. You're right. So what if I get nowhere and die young, with so much left to say?

It's all good.

:toast:

Look, I didn't mean to ruin your thread; actually, I should point out that I CAN'T ruin your thread by
putting in my two cents, can I?... but you're telling me go away, so away I shall go, leaving you here
to discuss your absurdities in peace.

Actually, before I do, I want to point out that Van Morrison's Astral Weeks has a similar effect on
people, and that I experienced it myself on first listen... it is remarkable when great art does that
to people, I do agree... but for my own part, most of the time my work is met with comments such as
"Wow, that's disturbing!"... and then these commentators move blithely on, not recognizing that if
my work disturbs them THAT much, then perhaps it is also strong in a similar way, and should perhaps
merit some support as well.

But that is NOT gonna happen... not until I'm dead, at which point people are going to wanna talk to
me ALL THE TIME... funny old thing, life.

Oh, and my Jackson Pollock joke was just that, a joke. I wouldn't actually do that... just so ya know.

[CTyankee]

79. Hey, you haven't ruined my thread! Far from it! This is art!

Your input is valuable and VERY appreciated here! I won't tell you to go away. I want you to stay and tell me what you think ALL the time!

Art is art. Some art is reviled at first and then revered! You know this when you study art! It happens all the time. So do not despair. So many artists were poor and misunderstood when they were alive...it happens...you are NOT alone...

[yoyossarian]

80. Well thank you!

It is a great post you've got here with some very intelligent discussion accompanying it--with
the exception, for me anyway, of the inclusion of Rothko, who comes from a school of art I simply
DESPISE--but I appreciate your openness and the fact that you haven't taken permanent offense at
my comments. Many people who buy those theories of modern art tend to find opposing views intolerable,
in my experience... but I think my political theory as to the rise of this "form of art"--ugh, there,
I SAID it--is the best argument I can make on the subject, and one I've never seen put forward by anyone
other than myself.

The mass acceptance of postmodern art that we see today is the result of a HUGE conspiracy. This
is supported by a vast network of experts in media and art criticism and the like... but if it were
not for the financial support of the big-wigs, who I believe realized the real POWER of art to
wake people up back in the 1950's or so, and immediately took steps to render most artists of real
merit utterly impotent by elevating this form of "art" to Olympian heights, to the detriment of all others,
thus making the HONEST pursuit of artistic excellence a fool's errand at best, and social and economic
suicide at worst--if it were not for all that, and the teaching of these new theories at all levels of
academia, from primary to post-graduate, I suspect most people would instinctively agree with me that the
Emperor in this particular case is not only not wearing any clothes, he's not even wearing any
skin. He's a skeleton, and such art is dead, and shouldn't be viewed and praised and played with
endlessly, cuz it's dead and who knows what you could get from playing with roadkill like that?

Pardon my particularly abrasive poetic style in trying to describe this situation; I find myself in an
endlessly quandary as to how to properly describe this situation, so endemic and ubiquitious it is
to our common shared experience at this time... but the effect of this very real dilemma that leaves
artists of real worth and merit in today's America stuck in amber cannot be overstated... I've seen some
of the greatest and noblest and most inspired minds of my age broken and utterly destroyed on and under
these invisible wheels that no one but me can see, apparently... and the saddest thing is, they're cheese
wheels, nothing more.

Zappa knew what I'm talking about.

But I do go on, don't I? Lordy lordy lord, I really am losing my mind lately... but at least I am no longer
alone in this, and there is some grisly comfort to be had in that knowledge.

I will leave you with a piece many blanch and hold up their hands in horror at
(really, grown men and everything! I've seen it again and again!),

MY PORTRAIT OF DICK CHENEY



I'm quite sure this will never hang in any museum--but
I think it really should... along with the subject himself.

[dogknob]

82. You're right about the conspiracy thing...

... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

[CTyankee]

83. I'm not seeing this "conspiracy" as the hugest atrocity of the Cold War.

There are some good histories of what happened to make NYC the art capital of the world in the 40s and they include information about Soviet Constructivism art, which would round out our understanding of the era. It would be helpful to have this side of the discussion while discussing the CIA's involvement.

People good and bad supported art over the centuries in Europe. The involvement of the guilds in Florence was as influential on art as the Medici dynasty in the early days of the Renaissance. But there ARE two parts to the story, undeniably. The American financiers of the Gilded Age were pretty much exploiters and bastards in terms of the workers of the day, but the art they brought here continues to be enjoyed and revered by each generation. As I understand it, many masterpieces that we have in our museums today were bought by these financiers, bought from British lords who had many of these works in their country estates because of the heavier tax burden they (rightfully, in my opinion) were forced to bear.

Of all the sins of the CIA, this is one I just can't get too worked up over...:shrug:

[yoyossarian]

85. Good morning!

I don't mean to be disagreeable first thing in the morn, but I dunno... I read the article, and my sense of it is that it's wonderful to get some corroborating evidence for my thesis here, but that the reasons the article concludes that the CIA involved themselves in the art world to begin with are skewed hopelessly toward this very benign view of fighting the Soviets on a cultural level... personally, I think the real reasons were far more sinister, and involve creating the situation I described in my earlier post, where the REAL power of art to elevate human culture was effectively diminished to an extreme degree, and most of the potentially great artists of my age were seduced by the insane levels of green one can derive from playing the game as it had been reframed at that crucial time in history...

So many artists of great talent and potential went on a wild money chase rather than attending to the much more valuable pursuit of the--how shall I say this?--the sacred aspects of art. Human creativity is a sacred matter to me--I guess I'd call myself a hopeful agnostic, with a strong sense of the miraculous nature of existence itself reverberating throughout my life and work; I simply can't help it, I've known the miraculous nature of art to heal and transform within my own life, and seen it as an active principle in the lives of others... but I haven't seen that second one in a very long time, except in the rarest of circumstances.

I feel that the world is drowning in a sea of bad art now; it anesthetizes us to the effects of truly great work, and lowers the cultural standards overall. Again, Frank Zappa knew exactly what I was talking about here, as did the great Bill Hicks--and the practice of humor is one of the highest art forms there is, and a fierce weapon against pathological social forces, just as other forms of art.

Tellingly, both these fine gentlemen, who many upon these boards would likely agree with me were geniuses of the highest caliber, with laser-like perception of the cultures they lived within, are dead now. Not surprisingly; one cannot swim in polluted waters forever, especially those who are most aware of the pollution, which tends to make one very sensitive to its slow but deadly effects.

You sound as if you've got a Masters' in art; you're obviously very well-studied in art history, and I commend you for that, though I never made it a major course of study myself. Art, imho, should not have to rely on a detailed study of its times, and the personal histories of its best practitioners to have the effect it does, even on the most common and uneducated sorts; true art is timeless, and will speak directly to the hearts and souls of all but the most cynical in any culture. It does not require understanding of a common language to make its message understood, and this is one of many reasons it was seen as needing to be carefully controlled by the Powers That Be.

The other thing this CIA conspiracy did, and again, I think, quite purposefully, was to cut off common people from their own creativity, closing them off from their ability to personally experience the miraculous nature of their own inherent creativity, by making Art with a capital A so seemingly impenetrable, uncommunicative and ultimately ELITIST in the eyes of the average human being.

There is a REASON that they're trying to cover up old murals that celebrated the contribution of regular honest human labor and unions in America to the Great Society we once built largely upon the sweat and pride of "regular folks", but that is now rapidly deteriorating before our eyes. You will never see a similar movement against the works of Rothko or Klee, not as long as the status remains faithfully at the skewed quo we've all now accepted as everyday normal what's-the-problem?.

[CTyankee]

87. Very thoughtful piece!

First, let me say that I am largely self educated on art. My Master's is in Liberal Studies and while I did study some art, I have only made it an obsession since I retired. The experience has literally changed my life. My appreciation for art -- all the arts -- is based on my belief that art always saves you. I believe this with my entire being...

So I began a few years ago researching the early Italian Renaissance, in anticipation of a study trip to Florence. The amount of information on this subject is vast but I read up on it for over a year and a half, drilling down past the level of "guide book" art recommendations and into some serious thinking on the era. Most Americans go to Florence, rush in to see the David, maybe a couple of Botticelli in the Uffizi, glance at the Duomo and then they're gone. But if you actually GO to the Convent of San Marco and stand in front of the frescoes Fra Angelico painted (with tears streaming down his face) in the monks' tiny cells, you get an incredible feeling of the powerful emotions infused in these rooms for all these centuries. You get lifted out of yourself...

That is why I study art and go and see it "in situ." I just returned from Holland where I gaped at Vermeer's "View of Delft." You cannot discern the gleam of this work in a photo. Now I know why one famous modern artist actually knelt before this painting!

I could go on and on about these experiences I have had, but cannot adequately describe to you their essences.

What I guess I am trying to say is that the experience of art and something different from the dry descriptions of the art (or even the most eloquent descriptions!). I have had many of these incredible experiences in front of art. They transcend politics and even history (altho they are products of their ages). Most of the artists I have studied were certainly NOT born rich, with well connected families and fine educations. They came from the humblest of backgrounds.

We don't know how history will judge the Rothkos, Mondrians, de Koonings, etc. Art tends go in and out of fashion. In terms of art, we can only go on what we experience when we are in their presence, regardless of what anybody else tells you...

[dogknob]

86. Dunno...

... we've got one of the founders of the CIA copping to this... It does explain a few things. Warhol?

[CTyankee]

88. Good point about Warhol. Not one of my faves, to be sure.

I guess my point is, so what? I make my own decisions about what art I revere to the point of worship and the art that leaves me cold. Politics is the least of it for me (and I am a VERY political person). In fact, art saves me from despair. I always feel it is there to console me and to help me. But that's just me...

[yoyossarian]

89. That's not just you, though...

In point of fact, that's how MOST people who lack the benefits of an education in art feel; they DO feel a connection to art on a deep psychic or spiritual or heart level, but they've been trained to question those feelings endlessly, because look what's hanging in all the museums!... at least, that's how I suspect most of them used to feel, before Abstract Expressionism alienated MOST people from their basic, instinctive connection to art--which is, to my mind, their SACRED BIRTHRIGHT.

So what? So art has become the ULTIMATE elitist field in the minds of many--which is why the phrase, "I don't know art, but I know what I like!" has become so utterly ubiquitous in America for the last 30 years or so--so what does that prove? Who does it hurt? What's the big deal?

Well, let's see... if one chooses to jump on the money-go-round that is Abstract Expressionism (which, if you're doing it right, that is, by the SET and RIGID RULES established long ago by a very rich art collector who had no actual talent for art himself, but created a LIST of qualities these paintings MUST embody in order to be considered AE--which will then yield a product which is invariably almost entirely lacking in any actual communication to the viewer) if one chooses to make such an INARTISTIC choice in allowing another to dictate their supposedly unlimited 'expression", one may reap rewards in 7 and 8 and even 9 figures, something NO OTHER type of art even approaches on any regular basis. The RULES of this game are simple: Say NOTHING significant with your work, put this muzzle on like a good doggy, and we will COVER YOU IN MONEY until you squeal for us to actually STOP!

Not everyone who attempts to run down this gravy train, of course, reaps these benefits; but these rewards given to a token few convinced an ENTIRE GENERATION of artistic types, some of them possessing REAL POTENTIAL to shake the system with their odd and quirky and different viewpoints, to throw away any and all ambitions of using art as a conduit for communication of values or ideas, in favor of doing art that is bloodless, pointless and UTTERLY ALIENATING to almost EVERYONE who is not "in the scene"...

And because of all this, some of the BEST artists of our time will have to be content with reaping ANY and ALL the rewards of THEIR efforts POSTHUMOUSLY.

SO WHAT? Yeah, so what?... who cares? Artists should suffer in mute agony as their dreams die on the vine, happy in the end that they're going to make more money than ANYONE could EVER NEED, long after they have any need for it (HA! Now THAT'S HILARIOUS... isn't it? I'm sure Van Gogh thought so!)... but the usually-wealthy art collectors and gallery owners and museum directors and curators and board members, many of them ACTUAL PROVEN CIA OPERATIVES (as detailed in that article referenced earlier), will make some juicy profits on the exquisite corpses these suffering artists leave behind, boy won't they!

...and the effective voice of those TRUE artists, those TRULY passionate few with REAL aspirations of using their talents to make of this world a BETTER place will be, for all intents and purposes, silenced... except for the occasional pathetic groans of agony or shrieks of madness issuing forth from time to time, as their minds turn to jelly and their dreams die before them, and they watch their miraculous gifts stomped into the ground by an iron boot, courtesy of the Rockefellers and the Tates and the Rothschilds and the Medicis... the CIA just does what they're told, after all, by their masters.

I don't question your appreciation of art... but your approach to LIVING artists is just not very supportive, from where I'm sitting. You're happy enough to let this SHAM system chug on without questioning it, even when you've just been given PROOF that my original thesis has some merit in FACT.

And it's NOT just the artists that lose in this arrangement; the entire world loses the best and brightest in this field, and have to content themselves with reading into empty canvases with a single badly-drawn line on them some great truth that really isn't there, cuz it's just a big ugly con... but so what?

You seem like a nice person, and one who actually does appreciate art; most of the other pieces in this post are splendid work, and you demonstrate a real sophistication in many of your other insights on them... so I can't help feeling some kinship with you, despite my difficulty in getting you to acknowledge that perhaps Abstract Expressionism WAS a titanic scam that most of the world fell for, to the detriment of all things aesthetic; but it is kinda a tall order, I know. It's like trying to explain to fish that they're in water; it's all around you, and you've never given it that much thought...

The fact is, most people have invested a lot in this stuff, either intellectually or actually, to the point that they'll NEVER admit that they fell for something so ridiculous... but the ramifications to our decaying culture are real, and the damage is still ongoing.

At any rate, I'm glad we can at least agree that Warhol, American ICON of Art, is uninteresting in the extreme. My own take on him, in brief, goes like this:

I, D X Stone, predict that in the future, EVERYONE will be Andy Warhol for fifteen minutes.
But it will be such a BORING fifteen minutes that it will SEEM like a freakin' LIFETIME.

An example of art that attempts to make the world a better place:



(This one will be considered absolutely ICONIC, I'm guessing, in less than 20 years
after I'm dead... if there's ANYONE at all left alive on Earth by then, of course.)

[CTyankee]

90. Some "art critics" are rebelling against the snooty, the corporate and the

pretentiousness of the art world. One is Peter Schjeldahl of The New Yorker. He writes honestly and intelligently and in a very down to earth, understandable fashion. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't, but I don't feel that "oh, he's an art critic so I have to think the way he does."

But he's an exception. Art history has ruined the true experience of art for generations of people, telling them what they should like and not like and what exactly they should look for in a work of art and making people feel that if they don't see what the critic sees then they're defective. As a result, people feel like they can't wait to get out of a museum and who can blame them?

There's a famous cartoon of a guy running into the Louvre saying "Where's the Mona Lisa? I'm double parked!" So typical...

[yoyossarian]

92. Cool! There is a kinship there!

The ones who buy into it all are so snooty and dismissive, and you are definitely not... you're a good egg!
I'm glad I had a chance, too, to put all these ideas I've been talking about over the years into some coherent form... so thanks for the chance to do that, rather than just kicking me off your thread for being passionate and zany and somewhat difficult at best! Again, you're a VERY good egg!

:toast:

Funny cartoon idea, too! :rofl:

I'll prob'ly see ya next Friday!

[CTyankee]

93. No Challenge next Friday, sad to say. I'm in California. But look for the Challenge

on Nov. 3rd...

Thanks for the kind words. You are a dear heart...:hi:

[yoyossarian]

91. PS:

It's entirely possible that you've never been a big fan of that school of art; I really haven't ascertained where you stand personally on it, and so I don't want to seem as if I'm blaming you for the rise of Crap Art... when I look at the overall post, I see that you included Rothko because he is one of several artists whose work inspires TEARS... but perhaps in his case, it is precisely because of all I've pointed out here, sensed by many on deep levels, that elicits this reaction... unlike the other works, where something truly shamanic and magical is in play, something beautiful and mysterious that shows us the power of art to move us so deeply.

[CTyankee]

94. The Rothko phenomenon is a bit strange to me but Rothko definitely

was himself disturbed. He slit his wrists in his mid forties...sad...

[blaze]

81. I love these threads!

I don't know nothin' 'bout art or art history, but I always enjoy reading these challenges!

And I appreciate your input yoyossarian... though a bit harsh at first, thanks for keeping it civil. I don't get that Rothko painting, but, as I said, I don't know nothin'. Your perspective is appreciated.

[yoyossarian]

84. !

:hi:

:toast: