| Author | Comment | |
|---|---|---|
| 41. 29 Apr 2010 14:00 | ||
 |
||
| 42. 29 Apr 2010 23:01 | ||
|
|
Chicago Fiancial Building .... Impressionist |
|
| 43. 30 Apr 2010 13:36 | ||
 |
Paul Klee is one of my most beloved artists... and this is after one of my favourites pics: |
|
| 44. 1 May 2010 03:08 | ||
 |
3 more days left...keep those beauties coming! |
|
| 45. 1 May 2010 06:10 | ||
 |
Here's some 'pop art' to add to the collection..... |
|
| 46. 1 May 2010 10:07 | ||
 |
Chelydra's Munch Madonnas should be here - I can't do it the quick way! |
|
| 47. 1 May 2010 11:57 | ||
|
|
Normal...I'm actually surprised he didn't add him here by now. They are indeed a very good and complex approach of one diffcult painting. I'll leave him a comment so he can decide. |
|
| 48. 2 May 2010 02:59 | ||
|
|
two more days for this one! |
|
| 49. 2 May 2010 10:35 | ||
|
|
||
| 50. 2 May 2010 14:48 | ||
|
|
He did one of his stripe paintings on the street in both DC and Philadelphia. Both aimed at neoclassical buildings, like the Art Museum in Philly. He also used long-handled rollers, not flower petals! |
|
| 51. 2 May 2010 14:50 | ||
|
|
AAARGH. |
|
| 52. 2 May 2010 15:08 | ||
|
|
After Rousseau and the Naive Painting... |
|
| 53. 2 May 2010 15:33 | ||
|
|
More information on G. Davis (Normal's entry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Davis_(painter) |
|
| 54. 2 May 2010 16:18 | ||
|
|
Munch (shifted view) |
|
| 55. 3 May 2010 01:10 | ||
 |
OK, here they are! |
|
| 56. 3 May 2010 05:04 | ||
|
|
I'm not sure if Mark Rothko is classified as color field or abstract expressionist or just as himself. This is probably as far from the uncompromising spirit of Rothko as my Munch's were from the suffering, dead-serious Norwegian; this too is relatively frivolous. |
|
| 57. 3 May 2010 06:04 | ||
|
|
Since I've been doing this kind of thing for quite a while (starting ages before the internet was even thought of, unless you count Hesse's 'Glass Bead Game'), I thought I might as dump some oldies here, just 'for the record'... |
|
| 58. 3 May 2010 06:32 | ||
|
|
Some of these (above) aren't associated with a specific, capitalized Art Movement. But if you look into art history a bit, you find that just about every work of art ever made is deeply embedded into a specific time and place, and a set of prevailing ideas, and more often than not these ideas were something conscious, newly discovered, in the process of being freshly explored. The 1400s saw the development of scientific perspective (which some say was actually the catalyst for all modern science!), oil painting (oil on canvas started out as just a way of making portable, weatherproof banners for religious parades!), and of course the rediscovery of ancient humanist aethetics (which makes it sounds kind of trite and arcane but it wasn't!); this was all far more adventurous than the wild innovations of 1860-1960 with their manifestoes and endless (often empty) theorizing. The developments overseen by Caravaggio, Rembrandt, et al, were subtle refinements compared with the revolutionary upheavals two centuries earlier, but they were certainly very conscious of breaking new ground. We (rightly, in most cases) tend to dismiss most of the painting of 1660-1860 as relatively stagnant and dull (Turner and Goya being among the few exceptions), but it's worth remembering that those guys too — Poussin, David, Reynolds, etc. — often believed they were playing a crucially important role in Art History, and they too formulated theories and composed manifestoes of sorts. |
|
| 59. 3 May 2010 06:40 | ||
|
|
By the way, I forgot to add: |
|
| 60. 3 May 2010 07:36 | ||
 |
Banksy is one of the British graffiti artists. His work is often a witty social comment and often anti-establishment. I did these copies a while ago. |
|
