Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: drinkanddestroy on September 20, 2012, 03:56:05 PM



Title: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 20, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
So several months ago, I started delving a little into the paintings that influenced Leone's work, which we've discussed here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8921.0

I never gave a damn about art until that time, but once I started looking into those who influenced Leone, I've been blown away, and been doing quite a bit of research over the past few months (Kind of like how listening to Metallica's concert they did with the San Francisco Symphony in 1999 got me interested in classical music. And how Metallica's entering every concert to "Ecstasy of Gold" introduced me to Leone and Morricone. But I digress...)
Anyway, cj and I decided that that thread should stick to the paintings that relate to Leone, and start a new thread for discussion of art in general, so here we are  :)

I'll start with 2 fascinating works I saw on my recent visit to the Museum of Modern Art (first ever to an art museum); both by the "Precisionist" Charles Sheeler:
American Landscape (1930) http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79032
and Bucks County Barn (1932) http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78981

As you can see from these two paintings, Sheeler's stunning works seem to be trying to detail his subjects as precisely as he possibly could, and could almost be confused with photographs, and the subject of his works was often machinery and American industry. And while doing a bit of research on him, I actually learned that besides being a painter, his other job was indeed as a photographer, including doing commercial/publicity photos for Ford Motor Co.

So..... what interests you? Or disinterests you?  :)

p.s. MoMA had 10-15 Picassos. None of which interested me


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: titoli on September 20, 2012, 05:22:39 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xIKhPHVCJWQ/SkHji6gSLRI/AAAAAAAAAy0/XVpA_9yZXMw/s1600/originale.jpg)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 20, 2012, 06:43:36 PM
nice! whose is that?


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: titoli on September 21, 2012, 02:39:07 AM
Albrecht Dürer


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: noodles_leone on September 21, 2012, 03:26:37 AM
(http://a.imdoc.fr/1/arts-et-creations/saisons/photo/9177208917/6725393902/saisons-impression-soleil-levant-img.jpg)

I'm a big fan of impressionism, like most people who grew up not to far from the Musée D'Orsay and many other museums of Paris that have gorgeous collections of impressionist paintings. This particular picture gave its name to the movement (as often in art, it was first meant to be a satiric name given by people who hated them), and behond the clichés, it really is one of its finest examples.
Not only it is beautiful and is quite characteristic of the topics/methods of the impressionists, but it is also a great place to start when you try to understand the influence of the movement on everything that happened in art during the XXth century. Many historians consider impressionism as the first kind of modern art, and when you just have a look at the character in this painting, it's kind of obvious.

I'm trying to update here some of the works of art that inspire me a lot:
http://pinterest.com/toskian/art/

So far it's mainly Monet/Caravagio/VanDongen, but others are coming.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 21, 2012, 03:32:46 AM
I also saw Andrew Wyeth's mesmerizing Christina's World (1948) at MoMA http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A6464&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1

If you are a fan of this painting, or Wyeth's work in general , you will enjoy this article http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/travel/the-farmhouse-of-wyeths-christinas-world.html?_r=0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: moviesceleton on September 21, 2012, 06:36:09 AM
I was just about to mention Andrew Wyeth! He has amazing eye for natural light.

But for me, the greatest of them all has to be Vermeer.


PS. I've had this painting by Caspar David Friedrich as wallpaper on my computer for a couple of years now: http://www.wallchan.com/images/sandbox/5252-1305920755021.jpg


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Leonardo on September 21, 2012, 11:22:41 AM
I was just about to mention Andrew Wyeth! He has amazing eye for natural light.

But for me, the greatest of them all has to be Vermeer.


PS. I've had this painting by Caspar David Friedrich as wallpaper on my computer for a couple of years now: http://www.wallchan.com/images/sandbox/5252-1305920755021.jpg
What about Pizarro and Sisley????


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on September 21, 2012, 01:01:24 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xIKhPHVCJWQ/SkHji6gSLRI/AAAAAAAAAy0/XVpA_9yZXMw/s1600/originale.jpg)
Quote
Just as Dürer drew the hare
I was drawn to you
Though I saw that you stood where
Briar & Bramble grew. A pilgrim needs a journey
A devil needs a dare
And yes I was drawn to you
As Dürer drew the hare.
Jason Steel (2011)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 21, 2012, 01:55:14 PM
I was just about to mention Andrew Wyeth! He has amazing eye for natural light.



If you are interested in Wyeth, you can listen to the audio recording on the MoMA page of "Christina's World" that I linked to in the previous post; half of it is this speaker talking about why lots of people love Wyeth, despite critics and curators not taking him seriously


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 18, 2013, 01:26:14 AM
I just got this book on Giorgio de Chirico http://www.amazon.com/Chirico-Pere-Gimferrer/dp/0847810429/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361175329&sr=1-3&keywords=de+chirico (It was a pretty good price, I think I paid like $16 or so for a used one in very good condition).

 The images look pretty good. There are 135 color reprints of his paintings. There are anywhere from 1-3 paintings per page; Amazon lists the page size as 11.8 X 8.4 inches. it's a nice size.

The book begins with 14 pages of text, followed by the  135 illustrations on 98 pages. The text has some biographical information, and goes into the controversies surrounding de Chirico. The book analyzes and discusses the issues and controversies; it doesn't hit you over the head pushing for one view or the other, but the author does seem to sympathize with de Chrico. Either way, it's written fairly.

The author is a Spaniard named Pere Gimferrer; the text is translated from Spanish.
As a beginner who is no art nerd and certainly not familiar with all the technical terms, I found much of the text difficult to understand; it's very technical, and seems to be written more for those who very familiar with technical art jargon

But it's only a few pages of text, it's not a biography; the point of the book is for the illustrations; and that's why i got it.  If you are just looking for a book of nice illustrations (and perhaps a few pages discussing his life and analyzing his works and controversies, etc.) this is a good buy
Out of the 135 illustrations, 31 are from his Metaphysical Period. (So this book is a selection of his works from various periods). So for what I am looking for -- a book of paintings, I am happy with this  O0

Does anyone know if there is any book out there that has all of de Chirico's Metaphysical paintings? (I have seen one on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/DE-CHIRICO-The-Metaphysical-Period/dp/0821224999/ref=pd_sim_b_12 cost like $300, I'm looking for something a tad cheaper  ;) )


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Leonardo on February 18, 2013, 05:03:14 AM
"Christina's world" is marvellous and it reminds me of an old movie,i.e. "The summer of '42" (remember the beautiful Jennifer O'Neill????).
Anyway, I am personally very fond of impressionists, in particular Pizarro and Sisley.
But when it comes to strange paintings, there is one that is very intriguing. It gives me the shivers every time I look at it; perhaps it has to do with the fact that it was Hitler's favorite painting. It's a painting by the swiss painter Arnold Boeklin (1827-1901) called "The Island of the Dead" and he painted several versions of it. The one which I find the most remarkable one is this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Arnold_Boecklin_-_Island_of_the_Dead%2C_Third_Version.JPG
but the other ones can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isola_dei_Morti_IV_(Bocklin).jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_B%C3%B6cklin_009.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_B%C3%B6cklin_-_Die_Toteninsel_-_Version_4_sw.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Arnold_B%C3%B6cklin_006.jpg
Is it just me or this painting has really some intriguing aspects??? What do you guys think????


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 18, 2013, 05:40:45 AM
i saw Christina's World at MoMA http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A6464&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1

it's a fan favorite there. i had zero knowledge/education/experience in art, never heard of that painting before,  but when i saw that painting st MoMA, I stopped and said WOAH! THIS IS A fucking  MASTERPIECE


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 09, 2013, 11:04:40 PM
Hopper exhibit goin' on now at Whitney, through October 6 http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/HopperDrawing


The exhibit shows how Hopper prepared paintings -- so next to each painting, they have his preparatory sketches, and/or photos of the street he painted, etc. I don't care about the preparatory stuff; all I care about is seeing the great paintings, and this exhibit will feature some of his most famous oils, including Nighthawks, New York Movie, Early Sunday Morning, and Office at Night.

So I'll definitely be checking it out sometime  O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on June 10, 2013, 05:11:11 AM
Hopper exhibit goin' on now at Whitney, through October 6 http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/HopperDrawing


The exhibit shows how Hopper prepared paintings -- so next to each painting, they have his preparatory sketches, and/or photos of the street he painted, etc. I don't care about the preparatory stuff; all I care about is seeing the great paintings, and this exhibit will feature some of his most famous oils, including Nighthawks, New York Movie, Early Sunday Morning, and Office at Night.

So I'll definitely be checking it out sometime  O0

Its on my to do list.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on June 10, 2013, 12:09:22 PM
The exhibit shows how Hopper prepared paintings -- so next to each painting, they have his preparatory sketches, and/or photos of the street he painted, etc. I don't care about the preparatory stuff; all I care about is seeing the great paintings, and this exhibit will feature some of his most famous oils, including Nighthawks, New York Movie, Early Sunday Morning, and Office at Night.
Dude, the exhibition is titled "Hopper Drawing." The intent is clearly to put the emphasis on the sketches. Maybe the four paintings mentioned are the only ones displayed. Yer gonna pay 20 bucks to look at 4 paintings?


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 10, 2013, 12:44:07 PM
A) i would certainly pay the $18 to see those 4 paintings;
B) there are other paintings in the museum to look at;
C) If you scroll down to the "Works from the Exhibition" section, they have 7 canvases there: Nighthawks, Early Sunday Morning, New York Movie, Office at Night, Morning in a City, Rooms for Tourists, and Soir Bleu.

I don't know if all the canvases in the exhibit are listed there or not  -- that "Works from the Exhibit" section shows drawings for some paintings but not the paintings themselves, such as Gas, Morning Sun, and Summertime. But even if the exhibit only had those 7 canvases, it would be well worth the $18 admission for a Hopper fan like myself.
How many opportunities does a New Yorker like myself get to see Nighthawks, which is owned by the Art Institute of Chicago? Office at Night, Rooms for Tourists, and Morning in a City are all owned by out-of-town museums. (And btw, Morning in a City has the greatest ass of any painting ever).


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 01, 2013, 12:34:22 AM
RE: the Hopper exhibit at the Whitney: http://blog.ctnews.com/kantrowitz/2013/05/28/edward-hopper-at-the-whitney-in-depth-study-of-the-artist/


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 21, 2013, 11:51:10 PM
The previously mentioned Hopper Drawing exhibit at Whitney is closing October 6th; I gotta get over there soon.



Also, MoMA has an exhibit, open until January 26th, 2014, called American Modern: Hopper to O'Keeffe http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1344

The exhibit features over 100 "paintings, photographs, and sculptural works by American artists between 1915 and 1950.... almost all of it drawn from the museum's permanent collection," (according to this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-busch/moma-american-modern_b_3811240.html ,which is critical of the exhibit's curation [is that a word?])

Here are 119 works from the exhibit – though not all are necessarily on view at all times – http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ATA%3AE%3AAmericanModern&page_number=3&template_id=6&sort_order=4&UC=
looks like there's a nice number of Hoppers, including House by the Railroad, which I'm very excited to see for the first time.

So, I'm definitely looking forward to checking out both exhibits  :)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on September 23, 2013, 06:27:26 AM
I'd go If I was in the city  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 23, 2013, 10:20:19 AM
I'd go If I was in the city  ;)

did you see the Hopper exhibit at the Whitney yet? I was gonna go last month, but then found out that the Whitney isn't open on Mondays or Tuesdays  >:( http://whitney.org/Visit/Hours

So, I'll probably go at the end of next week


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on September 23, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
did you see the Hopper exhibit at the Whitney yet? I was gonna go last month, but then found out that the Whitney isn't open on Mondays or Tuesdays  >:( http://whitney.org/Visit/Hours

So, I'll probably go at the end of next week

No haven't been to the city with any free time.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 02, 2013, 10:22:29 PM
I went to the Whitney Wednesday for the Hopper exhibit - one of the greatest days of my life!

The "Hopper Drawing" exhibit, on the 3rd Floor, featured hundreds of Hopper's preparatory sketches, pencil/pen/chalk/graphite drawings, etc., in addition to some of his most famous oil paintings, including Nighthawks (!!!), New York Movie, Gas, Office at Night, Manhattan Bridge Loop. I actually don't care much about the preparatory sketches and other drawings; I really only went for the paintings! I counted two dozen paintings at that "Hopper Drawing" exhibit.
Additionally, there is an "American Legends" exhibit on the 5th floor, which (along with the work of many other artists) includes 10 Hopper paintings; so between the two exhibits there are about 34 Hopper paintings, mostly oils.
I'll provide a full list of those paintings in the next post.


In comparing the paintings with the numerous reproductions I've seen in books and online, I'll mention a few things I noticed:

1) Nighthawks is actually a much brighter painting than how it looks in most reproductions; it's way too dark in most reproductions I have seen. (It seemed to me that quite a few of his paintings are brighter than they appear in books. Maybe it's just because I saw them with the museum lights shining on them?)

2) Of all Hopper's works, New York Movie may have the most inaccurate reproductions. The color of the reproductions I have seen vary so widely, and are generally way too dark; the painting is much lighter than most reproductions. For example, the seats in the theater are very clearly red, and you can clearly see a woman sitting on the right of the man, a few rows ahead of him. In many reproductions, you can barely even tell that the seats are red, and can barely see that woman.

3) In Gas, the sky is actually much bluer than I have seen in most reproductions. I'd say it appears as if it is painted shortly after sunset, a nice evening blue. In many paintings, the sky is way too dark blue, or even purple, as if it is almost night.

4) In Early Sunday Morning, the  street/sidewalk look like the normal color of pavement, which is gray. In many reproductions I've seen, the street/sidewalk are yellow, as if glowing from the sun.

Anyway, I had an incredible time (in case you couldn't tell  ;)). The exhibit closes on Sunday, October 6th; anyone in the New York area with any interest in art should definitely check it this weekend  :)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 02, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
I'll list here the 34 Hoppers paintings I saw. All are OIL ON CANVAS unless otherwise indicated.


Here are the 24 works that are part of the "Hopper Drawing" exhibit on the 3rd floor, (in addition to the hundreds of drawings).



A Woman in the Sun (1961)
Conference at Night (1949)
Early Sunday Morning
From Williamsburg Bridge
Gas
High Road (1931) (watercolor and graphite pencil on paper)
Le Pont Royal
Le Quai des Grands Augustins
Les Bistro or The Wine Shop
Man Seated on Bed (1905-1906) (oil on canvas mounted on board)
Manhattan Bridge Loop
Mass of Trees at Eastham (watercolor and graphite pencil on paper)
Morning in a City
New York Movie
Nighthawks
Office at Night
Rooms for Tourists
Route 6, Eastham
Road and Trees
Soir Bleu
Stairway (oil on wood)
Sun in an Empty Room
The Artist's Bedroom, Nyack (1905-1906) (oil on board)
The Lily Apartments (watercolor on paper)



And here are the 10 Hoppers that are part of the "American Legends" exhibit on the 5th floor


Second Story Sunlight
South Carolina Morning
Le Quai des Grands Augustins with Tree
Ecluse de la Monnaie
New York Interior
Italian Quarter, Gloucester
Burly Cobb's House, South Truro
Small Town Station
Self Portrait, 1925-1930
Railroad Crossing



Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on October 03, 2013, 06:42:08 AM
Sounds great O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 03, 2013, 03:48:04 PM
well you better get over there by Sunday. Coming into the city is a lot less travel than going to Chicago, where you'd normally have to go to see Nighthawks  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on October 04, 2013, 02:35:16 PM
In comparing the paintings with the numerous reproductions I've seen in books and online, I'll mention a few things I noticed:

1) Nighthawks is actually a much brighter painting than how it looks in most reproductions; it's way too dark in most reproductions I have seen. (It seemed to me that quite a few of his paintings are brighter than they appear in books. Maybe it's just because I saw them with the museum lights shining on them?)

2) Of all Hopper's works, New York Movie may have the most inaccurate reproductions. The color of the reproductions I have seen vary so widely, and are generally way too dark; the painting is much lighter than most reproductions. For example, the seats in the theater are very clearly red, and you can clearly see a woman sitting on the right of the man, a few rows ahead of him. In many reproductions, you can barely even tell that the seats are red, and can barely see that woman.

3) In Gas, the sky is actually much bluer than I have seen in most reproductions. I'd say it appears as if it is painted shortly after sunset, a nice evening blue. In many paintings, the sky is way too dark blue, or even purple, as if it is almost night.

4) In Early Sunday Morning, the  street/sidewalk look like the normal color of pavement, which is gray. In many reproductions I've seen, the street/sidewalk are yellow, as if glowing from the sun.
I hope they get the colors right for the Blu-ray.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 25, 2013, 02:51:07 AM
Edward Hopper's East Wind Over Weehawken (1934) sold at auction for $36 million; including extra fees and all that good stuff, the winning bidder paid over $40 million for it - a record price for a Hopper painting.

Here are some articles on the sale:

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2013/12/1934_east_wind_over_weehawken.html

http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-07/news/44868960_1_hopper-painting-pafa-cello-player

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101249817


Personally, among Hopper's paintings, I don't think this one is anything special. If I sat down and ranked all the oils and watercolors Hopper painted during the last 45 years of his life (ie. the period when he made good stuff), East Wind Over Weehawken probably would be in the bottom half. Maybe even the bottom quarter.
But, since almost all Hoppers are now owned by museums, these days it's pretty rare to see any Hopper painting go on auction. (East Wind Over Weehawken actually was owned by a museum, The Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, which sold the painting to establish a fund to acquire contemporary art).


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 25, 2013, 03:22:45 AM
In addition to the record price paid for an Edward Hopper that I discussed in the previous post, at least three art-sale records were set during the past couple of months:

1) December 4, 2013: Record price for an American painting sold at auction: $46 million for Normal Rockwell's Saying Grace
AP: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/norman-rockwell-masterpieces-nyc-auction
CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101247932
UK Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/norman-rockwells-saying-grace-tops-record-week-of-art-auction-sales-in-us-8991754.html

UPDATE: see next post RE: claim that this was most expensive American painting ever sold at auction

---------------------------------

2) Novermber 12, 2013: Record price for a piece of artwork made by a living artist: $58,405,000 for Jeff Koons's sculpture Balloon Dog (Orange)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jeff-koons-balloon-dog-sculpture-655548

----------------------------------

3) November 12, 2013: Record price for any work of art ever sold at auction: $142.4 million for Francis Bacon's triptych Three Studies of Lucian Freud
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/arts/design/bacons-study-of-freud-sells-for-more-than-142-million.html?_r=0
(Previous record was the $119.9 mil paid for Edvard Munch's The Scream in May 2012)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 26, 2013, 04:28:20 AM

1) December 4, 2013: Record price for an American painting sold at auction: $46 million for Normal Rockwell's Saying Grace
AP: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/norman-rockwell-masterpieces-nyc-auction
CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101247932
UK Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/norman-rockwells-saying-grace-tops-record-week-of-art-auction-sales-in-us-8991754.html


I'm not sure why those articles say that the $46 mil paid for the Rockwell's Saying Grace was the most ever paid at auction for an American artwork. Prior to that auction for the Rockwell painting, at least three works by Andy Warhol had sold at auction for more than that (besides for the private sale of Eight Elvises for $100 million in 2008). Per this NBC News article http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/14/21448642-andy-warhol-painting-fetches-record-105-million-at-ny-auction?lite

--- on December 13, 2013, Andy Warhol's Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster) sold at auction for $105.4 million
--- the previous Warhol auction record was $71.7 million in 2007 for Green Car Crash (Green Burning Car I)
--- Warhol's Coca-Cola (3) sold at auction on Nov. 12, 2013 for $57.2 million

In case you did not read the AP article that I've quoted about the Rockwell paitning, I'll cut and past the two pertinent paragraphs here (they are the first and fourth paragraphs of the article):

A Norman Rockwell painting titled "Saying Grace" sold at an auction on Wednesday for $46 million, a record for the Saturday Evening Post illustrator and for any work sold at an American art auction, Sotheby's said.
...
The previous record for any work at an auction of American art was set in 1999, when George Bellows' painting "Polo Crowd" sold at Sotheby's for $27.7 million, the auction house said.


So how could the $46 mil for the Rockwell painting be the highest amount ever paid for any work sold at an American art auction if three paintings by Andy Warhol – who certainly was American – had previously been sold at auction for more money?


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 31, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
DJ and I visited MoMA last week.

There was a big Magritte exhibit DJ was interested in, called "Magritte: The Mystery of the Ordinary, 1926-1938," you can see the works here http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1322

I was excited to see the exhibit called "American Modern: Hopper to O'Keeffe," all from works in MoMA's collection; you can see all the works from that exhibit here http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ATA%3AE%3AAmericanModern&page_number=3&template_id=6&sort_order=4

(if you click the above link, the 11 Hopper works in the exhibit appear on the top of the page.)

I took some pics but I can't upload anything now cuz am having trouble using Image Shack.


I'm obviously a huge Hopper fan, and I was particularly excited to see House by the Railroad for the first time. DJ isn't a huge Hopper fan, but he is a Hitchcock fan, so he enjoyed seeing the painting upon which the Bates house in Psycho was based  :)

We also saw Night Windows, a watercolor called Box Factory, Gloucester, and the famous oils Gas and New York Movie, which I am always excited to see; those are probably two of my  favorite paintings of all time.
There were also five Hopper etchings on view. And the exhibit also featured interesting painting and photography by Charles Scheeler, Charles Burchfield, and the great painting Christina's World by Andrew Wyeth. All can be seen at the exhibit link I provided above.

We also got to see four works by de Chrico: Gare Montparnasse (1914), The Song of Love (1914), The Serenity of the Scholar (1914), and Great Metaphysical Interior (1917).

Good times... I plan on going back sometime in the next couple of weeks  :)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 13, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
This should make DJ happy - MoMA is undergoing a massive renovation http://www.businessinsider.com/moma-redesign-will-help-solve-its-problems-2014-1
there has been a lot of complaining about the fact that MoMA is tearing down the folk art museum http://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-folk-art-museum-will-be-destroyed-2014-1


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 13, 2014, 09:36:36 AM
I went back to MoMA yesterday, thanks to DJ  :)

The museum was jammed cuz it was the final day of its huge Magritte exhibit - but happily, most of the crowd was there for that exhibit, and I have little interest in Magritte; I didn't even visit that exhibit (I saw it on my last visit, a couple of weeks ago), so the rest of the museum wasn't particularly crowded.... I had lots of room to see my Hoppers, my de Chricos, my Sheelers, and Wyeth's Christina's World  ;)

I also saw MoMA's Monet collection for the first time - these four paintings http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?SHR&tag=ex4649&template_id=6

I'd love to share some photos, but I've been having trouble using Image Shack lately - for some reason, when I share photos here, they are so big it stretches the page to triple the width.... when I work that out, I'll share the photos.


I used to laugh at those 12-year-old girls who shriek and cry when they see Justin Beiber. Well, I realized yesterday that maybe I shouldn't laugh at them... Cuz when I see some of my favorite paintings, I kinda feel wanna shriek and cry, too  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on January 13, 2014, 10:53:16 AM
This should make DJ happy - MoMA is undergoing a massive renovation http://www.businessinsider.com/moma-redesign-will-help-solve-its-problems-2014-1
Hmmm, no wonder they keep writing to ask for money. This sounds good, though, as long as they can get someone to pay for it (someone who is not me). MoMA as it is now always feels really cramped.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 13, 2014, 07:39:33 PM
Hmmm, no wonder they keep writing to ask for money. This sounds good, though, as long as they can get someone to pay for it (someone who is not me). MoMA as it is now always feels really cramped.

considering that MoMA is aiming to finish the renovation by 2018 or 2019, I wonder how the ongoing construction will affect the museum in the meantime - I imagine that gallery space may be even more limited as construction is ongoing; so you may find the museum even more cramped until the renovation is complete.

btw, this guy http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/saltz-the-new-moma-expansion-is-a-mess.html hates the new plans.... I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot of opinions in the next few years; I, for one, have extremely limited experience with art museums (3 visits to MoMA and 1 visit to Whitney), so I don't have any opinion on the matter... yet  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 26, 2014, 10:02:36 PM
okay, I am gonna post some of the paintings I've seen on my recent visits to MoMA. (some of thse may not appear to be of sharpest quality. The pictures I took are actually really good quality, but in order to post them here from ImageShack, I gotta re-size them; besides, ImageShack sucks – did I ever mention I HATE ImageShack? -  but the point is to see the paintings; if you like any and wanna see a better version, you can then Google it).

Here goes:

We will begin with one of my favorite paintings in the world, Edward Hopper's Gas

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/600/h6p9.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/goh6p9j)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 26, 2014, 10:11:38 PM
another very famous and great Hopper, House by the Railroad

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/30/j5pi.JPG) (https://imageshack.com/i/0uj5piJ)


as soon as I saw this painting online for the first time, I immediately said, "That's the Psycho house!" Indeed, Wikipedia says that Hitch modeled the Bates home on the house in this painting (see the third paragraph of the "Filming" section of Psycho's Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_%281960_film%29#Filming )


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 26, 2014, 10:15:23 PM
Hopper's Night Windows

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/10/yw0l.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/0ayw0lj)

a classic painting of one of Hopper's themes, voyeurism, specifically as seen from the elevated train. This painting is almost certainly from the perspective (or at least the fantasy  ;)) of a passenger on an elevated train, catching a glimpse through an open window as the train rolls by.....


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 26, 2014, 10:32:40 PM
This a watercolor is called Box Factory, Gloucester (1928)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/40/9hmb.JPG) (https://imageshack.com/i/149hmbJ)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 26, 2014, 10:39:44 PM
Vincent Van Gogh's Portrait of Joseph Roulin at MoMA (taken on my phone)

    (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/339/photo09061551.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/9fphoto09061551j)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on February 27, 2014, 04:40:38 PM
all nice  O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 27, 2014, 08:33:39 PM
thanks, CJ

I have to find a new file-sharing site to use, ImageShack is awful. Once I find a new site, I can hopefully post more of these pics and at a greater resolution. Any suggestions?


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 12:20:03 AM
Image Shack tells me my free trial is ending in 4 days, at which point I'll still be able to use links from my previusly uploaded pictures, but I won't be able to upload any more pictures. So, I'll hurry up and upload all the pics of artwork I'd been planning to do for a few months now. (And I promise y'all this is the last time I mention Image Shack for a long time  ;) )

Okay, back to Edward Hopper:

Hopper's early paintings did not sell (because they sucked!), so in order to support himself, he did commercial art, and some etchings, during the 1910's and 1920's. By the 1920's (he was born in 1882, so he would have been approx. in his early 40's) he turned back to painting, mostly oils and also some watercolors, for the rest of his life.

Interestingly, his etching press remained in his Washington Square studio for the erst of his life (he basically used it as a place to hang his hat), you can see it in photos of his studio.

So here are five Hopper etchings I saw at MoMA. You can see how some of the themes that would come up in some of his most famous, later paintings, were already present here in these etchings.

The Lonely House (1922)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/43/uzvw.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/17uzvwj)


The Railroad (1922)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/585/of0t.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/g9of0tj)


Night in the Park (1921) - the museum lights were shining right on this one, so the photo is a bit screwed up
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/577/ym4d.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/g1ym4dj)


Night Shadows (1921)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/268/qtye.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/7gqtyej)


American Landscape (1920) Compare this one to the painting House by the Railroad http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=11436.msg170639#msg170639
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/18/rv5a.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/0irv5aj)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 12:58:45 AM
So Hopper is my guy, but I do like some other artists as well  ;)

probably my favorite non-Hopper painter is Giorgio de Chirico; (specifically, his "metaphysical" period, running from roughly 1911-1919 – his later work was largely scorned, and rightfully so IMO). Leone loved de Chirico as well. De Chirico's work greatly influenced the Surrealists, and Frayling says that Leone once described GBU as "de Chirico rides the range."

Here are 4 de Chrico canvases I saw at MoMA (The painting called The Serenity of the Scholar is oil and charcoal on canvas; the other three are oil on canvas.)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/35/l1qv.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/0zl1qvj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/541/iu1x.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f1iu1xj)





This large 1914 canvas is called Gare Montparnasse (which I believe is French for "Montparnasse Station") and is sometimes called The Melancholy of Departure, not to be confused with this de Chirico painting, from 1916, called The Melancholy of Departure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Melancholy_of_Departure )
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/691/52vq.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/j752vqj)



The Serenity of the Scholar (1914) This painting is widest on bottom, and gets narrower toward the top
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/571/nq59.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/fvnq59j)



Great Metaphysical Interior (1917)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/37/6d3e.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/116d3ej)



Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 01:10:35 AM
Andrew Wyeth's Christina's World (1948)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/543/oafp.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f3oafpj)



Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans (1962)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/854/94u7.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/nq94u7j)



Georgia O'Keeffe's Evening Star, No. III (1917) (watercolor on paper mounted on board) (there are some museum lights reflected in the top of the painting)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/802/yuoq.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/mayuoqj)


I far prefer when a painting is displayed in a plain frame, with no glass covering it. Cuz when there is glass covering it, then the museum lights are often reflected in the glass; also, when you stand in front of a painting to take a photo, your own reflection often appears in the glass. One example is the above photo of Evening Star, No. III; it was covered in glass, and you see the lights reflecting in it.

Here is another example: This is a photograph by Charles Sheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheeler who was a renowned artist as both a photographer and painter (considered one of the "Precisionist" painters) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precisionism This photograph, called Bucks County Barn (1914-1917, gelatin silver print)  is covered by glass, and you'll see my own reflection, as I snap this photo
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/208/f1jr.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/5sf1jrj)

and here is a painting by Sheeler with the very same title as the above photo, Bucks County Barn (1932, oil on composition board)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/203/gkvu.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/5ngkvuj)



here is another Sheeler painting, called American Landscape (1930) (as noted in the Wikipedia link I provided above on Precisionism, that movement "took as its main themes industrialization and the modernization of the American landscape, the structures of which were depicted in precise, sharply defined geometrical forms." This painting is of "the Ford Motor Company plant on the River Rouge near Detroit, Michigan." http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79032
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/853/djne.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/npdjnej)

The above photo also has lights reflected in it. So anytime you see the reflection of lights and/or people in a photo, that means the photo was covered in glass.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 01:43:19 AM
Btw, all the American works of art that I've been posting here in the past couple of days, were from MoMA's exhibit called "AMERICAN MODERN" HOPPER TO OKEEFFE," which ran from August 17, 2013 - January 26, 2014. I visited MoMA twice during this exhibit (once with DJ, and courtesy of his member passes  ;) ). Here are all 119 works from the exhibit (all from MoMA's permanent collection) in alphabetical order by artist http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ATA%3AE%3AAmericanModern&page_number=1&template_id=6&sort_order=4


Besides the de Chiricos, everything I've posted till now was American. Now, we shall move on to some works from the European masters, on MoMA's fifth floor.

Firstly, here is Vincent Van Gogh's The Starry Night (1889)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/22/8sdl.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/0m8sdlj)



Van Gogh's The Olive Trees (1889)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/801/80w5.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/m980w5j)



Henri Rousseau's The Dream (1910) This is an enormous canvas; it's more than six-and-a-half feet high, and more than nine-and-a-half feet wide! The exact measurements are 80.5 inches by 117.5 inches, or 204.5 centimeters by 298.5 centimeters.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/197/rhix.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/5hrhixj)

This picture is of the same painting; but for this photo, I stepped back a little, to give some perspective on how enormous this canvas is
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/571/nv4z.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/fvnv4zj)



Henri Rousseau's The Sleeping Gypsy (1897)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/703/t1xy8.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/jjt1xy8j)




Edvard Munch's The Storm (1893)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/839/svsq.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/nbsvsqj)



Gustav Klimt's The Park (1910 or earlier)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/836/y86q.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/n8y86qj)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 04:02:37 AM
whew! okay, that's all for now.

I have some more MoMA paintings, including some Monets, to post. Plus I have a huge file of Hoppers from a major Hopper exhibit at Whitney, I'll post them sometime soon, since I know there is at least one person (CJ) that wants to see them

in the meantime, until I get around to posting my own, you can check out the Monet collection at MoMA here http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=4058 (of the seven works shown there right to left, I saw the four on the right.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on February 28, 2014, 05:12:22 AM
thanks, CJ

I have to find a new file-sharing site to use, ImageShack is awful. Once I find a new site, I can hopefully post more of these pics and at a greater resolution. Any suggestions?

I use Photobucet, but I usually re-size my images (they are poster size when taken) and I often crop them and then bring them down to 16x20 or 8x10 efore I upload.
PS I would have cropped out the picture frames.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 06:34:23 AM

PS I would have cropped out the picture frames.

If I had taken all these photos from straight-on with a tripod or sumthin, then maybe I could have cropped the frames. But I took these with a handheld camera - of course, I tried as much as possible to take it from straight-on, but often that's difficult with all the people around, some are taken slightly from the side, as you can see; therefore, some of these pics are at angles or slightly crooked or whatever, so it would be very hard to crop the frames, and I couldn't crop all the frames and just the frames, cuz I'd have to crop a straight line. So, if it's a choice of cropping part of a frame or part of a picture, etc., I figured, why mess with it, just keep it as is. I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing the frames (besides, when you go to the museum, that's how you see the painting  ;) )


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 06:37:45 AM
I use Photobucet, but I usually re-size my images (they are poster size when taken) and I often crop them and then bring them down to 16x20 or 8x10 efore I upload.

well I uploaded the full-size pics to Image Shack, but these links here are to what Image Shack calls the "medium sized" version of each picture, which is 640X480.  I am not sure how much resolution/quality is lost, but I think it's alright.

Does Photobucket give everyone a permanently free account for unlimited uploads, or do they do like Image Shack and give free account for a while and then charge you for further uploads?


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: moviesceleton on February 28, 2014, 06:44:30 AM
Does Photobucket give everyone a permanently free account for unlimited uploads, or do they do like Image Shack and give free account for a while and then charge you for further uploads?
I've been using it for free the whole time I've been a SLWB member. No problems ever.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2014, 07:08:41 AM
alright thanks, I just made a Photobucket account  O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on February 28, 2014, 03:12:52 PM
well I uploaded the full-size pics to Image Shack, but these links here are to what Image Shack calls the "medium sized" version of each picture, which is 640X480.  I am not sure how much resolution/quality is lost, but I think it's alright.

Does Photobucket give everyone a permanently free account for unlimited uploads, or do they do like Image Shack and give free account for a while and then charge you for further uploads?

free


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Groggy on March 02, 2014, 10:57:49 AM
thanks, CJ

I have to find a new file-sharing site to use, ImageShack is awful. Once I find a new site, I can hopefully post more of these pics and at a greater resolution. Any suggestions?

Yeah Photobucket is definitely better than Imageshack. Keep the pics coming Drink. O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 03, 2014, 01:32:44 PM
Thanks, glad to hear you appreciate 'em; as long as there's someone who's interested, I am glad to keep posting more.... So, a few months ago, I went to the Whitney museum for a major Hopper exhibit; once I get the pics uploaded to my new Photobucket account, I'll post them here.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2014, 01:22:29 AM
Okay, so now I am using Photobucket, I am still figuring it all out, how to use it and re-size stuff, etc., so please bear with me, excuse me if the images are occasionally too big; I am doin my best to set it right:

and here is the Whitney Hopper exhibit: all paintings are oil on canvas unless otherwise noted

first two links I am posting are to photos I did not take myself, but they are great pics so I am posting them. First is to Wikipedia's photo of Nighthawks, which I am posting cuz, having seen Nighthawks, I can tell ya that this pic looks exactly like the real thing, it's the best photo of this painting I've ever seen
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/Nighthawks-wikipedia_zps1d49e8cc.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/Nighthawks-wikipedia_zps1d49e8cc.jpg.html)


and here is a watercolor called The Lily Apartments (1926) (I ripped this off somewhere online, I wish I could remember; I think it may be artnet.com)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/kuspit11-22-6_zpsdaf28b28.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/kuspit11-22-6_zpsdaf28b28.jpg.html)

okay, all the rest of the pics were taken by yours truly (a few of these are duplicates of Hoppers I posted earlier; the earlier ones were taken at MoMA, these at Whitney, and with the same camera, so you can compare the lighting between the two museums

here is the great Gas (1940)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/f638b755-eec2-443a-8afc-df0f1764ff80_zps8a95991b.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/f638b755-eec2-443a-8afc-df0f1764ff80_zps8a95991b.jpg.html)

Route 6, Eastham (1941)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/957e6905-ab6e-426e-a4cd-d9dd3202c55f_zpsfdb83efa.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/957e6905-ab6e-426e-a4cd-d9dd3202c55f_zpsfdb83efa.jpg.html)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2014, 01:56:09 AM
This beaut is Manhattan Bridge Loop (1928), Frayling says Leone used it in designing the sets for OUATIA
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/c7bdb34d-1183-4f81-8c57-11f02fab6d0e_zps2afdb3e7.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/c7bdb34d-1183-4f81-8c57-11f02fab6d0e_zps2afdb3e7.jpg.html)


Here is another 1928 oil that was used in designing sets for OUATIA: From Williamsburg Bridge
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/527c3b46-6588-4c6b-a406-9778743ff680_zps9b57be88.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/527c3b46-6588-4c6b-a406-9778743ff680_zps9b57be88.jpg.html)

Here is Early Sunday Morning (1930), displayed on the actual easel that Hopper used for many years, in his Washington Square studio. Frayling never mentioned this painting as influencing the sets for OUATIA, but I wonder if it did.....
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/6190a9e2-9e9d-49e6-9740-078fee1061fc_zpse527cf7f.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/6190a9e2-9e9d-49e6-9740-078fee1061fc_zpse527cf7f.jpg.html)

Conference at Night (1949)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/acc4ff66-ef47-42c0-8e26-adfaf4f80807_zps9f0c252b.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/acc4ff66-ef47-42c0-8e26-adfaf4f80807_zps9f0c252b.jpg.html)



Sun in an Empty Room (1963)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/4e1cb6e1-76e5-4141-a491-9f4f0fbef0b0_zpsc2c22fcc.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/4e1cb6e1-76e5-4141-a491-9f4f0fbef0b0_zpsc2c22fcc.jpg.html)


Morning in a City (1944)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/90f7561b-5264-4888-a02f-f9e30db3f9f4_zpse259ded7.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/90f7561b-5264-4888-a02f-f9e30db3f9f4_zpse259ded7.jpg.html)



A Woman in the Sun (1961)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/ec75df95-7e51-4082-aa8e-ab37e95c6219_zps613d0167.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/ec75df95-7e51-4082-aa8e-ab37e95c6219_zps613d0167.jpg.html)



Office at Night (1940)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/4fecd2bf-f0c2-446e-b5ed-8a9b08b14e1e_zpsffd8ccb5.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/4fecd2bf-f0c2-446e-b5ed-8a9b08b14e1e_zpsffd8ccb5.jpg.html)

an early painting, The Artist's Bedroom, Nyack (1905-1906) oil on board
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/dbd3273c-0aca-430c-963c-45a904a2a8dc_zpsce7479ab.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/dbd3273c-0aca-430c-963c-45a904a2a8dc_zpsce7479ab.jpg.html)

Here is another early painting, called Soir Bleu (1914) (IMO, this is the most uncharacteristic Hopper painting ever; the most unlike any of his other paintings; show this to anyone who doesn't know it's a Hopper, and they'd never guess  ;) )
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/2139ad34-9c80-4ff7-8455-826307fd1dc6_zps7688378e.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/2139ad34-9c80-4ff7-8455-826307fd1dc6_zps7688378e.jpg.html)


more to come....  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on March 04, 2014, 03:13:29 AM
Soir Bleu (1914) looks a bit like a Degas or Lautrec O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2014, 03:29:22 AM
Soir Bleu (1914) looks a bit like a Degas or Lautrec O0

I don't really see Degas in it, but Hopper was a Degas fan, so maybe...


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2014, 03:43:02 AM


Conference at Night (1949)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/acc4ff66-ef47-42c0-8e26-adfaf4f80807_zps9f0c252b.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/acc4ff66-ef47-42c0-8e26-adfaf4f80807_zps9f0c252b.jpg.html)


Here is a funny story: someone purchased this painting, then returned it soon thereafter, cuz he said it looked like a Communist cell meeting  ;D (notice the year, 1949, which is smack in middle of the blacklist/anti-Communist period)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: PowerRR on March 04, 2014, 06:02:31 PM
Andrew Wyeth's Christina's World (1948)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/543/oafp.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f3oafpj)


Days of Heaven!


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 05, 2014, 02:11:33 AM
I'm gonna continue posting my Hopper pics taken at The Whitney Museum of American Art.

Btw, beginning with those two long posts of Hoppers I made yesterday, these are all from Photobucket; I sized the pics to a width of 680 (and the height will of course depend on the painting's "aspect ratio.") If you think the pics are too big or too small and would prefer I make them smaller or bigger, lemme know and I'll be glad to make the changes.

I'm gonna try to crop frames as much as possible, per the preferences of our dear CJ   ;)

Once again, all paintings are oil on canvas unless otherwise noted. Here goes....

High Road (1931) watercolor and graphite pencil on paper
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/5c652e23-e88a-42b9-bd28-6d803d4c054a_zps053d6d03.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/5c652e23-e88a-42b9-bd28-6d803d4c054a_zps053d6d03.jpg.html)


Rooms for Tourists (1945)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/8449dd43-2739-4219-bd45-37caa50a05db_zps8d0868d8.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/8449dd43-2739-4219-bd45-37caa50a05db_zps8d0868d8.jpg.html)


Mass of Trees at Eastham (1962) watercolor and graphite pencil on paper
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/26918fa3-c38c-49ae-96d1-a8919898dd48_zps43a91966.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/26918fa3-c38c-49ae-96d1-a8919898dd48_zps43a91966.jpg.html)


Here is a very early painting, called Man Seated on Bed (1905-1906), it is oil on canvas mounted on board. Of course, I've seen black-and-white artworks before - but in etchings and drawings; I can't recall ever having seen an oil painting in black-and-white.
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/e77a32b4-269b-427b-b923-1036f4af69ff_zpsd65d9db7.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/e77a32b4-269b-427b-b923-1036f4af69ff_zpsd65d9db7.jpg.html)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 05, 2014, 03:06:03 AM
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/aee36cf6-3692-433a-93e6-f5d2ae6cbf3f_zps2817324c.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/aee36cf6-3692-433a-93e6-f5d2ae6cbf3f_zps2817324c.jpg.html)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/fdd02103-2f10-4a6c-b24f-135b3e6aa563_zps2ae5c006.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/fdd02103-2f10-4a6c-b24f-135b3e6aa563_zps2ae5c006.jpg.html)







(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/49e002ef-fbc9-49d4-b451-66a95bdd658a_zps0b6c91af.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/49e002ef-fbc9-49d4-b451-66a95bdd658a_zps0b6c91af.jpg.html)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/654e30e5-5878-4a31-99e1-a93b01eb04e0_zpsc7f4fea7.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/654e30e5-5878-4a31-99e1-a93b01eb04e0_zpsc7f4fea7.jpg.html)





(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/9d943e38-4a04-49b0-82fc-57a005bb8636_zps3d0979f3.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/9d943e38-4a04-49b0-82fc-57a005bb8636_zps3d0979f3.jpg.html)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/c64fa45d-ee8b-486e-aad3-583a479e9ab4_zpsbc7f0b16.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/c64fa45d-ee8b-486e-aad3-583a479e9ab4_zpsbc7f0b16.jpg.html)



Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 05, 2014, 03:15:26 AM
As I've mentioned, Hopper started making really good stuff in the early 1920's; I don't have mush use for his prior work – and indeed, hardly any of his early paintings sold. Therefore, this next painting, called Small Town Station (1918-1920), is significant for me, cuz it is the earliest Hopper painting that I really like
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/0444633e-9771-428b-bba4-f7b5dce49df0_zpsdba17282.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/0444633e-9771-428b-bba4-f7b5dce49df0_zpsdba17282.jpg.html)



Railroad Crossing (1922-1923)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/a48fd6d2-e8e5-4f9e-b7ff-55cd22075057_zps63a5e05c.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/a48fd6d2-e8e5-4f9e-b7ff-55cd22075057_zps63a5e05c.jpg.html)



Burly Cobb's House, South Truro (1930-1933)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/9f7f6dfd-4695-4483-8d83-2d2a3a98fdf8_zps349cfaa6.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/9f7f6dfd-4695-4483-8d83-2d2a3a98fdf8_zps349cfaa6.jpg.html)



New York Interior (1921)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/4ca9f24d-4260-4b2a-a2ec-5682b454e271_zpsa9623089.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/4ca9f24d-4260-4b2a-a2ec-5682b454e271_zpsa9623089.jpg.html)


Italian Quarter, Gloucester (1912)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/f3f1c0af-7538-4ec0-9082-ca856fdaa554_zps51e2f91f.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/f3f1c0af-7538-4ec0-9082-ca856fdaa554_zps51e2f91f.jpg.html)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 05, 2014, 04:08:23 AM
I'm going to now post some of Hopper's early work.  
Hardly any of the early stuff sold. (After Edward Hopper died, his wide Jospehine died about a year later, and bequeathed all their works to the Whitney. So any Hopper painting that is owned by Whitney courtesy of the "Josephine N. Hopper Bequest" means that it never sold. Almost all of his work prior to 1920 was bequeathed by Jospehine Hopper to the Whitney; but very few from afterward.)
Lots of the early work was painted in Paris, and he also continued painting in the style in which he painted in Paris, and scenes of Paris, after he came back to USA. (He later said, "It took me a decade to get Europe out of my system." Thank God he did  ;) )
 Enjoy the shit!


(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/5992f932-3375-4fe5-85a0-f1b7bf08cd9c_zps8061e102.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/5992f932-3375-4fe5-85a0-f1b7bf08cd9c_zps8061e102.jpg.html)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/de7d84e4-fffc-485c-a7bb-2b99960b33c0_zpsa927843c.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/de7d84e4-fffc-485c-a7bb-2b99960b33c0_zpsa927843c.jpg.html)



(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/e3565c72-d026-4d91-9dc1-17a01ffbb88f_zps67ba663c.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/e3565c72-d026-4d91-9dc1-17a01ffbb88f_zps67ba663c.jpg.html)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/7ab9fed4-4a0e-44a6-a699-7df6a53a91cb_zps7a9dfc84.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/7ab9fed4-4a0e-44a6-a699-7df6a53a91cb_zps7a9dfc84.jpg.html)
If you wanna hear a short audio clip from Whitney about this painting, click here http://whitney.org/WatchAndListen/AudioGuides?play_id=195



Le Pont Royal (1909)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/74803e8e-5f4d-41c1-badc-39f8377058d8_zps2a408a55.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/74803e8e-5f4d-41c1-badc-39f8377058d8_zps2a408a55.jpg.html)


Le Quai des Grands Augustins (1909)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/f2dc50a6-0d36-46f8-aefd-12c395bd5e0d_zpsaa1c04f5.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/f2dc50a6-0d36-46f8-aefd-12c395bd5e0d_zpsaa1c04f5.jpg.html)


Ecluse de la Monnaie (1909)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/23717dcc-81a9-4733-821d-da94b722b410_zpsd3a0eaa8.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/23717dcc-81a9-4733-821d-da94b722b410_zpsd3a0eaa8.jpg.html)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 05, 2014, 05:13:10 AM
okay, here is the last painting from the Whitney Hopper exhibit; it is the great New York Movie (1939)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/aca33532-a9f7-48e8-b8e8-9bca0dd5b51c_zps5c40fd05.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/aca33532-a9f7-48e8-b8e8-9bca0dd5b51c_zps5c40fd05.jpg.html)

on pp.429-430 of STDWD, Frayling discusses the paintings (Hopper and others) that influenced the look of OUATIA. I'll quote the bottom paragraph of p. 429, in which he discusses Hopper:

The New York paintings of Edward Hopper which Leone found most useful, for reference purposes, were Drug Store (1927) and the artist's signature piece Nighthawks (1942), both of which provided the visual inspiration for Fat Moe's speakeasy-turned-diner. Also New York Movie (1939) was the template for the scene where Carol meets the elderly Noodles in the hallway of the Bailey Foundation, and From Williamsburg Bridge plus Manhattan Bridge Loop (both 1928) provided ideas for the set-dressing of the Lower East Side. Hopper, who spent most of his life in New York, specialized, as he put it, in "painting the loneliness of the big city." His people, when they appear, tend to be stranded in night-time limbo – and his best-known paintings have the eerie, artificial quality of studio-bound cities in gangster movies, like stills or snapshots from a film noir. They are echoes of the real city, isolated from their context. Such paintings, said Leone, "worked on my imagination."

[BTW, Frayling is wrong that OUATIA takes place on the Lower East Side (which is in Manhattan); it actually takes place in Brooklyn. (True, The Hoods took place in the Lower East Side; and true, the Lower East Side is the most famous Jewish immigrant neighborhood; and true, the name of the neighborhood is never actually mentioned, but) all the exterior locations that were filmed in New York were filmed in Brooklyn – and not just any random street that can pass for anywhere, but filmed in streets that are recognizably Brooklyn and can't stand in for the Lower East Side or anywhere else, including:
--the famous shot of the Manhattan Bridge that's on the movie poster, taken from Washington Street in Brooklyn;
--the shot of the Williamsburg Bridge on South 8th street, where the gang first sees Young Max on the wagon when they're trying to roll the drunk;
--the scene under the bridge where they run into Bugsy and Dominic gets shot;
--the scene where Old Noodles returns to the neighborhood - we see him driving his car in Brooklyn, as the skyline of Manhattan is clearly visible across the East River, and then he turns onto the street by the bridge, before getting out and walking around in the old neighborhood, which we see has changed so much.]


Okay, back to painting now... so I am kind of obsessed with the idea of getting a painting's color accurate, i.e., when I buy a book of paintings or a poster of a painting, I check up and compare a bunch of them, compare them with my memory from a museum, etc. to try to see which has the most accurate colors. Cuz frequently, I'll look at a few different pictures of a painting, and the color will look different – often significantly so.

Well, I've come to realize how much the lighting in the museum can affect each picture of a painting, and can affect how that painting's colors are perceived. Here is a photo of the same painting that's above, taken with the same camera I used for the photo above; but the above photo was taken at Whitney, while the one below was taken at MoMA

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/855/1ip0.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/nr1ip0j)

The Whitney painting looks so much brighter, the MoMA is darker. Both with same camera (both taken without flash, of course. So, when displaying New York Movie, Whitney must have used more light than MoMA did, and that's why the photo taken at MoMA looks so much darker;

So, maybe I shouldn't get so agitated over discrepancies in the color of a photo of a painting; maybe it's not really inaccurate, just different lighting  ;)

--

anyway, that's all for the Hopper paintings for now  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 27, 2014, 04:32:20 AM
Sotheby's held a big art auction on Monday, headlined by the sale of Monet's 1906 painting Nympheas (one of water lilies paintings) for $54 million, the second-highest amount ever paid at auction for a Monet painting
BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-27991977
Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-23/monet-s-water-lilies-sells-for-54-million-in-london.html


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on July 05, 2014, 06:25:12 AM
Nighthawks

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05moss.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05moss.html?_r=0)

& From Tom Waits Nighthawks At The Diner Eggs & Sausage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDo1617aXX4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDo1617aXX4)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on July 05, 2014, 04:17:39 PM
okay, here is the last painting from the Whitney Hopper exhibit; it is the great New York Movie (1939)
(http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab354/drinkanddestroy/aca33532-a9f7-48e8-b8e8-9bca0dd5b51c_zps5c40fd05.jpg) (http://s879.photobucket.com/user/drinkanddestroy/media/aca33532-a9f7-48e8-b8e8-9bca0dd5b51c_zps5c40fd05.jpg.html)

on pp.429-430 of STDWD, Frayling discusses the paintings (Hopper and others) that influenced the look of OUATIA. I'll quote the bottom paragraph of p. 429, in which he discusses Hopper:

The New York paintings of Edward Hopper which Leone found most useful, for reference purposes, were Drug Store (1927) and the artist's signature piece Nighthawks (1942), both of which provided the visual inspiration for Fat Moe's speakeasy-turned-diner. Also New York Movie (1939) was the template for the scene where Carol meets the elderly Noodles in the hallway of the Bailey Foundation, and From Williamsburg Bridge plus Manhattan Bridge Loop (both 1928) provided ideas for the set-dressing of the Lower East Side. Hopper, who spent most of his life in New York, specialized, as he put it, in "painting the loneliness of the big city." His people, when they appear, tend to be stranded in night-time limbo – and his best-known paintings have the eerie, artificial quality of studio-bound cities in gangster movies, like stills or snapshots from a film noir. They are echoes of the real city, isolated from their context. Such paintings, said Leone, "worked on my imagination."

[BTW, Frayling is wrong that OUATIA takes place on the Lower East Side (which is in Manhattan); it actually takes place in Brooklyn. (True, The Hoods took place in the Lower East Side; and true, the Lower East Side is the most famous Jewish immigrant neighborhood; and true, the name of the neighborhood is never actually mentioned, but) all the exterior locations that were filmed in New York were filmed in Brooklyn – and not just any random street that can pass for anywhere, but filmed in streets that are recognizably Brooklyn and can't stand in for the Lower East Side or anywhere else, including:
--the famous shot of the Manhattan Bridge that's on the movie poster, taken from Washington Street in Brooklyn;
--the shot of the Williamsburg Bridge on South 8th street, where the gang first sees Young Max on the wagon when they're trying to roll the drunk;
--the scene under the bridge where they run into Bugsy and Dominic gets shot;
--the scene where Old Noodles returns to the neighborhood - we see him driving his car in Brooklyn, as the skyline of Manhattan is clearly visible across the East River, and then he turns onto the street by the bridge, before getting out and walking around in the old neighborhood, which we see has changed so much.]


Okay, back to painting now... so I am kind of obsessed with the idea of getting a painting's color accurate, i.e., when I buy a book of paintings or a poster of a painting, I check up and compare a bunch of them, compare them with my memory from a museum, etc. to try to see which has the most accurate colors. Cuz frequently, I'll look at a few different pictures of a painting, and the color will look different – often significantly so.

Well, I've come to realize how much the lighting in the museum can affect each picture of a painting, and can affect how that painting's colors are perceived. Here is a photo of the same painting that's above, taken with the same camera I used for the photo above; but the above photo was taken at Whitney, while the one below was taken at MoMA

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/855/1ip0.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/nr1ip0j)

The Whitney painting looks so much brighter, the MoMA is darker. Both with same camera (both taken without flash, of course. So, when displaying New York Movie, Whitney must have used more light than MoMA did, and that's why the photo taken at MoMA looks so much darker;

So, maybe I should get so agitated over discrepancies in the color of a photo of a painting; maybe it's not really inaccurate, just different lighting  ;)
I would never have thought that museum lighting could make such a difference. Well done, Drink!  O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on July 05, 2014, 05:03:53 PM
Quote
[BTW, Frayling is wrong that OUATIA takes place on the Lower East Side (which is in Manhattan); it actually takes place in Brooklyn. (True, The Hoods took place in the Lower East Side; and true, the Lower East Side is the most famous Jewish immigrant neighborhood; and true, the name of the neighborhood is never actually mentioned, but) all the exterior locations that were filmed in New York were filmed in Brooklyn – and not just any random street that can pass for anywhere, but filmed in streets that are recognizably Brooklyn and can't stand in for the Lower East Side or anywhere else

I don't think there was enough of the Lower East Side left to shoot back in 1983 and Brooklyn was a good stand in obviously

"--the famous shot of the Manhattan Bridge that's on the movie poster, taken from Washington Street in Brooklyn"
How the shot should have looked Pike & Henry St. Manhattan, looking at Brooklyn

(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/PikeampHenySt_zpsf35b11d1.jpg)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 06, 2014, 09:05:26 AM

So, maybe I should get so agitated over discrepancies in the color of a photo of a painting; maybe it's not really inaccurate, just different lighting  ;)


obviously, there is a typo in that sentence; it should have said, "So maybe I shouldn't get so agitated over discrepancies ... " I will update the original post to correct that typo  :)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 06, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nighthawks

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05moss.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05moss.html?_r=0)


Any Hopper fan knows that he generally didn't paint exact copies of places out of doors. Rather, he would make a bunch of sketches, bring them to the studio, and then make a painting based on those sketches – but using his imagination as inspiration as much as using the specific place. Just cuz he was a realist painter doesn't mean he painted places exactly as they appear (with the possible exception of some paintings that are specifically named after a place, like The Circle Theater http://www.wikiart.org/en/edward-hopper/the-circle-theatre or Sheridan Theater http://www.wikiart.org/en/edward-hopper/sheridan-theatre , but that is just a guess ). It's true that one of the famous mysteries Hopper fans love talking about is, "Which place really inspired Nighthawks?" But the fact that there isn't one specific place that looks like the diner in Nighthawks doesn't surprise or disappoint me. To the contrary. Hopper's New York was the New York of his imagination.
And this writer bemoaning modernization and new buildings replacing old ones, nothing makes me roll my eyes more than that sort of shit.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 06, 2014, 09:34:27 AM
was in a used book store the other day, got a nice book called "The Hudson River and Its Painters," by John K. Howat http://goo.gl/pJe2ar

Has about 100 paintings of by the Hudson River School; I thought it was cool how the paintings are arranged in geographic order, following the river from New York City, going up through the suburbs and upstate .... About 30 of the plates are in black and white, which is absolutely useless (except to inform you of the name of the painting so you can search for it in color elsewhere), but about 70 plates are in color, and many of them are beauts. This is my introduction to the Hudson River School, and I'll definitely be looking into it more ...  :)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 07, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Visited THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM recently; www.brooklynmuseum.org/home.php
 The museum is HUGE. It is 5 floors; the first two floors are closed for renovations now, but just looking through floors 3, 4, 5 took me and my friend 4 hours and 45 minutes :)
They have a nice collection of European paintings, and an amazing collection of American paintings.
Some magnificent Colonial-era portraits; great works from Hudson River School painters; and a Hopper painting called MACOMBS DAM BRIDGE.
I don't like the setup at The Brooklyn Museum for 3 reasons:
A) some galleries have poor lighting;
B) They often hang one painting on top of another; e.g., in the most egregious case, the bottom of the Hopper painting is 8 feet off the floor, way too high for normal viewing, and then the lights have a glare; very disappointed with how the Hopper was displayed;
C) When they have the placards with title/description of artwork, sometimes they will just put a few paintings together, then a few explanatory placards together, and it is unclear which placard is for which artwork! So that was annoying, but anyway ....

They don't just have paintings, but also furniture and silverware, etc. This was mainly on 5th floor.
3rd floor has a whole buncha shit of ancient Assyria, Egypt, Rome, etc. including 4 mummies wrapped in the linen wrappings, and next to each mummy is a CT scan of the mummy showing the skeleton, body inside each mummy. Creepy shit.



Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 19, 2015, 08:10:13 AM
So, the Whitney Museum of American Art will be moving into a new building in the Meatpacking District on May 1. (The Metropolitan Museum will be using the old Whitney building for at least eight years starting in 2016.)

To celebrate the new Whitney building, they will have an exhibit from May 1 – Sept. 27 called "American Is Hard to See," featuring about 650 artworks from the museum's permanent collection http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/AmericaIsHardToSee They haven't yet listed the artworks that will be shown in this exhibit.

DJ and I have made plans to visit the museum, probably in June.

In the meantime, I have plans to visit the Met Museum this weekend. We'll see what happens with that ...


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on March 19, 2015, 08:47:20 AM
I've been to the Brooklyn Museum once (on a school trip). That was probably 2009. I remember being really impressed with the floor that had all the old houses completely reassembled inside the museum. I would like to see that again.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 19, 2015, 09:24:17 AM
I've been to the Brooklyn Museum once (on a school trip). That was probably 2009. I remember being really impressed with the floor that had all the old houses completely reassembled inside the museum. I would like to see that again.

yes that was cool. I just wonder what was real and what wasn't. I don't think it was all original. As I recall, there were little signs saying some things that were real. I think some if it was just inspired by the old style.

There's plenty of shit there. Lotsa feminist shit, like The Dinner Party http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/
There was also some feminist photographer who decided to take a picture of a used tampon and call it art. I swear to God. The fact that certain things aren't discussed in public, like used tampons, irks the feminists. Next they'll be taking pictures of used toilet paper. There's also an "artwork" of a Tampon Wedding Cake - thank God these tampons are unused http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/gallery/vadis_turner.php?i=2221

The museum also was involved in a major debate when Rudy Giuliani was mayor; they wanted to show an artwork with feces on the Virgin Mary, Giuliani wanted to pull city funding from the museum over that painting. Google it if you wanna read about it. Seriously, the gov't has no business spending tax dollars on museums, and this is one of many reasons why – cuz then gov't chooses what is offensive, and possibly violates the First Amendment – but that's another story for another time.

But despite some of their recent tendencies toward new crap, the Brooklyn Museum is big enough that it has plenty of great stuff to look at. I particularly love their collection of American paintings. As I detailed in a recent post, my only real criticisms have to do with the physical way they arrange their paintings, but overall, my one visit there was a very wonderful afternoon. I look forward to going there again; maybe you and I can visit it this summer.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 23, 2015, 12:22:31 PM
gonna copy a couple of art-related posts that SOMEHOW wound up in the Vertigo thread  ;)

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=11406.msg177470#msg177470
drinkanddestroy:
 In other news, I was at the Met Museum today. (In addition to seeing their magnificent collection of American paintings), they were showing a shitload of French Impressionist stuff. A ton of Degas, some of his most famous ballerina pics, plus his nudes getting outta the bath which don't interest me; a shitload of Manets and Monets (including some Water Lilies, and his sunflowers), and all the other usual suspects - Van Gogh, Cezanne, Renoir, Serrat (I am sure I am mispelling his name), et al.
I am not sure how much (if at all?) is borrowed from other museums and how much is from the Met's personal collection.... I generally don't care much for Impressionism (except Degas) but I had fun with my beloved American paintings ... Anyway, if you can't get over to the Met, you'll have the next best thing - I'll try to post some pics I took in the art thread once my friend DropBoxes me the file of pics I took and I take the incredible amont of time to post it them one at a time through ImageShack or PhotoBucket ....
Btw, I saw the Hopper oils TABLES FOR LADIES and THE LIGHTHOUSE AT TWO LIGHTS (1929) and de Chirico's THE JEWISH ANGEL and ARIADNE (the latter being from his Italian town square series; you may remember that I mentioned previously how Frayling had said that Leone once owned that painting, and that I showed that the Met's own provenance page on its website never mentions Leone's name as having been an owner of that painting.)

Anyway, you'll see 'em once I get a chance to post 'em. Don't hold your breath  ;)


n_l responds:



Nothing is more breathtaking (to me) in painting than good impressionism. It can be almost as cinematographic as Dutch painting or even Caravaggio. Of course Renoir is usually the most cinematographic. Don't waste too much time on minor ones such as Pissaro though but keep an eye on early works by Monet: the power that comes from some of his simplest compositions is incredible but you may be more interested in the way he painted light (that's kind of the go to guy when it comes to representing light). The main value of his late works (such as his Water Lilies) comes from what they started (abstract painting) rather than their own qualities (he was almost blind at the time anyway).
Van Gogh and Cezanne are borderline impressionists. VG, though one of the greatest thing that happened to art, had more to do with the Fauvist movement if you ak me. They're also the closest Europeans you'll find from the greatest american paintings.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 23, 2015, 12:24:45 PM

Nothing is more breathtaking (to me) in painting than good impressionism. It can be almost as cinematographic as Dutch painting or even Caravaggio. Of course Renoir is usually the most cinematographic. Don't waste too much time on minor ones such as Pissaro though but keep an eye on early works by Monet: the power that comes from some of his simplest compositions is incredible but you may be more interested in the way he painted light (that's kind of the go to guy when it comes to representing light). The main value of his late works (such as his Water Lilies) comes from what they started (abstract painting) rather than their own qualities (he was almost blind at the time anyway).
Van Gogh and Cezanne are borderline impressionists. VG, though one of the greatest thing that happened to art, had more to do with the Fauvist movement if you ak me. They're also the closest Europeans you'll find from the greatest american paintings.

truth is maybe I do like some Impressionism more than I realized.

What I first learned about it was in some dumb high school art class. Monet was the god and to me it looked like somebody scribbling on a paper. Throwing light on a scribble. Furthermore, the book we used had black-and-white photo reproductions so I didn't even see the color. Didn't like Monet much and that turned me off from a lot. Even now, the name "Monet" has some reverence which I am not sure is appropriate. He did have some great uses of light, but some of that water lilly shit is, let's face it, just that.

As I mentioned, I do like Degas a lot, specifically the ballet classes; I don't care for his nudes at all. But I'm not so sure that Degas really should be considered an Impressionist, even though I know he is. I do not like Van Gogh. Those same awful strokes on every painting. I can tell when it's a Van Gogh from a mile away and it's still shit every time.

btw, here is the Met's Degas collection, saw lots of this yesterday
http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search?ft=Degas

Probably my favorite of his ballerina pics is the one called The Dancing Class http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/436141?rpp=30&pg=1&ft=Degas&pos=8
It is a TINY picture, oil on wood, 19.7 cm X 27 cm.

we all know that Degas's ballet paintings influenced the opening shot of young Deborah dancing in OUATIA, but I have often wondered if this pic didn't influence most of all. Somehow the color seems most muted here, kinda like sepia-toned, and also there is a mirror in back of the room as there is in that scene ...


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 24, 2015, 03:20:58 PM
Here are the three Hoppers canvases I saw at The Met:

The Lighthouse at Two Lights (1929) http://goo.gl/L02YyV

Tables for Ladies (1930) http://goo.gl/G3Rhpp

From Williamsburg Bridge (1928) http://goo.gl/xumDo7

The last one is of particular significance for Leone fans, because (according to Frayling in the OUATIA chapter of STDWD), that painting was one of those that Leone used in creating the look of the main street of the Jewish neighborhood in OUATIA.

You see, the Met has a very nice website with good reproductions of its paintings, it WOULD be much easier for me to simply provide the links, rather than actually posting the pics I took one by one through Photobucket. But admit it, if I post a bunch of links, nobody will click on them; when I post the actual pics, people do look at them. So I GUESS I'll eventually have to get around to posting the pics when I get ahold of them. In the meantime, you'll have to do with some links  :)

The two de Chrico canvases I saw were:
 The Jewish Angel http://goo.gl/rPXpMq
Ariadne http://goo.gl/OmYkmp

As I discussed in this post http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8921.msg164085#msg164085 Frayling has said that Leone owned Ariadne but (unless the Met's provenance listings are wrong!) Fraylng is wrong about that

-------------

Here are two mid-19th-century American paintings that I saw at the Met on Sunday which I'd never seen before – or even heard of the artists – but I absolutely fell in love with these paintings instantly:

Red School House (Country Scene) (1858) by George Henry Durrie http://goo.gl/blmfke
The Third Avenue Railroad Depot (1859-1860) William H. Schenck http://goo.gl/TJC2Xa


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 16, 2015, 03:24:12 AM
I would never have thought that museum lighting could make such a difference. Well done, Drink!  O0

Yeah, it makes a big difference.
RE: this issue of museum lighting: I recently read Gail Levin's bio of Hopper called Edward Hopper: An Intimate Biography. On p. 255 (of the original 1995 first edition), Levin quotes from a letter written by Hopper's wife, Jo, to the head of a gallery that was having a Hopper exhibit:

Jo then gave a lengthy description of the ideal lighting for Hopper's work, insisting: "His gorgeous windswept blue skies turn grey on you under yellow electric bulbs. Please don't be too stubborn to use blue bulbs for blue skies."


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 16, 2015, 03:38:06 AM
PS I would have cropped out the picture frames.

From pp. 321-322 of the same book mentioned in the previous post, here is another letter written by Hopper's wife, Jo, complaining about the frame chosen by a museum for one particular Hopper painting, Cape Cod Evening.

I am simply devastated over that frame. A very fine noble picture blotted out, absorbed by a wide heavy frame. A Beautiful frame – but deadly on that picture. Too overpowering, the 3 small scattered figured swallowed up. It's all nonsense this talk about the frame making no difference – & one not looking at the frame. The frame is part of the picture and is deciding as the light in which a picture is shown. Anyone knows what a hat will do to a woman – hat & all her clothes. They could all but destroy her, belie all her qualities. It is a great grief that [Edward] will not have me around when he orders his frames.

CJ, as Jo says, "The frame is part of the picture and is deciding as the light in which a picture is shown." Everyone who visits the museum and sees the painting sees it in the frame. I don't think it's necessary to crop frames. Besides, when I post photos of paintings, I am re-creating the experience of visiting the museum. If you just want to see the painting without the frame, I could provide you with the museum's link to each photo instead of posting the photos I took. Every one of these paintings has a web page on site of whatever museum owns it; the image on the website is generally much better than the one from my digital camera and doesn't have the frame. But when I post stuff here, I am trying to give sort of a subjective little taste of visiting the museum.  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 12, 2015, 12:08:56 AM
New record price for an artwork at auction: http://goo.gl/7YsNkB


Picasso Painting Sells for $179M; Giacometti Sculpture $141M


By DEEPTI HAJELA and ULA ILNYTZKY



NEW YORK (AP) -- A vibrant, multi-hued painting from Pablo Picasso set a world record for artwork at auction, selling for $179.4 million on Monday, and a sculpture by Alberto Giacometti set a record for most expensive sculpture, at $141.3 million.

Picasso's "Women of Algiers (Version O)" and Giacometti's life-size "Pointing Man" were among dozens of masterpieces from the 20th century Christie's offered in a curated sale titled "Looking Forward to the Past."

Christie's global president, Jussi Pylkkanen, who was the auctioneer, said the two pieces are outstanding works of art.

"I've never worked with two such beautiful objects," he said.

The Picasso price, $179,365,000, and the Giacometti price, $141,285,000, included the auction house's premium. The buyers elected to remain anonymous.

Overall, 34 of 35 lots sold for an auction total of $706 million.

Experts say the high sale prices were driven by artworks' investment value and by wealthy collectors seeking out the very best works.

"I don't really see an end to it, unless interest rates drop sharply, which I don't see happening in the near future," dealer Richard Feigen said.

Impressionist and modern artworks continue to corner the market because "they are beautiful, accessible and a proven value," added Sarah Lichtman, a professor of design history and curatorial studies at The New School.

"I think we will continue to see the financiers seeking these works out as they would a blue chip company that pays reliable dividends for years to come," she said.

"Women of Algiers," once owned by American collectors Victor and Sally Ganz, was inspired by Picasso's fascination with 19th-century French artist Eugene Delacroix. It's part of a 15-work series Picasso created in 1954-55 designated with the letters A through O. It has appeared in several major museum retrospectives of the Spanish artist.

The most expensive artwork sold at auction had been Francis Bacon's "Three Studies of Lucian Freud," which Christie's sold for $142.4 million in 2013.

"Pointing Man," depicting a skinny 5-foot-high bronze figure with extended arms, had been in the same private collection for 45 years. Giacometti made six casts of the work; four are in museums, and the others are in private hands and a foundation collection.

His "Walking Man I" had held the auction record for a sculpture: $104.3 million in 2010.

Other highlights at Christie's included Peter Doig's "Swamped," a 1990 painting of a canoe in a moonlit lagoon, which sold for almost $26 million, a record for the British artist. Claude Monet's "The Houses of Parliament, At Sunset," a lush painting of rich blues and magenta created in 1900-01, sold for $40.5 million.

Christie's also had a Mark Rothko for sale. "No. 36 (Black Stripe)," which had never appeared at auction, also sold for $40.5 million. The 1958 work was sold by German collector Frieder Burda, who exhibited it in his museum in Baden-Baden for several years.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 24, 2015, 10:41:44 AM
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7efbdc11d14c4b96a73a7862e4822911/wyeth-paintings-owned-charlton-heston-be-auctioned

Wyeth paintings owned by Charlton Heston to be auctioned

By ULA ILNYTZKY

Sep. 24, 2015


NEW YORK (AP) — Three works by Andrew Wyeth owned by the painter's close friend and admirer, actor Charlton Heston, area headed for auction.

They are being offered for sale at Sotheby's New York on Nov. 18 by the estate of the Hollywood legend and his wife, Lydia.

The works are Wyeth's landscape "Flood Plain" from 1986, estimated at $2 million to $3 million; "Ice Pool," a watercolor of a winter scene created in 1969 that carries a pre-sale estimate of $150,000 to $250,000; and "Study for 'Flood Plain'" which the artist gave to Heston in 1991, estimated at $20,000 to $30,000.

Heston died in 2008; Wyeth passed away the following year.

The actor greatly admired the work of Wyeth and began a correspondence with him in the 1980s. It led to a long friendship and visits by Heston to the Wyeth homestead in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.

His first purchase was "Ice Pool," which he gave to his wife as an anniversary gift. In 1987, he narrated a documentary on Wyeth's "Helga" period, a series of over 200 paintings and drawings the artist created using his neighbor as a model.

The actor also wrote numerous articles on Wyeth, including for the National Review.

For Christmas in 1991, Heston received a package from Wyeth that contained the artist's study for "Flood Plain."

"I haven't been so excited about a Christmas gift since I was ten years old." Heston wrote the artist. "You've given our family not only a piece of your work ... but a part of the process ... a private part of your working insides."

In an introductory essay to the auction catalog, Heston's son, Fraser Heston, said his father considered Wyeth "a kindred spirit, having grown up in Michigan with long, frozen winters and long, lovely walks through the gloaming woods."

The three works are on view at Sotheby's Los Angeles galleries on Thursday and Friday.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 01, 2015, 01:39:25 AM
DJ and I visited the new Whitney Museum on Sunday.

I uploaded some pics to my Photo Bucket account; when I have the time to go through the process of resizing and posting them here one at a time, a real pain in the ass, I'll do it.

Good times. We saw one of Hopper's masterpieces, "Early Sunday Morning," which I've seen before; also one of his early paintings "Le Bistro" aka  "The Wine Shop" and some of his early nude sketches. Also saw two nice Hopper paintings that I've seen many times in books but this was the first time I was seeing them for real, in the canvas: "Seven A.M." and "Railroad Sunset."

Then, DJ and I had some Coronas at Hector's Diner. CJ would love that place - a shitty little diner that looks like it's straight out of a noir. And they have some movie posters also.

As we were leaving Hector's, we saw a couple sitting at a nearby outdoor cafe with a Siberian Husky, aka the most gorgeous dog that God ever created. I gave DJ my camera so he could snap some pics of me with the beaut. He (i.e., the dog, not DJ) even howled at me! How many of you suckers have been howled at by a Siberian Husky?  :P It was a little hard getting the dog to look DJ's way, but we got some good pics. You don't see Siberian Huskies in New York very often. Any day on which you get to pet a Siberian Husky is a damn good day  :)

Afterward, DJ and I passed a guy selling movie posters off a table on the street. Ya know, copies of old movie posters, mounted on cardboard in a plastic sleeve. I got a good deal: I bought 8 for $64: one from FOD, three from FAFDM, two from GBU, one from Casablanca and one from The Big Sleep.

Good times  O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 01, 2015, 08:30:58 PM
so now I am getting notices by some of the pics I posted (a long time ago) via ImageShack that the image has "expired"? including my former profile pic? wtf?

Thank God most of these paintings I posted here were done via PhotoBucket, which hasn't expired on me (yet). I hope PhotoBucket's stuff doesn't expire.

Anyway ... is there any new, modern free photo-sharing service I can use? (on computer, not a smartphone app) I'd like to post pics of some paintings but PhotoBucket is a real pain in the neck. If anyone can suggest a better service through which I can post pics here, I'd appreciate it  O0


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: cigar joe on October 02, 2015, 04:13:00 AM
so now I am getting notices by some of the pics I posted (a long time ago) via ImageShack that the image has "expired"? including my former profile pic? wtf?

Thank God most of these paintings I posted here were done via PhotoBucket, which hasn't expired on me (yet). I hope PhotoBucket's stuff doesn't expire.

Anyway ... is there any new, modern free photo-sharing service I can use? (on computer, not a smartphone app) I'd like to post pics of some paintings but PhotoBucket is a real pain in the neck. If anyone can suggest a better service through which I can post pics here, I'd appreciate it  O0

Check your pics again Imageshack was having problems yesterday,most of them showed up again, but I still see a few were expired. I was able to save most of the pics to my computer I'll probably upload them to Photobucket then change the image links to that.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 12, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Degas sketch at the Louvre returned to daughter of the artwork's Jewish owner from whom the Nazis stole it in 1940 http://goo.gl/NbILdO


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 12, 2016, 10:29:23 AM
Monet and Picasso among artworks to go on sale tonight at Christie's http://goo.gl/GbFbfH


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 20, 2016, 09:51:25 PM
Budget problems at The Met, MoMA, and Brooklyn Museums

http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-than-50-met-museum-employees-take-buyouts-1468601529


Employees at Three New York Museums Take Buyouts

By Jennifer Smith
July 15, 2016


A chill wind blew through New York’s temples of high culture this week, as three top museums announced results of their voluntary-buyout programs.

At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, about 56 staffers have accepted early-retirement packages—about 35% of those eligible, said Daniel Weiss, the Met’s president. Spokeswomen for the Museum of Modern Art and Brooklyn Museum said 42 and 24 people, respectively, took buyouts at their institutions.

More cuts are likely at the Met. It may ultimately shed more than 100 of its 2,300 staff positions—through a combination of buyouts and layoffs—as part of a broader financial overhaul intended to reverse deepening deficits.

Officials have said the museum is facing a projected $9 million to $10 million budget shortfall that could swell to as much as $40 million if no action is taken.

Layoff decisions are expected to come in the fall. At this point, Mr. Weiss said, “nobody is ruled out.”

The museum is looking to cut administrative costs by 15% to 20%, he said, and trim programmatic expenses by 5%.

Other cultural institutions are making cuts of their own. At the Brooklyn Museum, which is facing a projected $3 million deficit, a spokeswoman said that, in addition to buyouts, the museum is working to trim spending and boost fundraising and revenue from its retail and restaurant operations.

The Museum of Modern Art, which is undergoing a multimillion-dollar expansion, offered buyouts to employees aged 55 and older who worked a minimum of nine years; some vacated positions will be refilled. The museum closed its fiscal year on June 30 with a balanced budget, a spokeswoman said, and has no further plans for staff reductions.

The Met, the largest of the three institutions, has in recent years seen its expenses—most prominently, the rising costs of salaries and benefits—outpace its revenue.

The museum draws more than 6 million visitors each year, but while those numbers have been growing, Mr. Weiss said, ticket revenue hasn’t kept pace. The museum has a pay-what-you-wish policy, and not everyone offers the suggested $25 adult admission.

The Met has a $2.85 billion endowment and receives significant operating support from New York City. But its operating deficit more than doubled over the past two years, from $3.5 million in fiscal 2014 to $7.7 million in fiscal 2015, according to S&P Global Ratings.

In March S&P affirmed its AAA rating on the Met’s 2015 bonds.

“The question isn’t whether or not we have financial challenges, it’s how we manage them,” Mr. Weiss said.

This year’s goal: to reduce the deficit by $30 million, or about 10% of the Met’s roughly $300 million operating budget.

To that end, the museum is scaling back operating costs and restructuring departments for greater efficiency. Last month three executives who were hired in 2013 resigned, including two listed on the Met’s most recent tax filing as among its 22 top-paid employees. It is also seeking to boost performance in areas such as its retail business.

“Once we have done all those, we do have to turn to involuntary staff reductions,” Mr. Weiss said. “That work will begin in the fall.”

It isn’t yet clear how much money the buyouts will save.

The Met offered voluntary retirement to 159 people who were 55 or older and had 15 or more years of service. A handful of curators and conservators are taking packages, though Mr. Weiss said many would stay involved with the museum in emeritus roles. The rest were spread across other departments.

Mr. Weiss said between 40% to 50% of the vacated positions would likely be refilled “because they’re essential.”

The Met’s cost-reduction targets are intended to be proportional to the museum’s mission, with the 5% goal applying to programmatic departments “that actually produce exhibitions, publications, concerts and lectures.”

Administrative departments will see deeper cuts of 15% to 20%.

The museum may also prune departments that experienced significant growth in recent years. Mr. Weiss declined to specify which.

Over the past four years the Met’s director, Thomas P. Campbell, has embarked on an ambitious expansion of its modern and contemporary art program. The museum hired Sheena Wagstaff, the former chief curator of London’s Tate Modern, to head the department and also began planning a $600 million renovation of the southwest wing for modern and contemporary art.

In March the Museum opened a third location known as the Met Breuer at the former home of the Whitney Museum of American Art. That enterprise costs the Met about $17 million a year in direct costs, though museum officials say those are funded philanthropically and don’t immediately affect the bottom line.

Design work on the southwest wing project will pause in September, though fundraising will continue.

“What we are doing is not noticeable to the public,” Mr. Weiss said. “Overall the Met is every bit the extraordinary institution it has always been.”


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2016, 10:36:10 AM
Big art auction at Sotheby's tonight, including Edvard Munch's "Girls on the Bridge," which is expected to go for over $50 million
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOTHEBYS_IMPRESSIONIST_MODERN_ART?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT





Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2016, 09:54:57 PM
The Munch went for $54.5 million, but overall, the Sotheby's  did not go as high as expected

Here is an article from The Wall Street Journal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sothebys-sale-makes-a-thin-impression-1479181883

Sotheby’s Sale Makes a Thin Impression

$157.7 million auction of impressionist and modern art is dominated by bargain hunters

By Kelly Crow

Sotheby’s New York kicked off a major week of fall auctions Monday with a tepid, $157.7 million sale of impressionist and modern art dominated by bargain hunters who lobbed lone bids to win pieces by Edvard Munch and Pablo Picasso.
Thin bidding sapped the energy from Sotheby’s York Avenue salesroom, which met its $142.8 million expectations but only managed to find buyers for 81% of its offerings—a passable performance but a long way from the runaway exuberance of a couple of years ago.

The sale’s star, Munch’s 1902 “Girls on the Bridge,” sold for $54.5 million to an anonymous telephone bidder that Sotheby’s had locked in before the sale using a financial mechanism called an irrevocable bid, whereby the bidder pledges to bid and buy a work if no one else steps up in the sale. (In exchange for taking such a risk, Munch’s winner received a $2 million discount.) The Munch was sold by Swiss-based collector Larissa Chertok and was estimated to sell for about $50 million.

At one point during the sale, Sotheby’s auctioneer Helena Newman—the first woman to wield the gavel in a New York evening sale—tried to buy time and coax additional bidders for the Munch by sipping water and making small talk with a colleague who typically bids on behalf of Chinese collectors, to no avail.

It took only one bid to win Picasso’s 1963 “Painter and His Model” for $12.9 million. Maurice de Vlaminck’s Fauve scene from 1906, “The Orchard,” sold following two bids to another telephone bidder for $7.5 million, above its $7 million low estimate.

Dealers, sensing potential steals, largely held sway. London dealer Alan Hobart of Pyms Gallery won Picasso’s 1951 bronze bust, “Head of a Woman,” for $8.4 million, above its $8 million high estimate but far less than the $29 million record price paid for another Picasso bust nine years ago.

Zurich dealer Mathias Rastorfer paid $6 million for “EM 1 Telephone Picture,” a spare, geometric abstract by Hungarian artist László Moholy-Nagy, well over its $4 million high estimate. Moholy-Nagy was a professor in the Bauhaus school whose retrospective, “Moholy-Nagy: Future Present,” is on view at the Art Institute of Chicago—garnering praise and cries that his prices are low compared with his peers, such as Kazimir Malevich, whose pieces have sold for as much as $60 million. Before Sotheby’s sale, Moholy-Nagy’s record stood at $1.6 million.

The night’s biggest casualty was Henri Matisse’s 1923 “Woman in Blue at a Table, Red Background,” which was estimated to sell for at least $5 million but stalled at $4.2 million and failed to sell. Christie’s and Phillips will counter with their sales later this week.

Write to Kelly Crow at kelly.crow@wsj.com


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 23, 2017, 12:52:44 AM
So, I stopped posting pictures here a long time ago, for a number of reasons: ImageShack was awful; I posted a bunch of pics from there a while ago, now I lost the pics cuz it was over a year or two ago. Photobucket was better - those pics are still there - but it's still a huge pain in the ass to post pics here, having to upload them to PhotoBucket and then re-size each one etc. etc. It's insanely time-consuming and annoying. Anyway, since most museums I go to have a page for each of their paintings, I'll provide links here to some of the interesting paintings I have seen, from the museums' page or wikipedia. I hope you click 'em; there's some cool stuff here  :)

I will begin with some nice paintings I saw on recent visits to The Metropolitan Museum of Art, aka "The Met."

This is one of my favorites: check out the depth of field in "Prayer in the Mosque" (1871) by French artist Jean-Léon Gérôme http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436482

another painting with a nice depth of field (this one Christian): "Monks in the Cloister of the Church of Gesù e Maria, Rome" (1808), by French artist François Marius Granet http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/438659

Here is a painting by famous Western painting Frederic Remington, called "On the Southern Plains" (1907) http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11867

Here is a majestic Western canvas by Albert Bierstdadt http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/10154

some more Bierstadts:

http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/10158

http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/10150

http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/10151

http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/21186



I saw some nice canvases by Norwegian Peder Balke; they have an exhibit of his artworks on display through July 9th http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/objects?exhibitionId=df4cfbc5-24af-45b5-98c8-333a38431614  

here is a magnificent canvas by Norweigian Johan Christian Dahl - who was mentor to Balke -  called Copenhagen Harbor by Moonglight (1846) - it's in a private collection, but I saw it - along with some of the Balke artworks - when DJ and I visited The Met last summer; there must have been a special exhibit of Norwegian art  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Christian_Dahl#/media/File:Dahl_-_Copenhagen_Harbour_by_Moonlight.jpg

Finally, here is one more really cool privately owned painting that DJ and I saw at The Met last summer: The Three Sisters (1896), by Belgian artist Léon Frédéric https://curiator.com/art/leon-frederic/the-three-sisters

 


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 23, 2017, 01:28:33 AM

after each visit to The Met, which closes at 5:15 p.m., I then head across the street to Ronald Lauder's Neue Gallery, which closes at 6:00 p.m. http://www.neuegalerie.org/

The main attraction there, of course, is "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I," subject of the movie Woman in Gold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I

Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II is on display temporarily at Neue Gallery; 10 years after buying it for $88 million, Oprah Winfrey recently sold it to a Chinese collector for $150 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_II

one of my other favorite Klimts, which are also owned by Neue Gallery, are "The Dancer" http://www.klimt.com/en/gallery/late-works/klimt-die-taenzerin-ria-munk-2-1916.ihtml
and Forsthaus in Weissenbach II http://www.klimt.com/en/gallery/lake-atter/klimt-forsthaus-in-weissenbach-am-attersee-2-1914.ihtml

(the latter two links are not very good versions of these paintings; the actual color is much nicer than it appears at these links)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on April 30, 2017, 12:19:57 PM
April is poetry month in the U.S. Schools usually do poetry units then. The publisher Knopf sends out a poem a day for the month if you sign up for the free service. Today, on the last day, they sent me this. I figured at least D&D would get something out of it--maybe someone else will too. It is by Edward Hirsch.


Quote
Edward Hopper and the House by the Railroad (1925)  
 
 
Out here in the exact middle of the day,
This strange, gawky house has the expression
Of someone being stared at, someone holding
His breath underwater, hushed and expectant;

 This house is ashamed of itself, ashamed
 Of its fantastic mansard rooftop
 And its pseudo-Gothic porch, ashamed
 Of its shoulders and large, awkward hands.

 But the man behind the easel is relentless.
 He is as brutal as sunlight, and believes
 The house must have done something horrible
 To the people who once lived here

 Because now it is so desperately empty,
 It must have done something to the sky
 Because the sky, too, is utterly vacant
 And devoid of meaning. There are no

 Trees or shrubs anywhere—the house
 Must have done something against the earth.
 All that is present is a single pair of tracks
 Straightening into the distance. No trains pass.

 Now the stranger returns to this place daily
 Until the house begins to suspect
 That the man, too, is desolate, desolate
 And even ashamed. Soon the house starts

 To stare frankly at the man. And somehow
 The empty white canvas slowly takes on
 The expression of someone who is unnerved,
 Someone holding his breath underwater.

 And then one day the man simplydisappears.
 He is a last afternoon shadow moving
 Across the tracks, making its way
 Through the vast, darkening fields.

 This man will paint other abandoned mansions,
 And faded cafeteria windows, and poorly lettered
 Storefronts on the edges of small towns.
 Always they will have this same expression,

 The utterly naked look of someone
 Being stared at, someone American and gawky.
 Someone who is about to be left alone
 Again, and can no longer stand it.

 
 
 



 


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on April 30, 2017, 12:49:21 PM
This is amusing:
(http://worth1000.s3.amazonaws.com/submissions/438000/438136_a459_625x1000.jpg)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: chris on April 30, 2017, 12:59:23 PM
Poetryschool.com want visitors to their site to send in poems but I'd probably better not send them the following:

There was a guy from Brooklyn
who was really good lookin'
but his latest conquest was a bit of a lush
with a very hairy bush
and not very good at cookin'.



Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 30, 2017, 03:38:29 PM
Poetryschool.com want visitors to their site to send in poems but I'd probably better not send them the following:

There was a guy from Brooklyn
who was really good lookin'
but his latest conquest was a bit of a lush
with a very hairy bush
and not very good at cookin'.



 ;D  O0

She is now also my latest ex-conquest   ;) Like Obama, I am now doing a "pivot to Asia" - spendig time again with the very pretty but very prudish Miss Hong Kong who will never let me get nearly close enough to find out whether or not she has a bush. I mentioned that she hardly speaks a word of English. Well there is a new phrase she says all the time: "Don't touch me!"  ;D


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on April 30, 2017, 05:53:31 PM
The goat and the shrew! The perfect couple. Check out That Obscure Object of Desire sometime, Drink. Bunuel had your number 40 years ago.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on April 30, 2017, 06:17:37 PM
Drink, check this out. In 20 years, this could be you! http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2017/04/rewritten-version-peter-weirs-green-card/


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 30, 2017, 06:17:47 PM
The goat and the shrew! The perfect couple. Check out That Obscure Object of Desire sometime, Drink. Bunuel had your number 40 years ago.

Speaking of Bunuel: I once knew a girl (the one you met) who refused to wear anything but an old ugly pair of Doc Martens. Day after day, night after night. Occasionally in the summer she wore some not-very-pretty sandals. But generally it was the same awful Doc Martens. Day after day, night after night. I teased her, harrased her, pleaded with her, mocked her, ridiculed her, nothing doing. Those Doc Martens were the bane of my existence. Then one day, for the first time, I had one reason or another to open her clothes closet - you know, the place where you bury the shit that you never wear. I open the door ... and out tumbles about two dozen pairs of sexy heels. Unbelievable.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 30, 2017, 06:28:27 PM
Drink, check this out. In 20 years, this could be you! http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2017/04/rewritten-version-peter-weirs-green-card/

 ;D ;D ;D

The Hungarian babe - the one who loves me like CRAZY and worships the ground I walk on and is a smoking beauty with the greenest eyes you ever saw, but a tad nuts - mentioned to me this concept about getting married (not specifically with me; just in general for immigrants) so that in three years she becomes legal. Her brother paid some woman a few thousand dollars to "marry" him. They never spent a night together nor do they say a word to each other to ever see each other. After three years, they'll get divorced, but he'll have his green card.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on April 30, 2017, 06:40:10 PM
Then one day, for the first time, I had one reason or another to open her clothes closet - you know, the place where you bury the shit that you never wear. I open the door ... and out tumbles about two dozen pairs of sexy heels. Unbelievable.
Heels, I understand, are a lot of work to wear. A gal has to be pretty nuts over a guy to wear them when they're out together. If one can't be bothered . . . well, take it for a warning sign in the future.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 30, 2017, 06:51:18 PM
I'll tell ya something funny: Chinese girls hardly have hair. Both Chinese girls I have been with have never had to shave their legs! The Honk Kong babe's legs are like a baby's ass and she never shaved it. >:D

Our entire communication, btw, is through typing on our phone and then having Google translate it


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on April 30, 2017, 06:56:40 PM
yeah, you may want to bring up the pre-nup thing soon . . .


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 30, 2017, 07:00:10 PM
Problem is, she loves the hairless thing so much, she tells me she wants me to shave my legs and arms! I tried explaining that only queers do that.

But I guess I deserve her harrassment over that; you know, karma over how many girls I have harrassed for similar offenses  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 10, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
n_l, you'll wanna check out this exhibit in Paris:

article from The Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-paris-museum-conjures-a-dealers-starry-era-1488476256

A Paris Museum Conjures a Dealer’s Starry Era
By Tobias Grey

Parisian art dealer Paul Rosenberg had a knack for picking winners. In 1918, he signed an exclusive deal with Pablo Picasso, giving Rosenberg priority in deciding whether to show the artist’s latest work. Similar deals followed with Georges Braque in 1923, Fernand Léger in 1926 and Henri Matisse in 1936, with the Picasso deal lasting until World War II.

Sixty of the finest works that passed through Rosenberg’s gallery are reappearing in Paris at the private Maillol Museum in an exhibition called “21 Rue La Boétie,” after the Rosenberg gallery’s address. The exhibition, which may travel to the U.S., includes more than a dozen Picassos, ranging from his cubist period to more traditional works such as “Portrait of Mrs. Rosenberg and Daughter” (1918), which depicts the art dealer’s family.

Other highlights include the refined cubism of Braque’s “Fruit on a Tablecloth With Fruit Dish” (1925), the tranquil geometry of Léger’s “Three Women” (1921-22) and Matisse’s “Woman in Blue in Front of a Fireplace” (1937), which was stolen by the Nazis during the war and finally returned to Rosenberg’s heirs in 2014. The show tries to demonstrate Rosenberg’s belief that modern art, including cubism, grew out of an earlier tradition of French art practiced by artists like Édouard Manet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Paul Cézanne. The exhibition includes paintings by all three.

The show’s paintings now belong to major museums and private collectors such as David Nahmad, a retired art dealer, backgammon champion and billionaire. The exhibition includes letters, exhibition catalogs, artists’ contracts and a 3-D stereoscope viewer showing 10 black-and-white photographs taken by the exacting Rosenberg to record his gallery’s evolution over the years.

French journalist Anne Sinclair, Rosenberg’s granddaughter, wrote a book about her grandfather also called “21 Rue La Boétie” and has worked closely with the curators. The 68-year-old Ms. Sinclair—who was formerly married to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the scandal-plagued former head of the International Monetary Fund—credits her grandfather with having “an incredible eye.” She remembers how, as a 10-year-old, she often accompanied him on his visits to Parisian galleries. When they sat in the car afterward, Rosenberg would often mutter to himself things like, “That one’s a fake.”

Born in Paris in 1881 to a family in the antiques business, Rosenberg opened his gallery on Rue La Boétie in 1910. He displayed his collection of modern art on the ground floor and was careful not to alienate potential customers. “When he saw that a visitor wasn’t accustomed to this kind of art, or felt confused by it, he quietly ushered them upstairs,” where paintings by Edgar Degas, Camille Pissarro and Vincent Van Gogh hung, says Benoît Remiche, one of the show’s co-curators.

Rosenberg could also be withering, especially if he didn’t appreciate an artist’s work. “He rejected [Salvador] Dalí when he asked my grandfather to represent him by saying: ‘My gallery is not for clowns,’” says Ms. Sinclair.

Meanwhile, Rosenberg was establishing a reputation across the Atlantic. “My grandfather helped to organize the first exhibition of Picasso’s work in the U.S. in the 1920s,” says Ms. Sinclair. “In one of his many letters to Pic,” as the dealer liked to call Picasso, “he said that the reviews are great but that he hadn’t been able to sell a single painting. It was a long process.”

In Europe, the art dealer continued to thrive: In the first half of 1936 alone, Rosenberg was able to hold solo exhibitions of Braque in January, Georges Seurat in February, Picasso in March, Monet in April and Matisse in May. Mr. Remiche says that during Rosenberg’s lengthy career, he acquired about 4,500 paintings.

Then, in 1940, the Nazi occupation of Paris began to target Jewish art dealers. Rosenberg fled to New York and started a new gallery, while the Nazis turned his Paris location into a center for anti-Jewish propaganda.

During the war the Nazis stole around 400 paintings from Rosenberg’s collection. He recovered many of these before he died in 1959. Over the decades, his descendants have continued to make ownership claims, but around 60 paintings are still missing. The latest one returned to the family in 2015 was Matisse’s 1921 “Seated Woman,” discovered in the stash at German collector Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment in 2012. Ms. Sinclair says that the painting is still being restored.

The Belgian cultural agency Tempora, which specializes in exhibitions mixing art and history, worked closely with Ms. Sinclair on the exhibition, which closes on July 23. “If there had been no Paul Rosenberg,” Mr. Remiche says, “it’s unlikely that modern art would have become so thoroughly implanted in Europe and the U.S.”


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 15, 2017, 01:14:32 PM
Article from Associated Press about how the Met Museum is experiencing financial difficulty https://goo.gl/Jdpybk

You know I am a big art lover and go to museums frequently - the Met most frequently of all - but there's no reason why government should fund museums. The people who use museums (like anything else) should pay an appropriate admission fee to cover the costs. People who do not use it should not be forced to pay for something they do not use.

Metropolitan Museum of Art Works to Rebound From Money Woes

By VERENA DOBNIK ,  Associated Press


NEW YORK (AP) — The Metropolitan Museum of Art, a behemoth of culture and wealth, is rebounding from more than a year of internal turmoil and financial problems.

As part of its recovery efforts, the museum is considering a mandatory admissions fee for visitors from outside New York state. The set fee, possibly $25 for adults, would be the first in the venerable museum's 147-year history.

Facing a $15 million operating deficit, the Met filed a formal proposal with New York City this month to charge visitors who don't live in the state a set admission, instead of the current voluntary contribution.

"We've had financial challenges — significant ones — over the last couple of years that have culminated over the past year, and a rather significant need to reorganize the institution and to retrench our finances," said Daniel Weiss, the museum's president.

About 100 staff positions have been eliminated through buyouts and layoffs. The number of special exhibits staged each year is being slashed from 55 to about 40. A $600 million new wing that had been planned, but not fully financed, is postponed indefinitely. Instead, the Met will be focusing on more pressing capital needs, Weiss said, including spending as much as $100 million to replace a block-long "ocean of bad skylights" built in the 1930s over art galleries.

Met director and chief executive Thomas Campbell stunned the art world in February by announcing his resignation, amid criticism of the museum's financial management.

"It was clear we were on a path that was not sustainable, and if we didn't deal with it, it was going to get worse in a hurry," said Weiss, who took the reins from Campbell and is now the interim CEO.

He blamed the museum's financial problems on "a perfect storm" of money-sucking factors: too many costly special exhibitions; restaurants and gift shops where revenues declined; and public programming that was overly ambitious.

Revenue from admissions and membership also had slipped.

But make no mistake, there's no immediate danger to the museum, which has endowments of $3 billion.

Admissions fees might help ease the current budget deficit, which was about 5 percent of the $315 million in operating costs in 2016.

"The deficit is not high compared to the total budget, but remember, these numbers are not just about the money: Donors want to back a winning story, and any indication that it's not makes them skittish," said Andrew Taylor, an arts management expert at Washington-based American University.

The details of how the fees would work are the subject of talks with the city, which gives the museum $27 million in subsidies annually. The city also owns the museum site in Central Park and has approval rights for entrance policies.

An entrance fee of $25 would be in line with admissions to other New York art institutions, from the MoMA ($25) and the Guggenheim ($25) to the Whitney ($22).

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio gave some generalized support to the idea, saying it was "fair" for non-state residents to pay something. "I'm a big fan of Russian oligarchs paying more to get into the Met," the mayor joked recently.

Of the record 7 million visitors in 2016, 67 percent came from outside New York state and 39 percent of the total from abroad.

In recent years, the museum was targeted by a class-action lawsuit that challenged the Met's "recommended" $25 admission and accused the institution of obscuring the fact that people could enter for less. The case was settled last year when the Met agreed to say the price is only "suggested," with signs telling visitors that "The amount you pay is up to you."

Visitors have split on whether an entrance fee should be mandatory for some.

Angeleka Kunath, 64, visiting from Hamburg, Germany, said she feels foreigners should pay and would gladly do so to keep the Met running at its best.

"The price is worth it. Art is so important for our lives and humanity; it gives us inspiration it brings people together," she said.

Ken Wilson, 60, who was visiting from Greensboro, North Carolina, said he didn't think anyone would have a problem paying to get in.

"It's amazing and educational," he said. But he said it was unfair that New Yorkers would get a discount. And with the search for its new director underway, the museum could maybe discuss cutting the high six-figure salaries of its top executives.

---

Associated Press Writer Joshua Replogle contributed to this report.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on May 15, 2017, 02:47:14 PM
Why doesn't the $3 billion endowment generate all the revenue they need? Crooks, crooks, crooks.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 15, 2017, 03:43:40 PM
People like DJ don't pay for what they use. Cheapskates, cheapskates, cheapskates.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on May 15, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
As always there are two sides to the story. I do believe a government should subsidize art/museums. Not necessarily to the point of funding them completely but to a certain extent. Patrons of the arts are also very important. People with lots of money who help built new museum wings.

$25 (it was $20 when I lived in NYC) is a lot of money for some people. Granted, the MET is a huge museum, actually too big to see in one day, and it's worth it. I like the suggested admission, basically pay what you want. There are many people in NYC who can't just pay $25 but they'd like to see the museum anyway.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 15, 2017, 08:30:18 PM
As always there are two sides to the story. I do believe a government should subsidize art/museums. Not necessarily to the point of funding them completely but to a certain extent. Patrons of the arts are also very important. People with lots of money who help built new museum wings.

$25 (it was $20 when I lived in NYC) is a lot of money for some people. Granted, the MET is a huge museum, actually too big to see in one day, and it's worth it. I like the suggested admission, basically pay what you want. There are many people in NYC who can't just pay $25 but they'd like to see the museum anyway.

 There are plenty of people who like plenty of things but don't want to pay for them.  If you want to argue that the government should give food stamps and subsidized housing,  considering that food and housing are necessities, that's another conversation.

But art is no necessity and it is THEFT to force people who don't use things to subsidize people who do use them.  Why stop at paintings or sculptures? Why not government subsidize movie theaters? Hell, why not government subsidize everything? Oh yeah, cuz then we'd be France  :'(  if you like something, you should pay for it. I love the arts. I go to art museums and symphonies and classic films. I am thankful to all the patrons who subsidize it - spending their own money of their own free will. Government takes people's money by force. It's theft.  >:D >:D


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 15, 2017, 08:33:11 PM
A letter came in the mail today, asking me to renew my just-expired membership at the Met. The cost of membership has jumped to $110  :'( which means I'd need to go 5 times in a year to make it financially worthwhile to get membership, assuming I'd be paying $25 per visit


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on May 16, 2017, 09:22:58 AM
Well, we could call it theft but then again, people's taxes pay for so many things that they don't want or have no intention of using. If I wanted to sound snotty - which I don't, but probably do - Art is a noble cause.

Quote
Why not government subsidize movie theaters?
OK, you got me there. People seem to have no problem spending lots of money on crappy movies, and movie tickets are expensive nowadays. If they can do that, why not pay full price for a museum?


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 16, 2017, 10:02:01 AM
No doubt, my point about government not subsidizing art also applies to many other things tax dollars are used for, like parks. It should all be paid for by admission prices and voluntary donors. Not taxes, which forces people who do not use these things to pay for the people who do. Can you imagine, Jessica, being forced to subsidize theaters for the idiots who watch non-noirs? ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on May 16, 2017, 02:40:45 PM
Quote
Can you imagine, Jessica, being forced to subsidize theaters for the idiots who watch non-noirs?

Quelle horreur! I think everybody should be forced to subsidize the restoration of old movies, so I don't have to watch crappy VHS copies.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 22, 2017, 11:06:03 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-auction-week-the-winners-and-losers-1495147960

A Basquiat Sells for $110.5 Million at New York Auction Week
A look at the winners and losers at the impressionist, modern and contemporary art sales at Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Phillips

The Wall Street Journal - May 18, 2017

By Kelly Crow


Sotheby’s New York saleroom erupted into applause Thursday after a Japanese billionaire paid $110.5 million for a work by Jean-Michel Basquiat, the highest price ever paid at auction for a work by a U.S. artist.

The sale, to 41-year-old e-commerce king Yusaku Maezawa, provided a crackling cap to New York’s spring auctions, where sales exceeded expectations in many, but not all, categories.

The price for the Basquiat, an untitled 1982 image of a menacing, black skull painted in graffiti-style slashes, bested Andy Warhol’s $105 million auction record. It ranks the Brooklyn street artist in a rarefied, nine-figure canon alongside Pablo Picasso, Edvard Munch and Francis Bacon. The previous record for a Basquiat was $57 million, set a year ago by Mr. Maezawa, who is building a museum in Chiba, east of Tokyo.

“When I first encountered this painting, I was struck with so much excitement and gratitude for my love of art,” Mr. Maezawa said in an Instagram post shortly after he placed his winning phone bid.

Results of the auctions, which conclude Friday, suggest art shoppers are just getting started. Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips reported more than $1.4 billion in art sales throughout a week that swung from stable to exuberant—a sign that once-wary collectors seem increasingly eager to splurge on blue-chip impressionist, modern and contemporary art.

Other notables include a Cy Twombly abstract, “Leda and the Swan,” which Christie’s sold for $53 million, and a Francis Bacon triple portrait of his lover, “Three Studies for a Self-Portrait of George Dyer, ” which the same house sold for $51.8 million.

Sotheby’s $319.2 million contemporary art sale Thursday surpassed its high expectations; two days earlier, it also sold Kazimir Malevich’s $21.2 million abstract, “Suprematist Composition with Plane in Projection,” for more than its $18 million high estimate. Phillips’s $110.3 million sale Thursday was led by Peter Doig’s $28.8 million “Rosedale,” a 1991 view of a manor house.

Ahead of these sales, the houses made financial deals to ensure that dozens of their priciest pieces sold no matter what—an unsettling move that suggests sellers didn’t want to shoulder their own risk. Yet plenty of artists still underwent major market tests. Here’s a look at a few of the strongest and weakest performers.

WINNERS

Sculptures: After papering their walls with paintings in recent years, collectors must have realized they still had empty tabletops or patios because sculptures sold well at all sizes this week. Hits included Christie’s $57.3 million melon-size Constantin Brancusi bronze, “Sleeping Muse,” which sold to private dealer Tobias Meyer. Sotheby’s got $16 million for a Max Ernst figure of a chess player, “The King Playing with the Queen,” that once belonged to painter Robert Motherwell.

Collectors pushed Isamu Noguchi’s garden totems to three times their asking prices at Christie’s. Phillips sold Roy Lichtenstein’s two-sided view of a woman in a ponytail from 1996, “Woman: Sunlight, Moonlight,” for $10.3 million on Thursday.

Scholarly Moderns:
Collectors of impressionist and modern art appeared ready to pay premiums for cerebral works with more historical significance than wall-power punch this week. A dogged bidding war ensued Monday over Wassily Kandinsky’s 1925 “Top and Left,” an abstract intended to illustrate the artist’s Bauhaus color theories, with Christie’s chief executive Guillaume Cerutti fielding the winning telephone bid for $8.3 million. The Kandinsky was only expected to sell for up to $7 million.

Rich Hues: Why be content with a few colors when you can buy the entire box of Crayolas? That logic seemed to spur contemporary art collectors this week, benefiting artists like Mark Grotjahn and Njideka Akunyili Crosby. Both easily weathered their auction tests, thanks to works that contained dense kaleidoscopes of colors rather than spare, muted hues. Christie’s sold Grotjahn’s feathery abstract, “Untitled (S III Released to France Face 43.14),” for $16.8 million, just over its $16 million high estimate. Crosby’s patterned, nightclub scene from 2010, “I Refuse to be Invisible,” sold at Christie’s for $2.6 million, over its $2 million high estimate.

LOSERS

Bad Impressions: With so many A-list impressionist works already tucked away in museums, collectors sniffed or paid bargain prices for the classic leftovers that wound up at auction this week. Claude Monet is typically a powerhouse, but his “Waterlily Pond” from 1917-20 only drew a few limp bids, and it sold for $16 million edging over its $14 million low estimate thanks in part to Sotheby’s added fees. Monet’s wintry “Road to Vetheuil, Snowy Effect” also saw thin bidding, selling for its $10 million low estimate, or $11.4 million after Christie’s added fees.

Jeff Koons: Even as this New York artist’s 45-foot-tall “Seated Ballerina” was installed in Rockefeller Center, it was clear his art was almost nowhere to be found in the spring sales. This was a marked turnabout from recent seasons when collectors reaped tidy profits packing catalogs with examples of his painstakingly perfect figures of lobsters, monkeys and balloon animals. On Wednesday, Christie’s tried to stir competition for his 1981-86 sculpture of vacuum cleaners, “New Shelton Wet/Drys 10 Gallon, New Shelton Wet/Drys 5 Gallon Doubledecker.” In the end, it only took one bid from a collector on the telephone to win it for $7.9 million, just over its $7 million low estimate.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 03, 2017, 01:40:36 AM
DJ and I visited The Brooklyn Museum yesterday https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/
The museum was nice. Then we went to the Brooklyn Botanical Garden - that was disappointing. Mostly one type of green tree or another type of green plant. Then we went to a restaurant not far from the museum https://www.izzyssmokehouse.com/ DJ had the brisket and I had the (very spicy!) pulled beef sandwich. Terrific food. As usual, a good time was bad by all  O0

The Brooklyn Museum has a nice collection of American art. A small collection of European art. 4 mummies, plus other ancient Egyptian stuff, for those interested in that. A bunch of feminist crap for those interested in that. It even has restored/recreated several rooms of old houses, as well as two full houses - the entire house in the museum.

You can check out the stuff at the website.

 As I have mentioned previously, it's a pain in the neck to post pictures here, so I'll provide links to some of the interesting paintings we saw:

Edward Hopper, "Macomb's Dam Bridge" (1935) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1167

Albert Bierstadt, "A Storm in the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Rosalie" (1866) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1558
A few other Bierstadts here https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/artists/594/objects

Here is another Hopper, called "The Mansard Roof" (1923)
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/22909
It was not on display yesterday. This watercolor is, I believe, the second painting that Hopper ever sold, 10 years after his first sale! (In between, he turned to etching and painting ads for magazines to support himself, as his paintings did not sell well until the 1920's. That's right - Hopper, born in 1882, did not start really making money on paintings until he was in his 40's.)


William Merritt Chase, "The Moorish Warrior," (1878) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1441
(BTW, Chase was one of Hopper's teachers, but Hopper didn't think much of Chase; he considered his real teacher to be Robert Henri, whom he studied under after Chase.)

We saw a number of paintings by John Sloan, including "The Haymarket, Sixth Avenue," (1907) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/252


We also saw a number of artworks by John Singer Sargent https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/artists/11/objects

The Brooklyn Museum also has a nice collection of paintings by artists of The Hudson River School. Here is one example
Francis Augustus Silva, "The Hudson at the Tappan Zee" (1876) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1250

and here is one more example of a painting by a "Hudson River School" artist: Thomas Cole, "A Pic-Nic Party," (1846) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1356

Note that Cole was one of a number of painters of what became known as "The Hudson River School," (i.e., who worked near and painted images of the Hudson River, which runs from New York City way up into Upstate New York) who were actually born abroad (in Cole's case, England) though they can be categorized as American because they made artworks in America and about American subjects.

Since not all of you are able to come along on The Adventures of DJ and D&D, I hope that, through these posts, y'all are able to enjoy it vicariously. Especially the pulled beef  ;)


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 08, 2017, 10:22:22 AM
https://apnews.com/026d63adb9dc4520af480ea4d10802d0/Looted-painting-in-US-hands-ordered-back-to-French-family


Looted painting in US hands ordered back to French family

By PHILIPPE SOTTO

PARIS (AP) — A Paris court on Tuesday ordered an American couple to return a valuable Camille Pissarro painting looted during World War II to the descendants of a French Jewish family who owned it at the time.

U.S. citizens Bruce and Robbi Toll had loaned the painting “La Cueillette des Pois,” or “Picking Peas,” by impressionist master Pissarro to the Parisian museum Marmottan for an exhibition earlier this year.

But the painting was placed in temporary escrow after one of the French heirs recognized it and filed a lawsuit to have the work returned.

A civil court said Tuesday that the Tolls didn’t act in bad faith when they bought the painting from Christie’s auction house more than two decades ago.

But it ruled that initial and following sales of all goods looted to Jewish people by the French Vichy regime or its Nazi allies during the war were declared void by France’s post-war authorities in 1945.

Judges didn’t award any financial compensation for the Toll couple who purchased the painting for $800,000 in 1995.

“For them it’s a total loss,” their lawyer Ron Soffer told The Associated Press.

The Pissarro had different owners since it was confiscated and sold in 1943. Before the Tolls bought it in 1995, the painting was sold to an unknown buyer in 1966 by Sotheby’s.

The artwork’s estimated worth is now $1.75 million, based on the value covered by the insurance the Tolls paid for the painting.

Soffer, the Tolls’ lawyer, said his clients have decided to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, the canvas won’t be returned to the French heirs and will be kept in escrow by Paris’ Orsay Museum.

Soffer said the ruling could pose “legal uncertainty” on collectors who have bought paintings in good faith over the years.

At a court hearing last month, Cedric Fischer, lawyer for Bauer, argued that bona fide purchasers of looted property can still file legal action against intermediaries, especially auction houses.

The Pissarro painting was part of a collection of 93 master canvases amassed by French Jewish collector Simon Bauer over the first part of the last century.

The art collection was confiscated by the French regime of Vichy, which collaborated with the Nazis, and sold by a vendor designated by the then-General Commissariat for Jewish Questions in 1944.

Florida-based Bruce Toll, who came to Paris for the last month’s hearing, told the AP at the time that “there was no way I should know that.”

Bauer’s last surviving grandson, Jean-Jacques Bauer, 88, said he was “pleased” with the ruling and that the decision was “normal.” He added he respects the Toll couple and that they were probably “victims of a system” or “misguided” when they bought the painting.

The Tolls’ lawyer said in a phone interview that his clients “are disappointed, of course,” and that “they don’t understand why they have to pay for what happened during the war.”

“The Tolls just want to get back that painting they like so much and put it back in their living room,” Soffer said.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: dave jenkins on November 08, 2017, 02:02:32 PM
Moral: Never Lend Valuable Works of Art!


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
http://www.gettyimages.com/articles/travel/giverny-the-place-that-inspired-monet-s-art

http://www.gettyimages.com/articles/travel/van-gogh-s-paintings-vs-real-locations


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on November 15, 2017, 07:41:44 AM
Thanks for posting , D & D. I was in Giverny two years ago.


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 15, 2017, 11:24:03 AM
Have at least $100 million? You can purchase the only da Vinci currently in private hands, one of fewer than 20 known da Vincis in existence

https://apnews.com/9bf6e599d6f448eb8905a722544b7a11/Rare-painting-by-Leonardo-da-Vinci-auctioned-in-New-York

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/8-things-know-100-million-da-vinci-discovery-salvator-mundi-1111775


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 15, 2017, 02:40:33 PM
https://apnews.com/df7b79ffbe7043e98e7e22c861864c06/Newly-discovered-painting-shows-Washington's-wartime-tent

the actual tent is on exhibit at the Museum of the American Revolution https://www.amrevmuseum.org/collection/washington-headquarters-tent


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2017, 02:04:39 AM
A Van Gogh just sold for over $80 million with fees

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/arts/christies-fall-auction-impressionist-modern-van-gogh.html?action=click&contentCollection=Art%20%26%20Design&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article


Title: Re: For Love of Art
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2017, 02:04:54 AM
Have at least $100 million? You can purchase the only da Vinci currently in private hands, one of fewer than 20 known da Vincis in existence

https://apnews.com/9bf6e599d6f448eb8905a722544b7a11/Rare-painting-by-Leonardo-da-Vinci-auctioned-in-New-York

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/8-things-know-100-million-da-vinci-discovery-salvator-mundi-1111775

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is a historic day in the annals of art: a new record was set for the sale of any painting, whether at auction or private: the da Vinci painting "Salvator Mundi" sold for ... ready for it ... $400 million; when you add the auction-house fee that the buyer has to pay, the (as yet anonymous) buyer will fork over an astounding $450.3 million

AP: https://apnews.com/9bf6e599d6f448eb8905a722544b7a11/Leonardo-da-Vinci's-Christ-painting-sells-for-record-$450M

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/15/unimaginable-discovery-long-lost-da-vinci-painting-to-fetch-at-least-100-million-at-auction/

NY Times article on the sale (link includes video of the final minute of the 19-minute auction) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/arts/design/leonardo-da-vinci-salvator-mundi-christies-auction.html

This NY Times critics says the painting ain't no "Mona Lisa": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/arts/design/salvator-mundi-da-vinci-painting.html?action=click&contentCollection=Art%20%26%20Design&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article