« Reading Tonight |
It's 3:02 AM... »
on March 1 at
Marcus Gannuscio’s Neil (2008), oil on canvas, 38 by 32 inches
At Davidson Contemporary.
i will never understand why people devote that much time and effort into minute realistic detail just to paint something that is pretty boring
@1: Art is what what artists do, despite what you think is not worth doing.
I find it delightful. This is stunning superrealism!
Thank you. I was like "who does that LOOK like....??"
I like the bottles.
Reminds me of Manet's
Bar at the Folies-Bergère.
Obsessing over painting every wood-shaving was a criticism made of Millais' 1850 Christ in the House of His Parents, and by extension, all of the pre-Raphaelites, in their Asperger's-like attention to banal detail. But a lot of people still go for that kind of thing; look at the popularity of The Lord of the Rings. Pages and pages describing the relief carved in some dude's buttons and belt buckle, and then millions of dollars spent bringing every one of that dude's ornate buttons to life on the big screen. Kind of sick, if you ask me.
a beautiful craft does not equal beautiful art.
its the same as a metal band with extremely complicated instrumentals not equalling good music.
detailed paintings can be beautiful, don't know if this is or not, though i do admire the perspective changes of his body as he is leaning forward
I also like the bottles...and the countertop.
My (recently deceased) partner was a well-known realist portraiture artist, and I was always blown away by his ability to catch the "soul" of the subject. This painter has the same gift, albeit to a lesser degree--I knew immediately it was paint, where some of my partner's pieces weren't as obvious.
This is a good representation of "mundane, everyday life" as art. Think "Nighthawks" for a comparison.
Damn. Jake@2 beat me to it.
If you want that much realism get a camera instead.
@12: I used to think that too, until I spent 20 years in a relationship with someone who could paint a portrait that was photorealistic in less time than it took to shoot a photo and have it developed.
Obviously he wasn't as fast as digital--but there's something physical and tactile about skillfully arranged paint on a canvas that no photo can come near. It's a rare gift, to be able to paint life as life really is.
I love the style but hate the subject. The look of superiority on that guy's face stirs feelings of inadequacy.
I'll have a shot of twenty of your tears and a teaspoon of mini marshmallows.
Christian from Project Runway?
perhaps i'm anticipating the show tomorrow, but the subject of that painting really resembles stephen malkmus
@16: No way. Not even a mild resemblance. The Mo Rocca comparisons are more apt.
Also, I like the painting. As someone with a bar in my house (downstairs in the rumpus room, natch), I think it would look rather charming hanging there.
It's not like photo realism. What the fuck? use a camera? you're an idiot. This painting is awsome, just enough painterly, just enough realism. just enough exagerated movement in the guys shirt and in the bottles.
for once, Jen has posted something I like...
@6, my thought exactly.
It's a cool painting. It's realistic enough that it jogs you into thinking about the craft that went into its making. The colors are wonderful as well.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info |