RE: Your Thoughts On Art
April 10, 2019 at 2:40 am
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2019 at 4:39 am by Belacqua.)
(April 9, 2019 at 10:34 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: It's just that unusual styles are rather hit and miss when it comes to producing great art. For instance, Cezanne's style produced some really beautiful landscapes, but his paintings of people made them look like they were made of stone.
To me, Cézanne's figures don't look as if they're made of stone -- I think they are intentionally made to look as if they were made of paint. Because they ARE made of paint, and there's no reason to say otherwise.
Should a successful work of art NOT look as if it is made of paint? Because a painting is, after all, not a person, but a thing made of paint.
Or does "realism" demand that a painting NOT look as if it is made of paint, as in a sort of trompe l'oeil?
For centuries (i.e. before Magritte) artists made their paintings look as if they are made of paint in order to show that the thing depicted is not the thing, but something made of paint. Brushy late Titians, impossibly pure Bellinis, thinly-applied Tiepolos.
