Your Thoughts On Art

[Succubus]

Jan Van Eyck.

Too big to post here. See the detail in this.

The green tassels and the light shinning through the beads.

And now a WTF moment. In context.

Download them at max resolution and blow them up.

Don't forget the chandelier!

eta.
I don't know how many times I've herd art critics/commentators say 'You can lose yourself in this picture'. And my reaction used to be; whateverrrr...

No. The beauty of this thing is humbling.

Compared to this!

The Mona Lisa is an etch-a-sketch.

[Alan V]

Jan Van Eyck.

Jan Van Eyck and his brother Hubert were among the first artists to paint with oils and achieve such rich effects.  Most artists still used duller tempera paints at that time.

[Belacqua]

The beauty of this thing is humbling.

Completely agree with you that van Eyck is among the best artists who ever lived. His works are stunning -- superhuman. And of course impossible to reproduce. There's something about the richness of that oil paint which is lost in photos -- even more than other works. 

In fact it strikes me as an odd accident of history that when most people want to say something about great art, they tend to reach for Leonardo. Not that Leonardo isn't great, I hasten to add. He is of course wonderful. But he has also had way better publicity -- with Vasari, Pater, Berenson, etc., writing him up. 

Maybe it's worth pondering why van Eyck isn't nearly as famous, despite having finished more works, done more to revolutionize painting, and being Leonardo's equal in beauty. 

I wonder if in some way the thematic richness of van Eyck's works holds them back from a lot of people. The Arnolfini wedding portrait is maybe his clearest, most accessible work. (And it was one of my very favorites growing up.) But something like the Mystic Lamb in Ghent, or that incredible little triptych in Dresden, demand of us religious as well as aesthetic reaction. Their extreme beauty is a part of their Christian meaning. 

Not that the Mona Lisa doesn't have thematic appeal. As Thoureavian pointed out, there is a lot we can say about it beyond "it's a lady." But for the crowds in that room at the Louvre, there is nothing to bother or puzzle them. While van Eyck has little pokes in the eye for us, and puzzles. 

(Not that I'm complaining; if all the noisy tourists are drawn like ants to the Mona Lisa, I have the Mantegnas in the next room to myself.)

Likewise I guess Giovanni Bellini, who is far underrated in terms of fame and popularity, I think. Again, this is partly because those paintings lose about 90% in reproduction. His symbolic landscape in the Uffizi has color of an indefinable subtlety. His St. Francis painting in the Frick certainly outshines Leonardo's Last Supper, at least in its current condition. 

This is why I think great art will repel a lot of people. Though Bellini's color is tremendous and instantly appealing, there is also a delicious and challenging difficulty there, and it demands of us something more than we are accustomed to giving.

[Angrboda]

We engage in the appreciation of art because we desire pleasure and meaningful experiences. We seek to acquire tastes we do not have for the same reason. I had no taste for beer or tequila originally. I acquired both. And my benefit hardly needs pointing out. Acquiring tastes can provide us with pleasure and meaning in addition to that we wouldn't otherwise, but it also provides different pleasures and meaning, allowing us a greater range from which to choose. In short, acquiring tastes we do not have expands our world in ways which we normally would want our world expanded.

[Belacqua]

And I really don't need to understand the different tastes and perspectives of other people. 

It just occurred to me: there's another reason for not expanding your artistic horizons: money.

For the first many years I was in Japan, I was only interested in the more rough and Zen-like pottery. Bizen or that kind of thing. Simple and rustic and pure. I bought a few pieces, but it was never a big deal for me. 

Then about two years ago, I suddenly realized the appeal of the more ornate porcelain styles, especially 19th century Imari. It had always seemed too careful to me before, but something opened up in my brain and now I absolutely love it. I've been obsessed. 

The trouble is that this stuff is extremely collectible. For a while there I was spending a scary amount of money. Like, I have three soba cups with this style of dragon on them, and there's a variation with the same kind of dragon but flying over waves, and if I get two of those they will all look really good together. Goddam. And the next thing you know the credit card has melted in your hands........

[Succubus]

Jan Van Eyck.

Jan Van Eyck and his brother Hubert were among the first artists to paint with oils and achieve such rich effects.  Most artists still used duller tempera paints at that time.

What the hell did he use for brush's, single strands of Mink fur?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We engage in the appreciation of art because we desire pleasure and meaningful experiences.  We seek to acquire tastes we do not have for the same reason.  I had no taste for beer or tequila originally.  I acquired both.  And my benefit hardly needs pointing out.  Acquiring tastes can provide us with pleasure and meaning in addition to that we wouldn't otherwise, but it also provides different pleasures and meaning, allowing us a greater range from which to choose.  In short, acquiring tastes we do not have expands our world in ways which we normally would want our world expanded.

It doesn't necessarily that engaging in the appreciation of art equates to acquiring new artistic tastes.

Given the mind-numbingly vast array of art across different media from which to choose, it seems that the range is already sufficient.

Boru

[Succubus]

Belaqua thank's for that excellent appraisal of van Eyck.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And I really don't need to understand the different tastes and perspectives of other people. 

It just occurred to me: there's another reason for not expanding your artistic horizons: money.

For the first many years I was in Japan, I was only interested in the more rough and Zen-like pottery. Bizen or that kind of thing. Simple and rustic and pure. I bought a few pieces, but it was never a big deal for me. 

Then about two years ago, I suddenly realized the appeal of the more ornate porcelain styles, especially 19th century Imari. It had always seemed too careful to me before, but something opened up in my brain and now I absolutely love it. I've been obsessed. 

The trouble is that this stuff is extremely collectible. For a while there I was spending a scary amount of money. Like, I have three soba cups with this style of dragon on them, and there's a variation with the same kind of dragon but flying over waves, and if I get two of those they will all look really good together. Goddam. And the next thing you know the credit card has melted in your hands........

I don't think that's germane to the topic at hand.  One can appreciate a particular style of art without necessarily having to own it.  Rodin is my favourite sculptor, I can enjoy the pieces without having to own them.

Tangent:  I'd LOVE to go back to Japan.

Boru

[Alan V]

The beauty of this thing is humbling.

Completely agree with you that van Eyck is among the best artists who ever lived. His works are stunning -- superhuman. And of course impossible to reproduce. There's something about the richness of that oil paint which is lost in photos -- even more than other works. 

The Arnolfini Portrait is a window into a long-lost time, and for that it is fascinating. But the people portrayed look rather dull to me, so I can't say I particularly relate to them. That is one aspect which is missing which other paintings possess, like so many of Vermeer's or Rembrandt's.

---

What the hell did he use for brush's, single strands of Mink fur?

The Arnolfini Portrait is about 32 X 24 inches, so perhaps not.