• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Was Van Gogh rubbish?...

Chadford

Distinguished Member
...Many moons ago I worked in a small second hand book and record shop and had the job of looking after the print/poster room :(. I sold many a Van Gogh print and sort of warmed to them. However after visiting the Van Gogh museum recently in Amsterdam and seeing the stuff for real, I was wholly unimpressed, pretty much an amateur dauber, *dull* and boring. I felt really deflated. I wanted to believe that what I'm told is great art - is great art, but I couldn't.

Anyone else just been disappointed by stuff that you are told/indoctrinated to believe is supposed to make your soul sing, but if it were in your own house you'd chuck it out on bin day?

I guess I don't like being told what I should think, and with art it's assumed that we tow the line and are told what we should think, hmm just feels uncomfortable.
 

Iccz

Distinguished Member
No. Not at all.

His works are not for everyone and some people don't appreciate art at all. But I don't believe there is any way anyone can say he was rubbish.

Nobody is telling anyone they must like any piece of art, that's what art is - it's an expression there for people to make of it what they will. A lot of people who talk about art will have no idea what they are looking at in terms of technique or inspiration for the artist etc, there are a number of reasons why certain works of art art are genius - but not necessarily the best looking or such. There are a number of factors in a painting, not just the imagery or the colour but there is a depth, not everyone appreciates this and that's fine. I don't mean to be rude in any way to anyone but the best way to appreciate art is to have an interest in it and to develop an education on the subject.
 

Bill Hicks

Banned
Dutch masters, Don't make me laugh!
Take a look at these Van Goes (As the Americans call him)

http://www.thecitrusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/van-gogh-self-portrait.jpg What a load of rubbish. If your going to paint yourself you might as well try to look happy.

http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/or/van-gogh-effect/van-gogh-final.jpg Quite like this one. Reminds me of flock wallpaper that you might get in a curry house in southern France.

http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/death05/skulls/van gogh.jpg Please, a skeleton smoking a fag. That's just ridiculous!

Frankly overrated scribblings imho.
 

7ofnine

Well-known Member
Very subjective. I'm not a great fan of abstract art, I like paintings to look realistic. I'm probably only appreciating the art on a superficial level though. I had the opportunity of viewing paintings by Carravaggio, and they were truly stunning works of art.
 

hatchleader

Novice Member
Art is completely Subjective... and i think he's crap! :thumbsup:

In fairness this is a topic for heated debate whilst drinking wine and cheese (or whatever posh folk do). Art doesn't do anything for me and i would willingly punch most 'Modern Artists'! Give me John cassaday any day!! (google him :smashin:)
 

Bill Hicks

Banned
Art is completely Subjective... and i think he's crap! :thumbsup:

In fairness this is a topic for heated debate whilst drinking wine and cheese (or whatever posh folk do). Art doesn't do anything for me and i would willingly punch most 'Modern Artists'! Give me John cassaday any day!! (google him :smashin:)

I prefer the works of Ralph McQuarrie and Michael Pangrazio myself.
 

hatchleader

Novice Member
...and you can just put that back from where it came from, I'm as near to the gutter as you'll get (Mrs C will back me up on that). So stop it!:)

Sorry! how about if i make it more specific to Modern art.... As far as i can tell i'm yet to meet anyone who liked it who wasn't a complete pretentious posh toff!
 

Wild Weasel

Distinguished Member
I think Van Gogh only sold one of his paintings while he was alive. I don't realy like his stuff, but it's not without talent unlike most modern so-called art.
 

pandemic

Well-known Member
I didn't really like his painting when I was younger after viewing prints, but think the sun flowers at the National Gallery in the flesh looks ok. There's quite a lot of detail that doesn't come across on prints.
I prefer paining with lot's of detail, some of Canaletto's paintings are amazing.
 

Davieboy00

Active Member
Sorry! how about if i make it more specific to Modern art.... As far as i can tell i'm yet to meet anyone who liked it who wasn't a complete pretentious posh toff!

Modern Art is a very widespread term to damn all in one sentence.
If you are talking about " modern art " like Tracey Emin et al I would probably agree.
But if you do mean it as all encompassing to include the likes of Chagall and Munch ( and it could be argued that pop artists such as Warhol and Lichtenstein are also part of a movement within Modern Art ) I would disagree.
Just my opinion - and no , I am not an art snob , collector or officionado.
 

Chadford

Distinguished Member
I don't know. I guess I'm just disappointed after all the hype. I was expecting some sort of magic trick with his use of colour, some sort of vibrancy exploding in your face. For example, his iconic 'Vase with twelve sunflowers' just looks very very ordinary and amateurish, looks like its painted with a crusty old tube of Colman's mustard. Maybe the colours haven't survived the years?

If you're in Amsterdam, my advice, give the Van Gogh museum a swerve.:thumbsdow, however the museum of modern art next door is another 'kettle of fish'. :smashin: and I guess if you don't like looking at stuff, there's always Heineken, dope, sex and pancakes....oooh and really good chips. :)
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
I appreciate that art is subjective, but the main problem I have is that it is also influenced very much by snobbery.

For example if I showed an art critic a Van Gogh he will be able to tell me how great it is and spout all sorts of reasons and hidden meanings etc. But 5 minutes later if I would somehow make him believe that Van Gogh never existed and showed him the same painting but from an unknown art student, I've every faith that he would claim it wasn't very good and give lots of reasons why.

Personally I don't understand why Van Gogh is so highly regarded - they don't look that good to me and I have seen better being painted in art colleges.

There are paintings that demonstrate fantastic skills but I'm afriad that for paintings like those of Van Gogh, it is more to do with the character of the painter and what circles he frequents, it is what the in-crowd think that decides whether a painting or brilliant and worth millions or the same painting is amateur junk.

I appreciate that Van Gogh wasn't popular in his lifetime, but I suspect his popularaity afterwards was because he became 'in vogue' with the right crowd and 'emporer's new clothes' syndrome kicked in.

Cheers,

Nigel

Or was it all down to Dr Who?
 
Last edited:

fencer90

Active Member
Very subjective. I'm not a great fan of abstract art, I like paintings to look realistic. I'm probably only appreciating the art on a superficial level though. I had the opportunity of viewing paintings by Carravaggio, and they were truly stunning works of art.

I saw his exhibition in London a couple of years ago.......Stunning , I go to galleries and showings quite a lot (Wifey is a fanatic) The stunned silence of the observers in that exhibition said everything,people silenced by works of art .......

File:Caravaggio.emmaus.750pix.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
D

Deleted member 27989

Guest
I appreciate that art is subjective, but the main problem I have is that it is also influenced very much by snobbery.

For example if I showed an art critic a Van Gogh he will be able to tell me how great it is and spout all sorts of reasons and hidden meanings etc. But 5 minutes later if I would somehow make him believe that Van Gogh never existed and showed him the same painting but from an unknown art student, I've every faith that he would claim it wasn't very good and give lots of reasons why.

Personally I don't understand why Van Gogh is so highly regarded - they don't look that good to me and I have seen better being painted in art colleges.

There are paintings that demonstrate fantastic skills but I'm afriad that for paintings like those of Van Gogh, it is more to do with the character of the painter and what circles he frequents, it is what the in-crowd think that decides whether a painting or brilliant and worth millions or the same painting is amateur junk.

I appreciate that Van Gogh wasn't popular in his lifetime, but I suspect his popularaity afterwards was because he became 'in vogue' with the right crowd and 'emporer's new clothes' syndrome kicked in.

Cheers,

Nigel

Or was it all down to Dr Who?

To me that is the problem with art, all fine whether you like it or not but you can define something as better painted is beyond me.

Take a look at Malevich would those students paint his black square better? I don't understand how people can look at art like that.

I fully appreciate we all like different styles, and perhaps our taste even changes throughout our lives. But saying one is better than another is a pointless debate.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
Personally I don't understand why Van Gogh is so highly regarded - they don't look that good to me and I have seen better being painted in art colleges.

Aestheically better ?

Not all art looks good or is meant too, not all art is easy to understand or is meant to be.

How is one to judge the skill of an artist without some knowledge of the craft itself ?
I could get a near photo realistic painting of something pretty to look at and put it next to a master piece and purely on aesthetics, the photoesque print would look better, cleaner and more precise.
However, how does one catagorise passion or expressions in the movement of the subject or materials.

To me, a considerable amount of modern art is not for those who approach it without some background work. Knowing that a peice of art is about trying to capture something specific concept or idea and express it on canvas or on film for example gives the viewer a far greater chance of understanding the piece.

A good place to go to get a better understanding is somewhere like the Tate Modern.
Great displays and plenty of information to help get to grips with some fantastic pieces.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
To me that is the problem with art, all fine whether you like it or not but you can define something as better painted is beyond me.

It's not just that. I can fully understand that what I like and what the next person likes could be completely different. I can even tolerate the existence of experts who can generally decide on behalf of many what is good and what isn't.

But what I can't tolerate is the snobbery. Show an art critic a painting a say it is by Van Gogh and he will think it is brilliant. If you could show him the same painting but attributed to an unknown he would more than likely say that it was rubbish.

So it's not about what he likes but what he thinks he should like to keep in with the crowd.

Cheers,

Nigel
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
Take a look at Malevich would those students paint his black square better? I don't understand how people can look at art like that.

I work on the basic principle with art, I respect it more if I don't think I could have knocked it up myself. Like you say a black square on a wall, complete tosh.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom