[HappymaN]

I like it.

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.

A more flattering picture that was used on the gallery's website...

Any art fans here on Head-Fi?

 

[Gergor]

I'm not really into painting, but I think it's nice.

It looks just like looking out from the top of Arc de Triomphe...

 

[Squalish]

Not Bad.
Here is, I think, a narrow slice of the artist's viewpoint:

 

[dd3mon]

Yup.. from the top of the Arch of Triumph or "L'Arc de Triomphe". Nice painting. Reminds me of climbing all the stairs to get to the top of the arc de triomphe

fun times

-dd3mon

 

[Gergor]

Quote:

Originally posted by dd3mon Reminds me of climbing all the stairs to get to the top of the arc de triomphe fun times

Somehow I don't remember climbing the stairs, oh right, I took the elevator!

 

[ooheadsoo]

Hrmph, it didn't inspire me to climb up it

I snapped a few shots off and took a hike.

 

[chadbang]

Hey, I really like that. I was an art history/English major and you've got yourself a very good looking painting there. Subject matter aside (what do I know for Paris?), it's nice accomplished and has a great feel. Subtle, playful and a nice balance of colour and shape -- really quite good. Where did you get it? Was it expensive? (oops, nevermind, I see you bought it from an online gallery. That is a nice snap of the picture.) Whatever, you did well -- it's a nice work. What do you think, Redshifter. You're the artist here!

Personally, I would reframe it. I dont think that frame is doing it justice.

 

[HappymaN]

Quote:

Originally posted by chadbang Where did you get it? Was it expensive? (oops, nevermind, I see you bought it from an online gallery. That is a nice snap of the picture.)

We didn't get it online. I didn't know you could get paintings online.

My father bought it from an art gallery in Sydney and I don't know how much it is worth. We have another painting from the same artist. Let me dig up a photograph of it.

 

[HappymaN]

I just snapped this picture. This is my favourite, and is by the same artist - just for its sheer size.

EDIT:

BTW, I quickly ran around the house, looking in the corner of each painting, and I actually found a third one by the same artist - so here is another one by this artist. My father must be a big fan of his.

 

[redshifter]

painter, art & art history major here.

it is extremely hard to judge a painting by reproduction, at the wrong size and colors, etc. like people who laugh at a rothko color field painting reproduced on a postcard. the originals are wall-sized, and subtlety of color is lost in reproduction--at least in person the paintings have much more impact on the eye and mind. it is like trying to judge a band's music listening to a 5kbps stream of a 10 second clip.

in any case, it looks like a nice painting. it verges on decoration, judging by the design-like elements of a flattened landscape over simple color blocks. it simply doesn't challenge me intellectually or emotionally, and this is for me the dividing line between "art" and "decoration".

 

[redshifter]

those second examples are a bit more exciting.

the artist is very influenced by impressionism and expressionism, especially monet and van gogh. if i were to offer any practical advice to this painter it would be add more white to your colors.

the painting of the bridge has a good energy, much like van gogh's wheat fields. there is a certain primative element to this artist's work that is interesting, although i think the artist needs to work on their drafting skills. the sloppily drawn cityscape in the upper left suggests lack of skill rather than a skillful draftsman creating a "primative" drawing like klee or picasso.

 

[Mr.PD]

Those are nice paintings.
Where are the mountains? All paintings should have mountains, and moose or maybe some wolves. Okay maybe not all paintings. Some should just be clouds and or the moon.

 

[chadbang]

I have to disagree, Redshifter, I prefer the newest painting to the later two. Probably because it doen't immediately call up the idea of being expressionist or other artists (perhaps Klee, though not really). I like that it functions purely as a design, and draws less attention to the artist's hand.

Agree about Rothko. I looked a Rothko after Rothko in books at thought, well, yes. Then I STOOD IN FRONT OF ONE, towering over me at the MOMA. Whoa. What a difference. It radiated. It glowed. Gorgeous!

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally posted by chadbang I have to disagree, Redshifter, I prefer the newest painting to the later two. Probably because it doen't immediately call up the idea of being expressionist or other artists (perhaps Klee, though not really). I like that it functions purely as a design, and draws less attention to the artist's hand. Agree about Rothko. I looked a Rothko after Rothko in books at thought, well, yes. Then I STOOD IN FRONT OF ONE, towering over me at the MOMA. Whoa. What a difference. It radiated. It glowed. Gorgeous!

i thought of klee the moment i saw the first painting. although klee is way ahead of this artist in his use of color.

they have (had?) a number of rothko color field paintings at the yale museum of art. it is hard to imagine a painting with essentially a few large clouds of color could elicite such emotion. but they are moving, especially a room full of them!