I don't know a lot about painting, but his paintings don't technically seem to be as great as those of others like leonardo da vinci, or michelangelo, or rembrandt, or monet, etc etc. i don't know, maybe it has something to do with expressionism, or some technical aspects that i am missing.
2007-06-26 14:35:58 · 11 answers · asked by aero 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
Many artists have the ability to reproduce what they see. They are brilliant technicians. But there is more to art! There's design and there's passion, there's movement and energy... then there's rarity. There was a sort of sophisticated naivetee to Van Gogh who was blessed with the ability to talk to us through empassioned and tortured strokes of startling colors. The artists you mention, albeit amazing, engage the viewer on a much different level. You know they are masters by their level of classic accomplishment, with perspective and light and proportion and shadows... Van Gogh was different.... a visceral experience. Whether you like him or not, he engages your attention.. like a child, he speaks loudly and pleadingly with ubiquitous strokes.. he never fails to draw me in.... his works are like sculptures. The Japanese influence on his work.... almost woodcuts come to life.... brought a graphic quality to painting... and was a break with tradition forcing the viewer to rethink their expectations. These works were spontaneous... more splice of life. Van Gogh's works are his side of the conversation.. he's not listening to you....the others are premise complete. Art is an adventure... each statement different and like people we meet... we choose those we like. In my mind, he stands alone.
2007-06-28 12:39:32 · answer #1 · answered by guess who at large 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love Van Gogh, but some people don't, and that's understandable - I'd agree with you when you say his work isn't as technically good as many others. Another example is Cezanne, who can't really draw, but isn't any less famous for it. But Van Gogh's art goes beyond the technical, and expresses some fabulously strong emotions. I think much of his appeal, however, lies in his rather romantic background and the well-known fact that he only sold one painting in his lifetime. If you're interested in knowing more about him, I'd personally recommend 'Lust for Life', by Irving Stone, a fictionalised biography.
2007-06-27 21:40:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please remember that technical does not have to refer to rendering life. And not all painters are great for their technique some are better at expression or innovation. Although I go like Van Gogh's paintings, the cynic in me has to remember that mega- masters are created through legacies and we do have to consider the definition of a "great" painter. Sometimes great seems to fall into the category of palatable or great=marketable. One of the previous comments was about Van Gogh's increase in popularity in the last few years; could that be because it matches our couches and we can get a pop-culture reproduction for 12$?
2007-06-27 09:38:49 · answer #3 · answered by Julie C 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Van Gogh was self taught. He had a different way of seeing and was able to transfer that sight to canvas.He also had a different way of painting. He is one of those artists that you either love, or hate. There is no in between. I would also suggest that you go where you could see some of his paintings in person, or else get a good book of reproductions. Read of his life along with looking at his works.
2007-06-26 22:20:34 · answer #4 · answered by Marcia B 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
During the expressionist/fauv movement, Van Gogh was able to apply paint using muted colors, instead of bright colors that exhausted the eyes. His paintings may not look extraordinarily special to you, but he experimented with the ways color played tricks on your eyes and evoked emotion in the viewer. What he learned led him to creating better paintings whos fame outlived the intense energy of the fauvs.
2007-06-28 23:05:28 · answer #5 · answered by Angie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His style does not appeal to everyone. Just like Picasso; he is a bit different compared to classic artists such as the first few you mentioned. His style was a shocking distraction in his day according to the public and critics of his time.
He has grown on me over the years, though. Apparently his paintings appeal to enough people now to make him one of the finest artists in history. I have to agree these days.
2007-06-26 21:46:57 · answer #6 · answered by hopflower 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People just don't seem to appreciate absolute beauty anymore. His pictures are very colorful but childish in drawing, as are Jackson Pollacks. With the invention of the camera color became the driving force and not perfection that could be obtained by a photo.
2007-06-27 15:15:28 · answer #7 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IT'S MY FAVOURITE ARTIST..PLEASE JUST GO TO MOMA (MUSEUM OF MODERN ART) STAND IN FRONT OF THE "STARRY NIGHT" AND ADMIRE THIS MAGICAL PAINTING. HE CREATED UNIQUE STYLE OF PAINTING, THOSE BRUSH STROKES..
2007-06-29 03:17:50 · answer #8 · answered by missmonaya 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well essentially it was the most diffrent and a great turning point, in artwork, it was just diffrent and people like that, he was unique
2007-06-26 21:47:36 · answer #9 · answered by lyra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he innovated texture with oil paints. its true, his work says more in person
2007-06-26 21:41:25 · answer #10 · answered by thatstonerhippiechick 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋