Zip Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 http://www.jackvettriano.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriatarka Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) I can understand why people who feel alienated by most contemporary art like his stuff, but it just comes across as a bit tacky to me. Put it next to Renoir's paintings which also try to romanticize middle-class life, and it seems second rate (I'd say the same about Norman Rockwell too). http://www.toffsworld.com/jack-vettriano-a...es/silkgame.jpg vs http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/s06/mg...lin-galette.jpg http://digitalrightsmanifesto.files.wordpr...nd-lavender.jpg vs http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/art...g/renoir005.jpg Edited October 9, 2008 by eriatarka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Although I think some of the paintings could have been something, I find most of them cold, flat and lifeless. The sense of life I get is that of "emptiness", and it's not something I like. One thing I do like however is the 1920's clothing/fashion/seting in some of the paintings. I find that style enjoyable even though I don't really like the paintings. I must thank you though for providing that link, I found it quite interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) I agree with the two above posters. I'm not impressed. His technique is amateur, and he seems to have a poor grasp of how to portray the human figure in all its intricacies (his idea of what a leg looks like is, for lack of a better word, silly). Moreover, as someone above said, his paintings appear flat. On first glance, this is partly due to poor composition, and other times due to inability to accurately model a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional surface. Edited October 9, 2008 by adrock3215 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Here are some more images of his work. I don't get the cold, tacky, lifeless, etc., criticisms. I found him on the internet about 6 months or so ago and like a lot of his work. I find it sexy and full of life. Birth of a Dream Only the Deepest Red II The Letter Edited October 9, 2008 by K-Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I think the images you posted are the better ones. This one I really like: http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/art/jack_ve...no_dance800.jpg But then there are paintings like: http://digitalrightsmanifesto.files.wordpr...rried-woman.jpg http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/en_e...iano-207234.jpg http://www.jackvettriano.com/client_ftp/it...medium/4668.jpg http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4660.html http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4662.html http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4666.html http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4676.html These I don't like at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Here are some more images of his work. I don't get the cold, tacky, lifeless, etc., criticisms. I found him on the internet about 6 months or so ago and like a lot of his work. I find it sexy and full of life. The first one is not so bad in terms of technique; it's just boring. There is no motion in the painting, which gives the beholder the "flat" impression. Compositionally, the use of diagonals gives a painting the feeling of "motion" and "realness". Rather than diagonals, he chooses straight horizontals and verticals. The car is a straight horizontal. The beholder looks straight out the back "window" in the painting. The artist may have held a level to the top of the painting to make sure all the lights are on the same horizontal. Same with the wheels of the car and the top line of the wrenches on the wall. Although he may be trying to portray a sense of stability in the painting with all these straight lines, the end result is just blah. Lastly, I can't really tell what is outside of the window. I suppose it is a reflection of the light from inside the garage. It doesn't really look right, although I can't put my finger on exactly why yet. The second painting: He demonstrates his inability to accurately depict the human figure in the legs of this woman. Her leg 'muscles' have no "mass" so to speak. Also (and it may be one in the same observation) the light that falls on this woman's legs is totally unconvincing. One reason is that it makes a straight line up the leg. One side of the line is dark, and the other is light. In reality, light is much more complex than this oversimplification. Check out Vermeer's work to see the complexities of light and its subtle effects. The third painting: Take a look at this woman's right shoulder. Maybe it's just me, but something strikes me as a bit ridiculous here... I think the images you posted are the better ones. This one I really like: http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/art/jack_ve...no_dance800.jpg I like this one as well, especially compositionally. This is the best one I have seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Nope, those are not my favorites either. He's obviously a kinky guy, but I don't have to look at, like or purchase those pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 There is no motion in the painting... That's because he's finally done with the car. He's standing back and admiring his work. You're right, there is no motion anymore. His project is complete. Hence the title, Birth of a Dream. The second painting: He demonstrates his inability to accurately depict the human figure in the legs of this woman. I think the two women look sexy and romantic. In fact, I particularly like the women's shapes/form. I find the light and shadows to be dramatic. Furthermore, I don't think the paintings were created for anatomy text books. I've seen shadows and light fall on people that makes their figure or face look better or worse than it is in reality. I guess I'm just not into dissecting every little piece of art I find appealing upon first review. If I did that, I wouldn't like anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Lastly, I can't really tell what is outside of the window. I suppose it is a reflection of the light from inside the garage. It doesn't really look right, although I can't put my finger on exactly why yet. On the inside, the right lamp shade is dark, and the glow of light only comes out of the bottom, but outside, the whole lamp shade is lit up, as if it's more translucent in the reflection than it is in reality. (unless that's a mountain peak out there). The third painting: Take a look at this woman's right shoulder. Maybe it's just me, but something strikes me as a bit ridiculous here... Definitely looks that way, although maybe there was just some weird shadow in that scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I like Vettriano's pre-counterculture world A LOT. I am sadden by the influence of egalitarian ideology - of treating all moments in life with equal existential significance that require no special degree of respect, emotion, or ceremony - which resulted in a disappointing decline in standards of formal wear today. I would like to go back to that Golden Era of simple elegance. Formality has it's place. It is a value judgment - a recognition of the importance and significance of certain circumstances. It is one of the ways in which we integrate value significance with our behavior and surroundings. I thus identify with and greatly appreciate Vettriano's sense of life: his vision of existance and man (the what ought to be). To me that is the essential characteristic in his paintings to which any technical shortcommings take a back seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Meh, I like most of it. It's simple, he's not trying to recreate a photographic image but in my opinion he does a good job of capturing a mood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriatarka Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) I like Vettriano's pre-counterculture world A LOT. I am sadden by the influence of egalitarian ideology - of treating all moments in life with equal existential significance that require no special degree of respect, emotion, or ceremony - which resulted in a disappointing decline in standards of formal wear today. I would like to go back to that Golden Era of simple elegance. Formality has it's place. It is a value judgment - a recognition of the importance and significance of certain circumstances. It is one of the ways in which we integrate value significance with our behavior and surroundings. A lot of people (especially Americans) dress poorly today, but modern fashion is a lot better than in the past imo. Just because most people wear jeans sloppily, it doesnt mean they cant be worn with style as part of outfits which look good. 'Dressing well' in the past meant dressing the same as everyone else, with very little room for personal expression or individuality - if anything, traditional black-tie represens egalitarianism in fashion, since everyone wearing it looks identical regardless of their taste or sense of style (including those who try to stand out by obsessing over minor details like the colour of pocket squares, which can come across as a parody of the American Psycho business card scene). I would definitely take this over anything from 1920 edit: also I'd say the main reason why people look bad today is because theyre often overweight and wear clothes which fit poorly, which a return to English formal dress wouldnt help. Edited October 9, 2008 by eriatarka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 'Dressing well' in the past meant dressing the same as everyone else, with very little room for personal expression or individuality - if anything, traditional black-tie represens egalitarianism in fashion, since everyone wearing it looks identical regardless of their taste or sense of style. At least for women that is simply not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriatarka Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Yeah fair enough, I was thinking of men when I wrote that. Formal dress looks horribly boring on men imo, although I agree women get a lot more leeway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I would definitely take this over anything from 1920 Frankly I think that is a horrible representation of fashion. To me clothes should flatter the human form, not be draped around it like some shapeless sack cloth. Don't even get me started on the bag of bones all tricked out in Heroin sheik makeup wearing that garbage bag. What did she do her hair with a freaking hand-grenade? <do we have a repulsed smiley on the forum?> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriatarka Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Yeah I generally agree and amn't always a fan of the oversized look, theres just something about that I love. Edited October 9, 2008 by eriatarka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) That's because he's finally done with the car. He's standing back and admiring his work. You're right, there is no motion anymore. His project is complete. Hence the title, Birth of a Dream. Fair enough. It may be that he is using straight lines in order to emphasize the stability and finality of the achievement. My issue was that, aesthetically, it leads to a boring composition and also emphasizes the relatively "flat" aspects of the painting. On the inside, the right lamp shade is dark, and the glow of light only comes out of the bottom, but outside, the whole lamp shade is lit up, as if it's more translucent in the reflection than it is in reality. (unless that's a mountain peak out there). It is an amateurish depiction of light. Compare with Vermeer. With the lights Vettriano is painting, there should be more of a "spotlight" aspect on top of the car. Also, I just noticed: what's with the top left window pane? Why is it a different color than the others? Edited October 9, 2008 by adrock3215 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 It is an amateurish depiction of light. Compare with Vermeer. With the lights Vettriano is painting, there should be more of a "spotlight" aspect on top of the car. Also, I just noticed: what's with the top left window pane? Why is it a different color than the others? I'm not positive but I don't think the top left window pane is a pane of glass, but a piece of wood or cardboard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I like Vettriano's pre-counterculture world A LOT. I am sadden by the influence of egalitarian ideology - of treating all moments in life with equal existential significance that require no special degree of respect, emotion, or ceremony - which resulted in a disappointing decline in standards of formal wear today. I would like to go back to that Golden Era of simple elegance. Formality has it's place. It is a value judgment - a recognition of the importance and significance of certain circumstances. It is one of the ways in which we integrate value significance with our behavior and surroundings. I thus identify with and greatly appreciate Vettriano's sense of life: his vision of existance and man (the what ought to be). To me that is the essential characteristic in his paintings to which any technical shortcommings take a back seat. I also appreciate that style and elegance, and I agree with you that it's sad how that is missing in todays culture(although eriatarka is making a good point regarding today's fashion, except for that horribly dressed skeleton of a woman). In many of his painting though, that part is just the seting. What he does with that seting is to depict cheating wives, hinting about kinky sexual acts devoid of any warmth, love or even real emotion. The characters just come across as flat and empty, which is enhanced by the simple color and lighting. So I suppose I understand what it is that you value, but I don't think many of those paintings do any justice to those values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 What he does with that seting is to depict cheating wives, hinting about kinky sexual acts devoid of any warmth, love or even real emotion. Really, are you positive or is that just your interpretation? So kinky = devoid of love eh? Glad your omniscience is holding out for all those people who practice shall we say, unconventional sex. I wonder Alfa, if I told you I was a boxer and enjoyed fighting would you make the assumption that I was also a violent masochist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriatarka Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Ive nothing against causal sex but the women in his pictures give the impression of being more like tired housewives in loveless marriages who're engaging in escapism than people who actually enjoy sex (some of them could even be prostitutes). I suppose if you viewed his paintings as being a critique of modern life then they could have value but I dont think thats the reason why most of his fans admire him. I agree with the people who've said his work is emotionless - his subjects seem to be painted in a very objectifying manner which creates a strong sense of detachment, such as in this or this. It strikes me as being more tragic than life-affirming. Edited October 9, 2008 by eriatarka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 What he does with that seting is to depict cheating wives, hinting about kinky sexual acts devoid of any warmth, love or even real emotion. Can you point me out to an example of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Really, are you positive or is that just your interpretation? So kinky = devoid of love eh? Glad your omniscience is holding out for all those people who practice shall we say, unconventional sex. I wonder Alfa, if I told you I was a boxer and enjoyed fighting would you make the assumption that I was also a violent masochist? Well, that's my attempt at describing what I see in those pictures. However I did not say that kinky is the same thing as devoid of love. Also I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I don't think I have said anything to justify that, everything i've written i've intended in a friendly and respectfull tone. Let's look at a couple of pictures: http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4676.html I don't know who those legs belong to, it could be his girlfriend, wife or a stripper. His expression, or lack thereof, suggests disinterest - like tiredly looking at some piece of flesh. It's obviously sexual, but I cannot see anything romantic about it. The woman is in fact just a pair of legs. http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4668.html Here i'm not sure what to say... I don't find it very romantic; the woman in bondage, facing away from the man who's just some faceless entity. Even if there's some tenderness in that touch it looks like something purely sensational. Or this one: http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4666.html It's called Motel Love but I see more signs of cheating than of love. There's obviously sex, but is that anyones idea of romantic love? I don't care if the suggested sex would be unconventional, it's more that I absolutely not share that sense of life. Ive nothing against causal sex but the women in his pictures give the impression of being more like tired housewives in loveless marriages who're engaging in escapism than people who actually enjoy sex (some of them could even be prostitutes). I suppose if you viewed his paintings as being a critique of modern life then they could have value but I dont think thats the reason why most of his fans admire him. I agree with the people who've said his work is emotionless - his subjects seem to be painted in a very objectifying manner which creates a strong sense of detachment, such as in this or this. It strikes me as being more tragic than life-affirming. Thank you, that's exactly what i've been trying to say but you expressed it much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I don't know who those legs belong to, it could be his girlfriend, wife or a stripper. But since you don't know it was your own projection when you said: What he does with that seting is to depict cheating wives. It's obviously sexual, but I cannot see anything romantic about it. The woman is in fact just a pair of legs. What this woman does or does not mean to this man is also your own projection. You are young so I am going to excuse your comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.