Jack Vettriano

[Zip]

Seems you've actually forgotten what you wrote...

hinting about kinky sexual acts devoid of any warmth, love or even real emotion.

I'll grant you it is your opinion and you are entitled to it but when you make such a sweeping gereralization, you deserve to be called on it.

My question stands though since you did say what I thought you did but which you denied not a page later.

The sarcasm? That's 100% pure me, free for the taking or leaving.

[Alfa]

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.

I'd rather use the word interpretation, and it does not seem too far fetched with a painting like this - called "a very married woman":

http://digitalrightsmanifesto.files.wordpr...rried-woman.jpg

Or what about "Motel Love":

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4666.html

Sure, maybe the couple did just get a motel room to have some place private, but why would he paint the couple like that?

I think that is a very valid question btw. Why did he choose to paint the people like this?

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

The painting does not state that explicitly, but again it does not seem too far fetched. Why is the woman posed like some stripper, and why did the artist choose to only show her legs?

I'm not sure what my age has to do with anything.

Seems you've actually forgotten what you wrote...

Not at all, I was reffering specifically to the paintings and not making some generalization about "kinky sex". And it's not the supposed kinkyness of it that I have a problem with, but rather the detached and disconnected feeling I get from the paintings.

[eriatarka]

I'd use the term 'seedy' rather than 'kinky' personally. For me, 'kinky' has connotations of hot BDSM with a girlfriend, whereas seedy is more married office-workers sneaking off to motel rooms with their secretaries.

Edited October 10, 2008 by eriatarka

[Alfa]

I agree that's a much better term to use. Thanks for pointing that out. I did not really like using the term 'kinky' but did so in lack of a better word.

[~Sophia~]

Why is the woman posed like some stripper, and why did the artist choose to only show her legs?

He was capturing a specific moment and I think he has done it very well.

The women in his paintings are unappologetically sexual. I find it amuzing that behaving seductively is being projected as most probably engaging in casual uncommited (even dishonest) relations. When she is with her husband she would be wearing rollers to bed and since she is wearing a garter belt - it must be a lover. And if she is on a table she is acting like a stripper/slut. She is a bad bad girl. Surely that is not how wives behave! Classic mind body dichotomy.

Edited October 10, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Zip]

He was capturing a specific moment and I think he has done it very well.

The women in his paintings are unappologetically sexual. I find it amuzing that behaving seductively is being projected as most probably engaging in casual uncommited (even dishonest) relations. When she is with her husband she would be wearing rollers to bed and since she is wearing a garter belt - it must be a lover. And if she is on a table she is acting like a stripper/slut. She is a bad bad girl. Surely that is not how wives behave! Classic mind body dichotomy.

I've got to agree here. Funny how art elicits different responses from different viewers.

I saw this painting as depicting a woman comfortable in her own skin, confident in her beauty and playful in her manner. Also she seems supremely comfortable with the man in the picture.

Who's in control? Is either of them even concerned with that idea?

It's a wonderful painting that can mean so much to different people, even if your point of view leads you toward less liberated thoughts than mine.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Zip

[eriatarka]

The women in his paintings are unappologetically sexual.

They arent though, thats the problem. Theyre not sexual at all - his characters portray a cold, detached objectifying sexuality rather than anything which evokes humanity and warmth. That's why the prostitute/affair interpretation seems more likely than the husband&wife one to me. Most of his paintings have an air of menace - not in a playful BDSM sense, but in a cold and distant one.

Edited October 10, 2008 by eriatarka

[~Sophia~]

They arent though, thats the problem. Theyre not sexual at all - his characters portray a cold, detached objectifying sexuality rather than anything which evokes humanity and warmth.

The women in his paintings are impeccably groomed sexually confident creatures.

A lot of women love his art because he paints women as sexual beings. Women want their men to see/think of/look at them like that and not like that person who cleans a bathroom ever week on a Saturday morning.

[K-Mac]

That picture of the runway model is, well, yuck! I suppose it's a matter of taste, but that suit is untailored, unflattering and just hanging on her pathetic, frail, pale body. She looks unhealthy and as though she's taken an old, man's suit and pinned it up to somewhat fit her. Weird.

With regards to the artist, he's probably painting his fantasies, desires or maybe even a dream he had. Perhaps the guy's just a perv, who knows? I actually like some of the sex stuff he's done. Based on the titles, some of it seems sleazy or kinky, but some of the others are quite nice and could just be role playing. Role playing could be between two people who are deeply in love. Gotta keep things spicy and hot!

Edited October 11, 2008 by K-Mac

[Alfa]

The women in his paintings are impeccably groomed sexually confident creatures.

A lot of women love his art because he paints women as sexual beings. Women want their men to see/think of/look at them like that and not like that person who cleans a bathroom ever week on a Saturday morning.

Impeccably groomed? That's a term often used by women to describe men. You'll never hear a man comment on a woman he finds attractive with; "Well, she's impeccably groomed!". And that's part of the problem I guess... Vettriano's women may be portrayed in a sexual way, and they may even be confident creatures but I surely don't see a very flattering way of looking at women.

I can understand if women want their men to see them as sexy and even sex objects. If you think my criticism stems from a puritan(and/or feminist) viewpoint you are mistaken. The thing is that just a pair of legs is not sexy, sad or expressionless faces are not sexy, women standing over men who are on their knees are not sexy, that woman in the bath is not sexy and personally i'm not that much for women tied to chairs either(but I suppose such things could be done in a more fun and playfull manner).

What I personally find most interesting are these two:

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4660.html

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4661.html

The first one because I like her style, and the second because the moment she's caught in(maybe she's looking for her man, who in turn stands there appreciating the sight of her). But notice how in the first picture you don't see her eyes, and in the second picture her face is hidden. These are features that could tell us so much about the women and actually make them interesting on a different level.

Speaking of a mind/body dichotomy, one of my objections to Vettriano's work is that I find it soulless. That's also one reason for not finding the women very sexual.

And my criticism is not just based on projections. This is Vettriano's world:

You have very married women...

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4665.html

Motel rooms...

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4666.html

Secret lovers?

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4680.html

And maybe some of his sexual fantasies?

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4668.html

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4675.html

I find this dark, depressing and seedy. Metaphysically and morally it seems grey.

To be fair though, I must say I like some of his work:

http://digitalrightsmanifesto.files.wordpr...nd-lavender.jpg

http://www.silkandseduction.com/images/pin...vement_lge1.jpg

http://www.artwallpapers.net/art/jack_vett...riano04_800.jpg

I some cases I might even (somewhat) agree with what you seem to like about the paintings. It's a bit difficult to judge because I don't think his views on the subject are very consistent.

[adrock3215]

Jeez, those are terrible Alfa. I can't believe we're even discussing this guy. He is atrocious. His technique and style immediately discredits him from further consideration, as it is clear that he doesn't know what he is doing. His composition is terrible, his use of color shows lack of effort, his depiction of the human figure makes it look like it's made from rubber, and his brushwork is sloppy. There is no unity in the end product, and the result is the cold, austere, dead feeling that you get when looking at his work.

[~Sophia~]

What I like about Vettriano's paintings is that both a woman and a man are distinctly posed and dressed for their gender.

"I’ve always loved women who dress as women, you know, pure femininity." ... "When you know a woman’s wearing stockings there’s no sort of question about it, and I love that world where there’s a strict division between men and women. If you were painting contemporary life now, man and woman, from the back, you can’t tell the difference.”

Women are ultra feminine; men radiate masculinity, poise, and strength. What a delight!

The power play between the sexes is clearly shown. There is no shying away from who will be doing what to whom. I like his blatant honesty. It’s all there and it’s definitely unapologetic for it's chosen theme.

If you think of sex as always gentle confluence of souls with lots of talking about feelings then yes - you may not like these. You certainly don’t have two sexually androgynous humans coming together for a night of sensitive to each other’s emotional needs lovemaking interspersed with psychotherapy. What you see is what have been proclaimed as forbidden sensuality. Instead, there is a man who evidently dominates the woman. Equally powerful although in a completely different way is the woman who clearly is not virginal. These women have been touched before and are wielding their power with confidence. This is why the art is so sexually charged. It’s not a work of contempt but a work of appreciation.

[Alfa]

If you think of sex as always gentle confluence of souls with lots of talking about feelings then yes - you may not like these.

I don't and I still don't like some of his paintings.

Do you tihink the examples i've given represent what you are talking about?

[Zip]

And my criticism is not just based on projections. This is Vettriano's world:

You have very married women...

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4665.html

Motel rooms...

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4666.html

Secret lovers?

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4680.html

And maybe some of his sexual fantasies?

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4668.html

http://www.jackvettriano.com/pages/single/4675.html

So in the artist's world there are infidelities? OMG! Call the puritan police! Seriously though, can there be no art depicting the darker side of human relationships? Is the object of romantic art that everything is roses and sunshine 24/7? I don't think so.

Note the women in his sexual fantasies (which are a good thing to have by the way). In the first painting see how she is relaxed? Her hands aren't grasping at the arms of the chair, her legs are relaxed, open even. Her head is tilted back toward the hands of her lover. The feeling isn't emptiness or even bondage, it's anticipation, sexual excitement.

And in the second, again we have a supremely self-confident sexual woman who is adored by her man. He wants her, they both know it.

What is it that you want some sort of chaste look but don't touch sense of love life and sex?

Did you skip over Rands "rape scene" with Roark and Dominique, or allow your mind to gloss over some of the other depictions of sex and infidelity in AS? Wasn't Rearden a married man when he was with Dagny?

[Alfa]

Seriously though, can there be no art depicting the darker side of human relationships?

Of course there can, but I much prefer more life-affirming depictions of human relationships.

Is the object of romantic art that everything is roses and sunshine 24/7? I don't think so.

I don't think so either. But I do like both roses and sunshine.

Note the women in his sexual fantasies (which are a good thing to have by the way). In the first painting see how she is relaxed? Her hands aren't grasping at the arms of the chair, her legs are relaxed, open even. Her head is tilted back toward the hands of her lover. The feeling isn't emptiness or even bondage, it's anticipation, sexual excitement.

I agree. What I don't like is that the way the man is standing over her seems dark and brooding somehow. This also seems to be a common element in his other paintings, where the man is like a dark entity or a shadow

And in the second, again we have a supremely self-confident sexual woman who is adored by her man. He wants her, they both know it.

I agree. She is very self-confident. In fact, I think she's the man in that picture. She's the one who looks to be in charge.

What is it that you want some sort of chaste look but don't touch sense of love life and sex?

No. In these pictures what I would want is more lust, desire, hunger and passion.

Did you skip over Rands "rape scene" with Roark and Dominique, or allow your mind to gloss over some of the other depictions of sex and infidelity in AS? Wasn't Rearden a married man when he was with Dagny?

I did not skip over the "rape scen". What do you think was the point of that scene? I'd say Roark was the ideal man, while Dominique was in fact a rather "messed up" girl. She would have rejected Roark if he had tried to make it an act of love and tenderness, and the reasons she resisted him was that she actually wanted him. That's why he had to "rape" her, something which a lesser man would not have done.

I'm not sure why you bring that scene up. It's a brilliant scene on many different levels but i'm not sure how you are trying to apply it to Vettriano's work.

Rearden was indeed married when he slept with Dagny. But you know, if you just make a painting after Hank and Dagny have had sex - Dagny getting dressed and Hank sitting on the edge of the bed with his head between his hands - then you would sort of miss the whole context of their relationship.

[Zip]

I don't think so either. But I do like both roses and sunshine.

As do I, but variety is the spice of life.

I agree. What I don't like is that the way the man is standing over her seems dark and brooding somehow. This also seems to be a common element in his other paintings, where the man is like a dark entity or a shadow

You see dark and brooding, I see strong and powerful.

No. In these pictures what I would want is more lust, desire, hunger and passion.

I on the other hand prefer the subtle route. The artist allows a person to read into the art what he/she will. this gets back to my previous point about art being many things to many people.

I'm not sure why you bring that scene up. It's a brilliant scene on many different levels but i'm not sure how you are trying to apply it to Vettriano's work.

It's simple, I see that any one of these paintings could be the result of just such a confluence of personalities, whereas you see sluts and brooding...

Rearden was indeed married when he slept with Dagny. But you know, if you just make a painting after Hank and Dagny have had sex - Dagny getting dressed and Hank sitting on the edge of the bed with his head between his hands - then you would sort of miss the whole context of their relationship.

I seem to remember Rearden being torn by his guilt and his problem with sex as well, was he not? I could easily imagine Hank sitting on the side of the bed that next morning with his head in his hands in (misplaced) self loathing.