Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My Favorite Painting

Rate this topic


goldmonkee

Recommended Posts

"Winter Evening", by Bryan Larsen

002.jpg

I imagine many people here are familiar with him, or at the least his painting "Self Absolution Of the Titan". I really love his work - it's one of my dreams to own the original "Winter Evening" painting.

Edit:

Might as well add a couple more :thumbsup:

007.jpg

I'm not sure who created these, so I can't give credit where it's due.

004.jpg

003.jpg

Edited by goldmonkee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Winter Evening" is also my favorite. Go figure, eh?

My second favorite is this one I saw in a shop once and never again. It was a large mountain valley set somewhere in the Canadian Rockies, and it had a single train running down it. To me that just screamed "Look what we can do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I find this painting, like most of Bryan Larson's work to be lacking in vision and ambition. The style does not speak of a glorious sense of life, but of a consciousness trying to prove that it has one. The major fault lies in technique. It is stiflingly naturalistic. What I see, when looking at his work is not theme and subject filtered through a rigidly exacting standard of judgment, but rather a conformist lost in a philosophy (and/or career) he has not understood or does not truly love. On a personal level I find his themes too vague and implicit (those which are not imitations of greater artists' work).

I really enjoy the painting you posted of the young man in a blue shirt. Not so much his face, but the shirt is so absracted. It approaches the quality of the tablecloth in Vermeer's "Mistress and Maid".

Edited by Andrew Joseph Sandberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I see, when looking at his work is not theme and subject filtered through a rigidly exacting standard of judgment, but rather a conformist lost in a philosophy (and/or career) he has not understood or does not truly love.

Just because his work does show very directly The philosophy of Ayn Rand with some direct reference to her novels does not automatically mean that he mimics it blindly.

May I take a guess: Do you dislike popular music / art because it is popular, and therefor must be cheap? I apologize if I am off, but the principles involved in both cases seem the same to me.

As for Bryan Larsen, to me it's very obvious that he is in love with his paintings. My favorite is Just the Begining (by Bryan Larsen).

I mean, the way he was able to show a hint of the woman's expression just with her profile... it took my breath away.

That painting is my all-times favorite. If I wanted someone to buy me a painting, this would be it.

Star Gazer Is also beautiful. Only criticism I have of it is that the woman's expression is a bit... worried. But the rest is just oh! my god!

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice that there is a painter out there who cares about the quality of his work and paints about things that are important, or even paints things as opposed to scribbles, but I'm with Andrew here. It's almost ironic how the aim of the subjects are to depict the greatness of life while simultaneously so lacking in any sense of movement or action. It's beyond a misguided freeze-frame of reality because even a freeze-frame could not be so stiff.

Btw Andrew, welcome to the forum!

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost ironic how the aim of the subjects are to depict the greatness of life while simultaneously so lacking in any sense of movement or action. It's beyond a misguided freeze-frame of reality because even a freeze-frame could not be so stiff.

Why would a subject need to imply movement in order to convey sense of life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a subject need to imply movement in order to convey sense of life?
Well, the phrase "sense of life" relative to Objectivism is not exactly the same as "feel for life" in the artistic sense, in conveying movement and action.

For example, in Larsen's previously-mentioned Just the Beginning, he is clearly referencing a heroic "sense of life" in the Objectivist sense. However, the tone of the work is flat and uninspired, the woman does not seem to be something that moves about (ie. is alive), the buildings through the window have no depth, as though they are part of a poster, and even the colors are muted or dull. There is no feeling of action, which is the real essence of life. In the context of Quent Cordair's gallery and his posted biography there, I know he had good intentions. But the painting misses its mark and I do not have a high opinion of it.

Also, to elaborate, a frozen frame of reality would not accomplish his aim in depicting greatness because it would also include irrelevant or superfluous information, which would be hopelessly distracting. Art is about the most important.

And there is a difference between good painting and a good painting. For example, Larsen is good at painting certain kinds of cloth and clouds. But that isn't enough to make his work overall good. I think his best piece on the site is Born with Wings.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the woman does not seem to be something that moves about (ie. is alive), the buildings through the window have no depth, as though they are part of a poster, and even the colors are muted or dull. There is no feeling of action, which is the real essence of life.

The essence of life is purpose, or more specifically, rational purpose. Sometimes this involves action, ie physically moving, but sometimes it doesn't. consiousness, or that which is important about the human, the source of his purpose, is better portrayed if the subject is still. Besides, motionless thought is an action, in its own way. To quote Les Miserables:

"A man is not idle because he is absorbed in thought. There is a visible labor and there is an invisible labor. To meditate is to labor; to think is to act. Folded armes work, clasped hands perform, a gaze fixed on heaven work. Thales remained motionless for four years. He founded philosophy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with JASKN if I understand him correctly. Larson's figures do not connote a clear enough context of the presuppositions necessary in the presentation of an ideal- i.e. the actions of a living consciousness. They bare no justice to what the ideal of our philosophy has the capacity to look like. Real Objectivists are incredible looking, and art should bring them to an even higher level of perfection. The woman in Winter Evening is just a normal unextraordinary woman.

On more esthetic grounds, his colors are flat, patchy and comicbook-like, he has childish sense of foreshortening, and he degrades the potential of oil by using acrylic techniques.

I don't want to completely disregard Mr. Larsen. Some of his paintings show great potential- in thematic subject alone- mainly his skyscraper in the clouds paintings, but even these wreak of desperation in their explicitness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to retract my statement about that painting at top of the boy in blue. Comparing it to Vermeer was impetuous of me. I suppose I was excited to finally see a modern work, besides Dali and Capuletti which actually brings light to an abstract level.

Yes, Misstress and maid, is superb. It bring to mind the following dialogue:

"Hello, my mistress, that's a fine yellow raincoat with dalmatic fur you've got there. Was that designed by the fire-fighters department?"

"Hello, fat, lovely maid. Why, thank you for asking about my coat, and yes, it was"

"There's a note for your Madam, and bringing it to you fills my heart with joy, since I love to serve"

"Leave it on the table..."

Nothing like fat people, a dark room, a maid and a yellow raincoat to present the romantic side of life.

You said that Larsen's paintings "bare no justice to what the ideal of our philosophy has the capacity to look like", so thank you for showing us how the ideal should look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that Larsen's paintings "bare no justice to what the ideal of our philosophy has the capacity to look like", so thank you for showing us how the ideal should look like.
He was not citing that painting as one which represents an Objectivist ideal, Ifat. He was using it to compliment the artist who painted the man in the blue shirt (in goldmonkee's original post) by comparing his to Vermeer's skill in painting light (He retracted that statement because he changed his mind about the artist's skill). He didn't pass judgement on the content of Mistress and Maid.

The essence of life is purpose, or more specifically, rational purpose.
That is specific to human life, not life in the broadest sense, which also includes humans. The fundamental difference between life and not-life is constant motion, movement, action. When a living thing absolutely stops moving, it dies.

How this translates into painting is that before the human "version" of life can be tapped, an artist first must be able to represent that fundamental quality of life which is movement. As with Larsen, when that quality is missing, a noble subject matter will not just come across as empty, but I feel almost betrayed as the viewer. Whether that was the artist's intent or not is another matter. With Larsen I would judge it wasn't the case.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was not citing that painting as one which represents an Objectivist ideal, Ifat. He was using it to compliment the artist who painted the man in the blue shirt (in goldmonkee's original post) by comparing his to Vermeer's skill in painting light (He retracted that statement because he changed his mind about the artist's skill). He didn't pass judgement on the content of Mistress and Maid.

You're totally right. Sorry, I misunderstood...

So how about you, JASKN: Can you show us something that is heroic or romantic in your eyes (in paintings that is)?

Last artist that you thought was "insanely good" was not painting anything heroic or romantic. So is this just about the "stillness" or is this some sort of artistic-nihilism?

And I think that "Just the beginning" has intense action going on in it: it's all in the woman's expression as she is looking at the city. Maybe you just don't know how to read expressions so it seems like to you that she is just a couch-potato.

It also contains movement: the falling of the snow flakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is specific to human life, not life in the broadest sense, which also includes humans. The fundamental difference between life and not-life is constant motion, movement, action. When a living thing absolutely stops moving, it dies.

Right, but Larsen isn't portraying life in general, he's portraying human life. Motion isn't essential to human life; we share that with other animals. Art is about showing what is important, as you said, and Larsen does.

... but I feel almost betrayed as the viewer.

Aren't we being a tad melodramatic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is specific to human life, not life in the broadest sense, which also includes humans. The fundamental difference between life and not-life is constant motion, movement, action. When a living thing absolutely stops moving, it dies.

How this translates into painting is that before the human "version" of life can be tapped, an artist first must be able to represent that fundamental quality of life which is movement.

This is very interesting, and I partly agree. A quality of movement in my own artwork is crucial for exactly this reason. However, there are other aspects of life an artist might choose to focus on as more crucial to their own sense of life. Vermeer did not focus particularly on movement in his work--although there is movement in the way the viewer's eye is carried through the composition. But its a quiet, background kind of movement--not the forefront of his style. The clear, contemplative quality of his paintings would not be so strong if they didn't also have a certain stillness to them.

Although I agree with you and Andrew that Bryan Larsen's work could improve, he has some strong points, especially his skill at composing. "Just The Beginning" leads the viewer through three-dimensional space quite well, although I dislike that piece because the figure proportions are off. But if you look at some of Larsen's recent pieces, like "Waking Among The Clouds" he is really starting to come into his own, in the sense of finding visual forms for his ideas that are not just symbolic. There is much more liveliness to the forms and the paint quality too. I was lucky enough to see it in person in a large show of his work, which is much better than a computer screen image.

(I couldn't figure out how to get the image of Waking Among the Clouds over here, but its on bryanlarsenfineart.com.)

I would add that it is very, very, very hard to integrate all the elements of a large scale figure painting--composition, drawing, color, space, not to mention narrative and theme. Andrew, if you are studying art, you may already have some experience with how difficult this is. That is what Bryan Larsen is trying to do. He may not be there yet, but most great artists have taken the majority of their lives to reach that level, if they ever reach it at all. I have a lot of respect for that kind of ambition.

That said--I like all the criticism in this thread. Every artist can use some good, thoughtful criticism. :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I would add that it is very, very, very hard to integrate all the elements of a large scale figure painting--composition, drawing, color, space, not to mention narrative and theme. Andrew, if you are studying art, you may already have some experience with how difficult this is. That is what Bryan Larsen is trying to do. He may not be there yet, but most great artists have taken the majority of their lives to reach that level, if they ever reach it at all. I have a lot of respect for that kind of ambition.

;)

I am aware of the difficulty of creating art, but I don't judge works in relation to the artist or his longterm ambitions. I merely judge the work as an end in itself.

Edited by Andrew Joseph Sandberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Misstress and maid, is superb. It bring to mind the following dialogue:

"Hello, my mistress, that's a fine yellow raincoat with dalmatic fur you've got there. Was that designed by the fire-fighters department?"

"Hello, fat, lovely maid. Why, thank you for asking about my coat, and yes, it was"

"There's a note for your Madam, and bringing it to you fills my heart with joy, since I love to serve"

"Leave it on the table..."

Nothing like fat people, a dark room, a maid and a yellow raincoat to present the romantic side of life.

You said that Larsen's paintings "bare no justice to what the ideal of our philosophy has the capacity to look like", so thank you for showing us how the ideal should look like.

I think Vermeer's work is superb, and much superior to anything by Larsen, especially in style but also in theme. I don't get the sarcasm.. Regarding your dialog, for one thing, in 1666, when Vermeer painted this piece, in Delft, the mistress' wardrobe was the height of fashion. Compare this to the girl in Winter Evening, whose wardrobe is not the hight of fashion, but rather a very plain, unspectacular outfit that could be bought cheaply at any generic department store. Not to mention that in Vermeer's painting, the outfit is rendered superbly, and looks realer than real, whereas in Larson's painting, the outfit is rendered approximately, and looks only slightly realer than a typical comic book illustration.

Thematically, Vermeer's work is full of mystery, and tension--a hundred stories come to mind that could explain the scene and you wonder what happens next. Larsen's painting is full of the familiar, the comfortable, the undramatic, and you know exactly what's going to happen next, and probably for the next four hours--there will probably be more activity coming from the window in the background than from the figure represented.

In Vermeer's painting, every detail is presented with astonishing detail, from the objects on the table, to the many different textures of fabric, to the jewelry. Any time I look at a Vermeer painting, I walk away seeing everything as more vivid than I did before, because his vision was so intense. In Larsen's painting, some things are vivid and detailed, such as the shadows on her arm. But some things are sloppy and pretty cheesy and fake looking--check out the metal in the fireplace! Vermeer would never paint something metal without making it jump out of the picture at you.

As to what the ideal of our philosophy looks like, if "our philosophy" is supposed to mean Objectivism, I will point out that Ayn Rand did call Vermeer "the greatest of all artists" (The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 48). Although she criticized Vermeer for being too naturalistic, his works still strike me as being more romantic than Larsen's, whose themes often strike me as being a little trite, if not boring. I agree with Mr. Sandberg's evaluation of Larsen. I think Larsen has potential, but is far from greatness as an artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hello, fat, lovely maid. Why, thank you for asking about my coat, and yes, it was"

"There's a note for your Madam, and bringing it to you fills my heart with joy, since I love to serve"

Lol, oh yeah, I have to comment on this, too. The people in this picture could never say those things! Did you look at the expressions on their faces at all?? The last thing on the Mistress' mind is idle chit chat. She is greatly concerned about the contents of that letter--she looks as though, at that moment, the letter is all that exists for her! And the Maid is not thinking about how her heart is filled with joy. She's obviously concerned for the Mistress, at the same time being polite in delivering the letter.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because his work does show very directly The philosophy of Ayn Rand with some direct reference to her novels does not automatically mean that he mimics it blindly.

May I take a guess: Do you dislike popular music / art because it is popular, and therefor must be cheap? I apologize if I am off, but the principles involved in both cases seem the same to me.

As for Bryan Larsen, to me it's very obvious that he is in love with his paintings. My favorite is Just the Begining (by Bryan Larsen).

I mean, the way he was able to show a hint of the woman's expression just with her profile... it took my breath away.

That painting is my all-times favorite. If I wanted someone to buy me a painting, this would be it.

Star Gazer Is also beautiful. Only criticism I have of it is that the woman's expression is a bit... worried. But the rest is just oh! my god!

I think the Star Gazer is beautiful. The stars themselves express a sense of adventurous wonder, but they do not dwarf the supreme value of the woman. She is larger in importance than they are, and the most important thing about her is her focused, thinking mind. She is not worried, she is CONCENTRATING on the object of her thought. Thus, it is the highest human value which is represented here so strongly and cleanly, and one could search far and wide before discovering another painting which exalts man's mind in such an apparently simple way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Well, the phrase "sense of life" relative to Objectivism is not exactly the same as "feel for life" in the artistic sense, in conveying movement and action.

For example, in Larsen's previously-mentioned Just the Beginning, he is clearly referencing a heroic "sense of life" in the Objectivist sense. However, the tone of the work is flat and uninspired, the woman does not seem to be something that moves about (ie. is alive), the buildings through the window have no depth, as though they are part of a poster, and even the colors are muted or dull. There is no feeling of action, which is the real essence of life. In the context of Quent Cordair's gallery and his posted biography there, I know he had good intentions. But the painting misses its mark and I do not have a high opinion of it.

Also, to elaborate, a frozen frame of reality would not accomplish his aim in depicting greatness because it would also include irrelevant or superfluous information, which would be hopelessly distracting. Art is about the most important.

And there is a difference between good painting and a good painting. For example, Larsen is good at painting certain kinds of cloth and clouds. But that isn't enough to make his work overall good. I think his best piece on the site is Born with Wings.

What, then, would you say to this work - View Master -

[4'x8' mural, acrylic on canvas]

post-5060-1238640882_thumb.jpg

Edited by anonrobt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...