@betazoid Correct. When I say environment I am trying to encapsulate everything such as, landscape, interiors, cityscapes, seascapes, etc… The static views that encompass a particular scene and all the fine details rendered in them. For example in a town scene the buildings, streets, markets, barrels, clock towers etc… Or for instance in some of the European mythos paintings the buildings, vines crawling up the pillars grasses and mountains etc…
Those things are the things I like more then the people that may be present because for me it is those views that really tell the story if not for the views you just have a notable subject against a blank backdrop.
I enjoy Friedrich’s and Turner’s landscapes, some Picasso pieces (such as the guitarist and some cubism) and some portraits from Waterhouse that are quite dreamy and hyper-realistic and easy to enjoy as well.
Now for photography, I have a weakness for Diane Arbus’s work.
The reason for my reticence is that I am sure that I don’t know enough about artists and their work to say anything definitive. Of course I am aware of what has been discussed above but the problem with any forum is that I don’t want the gatekeepers to bully me if I sound ignorant. Generally, this is a fun place to be; however, there have been examples of bad conversations.
For architecture, I like mid-centry modern, roadside Americana (large versions of things!), and postmodern(?) (Lucky enough to live in Los Angeles, with buildings like The Broad and Disney Concert Hall).
For art I like a lot of things. Photography in particular, I like Troy Pavia and Helmut Newton. I admire the classic masters. I also watch Thomas Heston and Nick Page on the YouTubes; their work is good and I enjoy that they share their process (though both could use some software freedom :P).
My schooling is mostly in the literary arts, so I enjoy Philip Levine, Thomas Pynchon, and other modern/postmodern American writers.
I also enjoy anything of a post-apocalyptic feel, such as the Borderlands video game series.
I think this is becoming an interesting discussion. You mentioned a few artists that I did not know so far.
So far I state a preference for modern (=after French Revolution) art which is not surprising.
Anyway @afre I am not quite sure what you mean but as far as I am concerned I am certainly not going to criticize anybody for their taste. Or fight with anybody about taste (wouldn’t that be kind of absurd?). I know from experience that tastes can change.
Form follows function - 100%. I don’t give a shit about design if it gets in the way of performance… and beauty is in simplicity. There are some “iconic” designs that you simply can’t improve: the Douglas DC3 aircraft, the Porsche 911 sportscar, the Lamy 2000 ballpen or the Laser sail-dinghy.
Next to that I lack respect for “art” without a certain degree of craftsmanship. Salvador Dali and Keith Haring are where it’s at, Picasso an Van Gogh don’t pass my test (I know - some might disagree, but who cares?). Anyway: music is the only real art, and the masters are Johann Sebastian Bach and Frank Zappa.
I have a particular story about Monet and his influence on my imaging. 'Bout 12 years ago, we took a Baltic cruise, where one stop was St. Petersburg, Russia. We did a tour that included the Hermitage, and on that tour we saw their Monet collection. I’m not a student of art or art history, but that collection and the associated backstory corralled my interest. Impressionism is one of the more abstract forms, but I think the soft notions of light are very correlatable to the stark process of photography and the scenes we capture. We had just acquired our first real digital camera, a Nikon D50, and I was just starting to look at it as more than a family documentation tool. A lot of what i saw in that hall influenced many of the images I subsequently captured on that trip, and really up until now. I haven’t gone so far as to gaussian-up any of my images (well, none I’d post, anyway), but Monet specifically showed me there was hope to find the gold nuggets in even a noon-lit scene…
We are still discovering his mastery, uncovering new works and stories about him. His works are even visually (and mathematically, for the scientists, engineers and coders) astounding.
Well Monet was also a photographer. Impressionist painters did use photographs as aid, although they made a secret of this and always denied that they used photographs. The relationship between photography and painting in the 19th century is very complex, it is quite a new research area. Anyway the influence went both ways and of course there kind of also was a competition between them.
I used to love Monet as a teenager. Later not so much but I think last year there was a big Monet exhibition at the Albertina, I saw it several times because I have a special ticket, and although the lighting was terrible I kind of rediscovered Monet. He was a “green” spirit at a time when there were no green parties and he was certainly one of the greatest masters of landscape art.
I can’t imagine where you’d get an idea like that???
Personally…
Da Vinci - Banksy
Debussy - Bowie
Bessler - Brunel
Fisher - Carlsen
Pele - Zidan
… I don’t care who painted, composed, designed, built or played it, if it moves me then it’s good. And I certainly don’t give a piece extra credit just because the creator has a catalogue of great works.
Well maybe I am wrong. But I think people who likes math have more affinity to music. Although… I think that people who like geometry are very visual and it’s those who like algebra who are more drawn to music. To be honest, I do not know too many examples. I used to have a slightly autistic friend, even he liked some art, in general pictures that little children like such as photos of fireworks, but also some landscapes. But more complex/“artistic” creations or works that required a more “mature mind” were simply inaccessible to him. The guy is a programmer and very into technology.
No, you’re not off the mark on this. Back in the '60s and '70s, the US Department of Defense made an effort to hire computer people from the ranks of musicians, recognizing this correlation.
One of my day job duties is to mentor aerospace engineers. One of the key realizations I try to impart is that engineering is less about the technology and more about organizing large groups of people to build things no single person could reasonably attempt. This is very much correlated to the dynamic of a symphonic orchestra, where the structures of the “technology” (melody, rhythm, chord progressioning, etc.) are supplemented by the score in front of each musician and all the cues provided by the conductor. We have season tickets to our local orchestra, and these thoughts run through my mind at every performance…
I’m really not a math person, and probably not much of an art person. Probably just stupid enough to gain comfort from coarse and simplistic logical reasoning…
Well, I was going to say that 3D photography somehow relates to analytic Cubism. But then I thought nobody would understand what I mean. (I guess it has to do with the old rivalry between photography and painting.)
Do you happen to know Ivan Aivazovsky or Albert Bierstadt? (They might be “your taste”, too.)
But there must be great (post columbian) Latin American artists as well. Strangely I do not know so much about Spanish art either.
So several important members have not (properly) participated in this discussion. Why are the Renaissance Men quiet? And aren’t there also people here who have studied art?
Some of my favorite Christmas tree ornaments have an origin story:
When my parents got married, they didn’t have any of their own ornaments, and not much spare money due to just buying a house. They both worked in silicon processing research facilities, and many failure modes in wafer processing led to really pretty color patterns. So they sorted reject wafers by similar look, and glued pairs together with a string in between so they could be hung from an ornament hook.
That little box of factory reject silicon wafers is still my favorite set of ornaments when I visit the family and help decorate the tree.
I guess you could call it ‘accidental modern art’ with a helping of ‘beauty in science’?
