Home › Forums › The Town Center › Café Guerbois › Who are the great Painters of Today?
- This topic has 157 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by Neeman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 2, 2010 at 11:53 pm #988562
I think about great painters I automatically go back to the 1500-1600 painters but im curious. Who today can hold a candle to those guys??
Who are todays GREATS?
April 3, 2010 at 12:42 am #1138557Do they still have to be alive, reciently dead ok?
April 3, 2010 at 1:07 am #1138549Hi,
Alive and in terms of market value: Lucian Freud (now with an exhibition at the Centre Pompidou, Paris) and Damien Hirst (not one of my favourites).
There are others of course.
Personally I like Istvan Sandorfi and Pino Daeni, even if not as valuable in terms of market.Kind regards,
José
I'm not lazy because I sleep until late. I just dream alot.
April 3, 2010 at 1:44 am #1138610Do they still have to be alive, reciently dead ok?
Last 10yrs dead or alive lets say!
April 3, 2010 at 8:25 am #1138478There are many many, that I prefer actually, to the Masters. There is a thread right now in the Oil Forum here, along the same lines, and there are many examples in it.
JocelynApril 3, 2010 at 8:34 am #1138535April 3, 2010 at 8:58 am #1138528OK, I’ll probably get hammered for this (but please be polite ), but I’d say there really hasn’t been a great painter since the early 1900’s. Lots of good ones, but nobody worth remembering 500 years down the road in the way (say) we remember Leonardo or even Pisarro.
Really great art depends on more than just painterly skills; an artist needs to be able to bring to perception some aspect that changes the way we interpret the world. They tend to bubble up from the mass of artists in times of social dislocation – when older ways of doing things are giving ground to newer ones. The Impressionists/Independents are probably the best known example; their work reflected all sorts of things – from the invention of tube paints, to photography, to the turbulent politics of France in the 19th C, to social changes (especially urbanization).
On top of that, they occur when art is able to attract the best and the brightest – young people who are willing to radically challenge convention. I think of the early 1900’s as the turning point, because that was when – especially in the first decade – science put its huge stamp on the world and became the big draw for youth looking for a means to understand and express the world.
It was unfortunate (for art) that artists did not keep pace; perhaps the last sputter was the Viennese attempts to keep up with psychoanalysis, or Cubism’s rather weak attempt to address the issues of modernity. Just about everything in “Big Art” since then seems to be (more or less) a luddite withdrawal into mannerism from engagement.
I’m not saying, btw, great art is dead. It’s just sleeping for awhile. People still want visual imagery to help them grasp the world. But until artists themselves start (once again) being curious enough – as well as skilled and broadly educated enough – to investigate Gauguin’s questions (“Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?”), the world is going to have to sedate itself with distraction-passing-as-fine arts, television, and Wii.
C&C of all sorts always welcome! (I don't mind rude or harsh criticism.)
I suppose I have to do this too (my blog, & current work). My Visual Arts Nova Scotia page.
Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known - Oscar Wilde
The primary palette: Attention, observation, memory, imagination, integration, executionApril 3, 2010 at 12:08 pm #1138491Jocelyn… do you have a link to that thread? It might be a topic better suited to the Cafe or the Art History forums because it is quite possible that some of the best contemporary painters use something beside oil paint (Andrew Wyeth).
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
April 3, 2010 at 1:57 pm #1138562I have to say Wolf Kahn, Robert Bateman, but there are so many others
Pastels are the dust on butterflies' wings. ~Wolf Kahn
Take care, Be well, Be safe http://www.scottleckrone.com[/SIZE]April 3, 2010 at 5:26 pm #1138480Richard Schmid, John Stobart, Clyde Aspevig
(I’m partial to landscape painters)
and Frank Frazetta
Brad
C & C welcome
Brad Marshall ArtApril 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm #1138558Hi,
Alfreda, I was thinking the same as well as James Gleeson.April 4, 2010 at 11:20 am #1138479I disagree with no great painters existing today. Totally and Definitely. 100% hands down disagree I think that you just need to Look. And I Definitely think, some, will for sure be recalled 500 yrs from now.
Here is the thread.
https://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615631
I think it may be that the thread is specific to oil painters, being started in there. True that there are many that use other mediums, or more than 1 medium.
Jocelyn
April 4, 2010 at 10:37 pm #1138611thanks
April 6, 2010 at 11:03 pm #1138492OK, I’ll probably get hammered for this (but please be polite ), but I’d say there really hasn’t been a great painter since the early 1900’s. Lots of good ones, but nobody worth remembering 500 years down the road in the way (say) we remember Leonardo or even Pisarro.
Absolute blithering nonsense! There has never been an era in history without its share of great artists. Certainly, there were eras that were better (the Renaissance) and worse (the Rococo) but the notion that great art somehow died around 1900 is absolutely absurd… especially when it ignores the fact that Modernism may just represent the single greatest paradigm shift in the history of Western art since the Renaissance. The fact that you dislike the art that resulted is irrelevant. The ability to offer a useful opinion on art demands the ability to recognize that there is a difference between personal favorites and objective reality. Picasso is not my personal favorite artist of the 20thy century… although I greatly admire his work… but I do recognize that he is unquestionably the most important artist. Picasso ranks alongside Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Leonardo Davinci (forget Pissaro) as one of the most towering figures of Western art history. This is the reality whether you approve of his achievements or not. His position in art history is already 100 years old so I don’t imagine that another 100 or so will result in him (and the whole of Modernism) being rejected as some great anomaly. Beyond Picasso there are endless other others of true merit from the last century. For you to dismiss the whole of their achievements demands that you define just what is wrong or missing in their art… otherwise, such claims are but empty rhetoric.
Really great art depends on more than just painterly skills; an artist needs to be able to bring to perception some aspect that changes the way we interpret the world.
So let me get this strait… somehow Picasso and Cubism did not offer a new way of looking at the world… a world of increasing speed and complexity… a world in which concepts that were once taken for granted (God, aristocracy) were now falling into question… a world that appeared increasingly fragmented? German Expressionism which focused upon inner turmoil and passions did not offer any new world view?
They tend to bubble up from the mass of artists in times of social dislocation – when older ways of doing things are giving ground to newer ones. The Impressionists/Independents are probably the best known example; their work reflected all sorts of things – from the invention of tube paints, to photography, to the turbulent politics of France in the 19th C, to social changes (especially urbanization).
Your analysis is accurate… but you ignore the results of the last 100 years because why?
On top of that, they occur when art is able to attract the best and the brightest – young people who are willing to radically challenge convention. I think of the early 1900’s as the turning point, because that was when – especially in the first decade – science put its huge stamp on the world and became the big draw for youth looking for a means to understand and express the world.
That’s a desperate attempt to explain away the fact that you dislike the art of the last century by suggesting that art no longer draws the best minds of the time. Science, the law, literature, philosophy, medicine, etc… have always been attractive career choices for the best and brightest among the young. Art has always been a passion for a limited few. Today’s artists are no less intelligent that those of any time in history. In reality, today’s artists are often far more educated in areas outside of the mere craft of painting or stone carving than were the majority of most artists in the past… when art was thought of far more as a craft than an intellectual endeavor.
It was unfortunate (for art) that artists did not keep pace; perhaps the last sputter was the Viennese attempts to keep up with psychoanalysis, or Cubism’s rather weak attempt to address the issues of modernity. Just about everything in “Big Art” since then seems to be (more or less) a luddite withdrawal into mannerism from engagement.
One might suggest that the idea of rejecting the whole of Modernism… why?… because it evolved into a language that you disapprove of as opposed to the visual languages of the past… is far more of an example of Luddite thinking than anything coming out of art in the last 100 years.
I’m not saying, btw, great art is dead. It’s just sleeping for awhile. People still want visual imagery to help them grasp the world. But until artists themselves start (once again) being curious enough – as well as skilled and broadly educated enough – to investigate Gauguin’s questions (“Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?”), the world is going to have to sedate itself with distraction-passing-as-fine arts, television, and Wii.
If the art of the last 100 years is Luddite in manner, then should we not expect that the true art of the future is not likely to be found in paintings or sculpture… but in your Wii or on your laptop?
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
April 6, 2010 at 11:28 pm #1138493Who are the great painters of today?
Certainly Andrew Wyeth:
Definitely Lucian Freud:
And George Tooker:
Anselm Kiefer:
Definitely Jasper Johns:
Possibly Sean Scully:
But there are endless artists today of real merit… and only time will tell which ones have achieved something of such worth that continues to resonate over the ages… something that continues to speak to future artists and art lovers.
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Who are the great Painters of Today?’ is closed to new replies.
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Search