Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phoenix
yr forgiven.
from what I know of vermeer, I appreciate, yet don't exactly 'like' his work. It's beautiful and wonderfully well done technically, and I understand the math and formulae and hardwork etcetcetc. But.. yes.. I dont know.. It is.. not my thing.
This one of de hooch you suggest does the same for me. I can appreciate, totally, but it doesnt turn on my arty side :P
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phoenix
it sounds like I think vermeer/de hooch is shit... I dont at all. hopefully what I wrote is kind of understandable. :|
|
no, i totally get it.
the thing is this: in the painting i posted above, it's nothing that you can see in that picture that is the attraction for me. what i mean is that it doesn't work in the interwebs-- it's neither the subject of the painting nor the composition that i love there: it's the way the light reflects in the tiles from the sky outside the door that does it for me, that simple detail, but that you can only see in front of the actual painting.
vermeer is also wonderful in the same way, by the way: live, in the flesh.
or say for example rothko: postcard-sized reproductions would never do him justice.
is that a great painting? it is. can that be seen over the interwebs? nevarr.
in any case, i'd love to see botticelli's primavera and birth of venus in person. if i lived in florence, i'd stop by the uffizi every day.
i've seen his mars and venus though, and also this:
