quote:Originally posted by pape du neuf:
Worth $60 or not? Debate
http://www.banksy.co.uk/2013/10/13/central-park
Well, that is $2M less than Angelina and Brad paid.
Well, that is $2M less than Angelina and Brad paid.
Well, that is $2M less than Angelina and Brad paid.
quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
PAGING wine+art,
Anna in Atlanta wants to say thank you! Didn't have your real name to provide when she asked me about the referral. I gave her as much as I had to go on (Dallas + Sante Fe; avid art collector and wine lover) . . . didn't ring any bells with her but she wanted to express her appreciation for the referral
Art coming my way from her in a few weeks
thanks from me again as well. She was a joy to work with!
Hey, which piece did you end up buying?? Do you have a link to the image(s)?
quote:Originally posted by pape du neuf:
Worth $60 or not? Debate
http://www.banksy.co.uk/2013/10/13/central-park
Looks like stencil work, so art can be duplicated which would detract value, but having it signed by artist probably adds value. At $60 , not much risk especially if you like it.
wine+art . . . you around in Dallas next week?
There for work on Thursday (Oct 24). Let me know if you're up for a drink or dinner on Wednesday (Oct 23)
email = parvical69 at gmail
There for work on Thursday (Oct 24). Let me know if you're up for a drink or dinner on Wednesday (Oct 23)
email = parvical69 at gmail
quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
wine+art . . . you around in Dallas next week?
There for work on Thursday (Oct 24). Let me know if you're up for a drink or dinner on Wednesday (Oct 23)
email = parvical69 at gmail
Parcival, I'm disappointed.
I have a BOD dinner on Wednesday and a BOD meeting on Thursday.
Please reach out the next time you are in Texas. ( Austin, SAT, Houston or DFW)
quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
wine+art . . . you around in Dallas next week?
There for work on Thursday (Oct 24). Let me know if you're up for a drink or dinner on Wednesday (Oct 23)
email = parvical69 at gmail
Parcival, I'm disappointed.
I have a BOD dinner on Wednesday and a BOD meeting on Thursday.
Please reach out the next time you are in Texas. ( Austin, SAT, Houston or DFW)
Next time it is!
I don't know if it's been all the chair discussion in the 'what are you buying' thread, or the nerd engineer in me, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about The parabola chair
quote:Originally posted by vinoevelo:
I don't know if it's been all the chair discussion in the 'what are you buying' thread, or the nerd engineer in me, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about The parabola chair
Don't like. Stance is too wide. Seat too tight.
This is much more attractive, but the description sounds more like hyperbolic.
Gaudi inspired
i hadn't even thought of sitting in it yet... must be the dy/dx in me.
i love the simplicity of extrapolating & shifting the parabola about the (?) plane of seating(?) that extends back to infinity.
I keep hoping Cecil Balmond will design a chair.
i love the simplicity of extrapolating & shifting the parabola about the (?) plane of seating(?) that extends back to infinity.
I keep hoping Cecil Balmond will design a chair.
So it appears that NYC wants to arrest Banksy for vandalism due to his graffiti art. Should he be arrested or thanked?
Anyone have any favorite galleries to recommend in Paris? I'd just be looking as opposed to shopping, I think. Going in a few weeks.
quote:Originally posted by ThistlinTom:
So it appears that NYC wants to arrest Banksy for vandalism due to his graffiti art. Should he be arrested or thanked?
Re: my previous post illustrating the importance of context. If Banksy is arrested that becomes part of the art.
Want a Picasso ? Got a couple of million available?
29 pieces to be auctioned at Christies soon.
29 pieces to be auctioned at Christies soon.
The treasure to Dallas known as the Nasher Sculpture Center is celebrating their 10th year this weekend with 10 new sculpture installations by 10 new artist at 10 new and different sites throughout the city. We simply download their app and off you go spending the day discovering new treasures.
Tomorrow will be a day in their private sculpture garden filled with music, new pieces and such.
A sunny weekend in the lower 70's makes for a perfect weekend in Big D.
Tomorrow will be a day in their private sculpture garden filled with music, new pieces and such.
A sunny weekend in the lower 70's makes for a perfect weekend in Big D.
quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
wine+art . . . you around in Dallas next week?
There for work on Thursday (Oct 24). Let me know if you're up for a drink or dinner on Wednesday (Oct 23)
email = parvical69 at gmail
Parcival,
Have you made your dinner reservations?
PRINT...
I'm not sure there is a more misunderstood word within the art world. A topic far better to discuss over a dinner and wine, but a few thoughts.
First off, the very finest museums and galleries across the world are filled with so called, prints.
An etching, woodblock, linocut, intaglio, lithography, aquatint, relief, drypoint, collograph, serigraphy, monotype, iris and many others are all types of prints. Many of these have been around for hundreds of years. Rembrandt was a printmaker extraordinaire.
Prints should never be thought of as less in quality, originality, value or uniqueness summarily. That would be a mistake of the uninformed. (I'm not talking about offset printing.)
There are reasons an artist will choose to use printmaking as their choice of production. A couple of examples. Think of an etching. One can create tension in their work that cannot be achieved in traditional painting. Serigraph and silk-screen creates something/ statement that often cannot be recreated in traditional painting, and the same can be said for all and other forms of prints that I listed above.
I have heard people say, they do not like Giclees. A giclee can be an original work of art, and often is although they do not have to be. There are serious artist that create the original art piece within the computer and then print the piece using machine technology. There is no 'original' painted piece that was then copied. I have heard people ask to see the original from the Giclee, and the artist must explain, there is no such thing. This is not a reproduction, it is the original.
I think it also helps for someone to understand the reason artist often use a form of printmaking. One of the driving forces from the late 1800's - forward is a rejection of control, power, possessiveness and the role of art in the modern world through the eyes of then emerging artist and even established artist then and now. Printmaking was in many ways a way for an artist to give the finger to the powerful, elite, the church or the high-and-mighty state owned museums and such. There was a rejection of a museum, the Vatican or even a gallery choosing what was seen and by whom or what was not and when. Offering multiple prints was just one way to break such control that artist often despised. From the Vatican to the Louvre, someone is choosing what is seen and what is not, and only about 10% of what is owned is on display at any time.
There was also the thinking from artist that art should not be for only the well-to-do,or people that had the money or even access to museums, and serious art should be affordable and hanging in the dorm rooms of students across the world.
There is also the thinking that print number 1 or 5 or 10 is better and more valuable than print number 300. There was a time that could be the case as the print transfer may lose some of the clarity with use. An example of this would be a stone transfer. Print 1 would surely be better than print number ???. This is really not the case often today. Print number 300 can often be just as nice as print number 1. ( many variables for sure) One of the things that has given some collectors great consternation today and some are evening suing is the fact the printmaking today is often better than in the past. Say you bought a Picasso or Warhol from decades ago, and their estate decides to release new screenings from the original screenings. These can clearly be better than the one you may have bought as processes, paints and materials can be better today than decades before. It is an ugly battle in the art world. I see re-releases far better than what may be in a museum today.
Think about a clay or plaster Giacometti being bronzed. Does one think there cannot be several cast from the bronze that are excellent? The art world has been turned upside-down with Giacometti non-original works in museums across the world today and it is ugly.
One must think about why you are buying a piece of art. Is it as an investment or is it because you love the work and want to enjoy it and make it part of your daily life?
I have just touched on the subject, and far too much to discuss here, but I will close by saying the word print is being painted with a far too broad of a brush.
I'm not sure there is a more misunderstood word within the art world. A topic far better to discuss over a dinner and wine, but a few thoughts.
First off, the very finest museums and galleries across the world are filled with so called, prints.
An etching, woodblock, linocut, intaglio, lithography, aquatint, relief, drypoint, collograph, serigraphy, monotype, iris and many others are all types of prints. Many of these have been around for hundreds of years. Rembrandt was a printmaker extraordinaire.
Prints should never be thought of as less in quality, originality, value or uniqueness summarily. That would be a mistake of the uninformed. (I'm not talking about offset printing.)
There are reasons an artist will choose to use printmaking as their choice of production. A couple of examples. Think of an etching. One can create tension in their work that cannot be achieved in traditional painting. Serigraph and silk-screen creates something/ statement that often cannot be recreated in traditional painting, and the same can be said for all and other forms of prints that I listed above.
I have heard people say, they do not like Giclees. A giclee can be an original work of art, and often is although they do not have to be. There are serious artist that create the original art piece within the computer and then print the piece using machine technology. There is no 'original' painted piece that was then copied. I have heard people ask to see the original from the Giclee, and the artist must explain, there is no such thing. This is not a reproduction, it is the original.
I think it also helps for someone to understand the reason artist often use a form of printmaking. One of the driving forces from the late 1800's - forward is a rejection of control, power, possessiveness and the role of art in the modern world through the eyes of then emerging artist and even established artist then and now. Printmaking was in many ways a way for an artist to give the finger to the powerful, elite, the church or the high-and-mighty state owned museums and such. There was a rejection of a museum, the Vatican or even a gallery choosing what was seen and by whom or what was not and when. Offering multiple prints was just one way to break such control that artist often despised. From the Vatican to the Louvre, someone is choosing what is seen and what is not, and only about 10% of what is owned is on display at any time.
There was also the thinking from artist that art should not be for only the well-to-do,or people that had the money or even access to museums, and serious art should be affordable and hanging in the dorm rooms of students across the world.
There is also the thinking that print number 1 or 5 or 10 is better and more valuable than print number 300. There was a time that could be the case as the print transfer may lose some of the clarity with use. An example of this would be a stone transfer. Print 1 would surely be better than print number ???. This is really not the case often today. Print number 300 can often be just as nice as print number 1. ( many variables for sure) One of the things that has given some collectors great consternation today and some are evening suing is the fact the printmaking today is often better than in the past. Say you bought a Picasso or Warhol from decades ago, and their estate decides to release new screenings from the original screenings. These can clearly be better than the one you may have bought as processes, paints and materials can be better today than decades before. It is an ugly battle in the art world. I see re-releases far better than what may be in a museum today.
Think about a clay or plaster Giacometti being bronzed. Does one think there cannot be several cast from the bronze that are excellent? The art world has been turned upside-down with Giacometti non-original works in museums across the world today and it is ugly.
One must think about why you are buying a piece of art. Is it as an investment or is it because you love the work and want to enjoy it and make it part of your daily life?
I have just touched on the subject, and far too much to discuss here, but I will close by saying the word print is being painted with a far too broad of a brush.
You've shocked everyone into silence....
Wine+art . . . to your point about new releases having the potential to be better than the original releases
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range. I recently purchased a "digital print" of the same photo being release in an edition size of 20 by TIME. The release size is 30x36 and the clarity of the actual photo is spectacular - better than the original release.
I suspect this re-release will never be worth as much as the "original" largely because it does not have Eisenstadt's signature. But, for purely aesthetic reasons (not to mention it's fraction of the "original's cost), I actually prefer this larger size / greater clarity print
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range. I recently purchased a "digital print" of the same photo being release in an edition size of 20 by TIME. The release size is 30x36 and the clarity of the actual photo is spectacular - better than the original release.
I suspect this re-release will never be worth as much as the "original" largely because it does not have Eisenstadt's signature. But, for purely aesthetic reasons (not to mention it's fraction of the "original's cost), I actually prefer this larger size / greater clarity print
quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
Wine+art . . . to your point about new releases having the potential to be better than the original releases
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range. I recently purchased a "digital print" of the same photo being release in an edition size of 20 by TIME. The release size is 30x36 and the clarity of the actual photo is spectacular - better than the original release.
I suspect this re-release will never be worth as much as the "original" largely because it does not have Eisenstadt's signature. But, for purely aesthetic reasons (not to mention it's fraction of the "original's cost), I actually prefer this larger size / greater clarity print
Just looked it up, great photo.
quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range.
Parcival, you certain that wasn't a Platinum Palladium Print? I don't know the specific piece that you're referring personally but would expect that was specifically that type of print. This type of print would have more Influence on the piece's value (IMO) than just the artist's signature. It would be extremely age worthy
quote:Originally posted by KSC02:quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range.
Parcival, you certain that wasn't a Platinum Palladium Print? I don't know the specific piece that you're referring personally but would expect that was specifically that type of print. This type of print would have more Influence on the piece's value (IMO) than just the artist's signature. It would be extremely age worthy
Kevin -- not sure. But, here's some more info. Other photos released back in 1991 are selling for ~2x their original offer price (e.g., a few prints with original price of ~$1,400, now selling for ~$2,500). According to every gallery with whom I have spoken, the "Children at Puppet Theatre" was a run-away success and skyrocketed in value within a few years of being released (edition size = 250).
Anyway, going to check into this. All I know is that the "original" is way outside of my art-purchase strike zone!
quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
Wine+art . . . to your point about new releases having the potential to be better than the original releases
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range. I recently purchased a "digital print" of the same photo being release in an edition size of 20 by TIME. The release size is 30x36 and the clarity of the actual photo is spectacular - better than the original release.
I suspect this re-release will never be worth as much as the "original" largely because it does not have Eisenstadt's signature. But, for purely aesthetic reasons (not to mention it's fraction of the "original's cost), I actually prefer this larger size / greater clarity print
i love it!
can you shoot me the link where you bought it
btw W+A
i never realized computer works are called Giclees ..
I pretty much only draw stuff on my computer
i never realized computer works are called Giclees ..
I pretty much only draw stuff on my computer
quote:Originally posted by g-man:quote:Originally posted by Parcival:
Wine+art . . . to your point about new releases having the potential to be better than the original releases
I may be using words incorrectly, but here goes.
An Eisenstadt photo (Children at Puppet Theatre) was released in 1991. This photo was printed from the original negative and signed by Eisenstadt. I believe this piece was a silver-gelatin print. It's a beautiful piece at 20x24 and is auctioning in the $50,000 range. I recently purchased a "digital print" of the same photo being release in an edition size of 20 by TIME. The release size is 30x36 and the clarity of the actual photo is spectacular - better than the original release.
I suspect this re-release will never be worth as much as the "original" largely because it does not have Eisenstadt's signature. But, for purely aesthetic reasons (not to mention it's fraction of the "original's cost), I actually prefer this larger size / greater clarity print
i love it!
can you shoot me the link where you bought it
G-man . . . 3 options I have found.
1) Jackson Fine art (anna@jacksonfineart.com) wine+art referred me to Anna and she was a pleasure to work with. I ended up purchasing from her
2) Photographer's Gallery in LA (nicole@photographersgallery.com)
3) Can't find the name here but there is a gallery specializing in photography down in Dallas. Apparently the oldest photography gallery in the state. Gentleman I spoke with was very nice but not as proactive as either Anna or Nicole. Given that, it's probably all the better that I can't find the name
Prices were identical at all galleries BTW
Rob Sutherland also referred me to a gallery in Ohio (Contessa Gallery: 216-382-7800). They have the original piece I was speaking of for $50,000. If you call them, I would ask for the person Rob referred me to - Steven. The woman I spoke with seemed a little indignant when I asked what the price was for the piece . . . very much communicated the idea that if I had to ask, I couldn't afford it (though, admittedly, she was right!)
If you've the passion, patience and time keep your eyes peeled on the auction markets. Prices, in general, vary widely over time as cycles breathe.
Patience is typically your friend.
Patience is typically your friend.
quote:Originally posted by KSC02:
If you've the passion, patience and time keep your eyes peeled on the auction markets. Prices, in general, vary widely over time as cycles breathe.
Patience is typically your friend.
Sage advice!! Purchasing an old piece from a gallery at the height of the bull will likely not reveal any bargains.
quote:w+a wrote:...I have heard people say, they do not like Giclees. A giclee can be an original work of art, and often is although they do not have to be. There are serious artist that create the original art piece within the computer and then print the piece using machine technology. There is no 'original' painted piece that was then copied. I have heard people ask to see the original from the Giclee, and the artist must explain, there is no such thing. This is not a reproduction, it is the original.
I think it also helps for someone to understand the reason artist often use a form of printmaking. One of the driving forces from the late 1800's - forward is a rejection of control, power, possessiveness and the role of art in the modern world through the eyes of then emerging artist and even established artist then and now. Printmaking was in many ways a way for an artist to give the finger to the powerful, elite, the church or the high-and-mighty state owned museums and such. There was a rejection of a museum, the Vatican or even a gallery choosing what was seen and by whom or what was not and when. Offering multiple prints was just one way to break such control that artist often despised. From the Vatican to the Louvre, someone is choosing what is seen and what is not, and only about 10% of what is owned is on display at any time.
There was also the thinking from artist that art should not be for only the well-to-do,or people that had the money or even access to museums, and serious art should be affordable and hanging in the dorm rooms of students across the world.
You've given me much to think about with these words. I recall your offer of a phone call a few years back during my giclee struggles. Your comments may not ultimately change my mind, but they certainly open up my views on the artform
Gracias
Interesting comments about Giclees W+A. I've always dismissed them as well primarily due to my preferences on seeing and admiring the brush strokes and techniques.
Weirdest art show ever?
The Complete Frida Show
San Diego is hosting an show for 3 months that will have every Frida Kahlo painting. Yes every--even those in museums, private hands and Madonna. How's that possible? Well all 123 are "authorized by Mexico" (whatever that means) reproductions painted by one man. In addition you can see over 500 (!) personal items of Kahlo--oh yeah they're also reproductions.
On article said the art works were, "...authentic, one-of-a-kind reproductions." Whatever that means.
Or is there perhaps some validity to the show as many masterpieces of great artists are in private hands? Madonna, for example, will not lend out any of her pieces.
The Complete Frida Show
San Diego is hosting an show for 3 months that will have every Frida Kahlo painting. Yes every--even those in museums, private hands and Madonna. How's that possible? Well all 123 are "authorized by Mexico" (whatever that means) reproductions painted by one man. In addition you can see over 500 (!) personal items of Kahlo--oh yeah they're also reproductions.
On article said the art works were, "...authentic, one-of-a-kind reproductions." Whatever that means.
Or is there perhaps some validity to the show as many masterpieces of great artists are in private hands? Madonna, for example, will not lend out any of her pieces.
quote:Originally posted by The Old Man:
Weirdest art show ever?
The Complete Frida Show
San Diego is hosting an show for 3 months that will have every Frida Kahlo painting. Yes every--even those in museums, private hands and Madonna. How's that possible? Well all 123 are "authorized by Mexico" (whatever that means) reproductions painted by one man. In addition you can see over 500 (!) personal items of Kahlo--oh yeah they're also reproductions.
On article said the art works were, "...authentic, one-of-a-kind reproductions." Whatever that means.
Or is there perhaps some validity to the show as many masterpieces of great artists are in private hands? Madonna, for example, will not lend out any of her pieces.
Hmm, I guess if you wanted to see what her art looked like and get an idea how she lived, it might be useful. Definitely odd to see one of a kind reproductions....
quote:Originally posted by The Old Man:
Anthony Caro, Sculptor, Dead at 89
We are losing all the greatest of the great, and Caro was one of them.
America became the center of the art world in the late 40's - today, and the influence has spread throughout without ebb.
Clement and Peggy certainly banged their drum loudly and often and the art world is better for it.
quote:Originally posted by The Old Man:
Weirdest art show ever?
The Complete Frida Show
San Diego is hosting an show for 3 months that will have every Frida Kahlo painting. Yes every--even those in museums, private hands and Madonna. How's that possible? Well all 123 are "authorized by Mexico" (whatever that means) reproductions painted by one man. In addition you can see over 500 (!) personal items of Kahlo--oh yeah they're also reproductions.
On article said the art works were, "...authentic, one-of-a-kind reproductions." Whatever that means.
Or is there perhaps some validity to the show as many masterpieces of great artists are in private hands? Madonna, for example, will not lend out any of her pieces.
Interesting.
quote:Originally posted by DoubleD:
Interesting comments about Giclees W+A. I've always dismissed them as well primarily due to my preferences on seeing and admiring the brush strokes and techniques.
DD, you have just dismissed 80% of all art, including Rembrandt etchings, drypoints and other forms of printmaking.
I'm also very confident you have seen printmaking in museums before and never knew it, including giclees.
quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by DoubleD:
Interesting comments about Giclees W+A. I've always dismissed them as well primarily due to my preferences on seeing and admiring the brush strokes and techniques.
DD, you have just dismissed 80% of all art, including Rembrandt etchings, drypoints and other forms of printmaking.
I'm also very confident you have seen printmaking in museums before and never knew it, including giclees.
DD - If you find yourself in Dallas:
https://www.kimbellart.org/exh...rt-institute-chicago
There was also an exhibit in Chicago this Spring titled "Picasso in Chicago". Some of these bigger shows are the best exposure to Picasso's print making. My favorite works of Picasso are his prints from the 1930s. If you can get yourself to one of these larger shows they usually include a lot of detail about exactly what the different forms of printing are and what's involved for the artist. Picasso I'd recommend just for the breadth of work you'll see across all forms.
quote:Originally posted by Stefania Wine:quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by DoubleD:
Interesting comments about Giclees W+A. I've always dismissed them as well primarily due to my preferences on seeing and admiring the brush strokes and techniques.
DD, you have just dismissed 80% of all art, including Rembrandt etchings, drypoints and other forms of printmaking.
I'm also very confident you have seen printmaking in museums before and never knew it, including giclees.
DD - If you find yourself in Dallas:
https://www.kimbellart.org/exh...rt-institute-chicago
There was also an exhibit in Chicago this Spring titled "Picasso in Chicago". Some of these bigger shows are the best exposure to Picasso's print making. My favorite works of Picasso are his prints from the 1930s. If you can get yourself to one of these larger shows they usually include a lot of detail about exactly what the different forms of printing are and what's involved for the artist. Picasso I'd recommend just for the breadth of work you'll see across all forms.
You will also see the Kimbell building itself designed by two great architects. One building by Louis Kahn and the new building by Renzo Piano.
quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by The Old Man:
Weirdest art show ever?
The Complete Frida Show
San Diego is hosting an show for 3 months that will have every Frida Kahlo painting. Yes every--even those in museums, private hands and Madonna. How's that possible? Well all 123 are "authorized by Mexico" (whatever that means) reproductions painted by one man. In addition you can see over 500 (!) personal items of Kahlo--oh yeah they're also reproductions.
On article said the art works were, "...authentic, one-of-a-kind reproductions." Whatever that means.
Or is there perhaps some validity to the show as many masterpieces of great artists are in private hands? Madonna, for example, will not lend out any of her pieces.
Interesting.
Well, thanks for the in depth analysis.
quote:Originally posted by Stefania Wine:https://www.kimbellart.org/exh...rt-institute-chicago.
So for half a year my hometown's Old Guitarist isn't there for tourists to see. It's an art crime!
quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by Stefania Wine:quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by DoubleD:
Interesting comments about Giclees W+A. I've always dismissed them as well primarily due to my preferences on seeing and admiring the brush strokes and techniques.
DD, you have just dismissed 80% of all art, including Rembrandt etchings, drypoints and other forms of printmaking.
I'm also very confident you have seen printmaking in museums before and never knew it, including giclees.
DD - If you find yourself in Dallas:
https://www.kimbellart.org/exh...rt-institute-chicago
There was also an exhibit in Chicago this Spring titled "Picasso in Chicago". Some of these bigger shows are the best exposure to Picasso's print making. My favorite works of Picasso are his prints from the 1930s. If you can get yourself to one of these larger shows they usually include a lot of detail about exactly what the different forms of printing are and what's involved for the artist. Picasso I'd recommend just for the breadth of work you'll see across all forms.
You will also see the Kimbell building itself designed by two great architects. One building by Louis Kahn and the new building by Renzo Piano.
Thanks guys! Not sure about being in Chicago anytime soon, but the NYC MoMA is on my list next month to check out. There's a special exhibition of Magritte's works that ends Jan 12th. I'll be on the lookout for the other forms of print.
quote:Originally posted by DoubleD:quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by Stefania Wine:quote:Originally posted by wine+art:quote:Originally posted by DoubleD:
Interesting comments about Giclees W+A. I've always dismissed them as well primarily due to my preferences on seeing and admiring the brush strokes and techniques.
DD, you have just dismissed 80% of all art, including Rembrandt etchings, drypoints and other forms of printmaking.
I'm also very confident you have seen printmaking in museums before and never knew it, including giclees.
DD - If you find yourself in Dallas:
https://www.kimbellart.org/exh...rt-institute-chicago
There was also an exhibit in Chicago this Spring titled "Picasso in Chicago". Some of these bigger shows are the best exposure to Picasso's print making. My favorite works of Picasso are his prints from the 1930s. If you can get yourself to one of these larger shows they usually include a lot of detail about exactly what the different forms of printing are and what's involved for the artist. Picasso I'd recommend just for the breadth of work you'll see across all forms.
You will also see the Kimbell building itself designed by two great architects. One building by Louis Kahn and the new building by Renzo Piano.
Thanks guys! Not sure about being in Chicago anytime soon, but the NYC MoMA is on my list next month to check out. There's a special exhibition of Magritte's works that ends Jan 12th. I'll be on the lookout for the other forms of print.
DD, if you enjoy Magritte, check out Giorgio de Chirico.