I just love Jack Vettriano's paintings. particularly the beach scenes. I love the stories they convey, as well as the paintings themselves.
@pavelkish7142
8 ай бұрын
Thank you for posting this, I love Jack's personality and work. I'm an artist myself.
@rontocknell
Ай бұрын
I've heard so many critics say "He's not a painter, he's a poster artist". What the hell do they think poster artists are if not painters? Vettriano's brushwork is very understated... he's not John Singer Sargent but that's okay. Either he consciously avoids texture or he's not particularly drawn to textures but that's okay too. The way he paints hair demonstrates that he's perfectly competent in painting textures. His paintings tend to be a little flat but that's a vital part of the 1940s "noir" scene. He's not out to break boundaries or challenge the viewer. He just likes the atmosphere of film noir. He likes to paint scenarios in which the whole story is not told... just enough clues to make you want (or, indeed, definitely NOT want) to know the whole story. Yes, he's fixated on relationships between men and women... well, so is virtually every song, many movies, many books and many poems because, ultimately, so are we. Hence the popularity of Vettriano's work. Art critics should make good proctologists because they spend so much time with their heads up their own arses, they should know it inside out (don't dwell on that thought... no good will come of it). In the world of pretentious art, popularity is a dirty word. It implies your work is not sufficiently above the comprehension of common people to be of value. I like primarily the atmosphere of his paintings. I like the precision in which he paints, I love the lighting and I love the sense of unsaid things and, if that aint good enough for the Royal Academy then that institution is all the poorer for it. Another criticism I hear is "They may as well be photographs so what's the point?". Well, if I were looking at a photograph of a scene incorporating a puddle in which a detached crane fly wing was floating, I might not even notice the puddle but focus on the main subject. But, if the same image was a photorealistic painting, I would home in on that crane fly wing. Because I know that the camera sees more than even the photographer sees so minor details can be disregarded. But, in a painting, that minor detail has been deliberately painted. That gives it equal importance to the main subject and it grabs my attention. I see more of a painting than I do of a photograph.
@krackerk141
6 ай бұрын
Lots of well known ‘Art Critics’ say that Tracy Emin’s ‘Unmade Bed’ and Pollock’s spots and lines are great art. It’s their opinion. I once heard a description of art as “if you saw something in a skip and would climb in to get it out because you thought it was art, then that WAS art to you.” Who’s right, the few paid Critics or the millions of paying public?
@GailBurfoot
4 ай бұрын
Critics are not often artists. I see no credibility in anything because they makeup the most unusual ridiculous comments. Same goes for movie and music critics.
Пікірлер: 5