Do you like Van Gogh's art works?

[eve55]

 

 

This is really clear one.How do you think about it? Leave you comments.

[FaithManor]

I do like some Van Gogh. Starry Night is an all t I me favorite of mine, and we keep a framed print on the wall of the family room. But the above is not one that I am fond of at all.

[fairfarmhand]

No. Too drab.

 

I like his sunflowers and starry night.

[Matryoshka]

I love Van Gogh, but I find it odd that you'd use as an example such a non-representative painting, that has none of his signature use of color or brushwork.

 

That particular painting, from his pre-impressionistic years, I don't find that interesting. It's muddy.

[hellen]

I love Van Gogh. This is not one of my favorites.

[gardenmom5]

some things I like.  some I don't.  the example is dark and depressing to me. 

 

as said above - starry night.  I currently have almond blossoms as a skin on my computer, and used to have irises for my phone case.  (it did it's job- it broke so the phone itself wouldn't.)  I'm replacing it with a william morris design.

 

I grew up with a copy of sunflowers in my dining room- and I hated it.  (but it went with the two-tone green shag carpet my mother chose.)  might even have something to do with why I don't like sunflowers.

[OneStepAtATime]

I love Van Gogh, but I find it odd that you'd use as an example such a non-representative painting, that has none of his signature use of color or brushwork.

 

That particular painting, from his pre-impressionistic years, I don't find that interesting. It's muddy.

I'm puzzled too. He has quite a few pieces I really like. This is definitely not one of them nor do I consider it representative of his best years/style. Edited May 26, 2017 by OneStepAtATime

[Angie in VA]

Yes, but it's not my favorite. 

 

This is my favorite Van Gogh. This one is another I like, same subject. 

 

 

[Harriet Vane]

I adore Van Gogh, but I am not crazy about the painting in the OP. I much prefer the ones that are saturated with vivid color.

[Bluegoat]

I do, and I like the painting in the OP.  The light in the sky is perfect.

[lavender's green]

It's not my favorite, but I actually do like it. It reminds me of a painting my grandma had. It was dark and mysterious, and I spent hours of my childhood imagining what was going on in it.

[wintermom]

Yes. Love them. Even the "disturbing" ones. I also love Sibelius' and Grieg's music. The reality of harsh climates, tough lives, and yet amazing beauty really touches to me. Maybe it's living in The Great White North.  :o

Edited May 26, 2017 by wintermom

[TravelingChris]

I love Van Gogh. I do like the painting that the OP but do prefer some others better.

[Bluegoat]

Yes. Love them. Even the "disturbing" ones. I also love Sibelius' and Grieg's music. The reality of harsh climates, tough lives, and yet amazing beauty really touches to me. Maybe it's living in The Great White North.  :o

 

Yes, I think it's what Robertson Davies called our mystic Northern spirit, which we try and disguise as that of a Scottish banker.  There is a kind of northern aesthetic in that painting - as with all those northern European painters who managed to capture the northern light.  We tend to think of Van Gogh as a southern painter with lots of hot colours, so maybe that is why this painting seems so different? 

[poppy]

I love Van Gogh, but I find it odd that you'd use as an example such a non-representative painting, that has none of his signature use of color or brushwork.

 

That particular painting, from his pre-impressionistic years, I don't find that interesting. It's muddy.

 

These aren't the most popular, but he has many painting along this vein from before he moved to Paris.  People only seem to like his stuff from the last 2 years of his life, though. 

 

 

I have to ask the poster, who is new here, why do you ask?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Welcome to the WTM board.

 

Yes, I like Van Gogh's art works. I think that he was a talented artist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Katy]

Nope, too dark and depressing.

[TX Native]

This is drab, but I like the story behind it. He wasn't popular for painting the poor, but love that he went against the grain and painted this painting...

 

https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0005V1962

 

ETA: here is the Wikipedia article on the painting...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potato_Eaters

 

Excerpt from article....

 

Van Gogh said he wanted to depict peasants as they really were. He deliberately chose coarse and ugly models, thinking that they would be natural and unspoiled in his finished work: "You see, I really have wanted to make it so that people get the idea that these folk, who are eating their potatoes by the light of their little lamp, have tilled the earth themselves with these hands they are putting in the dish, and so it speaks of manual labor and — that they have thus honestly earned their food. I wanted it to give the idea of a wholly different way of life from ours — civilized people. So I certainly don’t want everyone just to admire it or approve of it without knowing why." [4]

Edited May 26, 2017 by TX native

[gardenmom5]

Yes, but it's not my favorite. 

 

This is my favorite Van Gogh. This one is another I like, same subject. 

 

I like both of those too.  I had the 2nd as my phone case. (or the version with the yellow background) my mom liked irises as a flower - so I is illogical to me she didn't pick one of his iris paintings for the dining room wall. . . . but it was the 70s, and harvest gold, avocado green, and burnt umber were the popular colors for interior design.  so sunflowers went better with that color scheme. oh, it was an ugly decade.

 

I'm now trying to find the purple irises she had in her yard.  after she sold the house - the buyer did work to the house and the irises were in the way.

[Guest]

No opinion whatsoever haha

[Tap]

Welcome to the board.

 

Yesterday it was a recipe.  Today art.

 

I am curious, do you homeschool your children? Feel free to introduce yourself.

 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Welcome to the board.

 

Yesterday it was a recipe. Today art.

 

I am curious, do you homeschool your children? Feel free to introduce yourself.

Nice neutral introductory posts are much preferable to trolling controversial posts.

 

My Dd did a copy of a Van Gogh painting in oil pastels years ago. I still have it in my dining room. Which has nothing to do with the post I quoted. I just wanted to share.

[bolt.]

I love what Van Gogh did for art, and I can appreciate his genius -- he was amazing. His place in art history is well deserved.

 

But, for personal taste, I don't "like" it -- I don't find it decorative or appealing for myself. I'm a bit superficial in my art appreciation.

[Spy Car]

I adore this early period in Van Gogh's development (around 1884) when his prime influence seemed to be the French painter Jean-François Millet. 

 

Even as a young child I marveled at the paintings of Millet. In their presence, I was always transfixed. Such quiet power!

 

The subtilty of the lighting and achievement of expression with a very limited color palate that Van Gogh (like Millet) achieved during this phase is simply breathtaking.

 

I would suggest, paintings such as these need to be experienced in person, as reproduction on screen or print fails to capture the delicacy of the beauty of these works.

 

Bill 

[OneStepAtATime]

I adore this early period in Van Gogh's development (around 1884) when his prime influence seemed to be the French painter Jean-François Millet. 

 

Even as a young child I marveled at the paintings of Millet. In their presence, I was always transfixed. Such quiet power!

 

The subtilty of the lighting and achievement of expression with a very limited color palate that Van Gogh (like Millet) achieved during this phase is simply breathtaking.

 

I would suggest, paintings such as these need to be experienced in person, as reproduction on screen or print fails to capture the delicacy of the beauty of these works.

 

Bill 

I agree, seeing paintings in person can be an entirely different experience.  I have not had the pleasure of seeing the OP's posted image in person so perhaps I would feel its impact more if I had that honor.

[Spy Car]

I agree, seeing paintings in person can be an entirely different experience.  I have not had the pleasure of seeing the OP's posted image in person so perhaps I would feel its impact more if I had that honor.

It is interesting (to me anyway :D) that this holds equally true of Van Gogh's masterworks painted in his last years.

 

Although these paintings with their bold colors and striking composition do (in a sense) reproduce well, when one experiences one up close and witnesses the thickness of the paint and one "feels" the brush strokes and the interplay of color, it is a very different experience than looking at a poster.

 

Bill

[OneStepAtATime]

It is interesting (to me anyway :D) that this holds equally true of Van Gogh's masterworks painted in his last years.

 

Although these paintings with their bold colors and striking composition do (in a sense) reproduce well, when one experiences one up close and witnesses the thickness of the paint and one "feels" the brush strokes and the interplay of color, it is a very different experience than looking at a poster.

 

Bill

:iagree: 

 

I find this true with most paintings (maybe all?).  The experience is very different in person. :)

[My4arrows]

He is one of the artists work I actually do enjoy seeing over and over. I even like the picture OP posted. It may be a little dreary looking to some, but it makes me feel peace.

[Mothersweets]

I enjoy most of his work - seeing it in person makes such a difference. The full beauty of his paintings is amazing!

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

I find this true with most paintings (maybe all?).  The experience is very different in person. :)

 

To a degree perhaps, but I (from my own aesthetic sense) find a high degree of variability in how much is lost (or how much is unappreciated) between seeing a work in reproduction and in person.

 

Some works don't suffer much (or at all) and others are a profoundly different experience. And, of course, many of these differences are purely subjective.

 

Van Gogh is a different experience in person. Seeing a Vermeer, even one whose composition is well-known to a viewer feels very different in person as the effect of light passing through windows has a magical effect that reproductions can't quite capture.

 

I think of works by artists like Édouard Vuillard or Georges Seurat, that are completely different experiences in person. I saw Seurat's Grande Jatte as a boy (and then again in adulthood) and his pointillist technique of using contrasting dots of color to create an overall effect was literally astonishing.

 

Bill

Edited May 27, 2017 by Spy Car

[Jean in Newcastle]

I like it when you talk art, Bill. 

[Spy Car]

I like it when you talk art, Bill. 

 

Guess who that little baby is in the photograph.

 

Bill

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

Guess who that little baby is in the photograph.

 

Bill

 

That's a great picture. 

[Spy Car]

That's a great picture. 

 

It was taken by an important Los Angeles-based photographer, Bob Willoughby, who was a dear friend of my father.

 

Me and my dad. Circa 1958 at the (old) Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

 

I spent more hours in art museums as a kid than anyone would ever believe. I mean, way more :D

 

Bill

[FaithManor]

To a degree perhaps, but I (from my own aesthetic sense) find a high degree of variability in how much is lost (or how much is unappreciated) between seeing a work in reproduction and in person.

 

Some works don't suffer much (or at all) and others are a profoundly different experience. And, of course, many of these differences are purely subjective.

 

Van Gough is a different experience in person. Seeing a Vermeer, even one whose composition is well-known to a viewer feels very different in person as the effect of light passing through windows has a magical effect that reproductions can't quite capture.

 

I think of works by artists like Édouard Vuillard or Georges Seurat, that are completely different experiences in person. I saw Seurat's Grande Jatte as a boy (and then again in adulthood) and his pointillist technique of using contrasting dots of color to create an overall effect was literally astonishing.

 

Bill

I agree entirely.

 

For me, my best AhHa moment was seeing my favorite Degas (The Ballet Rehearsal 1873) up close. I had always been in love with that scene,but being a couple of feet from it and just studying the brush strokes, the depth which cannot be conveyed by photo...it was an amazing moment.

 

 

Okay, so I should admit that part of the romance may have been seeing it in the Muses d'Orsay in Paris! :D

 

But still...photos are wonderful but they do not convey the light, the brush strokes, the depth.

Edited May 26, 2017 by FaithManor

[HS Mom in NC]

No. But I do have a copy of his Almond Blossoms hanging in the living room because I love that one.

[FriedClams]

Love. Went to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. Awesome!!

[4Kiddos]

I do like this one and I like many of his other ones. There are a few I don't care for.

 

As for the discussion about seeing art in person, I just had the privilege this week to go to the Chicago Art Institute and see a few Van Goghs as well as many other amazing paintings (La Grand Jatte, Monet, and others). The colors of a famous Renoir painting really stood out to me. I had seen this picture before but seeing it in person was amazing. And there was a Mary Cassatt that I fell in love with even more. I enjoyed the whole day so very, very much and my children and husband did as well.

[EMS83]

It's cozy.  

[eve55]

 

I do like some Van Gogh. Starry Night is an all t I me favorite of mine, and we keep a framed print on the wall of the family room. But the above is not one that I am fond of at all.

 

 

Starry night is many people's favorite one, and I love it too. Yep, the above picture is not typical Van Gogh.

[Rosie_0801]

   

 

Starry night is many people's favorite one, and I love it too. Yep, the above picture is not typical Van Gogh.

 

Stereotypical? Van Gogh painted in several different styles, so I'm not sure it is right to say there is a typical Van Gogh.

[eve55]

 

I love Van Gogh, but I find it odd that you'd use as an example such a non-representative painting, that has none of his signature use of color or brushwork.

 

That particular painting, from his pre-impressionistic years, I don't find that interesting. It's muddy.

 

 

This is just from another perspective : If you love Van Gogh, you gotta love all his works, lol.

[eve55]

 

Stereotypical? Van Gogh painted in several different styles, so I'm not sure it is right to say there is a typical Van Gogh.

 

 

It seems people here don't like the picture I posted. Sorry if I've said something wrong.

[Jean in Newcastle]

  

 

It seems people here don't like the picture I posted. Sorry if I've said something wrong.

Your picture is just fine. Opinions fly on a message board. Your opinion is as valid as any.

[idnib]

I like Van Gogh. In this particular painting I like the juxtaposition of the small people are the large sky. I also like the atmosphere of the trees. The buildings are not my favorites.

[Momto4inSoCal]

I like the picture. It feels calm and serene. In fact I wish I could stroll there with the peasants after my crazy day with sick kids. I've always loved the 1800's, or at least I love my romantic idea's of the time period.

[Ausmumof3]

I like the picture you posted... It's nice and hushed.

[wintermom]

Okay, so I should admit that part of the romance may have been seeing it in the Muses d'Orsay in Paris! :D

 

But still...photos are wonderful but they do not convey the light, the brush strokes, the depth.

 

I agree!  Viewing art, and listening to music, is an experience. And your surroundings matter. It's a glimpse into the world of the person who created them The Scream, by Edvard Munch, which really grabs the imagination of millions of people all over the world, is best understood in Norway in the middle of a long, dark winter when you don't think the sun and warmth will ever return. 

[wintermom]

Yes, I think it's what Robertson Davies called our mystic Northern spirit, which we try and disguise as that of a Scottish banker.  There is a kind of northern aesthetic in that painting - as with all those northern European painters who managed to capture the northern light.  We tend to think of Van Gogh as a southern painter with lots of hot colours, so maybe that is why this painting seems so different? 

 

Do people think of Van Gogh as a southern painter? I never have. Definitely northern spirit; there is an explosion of colour that occurs in the spring and summer of the north, which is intense but fleeting. 

[Mimm]

I do like the painting you posted and like Van Gogh in general.

 

   

This is just from another perspective : If you love Van Gogh, you gotta love all his works, lol.

 

I disagree that you have to like all of an artist's work. I almost never do.