Spirituality
03 Nov 06
03 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI've seen it but it was quite a disappointment to me. Don't get your hopes up and maybe you'll enjoy it more than me. In my opinion, it's just one of those films that tries too hard to be intellectual and lacks any real cinematic value.
The film.
"John Malkovich stars as Gustav Klimt in Raúl Ruiz's virtuoso homage to the visionary Austrian painter, womaniser and fin de siècle enfant terrible."
Anyone seen it?
Also, if you're expecting a very biographical movie, you'll be disappointed.
Edit - Why is this in Spirituality?
Edit 2: I found Schiele much more compelling than Malkovich's Klimt.
03 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI must admit I've yet to watch a film about a painter that was any good. Not that I've seen them all. Can you recommend any?
I've seen it but it was quite a disappointment to me. Don't get your hopes up and maybe you'll enjoy it more than me. In my opinion, it's just one of those films that tries too hard to be intellectual and lacks any real cinematic value.
Also, if you're expecting a very biographical movie, you'll be disappointed.
Edit - Why is this in Spirituality?
Edit 2: I found Schiele much more compelling than Malkovich's Klimt.
I posted in the wrong forum.
I prefer Schiele's painting to Klimt's, on the whole.
03 Nov 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNone that I can remember were anything special, but Basquiat and Pollock are not 'bad'. I truly disliked Frida and I haven't seen 'The Girl with the Pearl Earing'. Apparently it's quite decent, or so I've been told.
I must admit I've yet to watch a film about a painter that was any good. Not that I've seen them all. Can you recommend any?
I posted in the wrong forum.
I prefer Schiele's painting to Klimt's, on the whole.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIMO, humble as humble can be, GK was a wannabe. If the film leaves the viewer with a sense of 'not really getting it,' then it at least succeeds on a philosophical level of conveying the failure of the man as an artist.
The film.
"John Malkovich stars as Gustav Klimt in Raúl Ruiz's virtuoso homage to the visionary Austrian painter, womaniser and fin de siècle enfant terrible."
Anyone seen it?
Unable to capture truth, GK was perfectly content in effecting an ill-defined sense of reality, because (not unlike Picasso) everytime the bell rang, he received some base reward. And, just like Picasso, a sad waste of experience-derived intelligence.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't quit your day job of whatever it is you waste your time at, because you'll never make it as an art critic. Gustav Klimt a wannabe? That's pure rubbish. You should be deeply ashamed for coming in here and pretending to know what you're talking about.
IMO, humble as humble can be, GK was a wannabe. If the film leaves the viewer with a sense of 'not really getting it,' then it at least succeeds on a philosophical level of conveying the failure of the man as an artist.
Unable to capture truth, GK was perfectly content in effecting an ill-defined sense of reality, because (not unlike Picasso) everytime ...[text shortened]... ved some base reward. And, just like Picasso, a sad waste of experience-derived intelligence.
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettArt, as you should be aware, is a subjective discipline. (How else can you explain the critical acceptance of the crap that the likes of Picasso cranked out?) Despite that subjectivity, there remain certain elements that mark the classics. Klimt's work--- while risque and controversial at the time--- fades.
Don't quit your day job of whatever it is you waste your time at, because you'll never make it as an art critic. Gustav Klimt a wannabe? That's pure rubbish. You should be deeply ashamed for coming in here and pretending to know what you're talking about.
While not a professional art critic, I am nonetheless quite capable of articulating my likes and dislikes regarding a wide range of mediums. There is no shame in that. You are just as likely to bash artists whose work I hold dear: does this make you more or less qualified to an opinion?
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHtouche'
Art, as you should be aware, is a subjective discipline. (How else can you explain the critical acceptance of the crap that the likes of Picasso cranked out?) Despite that subjectivity, there remain certain elements that mark the classics. Klimt's work--- while risque and controversial at the time--- fades.
While not a professional art critic, I am n ...[text shortened]... o bash artists whose work I hold dear: does this make you more or less qualified to an opinion?
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI do not like Renoir or Chagall. That is my personal opinion. Does that mean I think those artists are somehow inferior? No, I don't. I think they're both great artists. Their work just doesn't appeal to me. You see, that is the difference between you and I (though not the only one). I don't try to turn my subjective opinion into an objective statement about the merit of an artist's work. You don't like Picasso or Klimt? Fine. But don't pretend that because you don't like it means that it's crap.
Art, as you should be aware, is a subjective discipline. (How else can you explain the critical acceptance of the crap that the likes of Picasso cranked out?) Despite that subjectivity, there remain certain elements that mark the classics. Klimt's work--- while risque and controversial at the time--- fades.
While not a professional art critic, I am n ...[text shortened]... o bash artists whose work I hold dear: does this make you more or less qualified to an opinion?
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettMy like or dislike is based upon whether or not it is crap. Picasso was crap. Klimt attempted something new and perhaps ought to be commended for the same. Or, perhaps he simply refused convention, regardless of merit and ought to be condemned for arrogance... hard to say. The fact remains, beyond the flashy appeal, I find nothing compelling about his work and further predict gradual decline into eventual footnote obscurity.
I do not like Renoir or Chagall. That is my personal opinion. Does that mean I think those artists are somehow inferior? No, I don't. I think they're both great artists. Their work just doesn't appeal to me. You see, that is the difference between you and I (though not the only one). I don't try to turn my subjective opinion into an objective statement abou ...[text shortened]... or Klimt? Fine. But don't pretend that because you don't like it means that it's crap.
The ironic thing is that my wife loves the guy, and I am faced with a reproduction of his 'The Kiss' everytime I walk into our bedroom. Life is funny that way.
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you're commending people for trying something new, then Picasso should be at the top of the list. His later stuff was a little derivative, but his early work was revolutionary. Both he and Klimt will weather the test of time just fine without your crap opinion.
My like or dislike is based upon whether or not it is crap. Picasso was crap. Klimt attempted something new and perhaps ought to be commended for the same. Or, perhaps he simply refused convention, regardless of merit and ought to be condemned for arrogance... hard to say. The fact remains, beyond the flashy appeal, I find nothing compelling about his ...[text shortened]... h a reproduction of his 'The Kiss' everytime I walk into our bedroom. Life is funny that way.
05 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettEven Picasso on Picasso admits to the derisive term. Of course, the critics (they of intellectual masturbation) know better.
If you're commending people for trying something new, then Picasso should be at the top of the list. His later stuff was a little derivative, but his early work was revolutionary. Both he and Klimt will weather the test of time just fine without your crap opinion.