h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, the reason I *didn't* include the s on my top-5-list was actually the frame - to me it seems to be a bit too much

Exhibit 1

The lower left picture seems to have a touch of the Monet's about it. The artist has some impressionist yearnings maybe. But the two still-life things on the right, perhaps most strikingly the lower right, with their dark backdrop seem to have Flanders Baroque in them ... Ruysch maybe ... but without the strength of subject.


Exhibit 2

Funeral parlour is it? The crucifix looks like some sort of memorial stone ... the wooden box behind could even be a coffin. Plenty of flowers, including poppies, perhaps a serviceman's funeral?


Exhibit 3

Is this Mexico? Perhaps the subject ain't the man but the oxen. Like Rosa Bonheur. I like the way it's lit, and painted of course.


Exhibit 4

Dunno about this. It could be one of those 'paint by numbers' jobs. It could be the scale, but those bison in the foreground look like a dirty smudge. I'd spend the rest of my days wanting to wash it off.


Exhibit 5

Looks like a Vittorio Felissati, Van Gogh (Wheat Field and Cypress Trees even). Not my bag though.


Exhibit 6

Hmm. It reminds me of someone contemporary, Victor Spahn (sp?) maybe, but without the panache of movement. Is the 'blood' meant to emphasise the swoosh of the flamenco dancer's dress or to remind us that we're in Spain and they've been sticking swords into bovinity?


Exhibit 7

Yeah, I'm not convinced the 1970 inset frame was such a good idea.


Exhibit 8

Good. Clever. It's almost special-effect photographic. Exotic African shrubs, or cactii I suppose.


Exhibit 9

I thought at first they were part of a jigsaw bit then determined it to be a coup/coop(?). I do like this, 'though I'm sure the handpainted frame could be put to better use. Reframing may do this picture a bit more justice too. Are the chickens slightly out of focus or is that (a) my eye-sight (b) your photography (c) my screen?


Exhibit 10

Old Spice reckons the bowls are Moroccan. I have no idea. Pottery's for eating off.


Exhibit 11

Nicely done ... but again not for me ... Maybe the advertising company that selects pictures for Winston or Marlboro fags will like it?


Exhibit 12

Ditto. Are these by the same artist as 11?


Exhibit 13

Surely Mexico again. A heritage artist ... surely the same fellah that painted Exhibit 3. I'm sure that if I'd experienced Mexico, I'd get more out of these two pictures.


Exhibit 14

There's a story here isn't there? ... that wild-west wagon train that took the wrong path so they had to eat each other. Big isn't it?


Exhibit 15

Not much subject matter. I wish I could see the texture ... I'm sure it would be more striking in real life.


Exhibit 16

It's sort of aboriginal bush-art isn't it? Not for me.


Exhibit 17

Bit overstated for me. A big brown bear with Cameron Diaz' blue eyes?


Exhibit 18

American idol at work and play. Juxtapositioning is too obvious. But a smart job nonetheless.


Exhibit 19

I see this and I think of Gosho (U147203). He's probably the one in the stripy shirt. It's a bit cluttered for my taste.


Exhibit 20

Yeah again cluttered. I don't know what's going on here. What are those clowns up to?


Exhibit 21

Big carvings of sunflowers aren't for me.



So, divvy up.

1st 3
2nd 13
3rd 9
4th 15
5th 8

Good comments, Dr. T. See my post #16 for provenance. Problems with focus or pov are mine, not the painters'.

As regards the chickens, I disagree about the frame. Maybe I'm reading sophistication where it doesn't exist, but I interpret the frame in a folky way, American rustic. I don't know what milieu you other nationalities would associate with it...

The cactus, incidentally, was one of about six submitted by the artist, and every single one of them featured geometric insets. Many triangles with pears in them, the triangle floating in the larger still life.

Not familiar at all with American rustic, but I feel that the frame draws too much attention from the actual painting...

What kind of frame would you have suggested for it?

A wooden plain frame in a sort of red-brownish colour, like Brazilwood

Not too dark though - and a bit thinner than the current frame

To put it in another way - those s look sort of silky, and I'd love to touch them and feel the softness of their feathers - but the frame kind of keeps me out, making the painting unaccessible(sp?)

Got it - the frame simply feels too massive

And that's how it is that there are so many different kinds of art -- because there are so many ways of interpreting things. You could have a plain frame on this, but then it would be a different artwork.

I had a long chat this evening with the woman who runs the gallery for the owner. She said that she hung the flamenco dancer under protest, and told the artist straight out that she didn't think the work was "adequate."


But I digress. Standing the question on its head, what sort of art would the chicken frame be right for? Or does anyone think a frame like that is just out of line?

I still like it.

The chicken frame makes me think of Zulu art. Perhaps if it were framing some weaving or something ...

I quite like the frame, it picks up the colours in the painting. But with the wire fence in the back ground and the stripes in the frame, it makes me feel as if the poor things are trapped in a stalag!

If the frame was lighter in weight and not striped, I would like the whole affect a lot more.

That is why I like to buy unframed paintings or prints then have a leisurely chat in the framer's. They have always been very helpful and although I tend to have pictures framed so that they fit in with the general furnishings, the weight and mounting paper make a huge difference to the overall effect.

Sorry, Lil, but I can't imagine anything looking good in that frame. Maybe something abstract so that the frame and the painting run together.

Which points up again how subjective art is. The artist apparently thinks it's wonderful. On the other hand, artists are always looking for gimicks to call attention to their work. That frame does get your attention. I agree with Ti that the actual painting suffers because of the frame.

I think the frame suits the picture just fine. In fact, traditional American folk art uses a lot of the colors that are in the frame, mainly the blue, yellow and reds.

This is what I'm seeing in the chicken frame ...

http://www.deltacollege.org/emp/jbarrows/art2/thumbnail_slides_pages/D15_thumbnails_slides.html

And this is what I belive the 'spanish dancer' artist may (ought to) have been going for ...

http://www.lesartistestemoins.com/images/400/VS02.jpg

I like Spahn's work. For dancers, I like Donald Hamilton Fraser.

... like this.

http://www.numasters.com/artists/artworks/1166b.jpg

That stuff tickles my fancy.

T

Maybe the painted frame is one of those things you need to get used to in order to appreciate it?

If you're used to seeing that kind of frame you probably tend to focus less on the frame and more on the actual painting - but to someone (like me) who hasn't seen this kind of frame before it tends to steal too much of my attention away from the painting itself