Chess 'fever'.

European city of culture and knife capital of Europe in the same week!

Yes so do we, a picture of the Queen Mother.

Any thoughts on graffiti...passed this today...it's by Trix...thought of this thread!!...

Ah, yes, not a bit condescending.

kaynight wrote:

Great post.... Geddit?!!!

Yes!! :-D

I think it can communicate an emotion (nostalgia, melancholy etc) which is what I see as the principle purpose of art.  I am puzzled by what you mean by 'intellectual content', could you give an example?

The fact that Vettriano seems honest about his work is why I wouldn't agree with your word 'charlatan' which implies deception. He is quite honest about producing art that people like to look at and put on their walls.  I'd be more suspicious of less traditional artists who may or may not be peddling rubbish for vast sums of money or acclaim.

I don't know a lot about art, but my bullsh*t detector is in good working order.

The term charlatan was merely a jest to provoke Kaynight.

As for intellectual content, yes, take Van Gogh his famous work Starry Night painted during his convalescence after his breakdown. It has not a single figure perhaps depicting a feeling of alienation, it may be construed as religious or spiritual due to the prominence of the church, the Cyprus trees may be symbolic as they stretch from earth to the heavens and are associated with death.  All of these elements foment intellectual thought.  Its the same with his earlier work the potato eaters which depicts a very frugal dinner.  You can see the hands of the workers gnarled from tilling the soil, each seated at the table but somehow disconnected as if in their own world weighed heavy by labour, its evocative of honesty and simplicity, a way of life far removed from decadence, of virtue and self-reliance.  This is intellectual content.  Gauguin went even further and started to introduce philosophical themes, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? An amazing depiction of life.  This is intended to foment intellectual thought. Its intellectual content.

Ah yes, see what you mean now.  Thanks for the examples.  

Hmm...It could be possible that Van Gogh was simply painting a scene of a starry night as he actually saw it, because he found it visually beautiful, and the intellectual contents are simply the projections of the person observing the art.

From his writings and letters, it seems his primary aims in painting were more about trying to capture the world as he saw it, and was entirely devoid of intentional symbology.

I mean he was on  a hill where there were cyprus trees, a church, and some stars...and he painted that.

kaynight wrote:

Great post.... Geddit?!!!

Oh!! Because the owl is sitting on the post!!! I really do 'get it' now....seven hours later.... :-D

So there were these people sitting around and eating potatoes...

and he painted a picture of them, no need for psuedo-proletariat interpetations.

Geez...next thing you know, the "Art Cogniscenti" will be telling us he had a foot fetish because he painted a pair of shoes.

Van Gogh used new techniques to paint pretty, basically decorative motifs, or chose to practice by painting things he actually saw, per the newer ideas of plein-air introduced by the impressionists.

It's as simple as that.

For instance, he did a lot of pictures of irises...simple still lifes; probably irises have some kind of mythological or metaphorical overtones.

My guess, he saw some irises, liked the way they looked, and painted pictures of them. 

So, if "The Potato Eaters" is a comment on worker alienation from each other and society, then "Cafe at Night" must be a scathing excortiation of the opposing lifestyles of the bourgeois...right?

Err...can I have seven hours to think about that one please?

The "artistic insights"  surrounding his paintings clearly stems from a puerile and neurotic fascination/perspective re Van Gogh's bout with mental illness, coupled with dumbfoundedness at his revolutionary strides in visual interpetation.

After all,the cadre of Van's fellow impressionists, Manet, Monet, Renior, etc. are rarely subjected to the vicissitudes of "intellectual content" analysis.

They also painted people, plants, buildings, and sky.

Don't you try to bring common sense here.
When you're faced with artist speaking fancy words you can't win.
Obviously Van Gogh used symbology intentionally.
Of course he was meant to get a message through hidden signs.
Just as much as Robbie with his illustrations and drawings.
Just like a young poet that doesn't know how to punctuate.
It's all planned, it's all intentional.
They aren't just simple humans.
These persons are divinely inspired (actual quote from Robbie), and their contemporaries just can't understand them.

There is no way an artist would simply draw a tree. Never.
A true artist only draws a tree if he wants to use it as a symbol. Don't you see you petty mortal? Educate yourself.

Back in a literature class, we were analysing a poem of Petőfi.
He wrote in a line about a deep purple curtain blocking the afternoon sun as he visited his mother.
First thing you know is that our teacher (who claimed being a poet herself) started going on about how it's a metaphor for
"blocking the memories of his childhood", and refused the idea that it was just a simple purple curtain over a window.

Sure, there is symbolism, especially in poetry.
But let's just not go as far as to look for symbols in anything.

Yes this is also possible but it difficult to divorce oneself from the idea that there is a spiritual element to the entire depiction which has been directly and deliberately imbued into the scene from Van Goghs interpretation of nature.  Thus its not a mere projection from the viewers mind, it exists entirely independent from that. This type of interpretation is entirely absent from artists like Constable who was merely intent to imitate nature and painters like Vettriano who are intent to paint decorative art for dining room walls.

Oh dear you seem unable to bring yourself to the realisation that Van Gogh deliberately set out to imbue his work in earthy colours to portray the very soil from which the potatoes were dug or to depict their fingers as those which look and feel as if they have toiled the soil. To suggest that these elements are entirely coincidental is quite ludicrous, they are quite deliberate. To suggest that we are imagining these elements because of a political bias is wired to the moon ludicrous.