|
I agree with your opinion but others like others so don't state is as a fact. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I would say that Van gogh was one of the greats in his area of art, firstly for the way he blends
the colors together so softly and smoothly, and secondly because of his radical and revolutionary
way of portraying the art, at first I questioned his work, but then an artist told me why they look
the way they do, he portrayed the subject, not as he saw it or his first impression of it, like
Dafords works, but how he thought the subject looked, he did not see it as we saw things when we
look at his art, we see it as it is, he saw it as he thought it was. My favorite artists are
definitely ones like Van Gogh, who are singular, in the way that they are revolutionary and
brilliant, artists like Davinci, with his perfect realistic paintings and his totally different
approach on painting in his time or Rafael. |
| |
 123  24 Jul 2008 17:42
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arguably the best.
His swirling swooping strokes are often childlike, yet he delivered works that are appealing and
plainly great to look at.
Some one might say that The scream By Edvard Munch is a better representation of a certain genre.
But it doesn't appeal to me.
Vincents ability to put his emotion on the canvases, is moving. That is what a picture is meant to
do, it's a narrative. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Not by any stretch of the imagination he is not.
Michelangelo is on the top of the Art food-chain, so to speak. Van Gogh near the bottom. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Van Gogh's painting lacks realism.
This lack, takes away a great deal from whatever would have been an artistic quality.
Da Vinci is the man to debate, as his painting do have realism: At the risk of sounding pedantic
here, I must just say I disagree. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Id say its a opinion. I prefer leonardo de vinci even though he painted very little he did however
come with up ideas that would become machines in the future which in my opinion is artistry. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I even named one of my kids after him, but he's not the best artist of all time. I could buy an
argument that he was the best colorist of all time (though some, not I, would argue Matisse). And as
grenache points out, this does injustice to the great artists of other media... Rodin, Gaudi,
Calder. Certainly to da Vinci and Raphael, who worked in other media as well. And one must not
forget Parrhasius of Greece, whose painting of a covered painting actually fooled an entire town. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I love Van Gogh's works and I respect his drive to create what he did despite (or because of) his
possible mental condition.
But sorry, he's not the best artist of all time. 1) That's too subjective to prove, 2) If you apply
any sort of criteria - quantity of art, quality of art, variety of art, accuracy or abstraction, you
will always find an artist who scores higher on that chosen criteria than Van Gogh, 3) You're
declaring a painter the best artist - but have you forgotten sculpture, music, and the endless array
of what else can fall under "art". It would be a better claim that he was the best painter. 4) Van
Gogh had contemporaries making similar styled art at the same time he was. Have you really reviewed
all the rest of his peers to compare and determine he was the best? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ewwwww.
Vincent Van Gogh was psychotic or maybe autistic.
Cluttered, emotionally-chaotic expressivism.......
Michelangelo? The BEST.
Leoardo Da Vinci? Second-best. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
How can someone be the best at something so incredibly subjective? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
He was one of the greatest artists of all time, but not THE greatest. There are several others who
were just as great, if not greater than he was. For example, look at Pablo Picasso and some of the
famous Mexican artists such as Freida Kahlo and Diego Rivera. I agree that Van Gogh was great and
his work was very admirable, but I would not call him the greatest painter of all time. He may have
been the greatest painter of his era, but definitely not in the history of art. He is very
interesting to study, but there are others I would rather study in art class. I personally like the
paintings of Pablo Picasso. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Assuming you could even have a worthwhile discussion on such a subjective subject as the greatest
artist of all time I would have to disagree with Joe9’s statement. Although I think Hidell might
have overstated the issue a bit. Van Gogh was hardly a ‘retard with a brush.’ For example he was
able to use the texture of the paint in a way the neither Cezanne nor Gauguin was able to, something
that is much more apparent when looking at the actual paintings. However the emotional content and
context of Gauguin’s work was always much more relevant and affecting to me than Van Gogh’s.
Gauguin simply had more to talk about than Van Gogh. Van Gogh kind of reminds me of Eric Clapton;
skilled in the technical aspects, but without the artistic input of others at the end of the day
he’s still just a technician not an artist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There have been and will be better. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Van Gogh I'd say is probably the most overrated artist of all time. He really is a complete joke.
All of the Post-Impressionists encountered resistance at the time. But if you look at Cezanne or
Gauguin you are seeing genuine artists. With Van Gogh, you're just seeing a retard with a brush.
Most people have no real artistic appreciation and will just latch on to the big names. You could
take a stroll down to the local school and see people with more talent than Van Gogh. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
