Best Paintings in the Met - Page 4

Jim Riley · 07-12-2003, 08:42 AM

Thanks Michele for the Raeburn link.

Michele Rushworth · 07-12-2003, 09:58 AM

I think art criticism is a fine and worthy pursuit and I'm glad we can have discussions of what we like and do not like here.

Timothy C. Tyler · 07-12-2003, 10:38 AM

The essential nature of such discussions cannot be for us all to agree. That would be sweeter than Renoir. What we all may hopefully do is respectfully disagree and explain pointedly why.

Cynthia Daniel · 07-13-2003, 10:50 AM

This thread has been whitewashed to remove previous posts and parts of posts that were in violation of Forum conduct rules. To repeat my earlier statement:

Everyone is to state their opinions on the Forum in a positive light. There is no need to negate anyone else's opinion in order to state your own. This is a place of learning, not a boxing ring.

Comments that invalidate the Forum, Stroke of Genius, Forum or Stroke of Genius member's work or members in general are inappropriate. Whether these comments are overt or covert, veiled or open, they are still inappropriate. And, for anyone who doesn't quite get it, snide or condescending remarks veiled in a "joke" are inappropriate.

There is a basic tool of communication whereby you can state your opinion and yet allows others to have a differing opinion: preface your opinions with "I think" or "I feel" or "in my opinion." When a statement is given as an unquestionable decree, it automatically tends to invalidate the views of others and sets the stage for contention.

Members who overtly or covertly attacks other members will be put on probation and are at risk of having their membership revoked. And, for anyone who thinks I may have a personal grudge against anyone here, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

You may balk at these rules and approach. However, if you were to visit my home, you would be respectful of my rules and wishes and conduct yourself accordingly. And, if you didn't, you probably wouldn't get another invitation. There is little difference here. When posting, pretend you're sitting in my living room as my guest.

Please do not post your agreement or disagreement with this post.

By the way, I'm holding a book burning tomorrow night at my house if you'd care to join me. Just joking.

Elizabeth Schott · 07-13-2003, 08:32 PM

Wow, you leave for a few days and everyone gets to go to the museum but you!

I remember the paintings that Marvin shared with us in his presentation where incredibly beautiful and you could see why they would have been under his arm.

I also must point out that the tour of the Met and visiting the Cincinnati Wing of the Cincinnati Art Museum with Tim was two of the most educational endeavors of my workshops. The statement of

Timothy Mensching · 07-14-2003, 04:08 AM

...

Timothy Mensching · 07-14-2003, 04:48 AM

...

Peter Jochems · 07-14-2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

that skin was really just furry brush strokes of green and pink and white

I'm going to try that!

Elizabeth Schott · 07-14-2003, 11:55 AM

Timothy, for the sake of argument or opinion, I believe it is really important to keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges.

I was making a point about Renoir as an Impressionist. I don't think it is
right to compare him to a classic realist. He was't one. But I felt that he could draw better than the others I mentioned. As to him doing a portrait of one of my daughters, I think the examples below are nice. (Sorry, the garden image is fuzzy).

Tom Edgerton · 07-14-2003, 12:02 PM

Hey Beth--

I don't know...think you're giving The Great Renoir way too much credit for draftsmanship. There are better Impressionists for drawing--Manet and Degas, to name two. Mr. R's people all look like generic dolls to me, inflated from the inside with a tire pump, I believe. So much for the realization of form.

But I love ya,
Tom