The greatest painter in history?

[Jmasley1]

For me, Cezanne. You?

[TragicMonkey]

El Greco.

[El Greco]

Thanks

[Bikewer]

Questions like these are, to me, along the lines of "who's the best musician?" and so forth.
There are no decent criteria for "best" in fields that are largely subjective, so they tend to be actually "what artist (or musician, or whatever) do I like the most?"

[Jorghnassen]

Peter Paul and Mary... I mean, Rubens.

[Mephisto]

The question is a bit broad, and I would be hard-pressed to pick a single artist out of the entire history of art as a favorite.

Plus, being involved with art most of my life, there are different reasons for liking different artists, whether it's technique, subject matter, composition, color or simply social commentary.

I know it's not according to the OP, but choosing a favorite artist out of so many is like choosing which limb is your favorite.

I'd have to go with Vermeer for lighting

Seurat, Monet, Renoir for their technique

Degas, Latrec, and Goya for their subject matter and social commentary

and for composition and color (and social commentary) I'll have to go with artists that aren't even in common knowledge yet - yep; they're contemporary artists whom I admire:

H.R. Giger
http://www.hrgiger.com/

Carlos Solorzano Smith
http://members.tripod.com/solark/

and

Demetrios Vakras
http://www.vakras.com/demetrios/directory.html

If anyone wants to discuss the last three artists after looking at the links, PM me or drop a note here. :)

[Smart_Cookie]

Gotta be Michelangelo. You have to love an artist whose women look like men with grapefruits glued to their chests.

Course there's also Donatello...Raphael... and who's that fourth ninja turtle?

[balrog666]

Rembrant

[CriticalThanking]

I like early works. Very early works. Anonymous has to be my favorite painter. Not to mention composer. Seriously.

If I had to pick someone modern, probably Rembrandt.

CT

[JPK]

Good afternoon.

Without question. Earl Scheib.
"Hi I'm Earl Scheib and I'll paint any car any color for $ 29.95 ". (http://www.earlscheib.com/)

JPK

[TimmyBerry]

...3-d, all the way.
Paintings are rather outdated. ;)

[Kotatsu]

I have a soft spot for Paul Klee and another one for Turner, though I cannot explain exactly what attracts me to either of them. Most of the paintings I own, however, are by Robert (Kent) Bergman, my grandfather, or his father, Robert Bergman. Neither of them are very famous, though.

[Alliebubs]

Questions like these are, to me, along the lines of "who's the best musician?" and so forth.
There are no decent criteria for "best" in fields that are largely subjective, so they tend to be actually "what artist (or musician, or whatever) do I like the most?"

Well, yes and no. Art history is the discipline of study which aims to reconcile aesthetic sensibilities within a historical framework so, while you're right that art is a somewhat subjective matter, there is still an academic aspect to art that is mostly objective, and can be used to determine what artists are, in fact, better than others.

[kittynh]

The question is a bit broad, and I would be hard-pressed to pick a single artist out of the entire history of art as a favorite.

Plus, being involved with art most of my life, there are different reasons for liking different artists, whether it's technique, subject matter, composition, color or simply social commentary.

I know it's not according to the OP, but choosing a favorite artist out of so many is like choosing which limb is your favorite.

I'd have to go with Vermeer for lighting

Seurat, Monet, Renoir for their technique

Degas, Latrec, and Goya for their subject matter and social commentary

and for composition and color (and social commentary) I'll have to go with artists that aren't even in common knowledge yet - yep; they're contemporary artists whom I admire:

H.R. Giger
http://www.hrgiger.com/

Carlos Solorzano Smith
http://members.tripod.com/solark/

and

Demetrios Vakras
http://www.vakras.com/demetrios/directory.html

If anyone wants to discuss the last three artists after looking at the links, PM me or drop a note here. :)


OK with the above, but RENOIR!!! Oh, he was so sloppy. Bad technical skills all the way. But he had a good knack for subject matter, and his paintings make you feel happy. But he's taught as an example of someone with poor skills, that was still a success.

[kittynh]

I know lots of really GOOD artists, skill wise, that are total failures with that elusive quality known as expression. A really bad artist can insufe a painting with emotion and soul. Then he/she is not just a good artist, the word genius comes to mind. Because a computer can now draw and paint better than any human. But if you have seen these works...zzzzzzzz.....

Look at photography. Surely anyone can point and shoot. It's the vision that leads to the result that counts.

[LibraryLady]

My daddy. He wasn't famous, but I have several of his paintings and drawings, and he was extremely talented. He was also the first Jew to attend the Maryland Institute of Art on full scholarship.

[HarryKeogh]

Bob Ross. He was able to paint a beautiful landscape in under 30 minutes. Plus, he was really, really nice.

[Bikewer]

I'm well aware of academic "criteria", but I don't normally approach art that way. I can appreciate technique, having dabbled a bit myself, but I tend to go for the visceral experience. If I don't get some emotional impact...

Currently, I find a lot of great stuff in the Fantasy/Sci-fi vein. Each year, my wife buys me the current issue of Spectrum, the annual awards book in this genre. Some of the genre 3-dimensional stuff is absolutely wonderful.

[Jorghnassen]

Bob Ross. He was able to paint a beautiful landscape in under 30 minutes. Plus, he was really, really nice.

To quote Pedro: "Afuro NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

/obscure?

[Alliebubs]

I'm well aware of academic "criteria", but I don't normally approach art that way. I can appreciate technique, having dabbled a bit myself, but I tend to go for the visceral experience. If I don't get some emotional impact...

Currently, I find a lot of great stuff in the Fantasy/Sci-fi vein. Each year, my wife buys me the current issue of Spectrum, the annual awards book in this genre. Some of the genre 3-dimensional stuff is absolutely wonderful.

I agree with you, that art should elicit a reaction, regardless if that reaction is a favourable one. And, also having tried out a few of art technique myself (fresco, woodworking, and mosaic, to name three... although, the mosaic one almost led to a hand being practically amputated but, no matter :p ), I do have an appreciation for it. I just tend to think that, sometimes, outside mitigating factors, such as society, politics, etc., can and does influence which artists tend to be considered "better" than others.

[JamesDillon]

I agree with you, that art should elicit a reaction, regardless if that reaction is a favourable one. And, also having tried out a few of art technique myself (fresco, woodworking, and mosaic, to name three... although, the mosaic one almost led to a hand being practically amputated but, no matter :p ), I do have an appreciation for it. I just tend to think that, sometimes, outside mitigating factors, such as society, politics, etc., can and does influence which artists tend to be considered "better" than others.

Are social factors less arbitrary than the academic criteria to which you referred earlier? What makes one set of "academic" criteria for judging art the "right" one, or better than another? For example, I could decree a sole criterion for artistic merit: "The best art is that which uses the most yellow paint per square inch." On the basis of that criterion, I could easily rate the work of all the world's artists by their "objective" merit on the basis of "academic" criteria, but isn't my selection of criteria still ultimately subjective and aesthetic?

[Alliebubs]

For example, I could decree a sole criterion for artistic merit: "The best art is that which uses the most yellow paint per square inch." On the basis of that criterion, I could easily rate the work of all the world's artists by their "objective" merit on the basis of "academic" criteria, but isn't my selection of criteria still ultimately subjective and aesthetic?

If the tradition of using the most yellow paint per square inch was an evolutionary trait developed from hundreds of years of documented art historical research, cross-influences between artists and their respective social milieu, then I would argue, yes, the world's best artists could be judged on that criterion.

Further, your use of the phrase "my selection of criteria" might be a bit misleading, since one could interpret that as implying art history has no set methodology, or even scientific investigative properties, in its discipline. For example, I don't like most contemporary art, particularly Jackson Pollack. Personally, and employing *my* own aesthetic criterion, I think his work is hackneyed and chaotic. I don't like it. However, based on more objective/academic criteria (such as influence on other artists, his development of, arguably, the first real post-modern painting technique, etc.), I can't deny that he is one of the most important American artists in the 20th century.

So, while it may seem that art history uses seemingly subjective criteria in its field of study, it, in fact, is doing quite the opposite.

[TragicMonkey]

Are social factors less arbitrary than the academic criteria to which you referred earlier? What makes one set of "academic" criteria for judging art the "right" one, or better than another? For example, I could decree a sole criterion for artistic merit: "The best art is that which uses the most yellow paint per square inch." On the basis of that criterion, I could easily rate the work of all the world's artists by their "objective" merit on the basis of "academic" criteria, but isn't my selection of criteria still ultimately subjective and aesthetic?

It depends on what you think art is, and whether it has a function or not. If it does have a function, then how good a given piece is depends on how well it fulfills that function.

[Soapy Sam]

Adolf Hitler? (Rather depends on the definition of "greatest").

I'm partial to the Dutch and Flemish masters myself.

But my favourite paintings (I make no claims to greatness) are by Joseph Wright of Derby, master craftsman of the English Industrial Enlightenment.
http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/wright/index_b.html

[KingMerv00]

I may not know art, but I know what I like: Monet

[KingMerv00]

I may not know art, but I know how to double post.

[kedo1981]

I like Vermeer
Michelangelo is way over rated

[Skeptic]

Adolf Hitler? (Rather depends on the definition of "greatest").

As is well known, the young Hitler tried to get into art school and fail the entrance exams.

I can just see the conversation between the examiners:

--"Oh, c'mon, admit this guy. He isn't that bad."
--"No way! If we start admitting people who draw like that, who knows what will happen! It will be a catastrophe, I tell you!"

[TragicMonkey]

I think Michelangelo was a greater sculptor than painter. Not that his paintings aren't pretty damn good, too.

[LibraryLady]

Okay, really.....

Leonardo.

Whose name by the way was not da Vinci. Vinci is where he was from.

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?50442+0+0

[TragicMonkey]

Okay, really.....

Leonardo.

Whose name by the way was not da Vinci. Vinci is where he was from.

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?50442+0+0


Not everyone appreciated his work that much. Someone cut a door through "The Last Supper".

[LibraryLady]

Not everyone appreciated his work that much. Someone cut a door through "The Last Supper".

And trimmed the Book of Kells to fit the fancy binding. Philistines.

So TM, ya coming to the [url=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53855party? [/url]

[LibraryLady]

Not everyone appreciated his work that much. Someone cut a door through "The Last Supper".

And trimmed the Book of Kells to fit the fancy binding. Philistines.

So TM, ya coming to the party? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53855)

[Mephisto]

As is well known, the young Hitler tried to get into art school and fail the entrance exams.

I can just see the conversation between the examiners:

--"Oh, c'mon, admit this guy. He isn't that bad."
--"No way! If we start admitting people who draw like that, who knows what will happen! It will be a catastrophe, I tell you!"

There's an obscure John Cusack movie called MAX that is about a young, Jewish, disabled-veteran (WWI), art dealer who befriends an artist that shows promise. Cusack's role as the art dealer is superb as is the actor who plays a young Hitler.

It really does ask the questions you just posed, and although the conclusion is definitely Hollywood, it's still a great story. :)

[Mephisto]

Are social factors less arbitrary than the academic criteria to which you referred earlier? What makes one set of "academic" criteria for judging art the "right" one, or better than another? For example, I could decree a sole criterion for artistic merit: "The best art is that which uses the most yellow paint per square inch." On the basis of that criterion, I could easily rate the work of all the world's artists by their "objective" merit on the basis of "academic" criteria, but isn't my selection of criteria still ultimately subjective and aesthetic?

One of the criteria for good art that is commonly used by the untrained public is photorealism. Everyone seems to agree if a painting "looks like what you painted" then it's good art. Personally, I find this rather troubling because it's so much easier to take a photograph and you get . . . photorealism.

That's why I favor the surrealists - a sort of photorealism of things that have never existed. I think it was H.R. Giger who said, "Painters will exist as long as it's impossible to take a camera into Hell."

[headscratcher4]

http://www.lileks.com/institute/frahm/art1.html

Would never be so bold as to suggest the greatest painter of all time, but no list would be complete without the greatest painter of the 20th century...
Art Frahm.

Subtle. Disturbing. Full of psychological insight and post-modern angst. He caputures us in all of our humanity and helps us to be a little better than we were before encountering his vision.

[Alliebubs]

That's why I favor the surrealists - a sort of photorealism of things that have never existed. I think it was H.R. Giger who said, "Painters will exist as long as it's impossible to take a camera into Hell."

I enjoy the Surrealists, as well! Something very dream-like and just different about their type of art. :)

[Raphael]

My namesake. Often portrayed as the lesser corner of the Rennaisance Triumvirate, but as a pure painter, he exhibits a grace of modelling and composition that Leo and Michael just didn't have. His Madonnas looked like women (unlike Michaelangelo's), and I'll take The School of Athens over The Last Supper anyday.

My other favourites are Van Gogh and Mattias Grunewald- the Isenheim Alterpiece is probably my favourite single work of art.(yet I am an atheist)

[kittynh]

Van Gogh got better. His early work is well, just not that good.

And Van Gogh is one of the worst artists to buy a print of. What he did, when he did it well, was so much more than painting. There is a 3-D quality of his work that you can see was probably one of the most disturbing things about his work for those that looked at it.

For us today, with more liberal tastes, it is the dimensionality that makes them beyond great and into genius. But you have to SEE it.

I enjoy a good Sargent portrait myself.

Whistler wasn't all that bad, but he is so kitsch from his painting of his mother....his other work is often forgotten.

Picasso is very under rated. He was good and bad. You have to remember, for some of these painters their crap was thrown out, or not saved. Picasso lived long enough to be famous in his lifetime, so his crap was saved.

Every year I show children 3 portraits of women. One by Leonardo, one by Van Gogh, and one by Picasso. I have the children vote on which painting the like the best. For the ages 3-5, Picasso is the winner hands down. They get him. Somewhere down the line, they lose him. But many come back!

[headscratcher4]

The best gallery show I've ever seen...stunning actually... was a retrospective on the Frensh artist Bonnard here in Washington a couple of years ago. His paintings from the South of France -- especially his landscapes -- were magnificient. Now, not contending here that hs is the greatest painter or even a master in the sense of Carrivagio, Leonardo or Valazquez (BTW -- Senor V is fantastic), but Bonnard's painting did more to lift my spirits and make me happy for seeing them than almost any other exhibit I've ever been to. I guess what I am saying is that you can, with an academic eye, view some painting with an academic eye, know their painterly qualities, see their technical brilliance...but somewhere you must react at a gut level. So while appreciating much of what the "great" have produced, the Bonnard show has stayed with me far longer.

BTW. Recently saw the Cezzane show here at the National Gallery in Washington. A wonderful corpus of work. However, both my wife and I decided that he is a terribly cold painter. He is driven. He has a revolutionary eye. He has great colors and perspective. But there's something cold and reserved about it all. I appreciate it, but I wouldn't like to spend time in his world...in contrast, we both wanted to spend an afternoon drinking wine on the patio over-looking the Mediteranian with Pierre Bonnard.

[Mephisto]

OK with the above, but RENOIR!!! Oh, he was so sloppy. Bad technical skills all the way. But he had a good knack for subject matter, and his paintings make you feel happy. But he's taught as an example of someone with poor skills, that was still a success.

Yeah, I realize that about Renoir, kitty, but my own subject matter is pretty dismal, my palette is pretty monochromatic and my paintings don't make you feel happy - his success, considering his level of skill, is what keeps me going. ;)

[Raphael]

Do traditional painting skills really matter any more? My 14 year old can spend an hour with photoshop, and create something that would take me months with brush on canvas. In that context, ideas are much more important than how "realistic" you paint- and from reading your posts Mephisto, I surmise you posess a wealth of ideas. Besides,I like monochromatic, and who says a painting has to make you happy?

[Corpse Cruncher]

Georgia O'keeffe, subtlety sexual.
http://www.leninimports.com/sg3023.jpg

[rustypouch]

Georgia O'keeffe, subtlety sexual.
http://www.leninimports.com/sg3023.jpg

That is indeed one of her more subtle works. Is it sad that I first heard of her because she married Alfred Stieglitz?

[Mephisto]

Do traditional painting skills really matter any more? My 14 year old can spend an hour with photoshop, and create something that would take me months with brush on canvas. In that context, ideas are much more important than how "realistic" you paint- and from reading your posts Mephisto, I surmise you posess a wealth of ideas. Besides,I like monochromatic, and who says a painting has to make you happy?

That's a question I've often asked myself, Raphael. There are so many different tools that can aid people who have no idea what chiaro scuro or perspective is; from computers to projectors and light-tables. The airbrush, for instance, STILL hasn't found acceptance in the "traditional" art community, but it's been around since shortly after the Civil War. I'm really enthused with the fact that so many young people can make such fantastic art using new technology, and I think the time they save using that technology helps them realize their artistic ideas.

Thanks for the kind words also, Raphael. I consider myself a political/religious surrealist - I personally consider politics and religion to be the two greatest blights in the history of mankind, and most often use current events to fuel my paintings. I actually first used monochronomatic work because it is cheaper and paint is always expensive. I still have a very limited palette. For some reason, paintings with a limited (and often dark) palette with current events as subjects don't make for "happy" paintings. ;)

[Mephisto]

Currently, I find a lot of great stuff in the Fantasy/Sci-fi vein. Each year, my wife buys me the current issue of Spectrum, the annual awards book in this genre. Some of the genre 3-dimensional stuff is absolutely wonderful.

Have you seen the magazine, Art Scene International?

It's aimed primarily at artists, but has some great features with some GREAT art. You'll also find a wide variety of different types of art (last month's issue had pinstriping motorcycle tanks, digital sci-fi art, and body painting) that are pretty cool.

It's an expensive (but extremely high quality) magazine as a subscription costs 50 Euro delivered here in the states. Were you ever a fan of Heavy Metal? How about Creepy or Eerie[/i] magazines?

[Jmasley1]

Bonnard is great.

[kittynh]

Art has been defined as anything that makes you feel something.

The older I get the more "modern" my art becomes. Even my photography (failing eyesight makes this a new option for me, my other work was quite demanding of my eyes...so hey, if you own any of that stuff hold onto it, value going up!) is becoming more abstract. I've one photo I've only allowed to be used upside down. Right side up it is so...Boring....

Upside down it's wonderful. It just takes on life upside down. I find myself flipping a lot of my photos these days. OFten a photo just looks too much like the thing and not the feeling when it is right side up. Oddly, not many people notice they are upside down.

You need to look and look and look at art. Really good art through the ages. Then you begin to see it. (and begin to see how really awful a lot of art is that you see outside of museums.) Actually a lot of museums are filled with junk too. A museum in Manitowoc Wisconsin has a wonderful collection of Georgia O'Keefe, and they had to take the rest of the crap the donor had collected to get them O'Keefes. The donor was sure she had been collecting the "best" of modern art through the 20's - 60's. She got the O'keefe right, and nothing else. The museum actually has to SHOW the other crap on a rotating basis!

I grew up with a Renoir on my wall. And I had a copy of the same painting on my daughters bedroom wall.

[Skeptic]

Upside down it's wonderful. It just takes on life upside down. I find myself flipping a lot of my photos these days. OFten a photo just looks too much like the thing and not the feeling when it is right side up. Oddly, not many people notice they are upside down.

Handwriting experts, looking at suspicious documents, sometimes upend suspected documents so that the meaning of the words written is obscured by the "feel" of the script. Perhaps upside down the "feel" of the photograph remains.

The Germans have a word for it--fingerspitzengefuhl, finger-tip-feeling --which gives you an idea what I am talking about...

As for your story about museums showing crap: I wonder how often a donor says something to the effect of "You can show my collection of Titians only if you give equal space to my collection of sad puppies calendars".

[buffalocust]

Frank Frazetta

[Mephisto]

I love Frazetta and Boris Vallejo - I caught them early in their careers in "Creepy" and "Eerie" magazines. :) Welcome to the forums.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Chagall, toujours Chagall

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

Giger, able to combine Beauty, eroticism & Horror and an Oscar winner to boot.


Methisto :
Giger: "Painters will exist as long as it's impossible to take a camera into Hell."
Methisto, this is great, I'd love it for a sig, when I can afford one.

[treble_head]

Jean Michel Basquiat (http://www.basquiat.net/) . and that's all I have to say about that.