Cezanne once said, "One can only speak properly about painting in front of paintings." In Portraits, Michael Kimmelman, chief art critic for The New York Times, speaks with eighteen important artists in front of some of the world's best art. His engaging, informal profiles of Balthus, Cindy Sherman, Chuck Close, Wayne Thiebaud, Brice Marden, Kiki Smith, and others record nCezanne once said, "One can only speak properly about painting in front of paintings." In Portraits, Michael Kimmelman, chief art critic for The New York Times, speaks with eighteen important artists in front of some of the world's best art. His engaging, informal profiles of Balthus, Cindy Sherman, Chuck Close, Wayne Thiebaud, Brice Marden, Kiki Smith, and others record not only what they said about the art they chose to look at in various museums, but also what they revealed about themselves and their work in the process. Lucian Freud goes on a midnight visit to see the Rembrandts in London's National Gallery (because that's when he likes to go them, and can, so the lights are left on for him). Francis Bacon, famous for his nighmarish pictures, is drawn to the pastoral Constables at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Leon Golub and Nancy Spero show their affinity for the art of ancient Mexico and Egypt at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.Beautifully illustrated with more than one hundred and thirty photographs, Portraits gives powerful visual accompaniment to lively, fluent prose. So when Henri Cartier-Bresson talks at the Pompidou Center in Paris about his admiration for Matisse, we see not only the Matisse portrait he particularly likes, but also the sketch he did while he and Kimmelman stood in front of it."Good artists, of different sorts, can talk straight about art, " Michael Kimmelman writes. As Elizabeth Murray puts it, "You look at this Courbet and you can relate to it even though his world is so distant from ours. What this Courbet or that Cezanne does is invite you into their worlds, and when you pop out again you've got something in your life you didn't have before." Asthese artists describe what is relevant to the present in the past, they restore a sense of immediacy to art. Portraits will make you look at art with fresh eyes....
|Title||:||Portraits: Talking with Artists at the Met, the Modern, the Louvre and Elsewhere|
|Number of Pages||:||288 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Portraits: Talking with Artists at the Met, the Modern, the Louvre and Elsewhere Reviews
Lovely book! I am seriously jealous of painters/artists. I'm jealous because they get to go to a building and look and learn. As a writer/poet I have no such place. Here's what I wrote in my blog: And while reading, I realized that as a poet, I'm lacking in my poetry education. I came to this realization while reading about how these artists go to art museums to view, and learn from the Masters. These Masters are mostly painters. And I found myself being jealous that these artists could just go to a museum and learn just by viewing and just by going to one place. And I also realized that I have never studied the masters of poetry. yup! I went to graduate school and have never studied the masters. In fact, I'm not even sure who the Masters of poetry are. Granted I could throw out some names, like, Byron, Keats, Wordsworth, Whitman, Dickinson, but who else? Does Homer count? Shakespeare? And not just the masters of poetry but the movements of poetry which are linked to art. Why aren't there any Poetry History classes in graduate programs, specifically, MFA's? It's really quite frustrating.Also culled a great quote:"Why make art? Because I think there's a child's voice in every artist saying: 'I am here. I am somebody. I made this. Won't you look?'" - Chuck Close
I gave up with Dead Boys (I have like 20 pages left but it bored me) and skipped to this. I think they should force art history majors to read this or something like it in school. The author takes artists to the Met or other large msuems and they "shoot the shit"I mean, actually reading what ARTISTS have to say about what they think is good art. It's very hard for to to say if someone who "doesn't know dick" about art would enjoy it - surely it is full of references , but the book is filled with images of most the pieces the artists discuss. There is a good range of different types of artists and altogether enlightening.
You're going back to the library, mister! I really loved Kimmelman's book _The Accidental Masterpiece_, but the essays in _Portraits_(brief interviews/sketches with various contemporary artists) are generally less substantive and less intriguing. If you're not so familiar with folks like Cindy Sherman and Chuck Close, this might be a good introduction.
It's a great concept, talking to artists (rather than critics, or dealers), about art. It's surprising it hasn't been done more often. With loads of useful illustrations (too bad they're in black and white, but if they were in color the thing would cost fifty bucks).
Kimmelman writes so beautifully. I'm a big fan.
review for Portraits: Talking with Artists at the Met, the Modern, the Louvre, and Elsewhere:http://tallerthanaveragetales.blogspo...
not as interesting as i thought it would be.