We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Gustav Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer (1907). Ronald Lauder paid 135 million for this painting in 2006. It resides in NYC's Neue Gallery. (Gallery, and the restaurant, are a nice touch of Vienna.)
A pupette and I spent a very pleasant day seeing the Klimts, and other good stuff (Schiele, Kokoshka), at the Belvedere in Vienna two years ago, then moved on by foot, trolley, and subway to lots of other fun things and tasty food treats - Viennese pastries and beers - along the way. She likes Schiele.
Mmm ... the painting --is nice but -- is it of the dress, or about the sunflowers colors, or about draftmanship --or all that plus Islam, in the geometricals repetition. I think depending on size and surface it could be sort of oppressive. BUT tha's just me --
I like Schiele, too. Then too he tends to creep me out. Which is part of why I was intrigued when I first ran across him, that and the public display of youthful neuroses graphically illustrated.
He's a bit of a tragic "what if" artist - he had the intensity and was developing the artistic chops, but got cut short (flu, IIRC). So his body of work comes across as the conflicted juvenilia of a great artist who never got the chance to become one.
Love the painting ... partly because it can be so many things, depending on the mood of the viewer -- ornamental, abstract, meaningful. I have a few Klimt reproductions in our collection, and they have a happy habit of changing often depending on the mood I'm in when I look at them. They are always elegant, however, and I don't care whether other folks think they're fine art or illustration. Elegance, these days, is too rare in any area. Clothes designers have lost the ability to infuse their designs with elegance. Right now, the most elegantly dressed person in the Western world is Catherine Duchess of Cambridge. She never misses a step.
Good heavens, T.K., do you realize how very pricey those lovely Klimts are? I do agree that seeing the genuine ones up close is much more thrilling than seeing them as reproductions. But I'd rather have the reproductions than nothing at all. I have a gorgeous Modigliani nude [reproduction] as well, and she gives me great pleasure. The original is owned by an Italian family, and I first saw her in a show of Modigliani's works in the New York Museum of Modern Art.
She is dazzling, and she hangs on my bedroom wall. Maybe she's not the real thing, but then, I'm not any more either. I look at her and I remember how we both were, back in 1955.
Heh!! Well I wasn't advocating you save up for the next auction that pops up. I wasn't saying that nobody can get the full Klimt Effect from a repro, just that I had not.
There are a bunch of artists in that category, for me, where I had seen reproductions & though "meh" but then seen the real thing and thought "wow!!".
Where it happens it's usually an artist for whom the tactile, textural nature of paint itself is part of the picture in some way; not just the pigment but the substance itself. That's often hard for a reproduction to convey.
That tactile, textural thing also happens to be something I'm attuned to, so if the repro doesn't get it over to me I guess I find that something's missing, and I don't know what until I see the artwork.