Maggie's Farm

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.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, May 6. 2008

Claudio Bravo

I am heading down to NYC today to see Claudio Bravo's show at the Marlborough Gallery. This is his Terracotta Triptych (oil on canvas):

 

Posted by Opie in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 07:57 | Comments (53) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

Thurs. Morning Links
Mobile broadband optionsWhat do codfish have to do with red tides?Remarkable anti-Obama videoHow McCain can win the base. WSJTons of art critics in the Maggie's Farm commentsHow did "fake but accurate" become acceptable?From Salt of the Earth De
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: May 08, 06:12

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Please tell me its under that wrapping paper and not the wrapping paper itself.
#1 grant1863 on 2008-05-06 08:41 (Reply)
It's terra cotta, made to look like hidden Christmas presents look when the kids have tried to sneak a peek.

The joke is that people buy these things!
#2 Gwynnie on 2008-05-06 09:40 (Reply)
It's oil on canvas.
#2.1 BD on 2008-05-06 09:57 (Reply)
large piece and you should see the other colors. it is the wrapping paper and it will fetch over a million dollars. "different strokes for different folks" as they say.
#3 opie on 2008-05-06 09:41 (Reply)
"over a million dollars"... astounding if true. The 'old masters' must be rolling over in their graves.
#3.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-06 10:41 (Reply)
It does make you want to open it to see the pretty painting inside.
#4 The B. on 2008-05-06 10:05 (Reply)
Fools and their money.
#5 njartist49 on 2008-05-06 10:16 (Reply)
Opie....your life is an adventure.

...and we needed to know you were going to NYC to see paintings of the bottoms of paper bags because____________?
#6 von Rupert on 2008-05-06 10:32 (Reply)
...because we is an eclectic blog.
#6.1 BD on 2008-05-06 10:49 (Reply)
Foul on BD for jumping in and answering a question directly asked of Opie who is perfectly capable of answering on her own. Go back three spaces, turn in "Get out of Jail Card Free" card.
#6.1.1 von Rupert on 2008-05-06 15:19 (Reply)
because i derive vicarious pleasure from telling people I do not know what I am going, thinking,linking, reading and doing. claudio is 72 and a major talent and as for me i like looking at wrapping paper. the masters by the way are doing very well now that they are dead, of course. However francis bacon just sold for 72 million so it just goes to show the art market is as crazy as the stock market. Oh yeah and we are an eclectic blog cause I think there are some who spend thousands on guns too. lol
#6.2 opie on 2008-05-06 11:13 (Reply)
Opie, help me out here. You're going to see this in person if I understand your missive.

Then you're going to vicariously tell us what you've just shown us you're going to see. This is America. Have a safe trip. We'll be waiting for the critique.
#6.2.1 von Rupert on 2008-05-06 15:16 (Reply)
Guess that must be hard to paint those effects with oil on canvas. I can do very similar effects on concrete floors with acid stains and plastic sheeting for a little bit less than a million dollars and customers also get the pleasure of walking all over it.
#7 Patina on 2008-05-06 10:43 (Reply)
A bit about Claudio's work:


In 1954 he had his first exhibition at "Salón 13" in Santiago at the age of 17. 1955 He danced professionally with the Compañía de Ballet de Chile (lapdance or extra chrispy) and worked for Teatro de Ensayo of the Universidad Católica de Chile.

In 1968 Bravo received an invitation from President Marcos of the Philippines to come and paint him and his wife, Imelda Marcos as well as members of the high society

Years later, when Bravo's work reflected the hippie movement, Canaday, New York Times Art Critic, would refer to Bravo's work as "cheap and vulgar".


Chile is experiencing a volcanic eruption, I'm experiencing a personal eructation.

While in NYC don't miss the kazoo festival.
#8 von Rupert on 2008-05-06 10:44 (Reply)
I think it's the ultimate ... the kazoo festival
#9 Meata on 2008-05-06 10:47 (Reply)
"and as for me i like looking at wrapping paper."

Hahaha. You are funny, Opie
#10 BD on 2008-05-06 11:36 (Reply)
If I were to buy that painting I would have it delivered by UPS. I love it when that brown truck pulls up and the guy in the brown UPS hat jumps out with a package wrapped in brown paper for me. The thrill of opening the wrapping paper and finding a painting of wrapping paper would be beyond joyous. Usually, on those really lucky UPS days, I just get a box of homemade cookies.

Opie, I did google the artists images. He is, of course, very, very good. I like realism. Not so sure about the wrapping paper theme but......seems to have caught lots of peoples fancy. Think maybe everybody likes the idea of opening packages.
#11 Patina on 2008-05-06 11:45 (Reply)
Personally, I think Mr. Bravo should have stuck to dancing. The artwork, however, is better than some I've seen [the "artwork" of the Yale art student leaps painfully to mind].

As the widow of an artist [before I married my present husband, who is still present, bless him] I was fortunate to know and enjoy several fine artists and to indulge in attendance at many art shows at the Museum of Modern Art and the Metropolitan Museum, the National Gallery, etc.

There is a certain minimalist school of art that takes inspiration from found objects, discarded objects and other clutter. I've always felt they did this because they couldn't draw very well, but then, I'm a cynic. Some of them are quite financially successful -- but a million bucks? As P. T. Barnum once observed, "there's a sucker born every minute" and I suppose that some sucker might pay that. But, for the most part, artists have to die before their works bring in that much dough.

Marianne
#12 Marianne Matthews on 2008-05-06 12:29 (Reply)
I like it. "Found objects" art is good for the soul -- helps a body see the world. Painting a painting of a package makes you think about the act of giving -- the package of giving, as it were -- rather than the gift object -- which, like the money that changes hands for the painting, is in a different category of meaning. Say, commerce vs why commerce. Why commerce? because it makes people need each other rather than eat each other. so, i get positive message from pic in the pic illo. The artist -- his history -- is in a yet third category. Different than the work, different than the market.
#13 buddy larsen on 2008-05-06 13:00 (Reply)
and of course then there's the ironic interpretation, which takes all the wide-eyed fun out of everything in trade for the invulnerable knowing smirk.
#14 buddy larsen on 2008-05-06 13:05 (Reply)
Wow, interesting paintings! The elegant folds and simplicity of the subject matter makes them objects of contemplation.

They look "simple" but are incredibly difficult to produce. It takes enormous talent, vision and technique to pull those off.
#15 obladioblada on 2008-05-06 16:09 (Reply)
I just put a photo triptych on my site yesterday from a series I shot a the Louvre, (back when you could take photos at the Louvre).

http://www.jephnol.com/2008/05/mask_triptych.html

Have a good time at the show Opie!
#16 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-06 17:38 (Reply)
I like it ! It's unique, and simple. I guess it dosen't take to much to impress me, but thats me being me.
#17 jappy on 2008-05-06 21:39 (Reply)
I recently read a paper—The Aesthetics of the Gothic in Postcolonial Asian and Asian American Literature—appealed to Alan Goldman on aesthetics:

QUOTE:
…while the purpose of art may not be pleasure in the narrow sense, it is the enjoyment, refreshment, and enlightenment that such full experience provides. Great art challenges our intellects as well as out perceptual and emotional capacities. To meet all these challenges simultaneously is to experience aesthetically.


My ‘experience’ of Bravo’s piece is akin to appreciating something said out of context. It might be appreciable or even profound, but it’s a non sequitur; it “fits” in the Maggie’s milieu but fails to fulfill it’s aesthetic potential within those confines. For it shine for me, it needs a gallery or museum setting where it would rise to the level of its context. I would go to Bravo’s show. Put it in the Guggenheim and I’ll walk in circles to see it. I can imagine the design and décor of a splendid room to complement and set it off, but alone it is adrift in my aesthetic.
#17.1 Jephnol on 2008-05-06 22:46 (Reply)
Nicely said Jephnol. But if art depends on 'context' of surroundings... then what? What is in the artists head when he/she, in this example, paints. Does one paint for the Louvre or for one's own demon.

I liked your triptych by the way... your lighting brought out the 'context' beautifully :)
#17.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 00:06 (Reply)
“But if art depends on 'context' of surroundings... then what?” I believe great art transcends context.

Also, thanks for the looking at my photos! The Louvre is magnificent. The light is so abundant a photographer can escape the difficulties of a camera-mounted flash and meet with some measure of success. I believe I shot the images in the triptych with a Nikon 85mm, f1.4 lens—it’s a beautiful lens—that was fast enough to take advantage of the gorgeous light. The Kodak Portra 400NC was fast enough with a small enough grain structure to seal the deal—it renders colors quite naturally, too.
#17.1.1.1 Jephnol on 2008-05-07 00:36 (Reply)
my middle dotter was there a year or so ago -- and i believe she said thaey were no longer allowing photographs of the exhibits. can that be so? them Franch!
#17.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2008-05-07 00:42 (Reply)
Hey, Buddy! Check out my #16 comment. Your daughter sure is right. I think a big part of the problem was there was a no flash rule and most people were wailing away with flash. It distracted other patrons and there were questions of whether the constant barrage of light might adversely effect paintings—specifically the Mona Lisa, which was the most heavily photographed painting.

I think I have one photo of crowds gathered around the ML where people behind the throng are raising their cameras to photograph the painting. Flash was going off everywhere. (I shot sans flash and I was photographing the crowd). Alas, that was in 2004.
#17.1.1.1.1.1 Jephnol on 2008-05-07 10:57 (Reply)
Come on Jephnol... I read this:

"For it shine for me, it needs a gallery or museum setting where it would rise to the level of its context"

And felt that you were saying it needed proper context... I'm not trying to be an ass here. Where did I mis-interpret?

Yep... a 1.4 is, I think, a better choice over a 1.2... that slightly better spread in the focal length usually overcomes the larger light gathering ability. Your shots were great.
#17.1.1.1.2 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 01:08 (Reply)
Luther, you also (?) read this: "My ‘experience’ of Bravo’s piece..." I was refering to this specific work (pictured) as one needing a context to raise it to arts greater potential.
#17.1.1.1.2.1 Jephnol on 2008-05-07 10:44 (Reply)
Then are we saying the same thing? That for the 'piece' to rise to the level of "arts greater potential" it requires context... I guess what I'm trying to say is that in my mind 'art' should be able to stand alone... hang it on a tree, a brick wall, the back of a moving van... the essence of its 'art' should still be apparent and discernible. But WTF do I know.
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 11:54 (Reply)
That is exactly what I'm saying, which is to say I think you're brilliant. Great art is able to stand alone, but this piece isn't great art.

The f1.4 is aperture not focal length focal length is a constant 85mm. The f1.2 would pull in more light than a f1.4, which would make it a faster lens, but it would cost about $1500 more than my lens (if they made a f1.2 85mm). But that's all camera geek stuff.

Took a photo of the f100 with 85mm on it just now. (Ugly photo, but you get the idea). Tough little lens.

http://jephnol.com/may_08/f100.jpg
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-07 12:14 (Reply)
Haha.. I'm glad we got that cleared up. It was late and I was tired so thus my confusing remarks that began this discussion. As another example of that... could I exchange 'focal length' for 'depth of field'... which is what I was thinking with the 1.2 lens vs. the 1.4. That does look like a nice little lens you have there.
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 13:17 (Reply)
Evidently tiredness has nothing to do with it... how about depth of focus. Shit.
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 13:40 (Reply)
Ha! The two are acceptably interchangable still, but depth of field is typically more about distance from lens to focal plane and appropriate focus. Depth of focus is on the subject side of the lens. Easy to mix up, no?

On a 85mm at f1.2 the depth of focus would be paper thin. I seldom shoot wide open on that lens, as the DOF is so narrow, though I have had artistic inspiration to shoot that fast (and some ugly light grabs). The Louvre photos I linked to were probably shot at f5.6, giving enough DOF to keep the subject in focus.

The f100 image posted above was shot @ 170mm and f4 at 1/40 in butt ugly light. Stabilized w/ mono-pod and vibration reduction to get the most in focus shot. It's still ugly, as 1/40 is damn slow even with my setup. I should have used tripod with mirror lockup, but am lazy. You can see though how @ f4 the DOF is narrow, too.
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-07 14:01 (Reply)
Well I was thinking of the subject side really... but it has been a long time since I have done any real photography and I obviously confused the terms as you say.

Yes... for me it was always a trade off between speed and light. But then all I could afford back in the day was a good 1.4 55MM and a cheap 2.8 or something 185MM. I'm a big fan of available light. Which is what I liked about your triptych shots. That and the depth of focus. Along with the artful composition of course.

I used to shoot a lot of sunrise/sunset stuff... that's when I was able to open the lens up and still get some halfway decent speed out of it. I was always a 'freehander'... so needed that speed.
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 15:23 (Reply)
Natural light is great when it's there. The Louvre was designed with natural light in mind. Amazing. Best and very expensive camera right now for tough light (sports/journalism/art) is the Nikon D3, which has very manageable grain at very high ISO equivalents. I’ll cry in my beer tonight thinking about one. Must leave wife and get better job to afford…
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-07 17:02 (Reply)
Ah well then... very doable. :)
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 18:46 (Reply)
i have the Nikon D50 -- and love it -- except for several smudgy ''lense'' spots, which are dirt on the low-pass filter or something only a tech can fix. show up on every pic, a couple little smudges. pisser, man, pisser.
#17.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 buddy larsen on 2008-05-08 09:17 (Reply)
Drive safely
#18 Anonymous on 2008-05-07 01:44 (Reply)
Hahahahaha...
#18.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 01:48 (Reply)
From Surrealism to Seinfeldism: Art about nothing.
#19 vanderleun (Link) on 2008-05-07 11:20 (Reply)
That's a good one. Spot on...
#19.1 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-07 12:19 (Reply)
http://www.marlboroughgallery.com/artists/bravo/08.html
His works may be found in the collections of museums around the world among which are the following: Baltimore Museum of Art, Maryland;
Ludwig Museum, Cologne, Germany; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museo Nacional de Bellas Arte, Santiago, Chile; Museum Boymans-van Beunigen, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Museum of Modern Art, New York; Philadelphia Museum of Art, Pennsylvania;
and the Rufino Tamayo Museum of International Contemporary Art, Mexico.
In 1996 Bravo received the prestigious Gold Medal of Honor from Casita Maria settlement house of New York, in 2000 he received the “Art Miami International Distinguished Artist award,” and in 2005 he was inducted into the Pastel Society of America’s Hall of Fame.

Fantastic show! 25 of the 30 pieces were sold by the time I arrived at 6:30. The piece above is still available for 475 thousand dollars. He was quite kind with his time still cuts quite the figure at 72. The work is difficult to describe because it must be seen to be appreciated. The size of the large pieces at 11 ft across lend to the magnificence of the brushstrokes. I wish I had the dough!
#20 opie on 2008-05-07 16:37 (Reply)
This will be a post... right opie? Glad you enjoyed the show.
#20.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-07 17:05 (Reply)
Opie, glad you enjoyed the show. Your enthusiasm is infectious.

I looked at the marlboroughgallery.com link and liked his work. Would like to see it on the wall rather than in cyberspace. It must have been impressive.

Thanks for posting!
#20.2 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-07 17:10 (Reply)
...Coming in to the party late (I plead parenthood).

I can understand how Bravo's work would not appeal to all viewers, art is very subjective. However, as for comparison to the Old Masters, he actually comes off quite well. My wife and I went to the MFA for the "El Greco to Velazquez" show (highly recommended, it's up till the 1st of June) and there were several still lifes by Juan Sanchez Cotan that were much the same in concept, very simple images of vegetables repeated in slightly different ways (add a pheasant here, move the cabbage, take out the quince, et cetera). They were exceptional pieces. Representing some common thing as the focus of a painting in as realistic a fashion as possible (often called trompe de l'oeil) has a long glorious history in art. And consider this, lots of people enjoy more minimalist settings, modernist furniture, white walls etc. I can only think that Bravo's work would trump most of what has come out as "modern art" in the last sixty years, in such a setting.

As for the pricing, as an artist myself {warning, shameless self-promotion likely to cause deletion of my comment ... :-)> } I can only find that encouraging!
#21 Jerub-Baal (Link) on 2008-05-08 09:07 (Reply)
oops, correction, "El Greco to Velazquez" runs through July 27, so more time to go see this show...
#21.1 Jerub-Baal (Link) on 2008-05-08 09:31 (Reply)
Nice comment Jerub-Baal... yes, I can appreciate the talent, skill and masterful technique involved in Bravo's work... but still, a paper-bag. For $475,000. I do agree with your point re his work and most 'modern art' though.

I like your work, and the philosophy behind it. Very interesting. Though alas I'm sure I'm out of your price range. :)
#21.2 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-08 12:45 (Reply)
Well, I am a lot cheeper than Mr. Bravo...

... excepting maybe the time and cost of the commute to LA ;-)>
#21.2.1 Jerub-Baal (Link) on 2008-05-08 17:02 (Reply)
Got ya!
#21.2.1.1 Luther McLeod (Link) on 2008-05-08 21:14 (Reply)
Buddy, can show links for do-it-yourself filter clean. Many first hand accounts from photogs. Cannot right now--gotta' go in a few. Will find links and post in future comments here on Maggie's.

I have a D2Hs. It's a fairly awesom camera. It's what I used to shoot the f100. (Don't judge on that photo)!
#22 Jephnol (Link) on 2008-05-08 10:17 (Reply)
THANKS! -- I hate dropping stuff off at repair shops -- generally regret having done it. If I can't fix it myself it's usually bound to drift into the closet, toolshed, barn, goodwill and/or garbage pit place/time sequencing routine.
#22.1 buddy larsen on 2008-05-08 10:42 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.