today i went to the van gogh museum. museums arent really my thing but i figured that id go anyway, maybe ill learn something, and its something important in the history of the netherlands so it something that should be seen! even if it was just to say id been there... but now that ive been, im glad, even tho i didnt wanna pay the 10euros to get in. but when you think of the masterpieces in there, i can see why its justified, but at the same time i didnt wanna hand it over!
anyway, as the title says, i now have an opinion on art... well, on expressionism, which is apparently the movement he inspired. i agree wholeheartedly with the idea behind expressionism, in that it allows the artist to paint what he feels rather than only what he sees. i like that because back in the day so many governments and regimes suppressed the art world into just basic pictures with no meaning, as any hidden meaning might be blasphemous/cause for treason/ or hold negative messages or connotations for the governmental strongholds that were in pwer at the time. in this way, expressionism was a breath of fresh air in art, allowing the artist to let his heart do the painting rather than his eyes. even if it was just a picture of a field or a house, it was still the freedom they had to just paint the emotions that they held, looking at the field or house. this is what i like about expressionism.
what i didnt like about it was some of the actual paintings... i know that it sounds weird to say yeah expressionism is the ducks nuts but the pics are crap, but in some cases its true. it seemed that the freedom they had to paint what they felt, gave them reason to be a bit.. well... lazy! some paintings seemed to show the artist painting in a hurry, not realy bothering to concentrate on fully showing the form of the subject, as if you were looking at it with blurred vision. but then, its the artists feeling about the subject, so it cant be wrong, can it? other paintings however, i did like.. most of them were by van gogh. sunflowers i didnt find esp mindblowing, i didnt like the colurs or the way the sunflowers sat, they looked as tho they were dying with the browny oranges and yellows, instead of vibrant yellow and green. i liked mots of his self portraits, as i found they were consistant,and gave me a pretty good idea of how he looked. isnt that the idea of a self portrait? there were some more detailed than others and those were the ones i liked.he managed to make one of them very lifelike, even tho the colours werent 100% lifelike... some were really good painting, when i looked at the skill involved in sitting there anfd painting a field, and it coming out looking like a field. i look at things and appreciate them more if i know i could never do it, and painting is one thing thats not my forte!
There wasnt any paintings that i really liked, none that i would consider buying, but i dont really like paintings that much to buy them. theyre a bit olf fashioned for me, i prefer photography and cool prints like andy warhol and things like that. the cambells soup can is dumb in my opinion but hey, i know nothing about art! pop art is cool, and i like funky art rather than traditional art... but i can certainly step back and appreciate the things i saw, theyre popular for a reason. some of them had wicked colours, bright and vibrant and theyre the ones i liked the most, i dont like dull or bland... is this another reason expressionism is cool? i dont know, idk if excessive and out of place colour is a trademark expressionism thing to do or if you were allowed to do that before... someone who knows, feel free to tell me! my opinion is based solely on a 45 min trip to a museum about one painter!
so to sum up my uneducated opinion, the expressionism movement was cool, but most of the paintings, were not.