Lozenge and Paul Klee

[EricGoedkoop]

Originally Posted by Barker

I love the guy.
Nutty as an outhouse rat but as direct as it gets, per your point, here.

We have two of his on our walls. One is Wheatfield - the thing glows like it's about to explode.

In Chicago, looking around a room of giants and there sits Vincent, glowing off the wall in green, and I swear, I got all manner of automomic reaction off that surprise.
Only guy to do it.
I staggered down the steps of that Musée du LookOutNow...

You know you did that to me?

Thomas Eakins.

Seriously.

The wife (not at the time) and I went to the Met whilst they had an exhibit of his and those medical school pieces are astounding. Floored us both.

the rest were homos.

everyone knows that but won't say.

You're an absolute Fauve.

[Barker]

If it's still there, there's some damn nice Sargents in that Taft House in downtown Cincinnati. Some others..he's the one I remember. Another portraiturist of the day, can't remember his name - a German guy...same deal.

http://www.taftmuseum.org/2001-present.htm

ok.

Go to the Cinti Art Museum and look for Henri Farny.
late 1880s+ Painted Native Americans, painterly style, there's something to his work, if not the limitation his subject choice - apparently, that's all the cat did: come over here and paint Injuns.

"He Bop."



You'll have to wade a dreadful parade of stiff goons from the good side of the tracks, Face Row.

Why does every museum do that?


Hall Of Boring Persons.


looking at Eakins, now.


Here's One:
http://www.tomthomson.org/thomson/collection.cfm

Seven more:
http://www.tomthomson.org/groupseven/about1.html

[Barker]

Originally Posted by EricGoedkoop

You're an absolute Fauve.

Henri Matisse.

yep.

(do they have to come up with words like that? see? complete cruisers - all of them - at least the ones who don't paint.)

[rammjaeger]

>>While rooting around looking for pictures of Halberstadts, I came across this article and found it to be intriguing--polygons on lozenge fabric would influence a painter in the post-war period. Is this a valid theory, or is this common knowledge among the artists here? It'd be great to hear more about this...<<

We had many discussions about Lozenge years ago on the Forum and I think I remember a source claiming the opposite:
Some knowledgeable painters were bringing in their experiences for the development of the Lozenge camouflage.
It seems also more resonable to me than the above mentioned theory.

VBR
Rammjaeger

[Barker]

And this is where we get the expression feet of klee.

[EricGoedkoop]

Originally Posted by Barker

looking at Eakins, now.

Here's one to chew on:



Take my word that the photo does not do it justice. It's luminous, masterful and somewhat unsettling in the flesh.

So to speak.

[Barker]

Know it.

Agreed.

A look last night proved exactly as you say, so I threw Walt in there.



Pokey & Gumby may be considered.

Did they invent polygonal design, as pertains WuhWuhWon?

"Let's decorate a plane, nnnn-Gumby."

[NeilE]

I think an interesting art style that may have had some sort of early influence on thinking about lozenge style camouflage, and the use of colour and light to create a composite, was the neo-impressionist style known as Pointilism, populised by the Frenchman Georges Seurat...

Just my Australian 5 cents worth..

Cheer

Neil

[Barker]

Eck-tooley, Big Georges has more in common with lithography, Roy Lichtenstien and Chuck Close, later, pixels...

Thought of him but he is like a short weird branch on this Intelligent Design of camouflage tree.

George was fascinated with the way dots made up a picture when used by lithographers. So. He devised huge canvas and a complex system of grid and I.D. and had at it. Think of pixels and Photoshoppe. .bmp images.
bitmap. What George did. What lithographers did (photo-etch lithography). What your television does. George was into HDTV.

Impressionism - these folks obsessed color and light, but the other thing got their thinking caps on was that brush strokes (up to that point in human history), any kind of brush strokes, were not real, they were a facsimile of real. Van Gogh may be its most pure practitioner in that his brush strokes have an "honesty" the others could only hope for - and still caught the image - and more than that. To me, that's what makes both he and Impressionism remarkable. Monet is another one.

Comment is made of various cultural pursuits being convergent...they are.
But probably not so direct a correlation with Seurat. It's odd: he's a dead end for anyone goes there, unless you are Chuck Close...it's a laborious process that essentially replicates a machine, in slow motion. Dots. Screen printing. TV screen dots. Pixels. Algebra, if on computer.


looking it up:

Principles of cammo -
1. Shape
2. Shadow
3. Color
4. Texture
5. Movement
6. Temperature
7. Pattern
8. Radar Return

1-4, 7.
others are electronic, but adhere in a cross-correlative sense...

What Impressionists may have lent to use of polygons in camouflage:
That colors and color value make up another color, when seen overall. Hence pink undersides and greenish to grey bluish upperdecks.

Seurat certainly chased this very thing, but he chased it as an artist simulating dot-screen printing.

Polygons are like Van Gogh's brush strokes, mechanised and mass produced. The effect is similar to Cezanne's later work and precedes Klee.
Cubists (both pre-war and post-war) took this still further.


Realism can be a straight-jacket to thought and new concept.
In this, Impressionists may have been very helpful to the folks who wanted to see but not be seen so they could kill other people who were also trying not to be seen.



*No James Browns were harmed in the making of this picture.


"Yes, but what are the Methuen values?"

[Barker]

Paul Gaugin is another one:
His paintings can be seen to use color for lights & darks instead of value or tone. Look at a Gaugin and you start seeing a similar palette to those used in polygonal camouflage by the Germans. Gaugin's colors separate and dilineate front to back, light & dark, by use of contrasting colors, sometimes more than value.
Dark backgrounds? sure. Look at the figures and their immediate surroundings. Color, not value.

Which is an irony, to me...

German persons using French persons to hide from French persons so German persons can kill French persons but not themselves be kilt.
Which is Scots.

but.


Look and you'll see.



Mangoes - everywhere.

Every Fokker a limited edition print.