art movies?
what are you're favorite art related art movies/ documentaries
i personally really like the power of art series from the bbc
This is the only one that comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8eUDd0T324
Robert Hughes
MOMA/Tate Vids
Powers of art was good too
I havent painted in a year since no galleries would take my paintings. But back then I was so into it
>>2276970
The Sweatbox showed the shitstorm that went behind making the Emperor's new groove
not so much an art as pipeline documentary though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_HUWs9c8c
>>2277176
I loved that movie.
I also loved the buttblasted reviews from art critics
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails
>>2276970
If you have Netflix watch Chef's table, some people might think it's not related but this cooking documentary is very focused towards the creative process and the purpose of it.
>>2277176
What's so impressive about painting a vermeer? Impressive for the time, sure, but we've come a long way in understanding light and color, as well as having much better technology at our disposal.
Also, the copy failed at tomal composition. The lighter values on the floor and left wall, highlights and the light from the windows all draw the gaze away from the figures.
He should have copied the composition instead of the superficial details.
>>2277193
Tim thinks that Vermeer used optics and mirrors to copy the painting from real life using mechanical tricks.
He didn't copy superficial details, he rebuilt Vermeer's studio and then tried to reverse engineers tools that would let him paint without skill.
That an untrained artist produced that is very impressive.
It's very interesting, but I'm not convinced that what Vermeer actually used.
A lot of his "evidence" is nonsense. Like in that trailer he says "that falloff of light is something artists can not see".
A: of course they can
B: even if they couldn't, blending techniques would take care of it.
>>2277204
But the room, the furniture, the clothing on the figures, etc, ARE the superficial details.
He spent so much time recreating the perfect conditions and then made a huge blunder and botched the whole thing by putting the focal point away from the figures.
That documentary perfectly counters the argument they're trying to make, but since it was made by and for clueless technocrats to wank each other off and pat themselves on the back, none of them realize it.
The artist's job, after all, is not just copying real life, it's re-interpreting and transforming it. To create something, not repeat what's already there. So if he wanted to make a copy of a vermeer painting, he shouldn't have bothered trying to reverse engineer an optics device. We've had one perfectly suited for such a task for a while now: it's called a camera.
Good job on using modern technology to try and recreate a three hundred and fifty year old painting and failing.
>>2277217
I don't disagree with you, it isn't a Vermeer.
I think you've made a mistake though. If he failed to recreate something, but the artist's job isn't to recreate, then maybe he unintentionally succeeded in creating his own artwork.
I like Tim's Vermeer, I think it's modern art disguised as something else.
