Comments on: The World's Fifty Best Works of Art?

The World's Fifty Best Works of Art?

paduasoy — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:20:33 -0800

The World's 50 Best Works of Art (and how to see them) in the opinion of critic Martin Gayford.

This sort of list is pretty personal, of course (no work by artists known to be women at all? Really? What about Kauffman, Valadon, Gentileschi, Kollwitz?), but is a good starting point for travel and armchair explorations.

By: paduasoy

paduasoy — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:21:29 -0800

(I should add that this is in the Telegraph, not known for its commitment to feminism.)

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:51:08 -0800

Some links to the work in question would have been good.

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:00:48 -0800

At first I sniffed and bristled at his choices (Too European! Too Ancient! Too Religious! Too This and That!) but then I actually calmed my American-centric self down and LOOKED at some images of his choices. Magnificent. I gotta get out and see the world. Lovely post!

By: emperor.seamus

emperor.seamus — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:23:18 -0800

I think I may be over invested in my favorite artists in that I feel personally wronged by the absence of Marcel Duchamp in his list. None the less, although I don't think he's listed anything awful, It does kind of feel like he's not always listed the best but rather the best known. I don't know, there's no accounting for taste.

By: batmonkey

batmonkey — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:33:28 -0800

I clicked the link without reading the note on the lack of female contributors and felt robbed that there was no Frida Kahlo. Lichtenstein, but no Kahlo. Ridiculous! Most other choices are really fascinating, although having the list be almost all text with only a few images is kind of weird.

By: MNDZ

MNDZ — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:48:16 -0800

I got a long way to go to finish that list. So far I've seen the things that are in NY, london, paris, madrid, or amsterdam, which are mostly paintings... also the terra cotta warriors.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:07:42 -0800

It's a list, so there will be quibbles, but it's quite a cool list and not what I expected. The token modern items are pretty rubbish though, it would have been better if they just explicitly ignored the last 100 years as "too soon".

By: nicolas léonard sadi carnot

nicolas léonard sadi carnot — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:08:50 -0800

Kahlo is wack. Where's the Victory of Samothrace?

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:25:28 -0800

Honestly, if you can book a tourist group to either of them, I don't think you could classify getting to Ajanta or the Nasca lines as "hellish." I liked the pre-historic inclusions as they set off the list from an Art History 101 syllabus, but otherwise it reads very standard. But the standards are standards for a reason, I suppose.

By: 45moore45

45moore45 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:32:05 -0800

The best art of all are the cave paintings. There, struggling to survive, stay warm, find food, and not get eaten as food themeselves, some human beastie passed the time drawing his/her world or outlining their hand with blown pigment. I think that speaks to the inherent necessity of art more than any "great" work.

By: Scram

Scram — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:42:26 -0800

I balked at Lichtenstein, too. Before Warhol? An interesting list for pages 1-2, but the modern selections are so conservative. No Ensor, no Bacon, no Watts Towers, no Klein, no dada or surrealism, not even Courbet's L'Origine du monde. If I'm going to consider traveling halfway across the world to see art, I'd like it to provoke.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:44:28 -0800

Earlier (but different) 50-best-works list, with links.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:51:01 -0800

No Half-Life 2? This list is a travesty!

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:51:24 -0800

I can't help but notice that Gayford uses the word "art" synonymously with "visual art." That would explain the exclusions of Hamlet, Mozart's Requiem and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:53:07 -0800

This thread is worthless without pics...

By: Guy_Inamonkeysuit

Guy_Inamonkeysuit — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:06:54 -0800

What everyone said about the lack of female artists (we can't be sure of some of the antiquities, of course, though I guess it's unlikely) and I was prepared to be all sniffy about his choices -- except! Except! I went in thinking, "Ahh, he'll never have Brueghel in there." And boy was I wrong! In fact, he has my hands-down all-time favorite Brueghel painting, Hunters in the Snow, at Number 15. Sublime. I could look at it forever. So I can't fault the dude's taste.

By: paduasoy

paduasoy — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:00:23 -0800

Here are links for the first 25. They may be a bit random. I'll try to do the second half later today. I'm trying to finish a paper, but on the other hand am doing so whilst listening to LN's music, so owe MF something. 1 Sculpture of Khafre (Chephren) 2 The Hunts of Ashurbanipal 3 Riace Warriors 4 Terracotta Army - BM exibition, Wikipedia 5 Altar of Zeus from Pergamon 6 Nasca Earthworks 7 Murals, Villa of the Mysteries 8 Ajanta murals 9 Obelisk of King Ezana 10 Arjuna's Penance, relief sculpture 11 Mosaics, Great Mosque 12 The Incarnation Initial, Book of Kells 13 Sculptures, Temple of Borobudur 14 Fan Kuan, Travellers by Streams & Mountains 15 Head with Crown 16 Carvings, Santo Domingo de los Silos in Spanish, with chanting; automatic translation 17 Christ Pantocrator 18 Stained glass, Chartres 19 Moai 20 Giotto, frescoes 21 Duccio di Buoninsegna, Maestà 22 Jan van Eyck, Ghent altarpiece 23 Statue of Coatlícue 24 Piero della Francesca, 'The Legend of the True Cross' 25 Leonardo da Vinci, 'Lady with an Ermine'

By: paduasoy

paduasoy — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:01:54 -0800

Thanks for your link, kirkaracha - I remembered your post, but souldn't track it down as it was longer ago than I thought.

By: sour cream

sour cream — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:08:42 -0800

What? No Jackson Pollock? No Roy Lichtenstein? No [insert names of other famous artists I happen to have heard of]?? Also, your favorite artist is not on this list.

By: splatta

splatta — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:18:09 -0800

1) Sculpture of Khafre 2) The Hunts of Ashurbanipal 3) The Riace Warriors 4) The Terracotta Army 5) Altar of Zeus from Pergamon 6) Nasca Earthworks (2 links) 7) 7 Murals, Villa of the Mysteries 8) Ajanta murals 9) Obelisk of King Ezana 10) Arjuna's Penance, relief sculpture 11) Mosaics, Great Mosque 12) The Incarnation Initial, Book of Kells (2 links) 13) Sculptures, Temple of Borobudur 14) Fan Kuan, Travellers by Streams & Mountains 15) Head with Crown (probably not the exact one he was talking about) 16) Carvings, Santo Domingo de los Silos 17) Christ Pantocrator 18) Chartres Cathedral, Stained Glass (2 links) 19) Moai 20) Giotto, frescoes 21) Duccio di Buoninsegna, Maestà 22) Jan van Eyck, Ghent altarpiece (closed, open) 23) the author seems to have skipped number 23, so I guess this is the 49 greatest works of art. 24) Piero della Francesca, 'The Legend of the True Cross' 25) Leonardo da Vinci, 'Lady with an Ermine' 26) Zen garden, Ryoan-ji Temple 27) Michelangelo Buonarroti, 'David' 28) Matthias Grünewald, Isenheim altarpiece 29) Ardabil carpet, Iran 30) Titian, 'Diana and Actaeon' 31) Jacopo Tintoretto, Crucifixion 32) Pieter Breugel the Elder, Hunters in the Snow 33) Caravaggio, 'Scenes from the Life of St Matthew' 34) Bernini, 'The Ecstasy of St Teresa', Cornaro Chapel 35) Diego Velázquez, 'Las Meninas' 36) Vermeer, 'View of Delft' 37) Rembrandt van Rijn, 'The Jewish Bride: Isaac and Rebecca' 38) Giambattista Tiepolo, 'Apollo and the Four Continents' (I think he meant "Allegory of the Planets and Continents") 39) Francisco Goya, 'The Third of May 40) Theodore Géricault, 'The Raft of the Medusa' 41) John Constable, 'Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows' 42) Vincent van Gogh, 'Vincent's Chair' 43) Pablo Picasso, 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon' 44) Henri Matisse, 'La Danse (II)' 45) Claude Monet, 'Waterlilies' 46) Constantin Brancusi, 'Endless Column' 47) Jackson Pollock, 'One: No 31' 48) Roy Lichtenstein, 'Whaam!' 49) Robert Smithson, 'Spiral Jetty' 50) Donald Judd, 'Untitled' (couldn't find the exact one described in the article)

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:24:46 -0800

batmonkey, no Kahlo? Unless I missed something, there are no women whatsoever on the list. Apparently we've spent the last 20 centuries just being the models.

By: splatta

splatta — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:36:03 -0800

What? No Jackson Pollock? No Roy Lichtenstein? sour cream: numbers 47 & 48.

By: 45moore45

45moore45 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:51:09 -0800

There are no women because the pursuit of art has always been white boys with leisure time and white boys with connections to the wealthy or the church unless you are talking about indigenous art which this thread is not. Not a lot has changed for women artists, it is still very much a white boy's game. The Guerilla Girls in the late 70's and early 80's blanketed the streets of NYC with posters about the facts and figures and reality of women artists and gallery representation and not a lot has changed since then. Unless a female artist has a gender neutral name, women artists are still herded into descriptions of their work that references their gender in some way or another whether or not the artist had any intention to do so.

By: paduasoy

paduasoy — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:10:38 -0800

madamjujujive, I certainly don't want to defend the selection, but I'm not sure that this particular list does demonstrate women as the object of the male gaze. The subjects are quite diverse: male rulers, male hunters, male warriors, gods and giants, landscapes, Buddhas, mythological creatures, a couple, abstract patterns, Mary, male and female saints, cities, plants, prostitutes, a 'plane ... Possibly the closest to the male gaze are the Demoiselles d'Avignon and the Lady with Ermine. Otherwise, the subjects seem remarkably women-free. splatta, 23 is Coatlicue.

By: Flashman

Flashman — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:14:44 -0800

Here's how Constable's Cathedral and Vincent's Chair looked this afternoon.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:48:23 -0800

Man, I love wikipedia. I'm reading about da Vinci's "Lady with an Ermine" and they just had to include the monstrously important piece of information that it was the inspiration for a painting in Pratchett's Discworld books. Because nothing is so important that it isn't improved by a Discworld allusion. Anyway, I've seen (in person) one of the things on this list. Yeah. Smithson's 'Spiral Jetty' looks dumb, but maybe you have to see it in person.

By: 45moore45

45moore45 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:54:12 -0800

Spiral Jetty isn't dumb at all. Why would you call it dumb? It is environmental art. Just because you might not take the time to understand something doesn't make it dumb.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:11:16 -0800

Because it appears neither particularly emotionally provocative nor particularly beautiful, which are the two things I look for in art. But, as I said, perhaps you need to see it in person.

By: From Bklyn

From Bklyn — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:46:22 -0800

What was most curious to me was the discrepancy between the criteria applied to 'contemporaneous' art works versus "not." The old works he picks out are ones with emotional resonance, that still have an impact - not the ones that demarcate the beginning or end of an aesthetic era or set of ideas. Yet with the art of the last 150+ years, that's largely what he has done. And that pisses me off. Giacometti should be there, as should Serra. A lot of the paintings he mentions are, undeniably, great paintings, but 'greatest?' Géricault? A really interesting list though, at least pages 1-2, full of a lot of stuff I'll look for.

By: 45moore45

45moore45 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:37:01 -0800

Spiral Jetty was a ground breaking environmental piece. It was an actual made made large scale work in the water. It no longer exists so you can't see it in person. It shifted a perception, a way of looking at something taken for granted and that is what makes it good. Andy Goldsworthy is of the same ilk. Judging on beauty is also pretty shallow in terms of art. If you simply want beauty you could stare at wallpaper samples.

By: 45moore45

45moore45 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:39:18 -0800

Apologies-- it exists, there is talk of drilling near it and ruining it.

By: The Bellman

The Bellman — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:41:49 -0800

The list has a host of stunning works a and a host of problems. He could easily have yanked Smithson or Judd (both of whose works are, don't get me wrong, spectacular and important) for Eva Hesse and at least made a gesture at inclusion. I totally agree that the better move would have been to skip the last hundred years entirely and claim "too soon" status. I mean, even if you want to stick to marquee contemporary names and white men at that, where are Jasper Johns and Ellsworth Kelly and Brice Marden and Robert Rauschenberg and and Robert Ryman and Dan Flavin (after whom Judd named his kid) and . . . (Justinian: Yes, you have to be there. 45moore45: It exists, but for 30 years it didn't. Water levels rose, submerging it. In 1999 it suddenly re-emerged. That's the sort of thing that makes site-specific environmental work so fucking awesome.)

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:55:27 -0800

Judging on beauty is also pretty shallow in terms of art. Yes, god forbid that somebody actually enjoy looking at art. It's too important for that.

By: The Bellman

The Bellman — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:40:03 -0800

Justinian: Beauty != enjoyment. Beauty ⊂ enjoyment.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:53:58 -0800

This list is terribly flawed. I'm not on it. Granted, I'm not dead yet.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:40:35 -0800

Beauty != enjoyment. That's true and I shouldn't have equated the two. I don't believe they are completely unrelated but that's beside the point. I should have said; It is extremely bold to pretty much write off artistic beauty as 45moore45 did. I mean, it's only been one of the primary goals of art over the last couple thousand years. It's not like St. Peter's basilica was deliberately made to be beautiful or anything. It just leaves me flabbergasted that one of the most elevated pursuits in human history can be so cavalierly written off as nothing but shallowness.

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:35:06 -0800

I agree and disagree with many objects on this list. I think there were many incredible works - in fact entire movements that deserve recognition - that were completely bypassed in favor of (Donald Judd? Really?) works that aren't nearly as powerful. But then, that's the problem with something like this. Even for a highly educated critic, the experience of a work of art is going to be highly subjective. His experience on viewing the work is going to be much different than mine. So he likes his 20th century and contemporary art MUCH dryer than I like mine. It's his list. If he'd left Bruegel off, however, we'd probably have to fight.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:43:06 -0800

So wrong... so wrong... plus points for choosing non-obvious works from the old masters but the last century... no Hirst? No Rothko? No Warhol? And especially no Duchamp? I paint FAIL. Fountain really is a single work of art that changed the whole of art forever.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:10:29 -0800

Roy can Lichtenstein my balls.