Painters think he is a sculptor. Sculptors are sure he is a painter.
November 12, 2020 7:06 AM Subscribe
Georgy Kurasov is a Russian who paints in a contemporary Cubist style.
His teachers initially thought he had a total lack of feeling for color. His website does not do justice to his paintings.
(Art - NSFW in prudish places).
His teachers initially thought he had a total lack of feeling for color. His website does not do justice to his paintings.
(Art - NSFW in prudish places).
I am really enjoying this, but have failed to find any of his sculptures online....any links that you know of?
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:41 AM on November 12, 2020
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:41 AM on November 12, 2020
Rtimmel - Maybe because it doesnt deconstruct the form?
posted by anshuman at 8:42 AM on November 12, 2020
posted by anshuman at 8:42 AM on November 12, 2020
These are wonderful! Like a combination of Tamara Di Lampica and Albert Gliezes. Kurasov is reminiscent of many commercial illustrators' lighthearted appropriation of cubism over the years, but he takes it to the next level of charm and delight. I love these.
posted by Modest House at 9:06 AM on November 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 9:06 AM on November 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
It is as if Klimpt were a cubist, in that he uses the same color palette and light color. His focus is much more crisp, and execution more linear and linear patterned. Maybe he had more windows in his studio, or a brighter monitor he paints from, than Klimpts dark but glistening interiors, you catching glints of light, on surface. Anyway, I love his Cubist/Fauvist stuff.
posted by Oyéah at 9:25 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 9:25 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
I came here to mention Tamara de Lempicka as well. Very Art Deco...
posted by jim in austin at 11:01 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jim in austin at 11:01 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think these are competent and interesting, but--I say this as a het guy who is wired to like lovely women without clothes--I'm always a bit...disappointed? irritated? tired? when a male artist's oeuvre seems to consist of nothing but women in the altogether. Dunno.
posted by maxwelton at 12:15 PM on November 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 12:15 PM on November 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
This guy is great! Thanks for introducing him here.
posted by Chitownfats at 11:42 PM on November 12, 2020
posted by Chitownfats at 11:42 PM on November 12, 2020
Using the same (usually female) face over and over again, for me, is kind of boring and the sign of an illustrator.
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 2:59 AM on November 13, 2020
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 2:59 AM on November 13, 2020
when a male artist's oeuvre seems to consist of nothing but women in the altogether
I find this a very strange statement. Of the 25 paintings shown in detail in the links only 7 featured naked women. Maybe it says more about your perceptions than that of the artist.
Try checking out all those fleshy Renaissance paintings and get back to us.
posted by adamvasco at 7:31 AM on November 13, 2020
I find this a very strange statement. Of the 25 paintings shown in detail in the links only 7 featured naked women. Maybe it says more about your perceptions than that of the artist.
Try checking out all those fleshy Renaissance paintings and get back to us.
posted by adamvasco at 7:31 AM on November 13, 2020
> Try checking out all those fleshy Renaissance paintings and get back to us.
so one fun thing to look at is comedian / art historian hannah gadsby's series "nakedy nudes," which expands on the long art history tangent she takes toward the end of her second comedy special (titled "douglas" for reasons too hilarious to explain).
anyway! here's an article from the guardian about her series and her take on the renaissance nude as a whole deal. key quotes:
(and, like, just because something is wank fuel doesn't automatically make it bad -- it's just that any reasonable appreciation of media objects that are in part wank fuel has to take into account their status as wank fuel -- like, you can't talk about titian's venus without talking about, famously, people attracted to women would start panting upon seeing it.
anyway. just because some folks in italy 500 years back did a thing a specific way does not automatically mean that that specific way of doing things was necessarily good or worth emulating.
it's interesting: by venerating early modern practices, we're actually kind of recapitulating a blunder that early modern people themselves made -- just as we fetishize what some folks in italy did 500 years back from us, those folks in italy themselves fetishized what folks in italy did 1,000 years back from them.
fwiw, my immediate reaction to the linked kurasov pieces was basically "dude the way you draw nipples is kind of repetitive and boring? i don't get it."
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 10:57 AM on November 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
so one fun thing to look at is comedian / art historian hannah gadsby's series "nakedy nudes," which expands on the long art history tangent she takes toward the end of her second comedy special (titled "douglas" for reasons too hilarious to explain).
anyway! here's an article from the guardian about her series and her take on the renaissance nude as a whole deal. key quotes:
Nakedy Nudes picks up where the art history portions of that stand-up show left off, and “joins the dots”, Gadsby says, between the concepts we’ve inherited from art criticism and the toxic, sexist cultures being torched by the #MeToo movement.for my part, i'd argue that any honest appreciation of art from the early modern period has to take into account the kind of vicious misogyny that marked the material, and (especially) not to shortchange their status as, um, male gazey wank fuel.
The TV show, which follows Gadsby’s previous ABC art documentaries, calls out what interviewee and Sydney artist Deborah Kelly says is women’s overwhelming depiction as “prone, boneless and sexually available” objects throughout much of western art history – all pale glowing limbs and Renaissance ideals. “The body [is] to be looked at by a man,” says Gadsby in the series. “An artist, almost always assumed to be a bloke, looking at a body in the picture frame, almost always a woman.”
“The sheer number of paintings of unconscious women is distressing,” she says over the phone. “Most of those women are being watched by conscious men within the painting itself. And that’s normalising a very distressing thing. We see it a lot.
“It’s good to take stock of that in light of what’s happening at the moment – with what people are speaking about culturally,” she says, referring to the reckoning against sexual harassment and assault that has followed allegations against Harvey Weinstein. “We haven’t invented that problem in this generation, we haven’t invented it this century. This is something we’ve inherited and it will take a long time to unpick, but it’s not worth defending.
“Just because it’s been around for centuries, doesn’t mean it’s cool to be a creepy old man. Stop watching women sleeping; stop watching women having baths. Go away.”
For Gadsby, the male gaze in art history is directly related to the male gaze in Hollywood, and society at large.
“We’re not seeing anything new,” she reiterates. “The art world doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Being an object, being objectified, [creates] a toxic culture, because we don’t have the same cultural influence as men do. They’ve written the story, they have the power.
(and, like, just because something is wank fuel doesn't automatically make it bad -- it's just that any reasonable appreciation of media objects that are in part wank fuel has to take into account their status as wank fuel -- like, you can't talk about titian's venus without talking about, famously, people attracted to women would start panting upon seeing it.
anyway. just because some folks in italy 500 years back did a thing a specific way does not automatically mean that that specific way of doing things was necessarily good or worth emulating.
it's interesting: by venerating early modern practices, we're actually kind of recapitulating a blunder that early modern people themselves made -- just as we fetishize what some folks in italy did 500 years back from us, those folks in italy themselves fetishized what folks in italy did 1,000 years back from them.
fwiw, my immediate reaction to the linked kurasov pieces was basically "dude the way you draw nipples is kind of repetitive and boring? i don't get it."
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 10:57 AM on November 13, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Find the bathtub. | If guys with guns are talking about collapse, why... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rtimmel at 8:32 AM on November 12, 2020 [1 favorite]