Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Lame Group Of Seven Painting Fails To Sell

And no wonder.  Five dead trees, four rocks, a cloud, and an island.  And that is it. The trees aren't even blowing over the lake as in more ambitious G-of-7 pics.  This is very shoddy work, barely up their usual "rocks and trees" standard.  Yes it has all the required elements.  Rocks.  And trees. But just barely.  Like it was phoned in.  "Throw in some rocks.  Some trees.  Add Water.  Hey presto! More than they deserve!"

And I must say I am not generally impressed by this Lawren Harris charactor.  He apparently did all his painting sitting in the same chair out back his cottage.

5 comments:

Steve Bloom said...

You forgot the sunbeams, speaking of which what seems to me to be most incompetent about the painting is the lighting. I'm no art critic, but to me it just screams "amateur." Do other G of 7 painters have this problem?

bigcitylib said...

They're all like that.

Steve Bloom said...

I am reminded of this.

Michael O'Toole said...

I think Harris's attempt was to break the landscape down to its most simplistic form. Just the skeletal framework of the tree that comes off windblown,nubbed and worn-down ,the way nature rubs everything down and out through time. Call it a snag tree that is asymmetrical in shape(much more interesting than a symmetrical ,triangular christmas tree shape).
Big bold gradient sky that works from blue to bruised colour. Off skip Back light affect. I think its strong in its simplicity and gets the message across of what a true northern Canadian landscape is all about.

But your right.! you didn't get 6531 leaves on each tree or warm fluffy clouds to dream as you view. No deer to skip and jump in the scene(tragic indeed). Wheres the cottage by the water? No, no i tell you, this will not do! This should be a pretty painting that took weeks to do with exactly the same amount of detail a photograph has. Wow,what a ripoff indeed..
We want a Canadian landscape to be pretty, warm and cushy that fits in together with the furniture .
No you will not get your money's worth out of this painting.

Michael O'Toole said...

I think Harris's attempt was to break the landscape down to its most simplistic form. Just the skeletal framework of the tree that comes off windblown,nubbed and worn-down ,the way nature rubs everything down and out through time. Call it a snag tree that is asymmetrical in shape(much more interesting than a symmetrical ,triangular christmas tree shape).
Big bold gradient sky that works from blue to bruised colour. Off skip Back light affect. I think its strong in its simplicity and gets the message across of what a true northern Canadian landscape is all about.

But your right.! you didn't get 6531 leaves on each tree or warm fluffy clouds to dream as you view. No deer to skip and jump in the scene(tragic indeed). Wheres the cottage by the water? No, no i tell you, this will not do! This should be a pretty painting that took weeks to do with exactly the same amount of detail a photograph has. Wow,what a ripoff indeed..
We want a Canadian landscape to be pretty, warm and cushy that fits in together with the furniture .
No you will not get your money's worth out of this painting.