As the son of two artists, both of whom never liked gold, Klimt is a strange breed: My parents have made a ton of murals, jam-packed with gold. Not because they wanted but because rich people(the type of people who want murals in their homes and can afford it) love it as an expression of their financial status. Both of them hated much of those murals and I can only name a handful of works they truly liked, at the end of the day, the customer is always right. And having seen much of their work(and taking some part on a few occasions circumstantially since I can't draw a single line to save my life), I completely agree with them. We have a word which roughly translates to mobbaroque in English. In almost all cases, this is exactly what it is.
Having said that, my mom specifically has a few favorite artists, Klimt being one of them. Over the years she's been asked to make dozens of Klimt replicas(The Kiss probably accounting for 80% of them) and she's loved doing all of them. I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious. Not only that but made them look incredible. Admittedly I never looked all that deep as to why he was "obsessed" with it.
mannyv 43 days ago [-]
Mobbaroque -> Mob Baroque.
To me that's New York Italian, with lots of marble, gold, and extreme decor. It's a big marble tub with gold fixtures and maybe a couple of statues hanging around for good measure...in a marble/gold/mirrors bath.
Klimt does use gold very well. But I am surprised by your claim...
> I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious.
Byzantine iconography comes off as neither obnoxious nor ostentatious. The use of gold in Botticelli's works wonderfully. And so on. What exactly is an example of "obnoxious or ostentatious" use of gold in art? I can only think of ridiculous things like gold-plated toilets. Perhaps you were exposed to especially egregious works that are not familiar to the general public?
Retric 43 days ago [-]
I think both Byzantine iconography and Botticelli’s works were invented to be ostentatious. Gold toilets/plates/etc come off as obnoxious because the use of gold is actively detrimental rather than simply eye catching.
AlanYx 43 days ago [-]
It wasn't until later in the Byzantine period that gold was used excessively in art. In the early period when it was largely confined to halos, as a contrasting accent around painted halos, or to convey specific religious symbolism, it was hardly ostentatious.
Retric 43 days ago [-]
> largely confined to halos
I’d say that’s close to the definition of ostentatious. So we may simply disagree with what the word means.
lo_zamoyski 41 days ago [-]
I challenge you to define "excess". Without a norm, this is a judgement pulled out of thin air, because excess means exactly to exceed the limit set by a norm.
The OP suffers from a similar problem. He judged the use of gold "ostentatious" (which is pejorative), and behind this judgement is a tacit backdrop of sensibilities and I claim prejudices that constitute a pseudo-norm, but no objective norm. Arbitrary norms are not interesting.
lo_zamoyski 43 days ago [-]
I don't see how. I do not find the works in question ostentatious in the least. They deploy gold tastefully and appropriately in relation to the subject matter. Purpose and the role something plays in a composition determines appropriateness. So, for example, while gold leaf on a church ceiling can be beautiful when it plays a sensible role in the composition, putting it slapdash on your drywall McMansion ceiling because #GoldIsRich is incredibly tacky.
I suspect you are judging gold not from reasoned taste, but some kind of prejudice.
Retric 43 days ago [-]
I am referring to the intent here. Gold in religious art is ment to signify importance just as the tacky rich guy’s gold is.
Use of gold on a kings actual throne may seem more appropriate than a CEO’s chair but that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold.
mecsred 43 days ago [-]
The thing most people find ostentatious about the "mobbaroque" examples is that gold is used to add gold to the work. As a physical demonstration of wealth, i.e. "I can afford so much gold it's all over my artwork". The reason people find the Byzantine halos less ostentatious is that gold is used symbolically in lesser quantities to represent something else which is perceived as valuable.
lo_zamoyski 41 days ago [-]
This still doesn't establish why one should regard gold as "ostentatious". Are you working from some private definition of the term? I make use of the common pejorative meaning, given by Merriam Webster as:
attracting or seeking to attract attention, admiration, or envy often by gaudiness or obviousness : overly elaborate or conspicuous : characterized by, fond of, or evincing ostentation
The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness. You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste.
Obviously, gold can be used to signify the importance of something, but that doesn't make it ostentatious. What I contest is the pejorative.
> that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold.
The use of gold is a matter of intention. A judgement is made that something is worthy of honor, another that gold is an aesthetically suitable material that, in some way, can be used to assist in honoring said thing, and the intention is made to honor said thing in such a manner.
Retric 41 days ago [-]
> The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness.
That’s not in the definition you quoted. The 2 different OR’s mean many different things qualify as ostentatious as lone as 1 or more of the following applies.
seeking to attract attention
seeking to attract admirarion
seeking to attract envy
attracting attention
attracting admirarion
attracting envy
The “often by” means it isn’t required for the definition to apply. Gothic cathedrals therefore qualify as they where designed to attract attention and admirarion and in most instances also achieved that goal even without a garish color scheme or tons of gold inlays etc.
> You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste.
FALSE. Vulgarity or crudeness isn’t part of the definition. I used “tacky” as a specific qualifier to distinguish vulgar from non vulgar examples of ostentation.
A peacock display generally described as ostentatious but nobody calls it tacky. https://www.audubon.org/news/a-literal-bird “Peacocks have some of the most ostentatious (and famous) feathers in the animal kingdom.” People using those feathers can definitely get tacky. But essentially tacky is ostentatious displays done poorly.
lo_zamoyski 41 days ago [-]
> The 2 different OR’s mean many different things qualify as ostentatious as lone as 1 or more of the following applies. [...] The “often by” means it isn’t required for the definition to apply.
Read in such a decontextualized, selective, and uncharitable manner renders the definition worthless. For example, is any attempt to attract attention ostentatious? Any attempt to attract envy? Admiration? I think not. So your reading is inadequate and defective. Something is presupposed by the definition for it to make sense, which is to be expected, as dictionaries are not compendia of mathematical formulas written in some rigorously formalized language defined in the preface.
The first part of the definition does indeed use the word "often" which appears to soften the relation between gaudiness and the rest, but it still establishes a generality, i.e., that gaudiness is a reliable mark of ostentation. Otherwise, what's the point of including that in the definition if it isn't somehow characteristic of ostentation? It would not be a matter of definition, just an incidental thing that may or may not be true.
Note also the second part of the definition: "overly elaborate or conspicuous". Something that is overly elaborate conspicuous has transgressed some norm, has it not? Otherwise, how can you judge that something is "overly" elaborate? And if beauty is what satisfies a norm, then departure from the norm, either by defect or excess, is a deviation and so the thing in question has moved away from beauty toward ugliness. The technique used may be refined, but the composition can still be ugly. (And note that I, too, used an "or" in "The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness". I didn't think it needed to be spelled out.)
Now take the Oxford Dictionary's definition, which is arguably a bit sharper in this regard:
pretentious and vulgar display, especially of wealth and luxury, intended to impress or attract notice.
This definition leaves no doubt about the relation of vulgarity and pretentiousness to ostentation.
> A peacock display generally described as ostentatious but nobody calls it tacky.
Yes, people can use it that way, but this is an analogical use of the term. But the use of "ostentatious" in your original post was not this meaning, at least not according to a normal reading given the sum of all context clues. In fact, you wrote:
> I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious.
Wait a minute! Klimt's use of gold could be heavy by any standard. Most iconography, and most art that uses gold, in fact, doesn't lean into gold as much as Klimt does in some of his works. So something doesn't add up here. The only way you could make that claim is if the aim of Klimt's work, its form, makes legitimate such heavy use of gold. Furthermore, you say "obnoxious and ostentatious". Not pejorative? Could have fooled me! Is some defect, something vulgar OR crude OR ugly being suggested? How could something beautiful be obnoxious?
Retric 40 days ago [-]
Picking one of multiple definitions from the OED when others exist is disingenuous.
ostentatious, adj.
Of actions, events, qualities, etc.: performed, exercised, or displayed in a manner calculated to attract attention or admiration
One of the examples is: “He gave an ostentatious yawn.”
So, sure often it’s used in the context you’re referring to but that doesn’t mean any use is limited to that context.
> For example, is any attempt to attract attention ostentatious?
Attempts to grab attention are inherently a transgression, remember kids in school being admonished for attention grabbing behavior? Raising your hand is an attempt at communication, raising your hand and waving wildly it is an attempt to “gab attention” there’s a difference.
Advertising blockers removes even pure text advertising because grabbing attention is inherently a transgression. But, we don’t classify all transgressions as problematic. Someone breaking the speed limit taking someone to the hospital in a major medical emergency is generally accepted though not if they’re doing 190 MPH. A wedding dress has more leeway to be ostentatious than most outfits, but the line of acceptable has moved not been removed.
Daub 43 days ago [-]
You may appreciate the following anecdote about Picasso. He was offered a lot of money to make a sculpture entirely in hold. His response was ‘Great! I will paint it black!’.
axegon_ 43 days ago [-]
I use it a lot but then again I lived a rock throw away from his house for a long period of my life but since The Rolling Stones are a bit closer to my heart, I usually resort to one of their famous songs.
crabbone 43 days ago [-]
> Mobbaroque
Oh, I didn't know the word, but I know what it means! Haha! Back in the days I worked in a printing house, one of the most common orders were business cards. Unimaginably large proportion of those were to be screen-printed with gold paint that increased in volume when heated on a paper that looked like marble. These orders usually came from people who had... well... no business to appear to be rich. Like, a local police department chief or an owner of a small refrigerated delivery service (that one was both morbid and bizarre as he wanted raw meat texture for the business card).
Being an art college grad, I tend to think that a lot of Klimt's portraits weren't particularly indicative of what he wanted to paint. It was what put food on the table, what customers paid him for. He found a way to please the customers that worked. How much did he enjoy it?--Hard to tell. From my student years, when I had to make a living from art, which was admittedly not so easy or successful, I'd guess that in his heart of hearts he probably at the minimum laughed at it.
pseudolus 43 days ago [-]
Aside from Klimt it could be argued that Maurizio Cattelan has successfully incorporated gold into his work - although in the form of sculpture. His work "America", a solid gold functioning toilet, attracted quite a few crowds (apparently over 100K people "used" it), one notable theft, and certainly made a statement. [0]
Klimt is obviously most famous for his paintings incorporating gold but when I saw a huge collection of his work in Vienna I was absolutely blown away by some of his pastels. They are superlative, better than Degas IMO.
ewuhic 43 days ago [-]
What would be the original "mobbaroque" word your parents use?
I never particularly cared much for Klimt and usually despise gold. But then I visited a museum in Vienna.
My wife prepared the whole trip and I was mostly going with the flow. Unbeknownst to me, we would see The Kiss that day. It was striking. I mean, the lighting was obviously perfect and the surprise must have helped. But the colors, texture and shapes are just remarkable. I'll never forget making a corner turn and being completely mesmerized.
One of those moments that makes you realize the value of the original, the whole Walter Benjamin aura thing.
Daub 43 days ago [-]
I teach digital painting. You would be surprised how many students ask how to achieve ‘the color gold’. One of the qualifiers of physical paint (as opposed to digital paint) is, not surprisingly, its materiality. Explaining to young people what materiality is can be a tough ride. I have to remind myself that for some of them the very first experience of painting was on an iPad.
Of TFA, it is no surprise that he was greatly influenced by Byzantine mosaics. Both are supremely decorative, flat and strongly symmetrical.
Filligree 43 days ago [-]
Well, hold on. Gold is a specific color, specularity and emissiveness. I wouldn’t expect to achieve it in a 2D drawing program, and I’m not sure what fraction of monitors can achieve it at all, but it’s simple enough in Unreal Engine.
Daub 43 days ago [-]
In addition to teaching digital painting I also teach 3d. What you describe is completely correct and something I would emulate using Blenders BSDF shader. This would emulate real world materiality, but my point is that color is the lest of the key properties of a metal. For the most part, the Colour would derive from environment reflections, which would all be tinted with ‘gold color’.
reaperman 42 days ago [-]
> it’s simple enough in Unreal Engine
The color of physical metallic gold is outside of sRGB color space. Maybe you could get close enough to fool people with some of the best modern HDR's (I don't know), but for most of the history of modern computing it didn't matter how good you were at digital animation -- no display could display the color "gold" even if you could mathematically compute the right color.
cvz 42 days ago [-]
sRGB is a red herring here. There are colors outside the sRGB gamut, but those colors are all very saturated. "Gold", including the color of the actual metal, isn't saturated enough to be among them.
The real problem is that gold is a mirror. It's shiny and changes appearance based on viewing angle and environment. A computer can only simulate that for the scene within the computer. It can't make the image itself more or less shiny than the physical monitor.
Without the shininess, gold just looks like a dirty yellow.
beeflet 42 days ago [-]
I'm not an expert on color profiles and HDR stuff but it seems like the kind of thing that's possible with PBR and the right color profiling, which isnt too modern.
I'm sure that there are some colors in the human-visible range that aren't covered by sRGB but idk if gold is one of them
numpad0 42 days ago [-]
It's just orange, reflective orange. The italics part is the rest of the owl.
m463 42 days ago [-]
I wonder about things that can't be portrayed by our digital devices.
Another one is the "speckles" you see when illuminating a surface with a laser.
krisoft 43 days ago [-]
> Explaining to young people what materiality is can be a tough ride.
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to introduce them to drawing from observation? They don't have to understand what "materiality" is, just see that the object appears different depending on how they hold it, where the lights are and what else is around it. (Assuming that you don't have a bar of gold hanging out in your class you could grab some toy gold coins.)
Oh, sorry. I'm at work, and my company uses some dogshit safe browsing wrapper service. Sometimes i forget to trim the prefix off before posting a link. Fixed now, thanks for pointing it out.
jessekv 43 days ago [-]
I've been learning digital painting. Getting realistic materials is tricky indeed! So far, I've struggled with liquids, metals, glass, and the hardest of all: rocks. It's really hard to get the texture and shadow to feel natural! I'd be thrilled to get a few tips here...
Daub 43 days ago [-]
Top tips….
Using a digital brush on its own can be extremely limiting. Digital paint is inherently flat and lifeless. Textured brushes can help, but not much. I would recommend employing natural textures via blend modes. The best blend mode for passing textures from one image to another is overlay. In this way the texture of a photo of a rusty surface may be passed onto a painting of a rock. Essentially painting with textures... or photo-bashing.
Klimt is one of those artists that I feel primed to dislike, because it's so reproduced that's it's turned cheesy. I've probably seen more Kiss posters and fridge magnets and whatevers than any other painting in the world.
But good god are they beautiful. They just make me so happy to see them. Or sad.
My favorites are probably the birch forests, though, perhaps Birch Forest (1903) [1]
Ironically enough, when I visited the neue galerie in New York (which hosts a small selection of klimt's paintings, including the expensive Adele bloch Bauer), the painting that impressed me the most was the most white and plain. The portrait of Gertrude Loew really shook me. Photos don't do it justice. I was hypnotized, it was such a strange feeling
dukeofdoom 43 days ago [-]
It adds something sparkly reminiscent of life giving sun. Just some moderation like jewelry.. too much and it's monkey puke
anigbrowl 43 days ago [-]
Let me save you a click: Goldsmithing Was the Klimt Family Business
Having said that, my mom specifically has a few favorite artists, Klimt being one of them. Over the years she's been asked to make dozens of Klimt replicas(The Kiss probably accounting for 80% of them) and she's loved doing all of them. I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious. Not only that but made them look incredible. Admittedly I never looked all that deep as to why he was "obsessed" with it.
To me that's New York Italian, with lots of marble, gold, and extreme decor. It's a big marble tub with gold fixtures and maybe a couple of statues hanging around for good measure...in a marble/gold/mirrors bath.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oofdn0MFDSQ
> I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious.
Byzantine iconography comes off as neither obnoxious nor ostentatious. The use of gold in Botticelli's works wonderfully. And so on. What exactly is an example of "obnoxious or ostentatious" use of gold in art? I can only think of ridiculous things like gold-plated toilets. Perhaps you were exposed to especially egregious works that are not familiar to the general public?
I’d say that’s close to the definition of ostentatious. So we may simply disagree with what the word means.
The OP suffers from a similar problem. He judged the use of gold "ostentatious" (which is pejorative), and behind this judgement is a tacit backdrop of sensibilities and I claim prejudices that constitute a pseudo-norm, but no objective norm. Arbitrary norms are not interesting.
I suspect you are judging gold not from reasoned taste, but some kind of prejudice.
Use of gold on a kings actual throne may seem more appropriate than a CEO’s chair but that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold.
Obviously, gold can be used to signify the importance of something, but that doesn't make it ostentatious. What I contest is the pejorative.
> that’s a judgement about what should be venerated not the intent behind the use of gold.
The use of gold is a matter of intention. A judgement is made that something is worthy of honor, another that gold is an aesthetically suitable material that, in some way, can be used to assist in honoring said thing, and the intention is made to honor said thing in such a manner.
That’s not in the definition you quoted. The 2 different OR’s mean many different things qualify as ostentatious as lone as 1 or more of the following applies.
The “often by” means it isn’t required for the definition to apply. Gothic cathedrals therefore qualify as they where designed to attract attention and admirarion and in most instances also achieved that goal even without a garish color scheme or tons of gold inlays etc.> You even use the word "tacky", so clearly you aren't blind to at least the general idea of bad taste, even if we may be in disagreement about what constitutes bad taste.
FALSE. Vulgarity or crudeness isn’t part of the definition. I used “tacky” as a specific qualifier to distinguish vulgar from non vulgar examples of ostentation.
A peacock display generally described as ostentatious but nobody calls it tacky. https://www.audubon.org/news/a-literal-bird “Peacocks have some of the most ostentatious (and famous) feathers in the animal kingdom.” People using those feathers can definitely get tacky. But essentially tacky is ostentatious displays done poorly.
Read in such a decontextualized, selective, and uncharitable manner renders the definition worthless. For example, is any attempt to attract attention ostentatious? Any attempt to attract envy? Admiration? I think not. So your reading is inadequate and defective. Something is presupposed by the definition for it to make sense, which is to be expected, as dictionaries are not compendia of mathematical formulas written in some rigorously formalized language defined in the preface.
The first part of the definition does indeed use the word "often" which appears to soften the relation between gaudiness and the rest, but it still establishes a generality, i.e., that gaudiness is a reliable mark of ostentation. Otherwise, what's the point of including that in the definition if it isn't somehow characteristic of ostentation? It would not be a matter of definition, just an incidental thing that may or may not be true.
Note also the second part of the definition: "overly elaborate or conspicuous". Something that is overly elaborate conspicuous has transgressed some norm, has it not? Otherwise, how can you judge that something is "overly" elaborate? And if beauty is what satisfies a norm, then departure from the norm, either by defect or excess, is a deviation and so the thing in question has moved away from beauty toward ugliness. The technique used may be refined, but the composition can still be ugly. (And note that I, too, used an "or" in "The key to ostentation is vulgarity or crudeness, ugliness". I didn't think it needed to be spelled out.)
Now take the Oxford Dictionary's definition, which is arguably a bit sharper in this regard:
This definition leaves no doubt about the relation of vulgarity and pretentiousness to ostentation.> A peacock display generally described as ostentatious but nobody calls it tacky.
Yes, people can use it that way, but this is an analogical use of the term. But the use of "ostentatious" in your original post was not this meaning, at least not according to a normal reading given the sum of all context clues. In fact, you wrote:
> I think Klimt is the only artist to successfully incorporate gold into his paintings without making them look obnoxious or ostentatious.
Wait a minute! Klimt's use of gold could be heavy by any standard. Most iconography, and most art that uses gold, in fact, doesn't lean into gold as much as Klimt does in some of his works. So something doesn't add up here. The only way you could make that claim is if the aim of Klimt's work, its form, makes legitimate such heavy use of gold. Furthermore, you say "obnoxious and ostentatious". Not pejorative? Could have fooled me! Is some defect, something vulgar OR crude OR ugly being suggested? How could something beautiful be obnoxious?
ostentatious, adj.
Of actions, events, qualities, etc.: performed, exercised, or displayed in a manner calculated to attract attention or admiration
One of the examples is: “He gave an ostentatious yawn.”
So, sure often it’s used in the context you’re referring to but that doesn’t mean any use is limited to that context.
> For example, is any attempt to attract attention ostentatious?
Attempts to grab attention are inherently a transgression, remember kids in school being admonished for attention grabbing behavior? Raising your hand is an attempt at communication, raising your hand and waving wildly it is an attempt to “gab attention” there’s a difference.
Advertising blockers removes even pure text advertising because grabbing attention is inherently a transgression. But, we don’t classify all transgressions as problematic. Someone breaking the speed limit taking someone to the hospital in a major medical emergency is generally accepted though not if they’re doing 190 MPH. A wedding dress has more leeway to be ostentatious than most outfits, but the line of acceptable has moved not been removed.
Oh, I didn't know the word, but I know what it means! Haha! Back in the days I worked in a printing house, one of the most common orders were business cards. Unimaginably large proportion of those were to be screen-printed with gold paint that increased in volume when heated on a paper that looked like marble. These orders usually came from people who had... well... no business to appear to be rich. Like, a local police department chief or an owner of a small refrigerated delivery service (that one was both morbid and bizarre as he wanted raw meat texture for the business card).
Being an art college grad, I tend to think that a lot of Klimt's portraits weren't particularly indicative of what he wanted to paint. It was what put food on the table, what customers paid him for. He found a way to please the customers that worked. How much did he enjoy it?--Hard to tell. From my student years, when I had to make a living from art, which was admittedly not so easy or successful, I'd guess that in his heart of hearts he probably at the minimum laughed at it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_(Cattelan)
My wife prepared the whole trip and I was mostly going with the flow. Unbeknownst to me, we would see The Kiss that day. It was striking. I mean, the lighting was obviously perfect and the surprise must have helped. But the colors, texture and shapes are just remarkable. I'll never forget making a corner turn and being completely mesmerized.
One of those moments that makes you realize the value of the original, the whole Walter Benjamin aura thing.
Of TFA, it is no surprise that he was greatly influenced by Byzantine mosaics. Both are supremely decorative, flat and strongly symmetrical.
The color of physical metallic gold is outside of sRGB color space. Maybe you could get close enough to fool people with some of the best modern HDR's (I don't know), but for most of the history of modern computing it didn't matter how good you were at digital animation -- no display could display the color "gold" even if you could mathematically compute the right color.
The real problem is that gold is a mirror. It's shiny and changes appearance based on viewing angle and environment. A computer can only simulate that for the scene within the computer. It can't make the image itself more or less shiny than the physical monitor.
Without the shininess, gold just looks like a dirty yellow.
I'm sure that there are some colors in the human-visible range that aren't covered by sRGB but idk if gold is one of them
Another one is the "speckles" you see when illuminating a surface with a laser.
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to introduce them to drawing from observation? They don't have to understand what "materiality" is, just see that the object appears different depending on how they hold it, where the lights are and what else is around it. (Assuming that you don't have a bar of gold hanging out in your class you could grab some toy gold coins.)
http://razzaminipainting.blogspot.com/2016/07/non-metallic-m...
Here’s the link without the bullshit: http://razzaminipainting.blogspot.com/2016/07/non-metallic-m...
Using a digital brush on its own can be extremely limiting. Digital paint is inherently flat and lifeless. Textured brushes can help, but not much. I would recommend employing natural textures via blend modes. The best blend mode for passing textures from one image to another is overlay. In this way the texture of a photo of a rusty surface may be passed onto a painting of a rock. Essentially painting with textures... or photo-bashing.
Here is a walk through I did for my students…
https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/pages/photoshop-p...
Happy to answer any questions.
But good god are they beautiful. They just make me so happy to see them. Or sad.
My favorites are probably the birch forests, though, perhaps Birch Forest (1903) [1]
1. https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-klimt/farmhouse-with-birch...
This is TMZ-level art journalism.