Aw man Monkeyart, I'm not one to crack on people for misspelling words because we are all going to do that once in a while but if YOU are going to lay it down and crack on someone for misspelling Basquiat you sure as hell better make sure your posts are tight! by the way when you say "I've seen alot of posts being detrimental to the US members including mine (its to easy )... Peace MA" The "it's to easy" would be spelled "it's too easy" and why does cadeallaw keep pumping up mbw? is he on his payroll? I'm from the US and I think mbw is a sham but maybe it's because he's actually from france

TAXI for cadeallaw.

I was agreeing with you until...
Woh ho ho!!!! Easy on the French, we didn't ask for anything here, leave the US/France thingie out of this, right?!

You may have MBW, but we have Cartrain.

I can only assume you failed to read either of the articles you just gave us all links to.

Quotes from each of the links "making your point":

"Very few examples of top-quality English painting on walls or panel have survived from before 1500. Some fragments have survived from paintings in Westminster Abbey, which also has a large portrait of Richard II An example of this period is The Wilton Diptych, also including a portrait of Richard, although this may be by a French artist."

"In 1536, the English Reformation, initiated by Henry VIII of England and the subsequent seizure of property in the Dissolution of the Monasteries, resulted in the destruction of much of the art in England and Wales' art tradition, which had previously been under the patronage of the church."

"Also starting in the early 16th century was the English Renaissance. It was a parallel to the Italian Renaissance, but did not develop in exactly the same way. Though relatively little concerned with the visual arts, except for Tudor and Elizabethan architecture, it had a far greater impact in music and literature."

"King Charles I was an ambitious patron and amassed one of the best art collections in Europe, but he still had to rely on imported artists, in particular Rubens and Van Dyck, the latter of whom set the style of relaxed elegance that English portrait-painters continued to aspire to for centuries. But neither left English pupils. In the second half of the century, landscapists imported from the Low Countries introduced this genre to England, though local artists were slow to follow them."


Then to compare the two articles:

"The late 18th century and the early 19th century was perhaps the most radical period in British art, producing William Blake (1757–1827), John Constable (1776–1837) and William Turner (1775–1851), the later two being arguably the most internationally influential of all British artists."

"America's first well-known school of painting—the Hudson River School—appeared in 1820. As with music and literature, this development was delayed until artists perceived that the New World offered subjects unique to itself; in this case the westward expansion of settlement brought the transcendent beauty of frontier landscapes to painters' attention."


About 50 years difference between the two countries creating anything of worldwide artistic value.


_________________________________



And I am not going to try and get too involved with the weirdly uninformed debate (on both sides) about the LA art scene being "tame," but I will offer a few points of defense...

Gagosian, the largest gallery brand in the world, started in LA. They also have Blum & Poe, Regen Projects, Ace Gallery, and Peres Projects.

David Hockney liked it enough to paint his most influential works around here. And while we are talking about artists, give me a Ruscha over a Warhol any day.

I'm not saying that LA is on par with London or New York, but to call it tame is uninformed to say the least - especially when the vast majority of street art discussed on this forum is much more tame than the larger contemporary art scene as a whole.

exactly

Turner was a successful landscape painter in his lifetime but never made a huge impact until relatively recently.

Constable enjoyed no success whatsoever during his lifetime and again his value and contribution has been post-rationalised.

They were both 'romantic' painters, which became very fashionable in the 60s and 70s and is why their significance became so huge. I don't think either of them actually had much impact on art history - they're anomalies really.

EDIT: but I'll concede that Turner was waaaay ahead of his time and very misunderstood, so largely ignored for a long time after his death

In addition to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi being a MBW fan in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100107/884/twl-berlusconi-shops-for-daring-nudes-su.html (link for the ones that requested it)

.... President Obama said that Mr. Brainwash has directly influenced his views on foriegn policy and has inspired him to take a more "...direct role regarding disaster relief in Haiti."

In other news, these were also to be given out at the NY show, but a dog peed on the box:

Jetset, I think you might have just scored an own goal!

Man this is stupid! (but funny actually) ;D

Are you not contradicting yourself a little here? In your first sentence you seem to accept that Turner has made a huge impact (albeit relatively recently) but in your third sentence you say he hasn't had much impact.

Also, I am not sure that the fact that these painters did not make a huge impact in their own lifetime makes their impact on art history any less important. After all, they keep some pretty good company in that respect - Van Gogh, Gaugin, Soutine etc.

Yeah you're right I am. But apart from Constable, Turner, Moore, Hepworth and the YBA's what have British artists ever done for us?!