7 ms·

Two dark sides of the inner self: Gustav Klimt and Egon Schiele (2007)

39 points by prismatic 7y ago

goto11 7y ago
A whole article about Schiele and Klimt without a single picture? Come on.
- rrmm 7y ago
  Didn't read the article but I did go find pictures. Schiele's stuff I found especially striking. Recommended. (Both artists are). Schiele incidentally died during the spanish flu pandemic quite young.
  - DeathArrow 7y ago
    Yes, both are good but Schiele is speaking most directly to the soul and relies less on graphical excellence and craftsmanship, although it has those, too.
    - rrmm 7y ago
      He's got jagged postures with stark lines and the eyes are wide and often focused on the observer. Lots of playing around subtly with body proportions. It definitely has a lot of character.
- DeathArrow 7y ago
  You have a point. But I've found that images of art works are generally of low resolution when posted online. I'd rather buy an art book and/or go to a museum.
  - goto11 7y ago
    What museum do you recommend for Schiele?
    - DeathArrow 7y ago
      Leopold Museum in Wien, but if you are from US I think you have to do some google search, it should be in some of the big museums.
      - cultus 7y ago
        The Leopold Museum my favorite museum in Vienna, and that's saying a lot.
    - mcnamaratw 7y ago
      In NYC the Neue gallery has a number of Schiele and Klimt pieces.
rassibassi 7y ago
Nice documentary on schiele https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/073077-000-A/egon-schiele/ https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/073077-000-A/egon-schiele/
- Wildgoose 6y ago
  Thanks! There's also a good film about him available on Amazon Prime Video.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I like what Klimt I've seen but never heard of Schiele. Wiki page has some pics about which I can't see the attraction. Make up your own mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele but to me many look purposefully ugly. Happens I did notice one that looks like butt-head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egon_Schiele_-_Grimassierendes_Aktselbstbildnis_-_1910.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egon_Schiele_-_Grimassier...
- tootie 6y ago
  There's a gallery in New York that has a huge collection of Austrian art including Egon Schiele. I've been many times, mostly because they have the best museum cafe in the city. I find his work to be interesting, but off-putting to put it politely. I'm only assuming his work would have been considered shocking when it premiered.
  - ooobit2 6y ago
    Excuse my dismissing his talent, but all of Schiele's works feel half-finished, with one area given intense focus and the rest of the canvas coming together as an afterthought. But compared to Klimt, Schiele puts so little effort in capturing a subject or object or emotion that's worth observing. His self-portraits remind me of some scene kid on DeviantArt or VampireFreaks. Bland, boring, vanilla. Try-hard. His landscapes are hardly worth a paper napkin. And in the few he does demonstrate some decent proficiency, such as The Family, there's still something that feels incomplete. I'm not an art aficionado though. In fact, I'm as unlearned in art as a backwoods person. But Schiele reminds me of the modern art movement, through which the artist frames a piece or performance in a long diatribe of poor and vaguely described feelings/idyllwild, but the piece itself communicates none of that. It's a little more effort than twerking for police brutality, but far less than I've seen in Tumblr furry drawings. But then again, just an uneducated opinion here. Take that for what it is.
- ncarroll 6y ago
  Google Arts and Culture have wonderful high-resolution images from the Leopold Museum in Vienna: https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/leopold-museum-vienna https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/leopold-museum-vie...
michalu 6y ago
The only reason Klimt and Schiele are famous as artists is because they brought sexuality into art, which I personally consider a degrading factor. Yes you had nudity before but not that pornographic nudity Klimt introduced. Schiele I wouldn't hang in my hall, these painting are neither beautiful nor technically on par with true masters. I believe these two painters introduced a shift to scammy era of modern arts when we went from masters and beauty to "omg so shocking and different" as well as introduction of pornography into mainstream (feel free to lookup some lesser known paintings of Klimt) High regard for Klimt and Schiele are, I found, the hallmarks of pretty much every atheist pseudo-intellectual.
- selectionbias 6y ago
  I like Schiele's work becuase I find his grimy, corpse-like figures to be very aesthetically pleasing. I do not find it 'beautiful' in the sense that an old Venetian painting of a cherub is beautiful, I simply find the deliberate ugliness pleasing to the eye. I do not find his work shocking and I do not see why I should care about the level of technical skill that went into it.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Conservatism is one thing, but these guys weren't even in the same generation and both died more than a century ago. Nothing stands still, least of all art. I suspect that over 130 years, many people have disagreed that your "only reason" is "degrading", and many more found other reasons to appreciate these artists as well.
  - michalu 6y ago
    > but these guys weren't even in the same generation Not sure what you meant by that. Besides 130 years isn't a long time especially when it concerns a period of time when everything gets "democratised" and your possible audience is growing through out the century. With 7 billion people today even the most obscure artisans find recognition and everyone who read The New Yorker twice in their life is an expert on art and all things cultural. The works of masters prior to the era of Klimt survived for different reasons. I argue that if there's a reason these two still get recognition it's because they simply happened to be at the beginning of the current era of modernism as well as growing industry of art dealing business which, thanks to the size of the audience and mass media can now, with good enough marketing, gain recognition to even the most ridiculous of artworks and profit from subsequently selling it to those desperate for signalling taste and virtues. To sell a master is not a good business, you can't buy them cheap and sell high and they're limited in supply. Art has been replaced by marketing story telling. So I wouldn't claim 130 years (or rather barely 100) validate the quality of work in the case of Klimt and Schiele. The most beautiful example of the ridiculousness of the entire modern art business is Frida. In order to sell art expensively and please the need of virtue and taste signalling you first need to gain recognition for the artist among the masses who will provide the admiration to the buyer of art. And thus you have people who will never afford to buy Frida wearing Frida tattoos and sharing social media posts about her "art" and subsequently people (usually newly rich) paying millions for these works just to buy the brand of "exquisite taste". for themselves Today it's Frida, decades ago it was Schiele and Klimt and they seem to be the golden goose that keeps giving.

39 points by prismatic 7y ago

goto11 7y ago

A whole article about Schiele and Klimt without a single picture? Come on.

rrmm 7y ago
Didn't read the article but I did go find pictures. Schiele's stuff I found especially striking. Recommended. (Both artists are). Schiele incidentally died during the spanish flu pandemic quite young.
- DeathArrow 7y ago
  Yes, both are good but Schiele is speaking most directly to the soul and relies less on graphical excellence and craftsmanship, although it has those, too.
  - rrmm 7y ago
    He's got jagged postures with stark lines and the eyes are wide and often focused on the observer. Lots of playing around subtly with body proportions. It definitely has a lot of character.
DeathArrow 7y ago
You have a point. But I've found that images of art works are generally of low resolution when posted online. I'd rather buy an art book and/or go to a museum.
- goto11 7y ago
  What museum do you recommend for Schiele?
  - DeathArrow 7y ago
    Leopold Museum in Wien, but if you are from US I think you have to do some google search, it should be in some of the big museums.
    - cultus 7y ago
      The Leopold Museum my favorite museum in Vienna, and that's saying a lot.
  - mcnamaratw 7y ago
    In NYC the Neue gallery has a number of Schiele and Klimt pieces.

rassibassi 7y ago

Nice documentary on schiele https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/073077-000-A/egon-schiele/ https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/073077-000-A/egon-schiele/

Wildgoose 6y ago
Thanks! There's also a good film about him available on Amazon Prime Video.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

I like what Klimt I've seen but never heard of Schiele. Wiki page has some pics about which I can't see the attraction. Make up your own mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele but to me many look purposefully ugly. Happens I did notice one that looks like butt-head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egon_Schiele_-_Grimassierendes_Aktselbstbildnis_-_1910.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egon_Schiele_-_Grimassier...

tootie 6y ago
There's a gallery in New York that has a huge collection of Austrian art including Egon Schiele. I've been many times, mostly because they have the best museum cafe in the city. I find his work to be interesting, but off-putting to put it politely. I'm only assuming his work would have been considered shocking when it premiered.
- ooobit2 6y ago
  Excuse my dismissing his talent, but all of Schiele's works feel half-finished, with one area given intense focus and the rest of the canvas coming together as an afterthought. But compared to Klimt, Schiele puts so little effort in capturing a subject or object or emotion that's worth observing. His self-portraits remind me of some scene kid on DeviantArt or VampireFreaks. Bland, boring, vanilla. Try-hard. His landscapes are hardly worth a paper napkin. And in the few he does demonstrate some decent proficiency, such as The Family, there's still something that feels incomplete. I'm not an art aficionado though. In fact, I'm as unlearned in art as a backwoods person. But Schiele reminds me of the modern art movement, through which the artist frames a piece or performance in a long diatribe of poor and vaguely described feelings/idyllwild, but the piece itself communicates none of that. It's a little more effort than twerking for police brutality, but far less than I've seen in Tumblr furry drawings. But then again, just an uneducated opinion here. Take that for what it is.
ncarroll 6y ago
Google Arts and Culture have wonderful high-resolution images from the Leopold Museum in Vienna: https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/leopold-museum-vienna https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/leopold-museum-vie...

michalu 6y ago

The only reason Klimt and Schiele are famous as artists is because they brought sexuality into art, which I personally consider a degrading factor. Yes you had nudity before but not that pornographic nudity Klimt introduced. Schiele I wouldn't hang in my hall, these painting are neither beautiful nor technically on par with true masters. I believe these two painters introduced a shift to scammy era of modern arts when we went from masters and beauty to "omg so shocking and different" as well as introduction of pornography into mainstream (feel free to lookup some lesser known paintings of Klimt) High regard for Klimt and Schiele are, I found, the hallmarks of pretty much every atheist pseudo-intellectual.

selectionbias 6y ago
I like Schiele's work becuase I find his grimy, corpse-like figures to be very aesthetically pleasing. I do not find it 'beautiful' in the sense that an old Venetian painting of a cherub is beautiful, I simply find the deliberate ugliness pleasing to the eye. I do not find his work shocking and I do not see why I should care about the level of technical skill that went into it.
jessaustin 6y ago
Conservatism is one thing, but these guys weren't even in the same generation and both died more than a century ago. Nothing stands still, least of all art. I suspect that over 130 years, many people have disagreed that your "only reason" is "degrading", and many more found other reasons to appreciate these artists as well.
- michalu 6y ago
  > but these guys weren't even in the same generation Not sure what you meant by that. Besides 130 years isn't a long time especially when it concerns a period of time when everything gets "democratised" and your possible audience is growing through out the century. With 7 billion people today even the most obscure artisans find recognition and everyone who read The New Yorker twice in their life is an expert on art and all things cultural. The works of masters prior to the era of Klimt survived for different reasons. I argue that if there's a reason these two still get recognition it's because they simply happened to be at the beginning of the current era of modernism as well as growing industry of art dealing business which, thanks to the size of the audience and mass media can now, with good enough marketing, gain recognition to even the most ridiculous of artworks and profit from subsequently selling it to those desperate for signalling taste and virtues. To sell a master is not a good business, you can't buy them cheap and sell high and they're limited in supply. Art has been replaced by marketing story telling. So I wouldn't claim 130 years (or rather barely 100) validate the quality of work in the case of Klimt and Schiele. The most beautiful example of the ridiculousness of the entire modern art business is Frida. In order to sell art expensively and please the need of virtue and taste signalling you first need to gain recognition for the artist among the masses who will provide the admiration to the buyer of art. And thus you have people who will never afford to buy Frida wearing Frida tattoos and sharing social media posts about her "art" and subsequently people (usually newly rich) paying millions for these works just to buy the brand of "exquisite taste". for themselves Today it's Frida, decades ago it was Schiele and Klimt and they seem to be the golden goose that keeps giving.