Featured New game: Yea or Nay?

Painting A is an amateur work of the coast near Carmel, California. A favorite spot for painters. Lovely palette and true to live.

Debora

 

Per the rules of the game....

I am going to post pairs of paintings that are different from each other for opinions. I would like to know:
1st.) Do you like it?
2nd.) Why?
3rd.) Provide some kind of critical analysis and any other comments you might have.

There are no right or wrong answers here. It is more about exploring why someone likes particular artworks as well as why they may dislike them. None of the works will be by very famous artists, though some may be by listed artists.

I will not provide any information about the artists up front. Once some comments have been given, I may come in and provide some information about the works and/or my opinions. Once the comments seem to be exhausted, I will post another pair.

For now, let's restrict this to some works I have and let this evolve over time. If someone wants an opinion on their own works and can't wait, go ahead and open another thread. If this gets tedious, we can end it at any time but I am hoping it has some worth to people interested in art here.

I don't pretend to think that these are great works of art but do see merit of some kind in most of them. Needless to say, there is some reason why I bought these works if only to make a buck or two. However, I am more interested in what you all have to say. Don't hold back on your comments. You will not hurt my feelings if you do not like something. Have some fun with this. It is OK to go off topic.

For clarity, I will post pictures in separate posts and label each as posted. This will follow the pattern of first pair - paintings A & B, second pair - paintings A & B, etc. When making reference to paintings please use this terminology when necessary (particularly if commenting about something further back in the thread). I will try to provide some spacing between pairs but see how this could get confusing if there is not some sort of reference to fall back on.

 

Thank you, @verybrad. I had forgotten the rules.

Debora

 

No problem. I think you hit on #3 a bit.

It is pretty amazing how true to life the palette is. Nothing quite like the CA coast.

 

I like B a bit better. It's got some age to it, and whoever did it had some training.

 

Let's see if I can get this right...

#1) I prefer Pair #9 A.

#2) They're both contemplative landscapes. Although Pair #9 A is by an amateur artist doing his very best and Pair #9 B is by a more skilled artist doing a bit better, Pair #9 A is a more successful work.

#3) Both paintings are curiously inert. The artist of Pair #9 A is standing on a rocky coast under a cypress tree with a view of the sea. And yet, one has little sense of movement; the wind doesn't reach a branch, a wave doesn't reach the shore, a shadow doesn't cross the foreground. Still, perhaps because of the vivid palette, the horizontal composition and the open framing, it gives one the sense of looking outward and that change is possible. In Pair #9 B, again, the wind doesn't blow, the water doesn't ripple, the shadows don't shift. But because of the subdued palette, the vertical composition and the constrained framing, the effect is inward-looking and dull.

Debora

 

I love that analysis @Debora. I agree that the subdued palette in B undermines the image. I like its skill and technique more, but it's dull and too dark. Even in the darkest Northwest coast scene up here, the colors are vivid and the scenery is alive.

I recently had a painting like A, vivid and CA coastal but not terribly well executed. It sold quickly in my case at the antique mall. I'd bet B would still be sitting there.

Thank @verybrad for posting these!

 

Not getting a lot of traction with this. Hoped more would join in. Here they are with the frames. Change your opinions?

 

The one on top looks better framed, although that frame is too washed out for the picture. The second one looks like an old image in a much newer frame. It's begging to be cleaned now; some of the brown looks like nicotine.

 

I had a similar frame as the top one.....with an amateur country scene , that I bought for my folks from a PBS Vermont auction..... in the 80's.

 

I've decided I don't like the two trees together in painting A... for one to be leaning like that, while it's 'neighbor' stays straight, isn't how it works in real nature. Either they're all straight or they're all leaning....

The trees, at least, in B are more authentic.

Tree #3 seems to be floating, almost human in its gesture. I'm deciding no on A.

 

Painting B does not look particularly dirty in real life. Photos were taken outside in bright sunlight in the shade. Agree that it looks dirty in the photos. Decided to take another photo today. Also tried cleaning a test spot and did not get any significant dirt off. Anyway, maybe this new photo is better?.... or not? New photo is definitely warmer and truer to life to my eye.



Painting is somewhat tonalist in execution and maybe what is being interpreted as being dirty is the overall hazy appearance in execution.

 

Ran across this old picture taken with my old camera in a studio setting. Interesting how different this can look.

 

It definitely looks better there. The haze looks like smoke from a forest fire, at least to me.

 

Guess I will wrap this pair up. I chose them since they were both seascapes with trees and very different in style. Ironically, I can't think these were painted more than a decade apart from each other.

Painting A is, indeed, a CA seascape. It is signed D.S. Beech and dated 1961. I was never able to attribute this to a particular person. I am sure the frame is original, as it is so in keeping with the timeframe. I picked this from a thrift store and think I paid $7.00 for it. It has a modernist sensibility to it and exhibits some pallete knife work which doesn't really show in the photos. It is surely by an amateur but think the artist has something going for them. The trees have a bit of a fantastical/surreal quality about them and I like that they are not so literal. I also like the color choices.

I can see why some people would like this. It would surely work in the right setting to help brighten a space. I personally like it but would not hang it. I just don't have that CA beach vibe going with my decor.... LOL! I have not owned it all that long. The canvas is a tad slack and I need to re-stretch it at some point. For now, it is just part of the hoard. I think it would sell readily on ebay at the right price. One of the best things going for it is its legitimate age, keeping with the style.

Painting B is likely French. It is signed, Ballon. It is possibly by Luc Ballon. There is a work at askart that appears to be very similar attributed to him. I also find some very dissimilar works attributed to him so i am not confident in the attribution. There is an unattributed work on Trocadero that is definitely by the same artist. There are several other listed artists with this surname but none of them seem to fit.

The subject painting is undated but appears to be from the 50s. As someone guessed, the frame is new and not original. I bought this on ebay and paid $100.00, including shipping. I purchased this, at least in part, for the frame.

The seller listed the painting size as 16" x 20" and I intended to use the frame on another painting I have. When I got the painting, I found it was smaller. I asked the seller for a refund or for a partial discount. Instead, he had a similar 16" x 20" frame that he shipped to me for free. This was a great outcome, as similar frames of size can easily go for $100.00.

Frame aside, I do like the painting. It was unattributed in the ebay listing and no photo was provided of the signature. I could tell it was signed but could not make it out. I was hoping it was a West coast painting but, it is what it is. The painting and frame is very much in keeping with my decor and I have this painting, as framed, hanging in my bedroom.

I think the artist is trained and accomplished. As I mentioned before, the painting has a bit of a tonalist quality to it that I appreciate. You might also see that it owes a nod to the French Barbizon School, though quite removed in timeframe. There is not a lot in execution of this painting that I can fault.

I get the feeling that some felt this painting dispassionate. I can buy that. However, I think there is merit to a serene landscape painting. I tend to gravitate to moody landscapes and this certainly fits the bill. I may not keep this painting forever but it certainly has a place in my collection for now.

 

Presumably "DS Beech" is the Carmel gallery owner and artist Dorothy Stock Beech.

 

Thanks for the lead. Looks like the name is Dorothy Steck Beech. Can find one other painting attributed to her. Signature seems to match and also painted in 1961. Obituary says she was an accomplished artist. Seems odd that there are not more works out there.

Here is the one painting:

Mid Century Modern Madonna and Child by Dorothy Steck Beech | Chairish

Her obituary:

Dorothy Steck Beech (1915-2002) - Find a Grave Memorial

 

Didn't get as much participation here as I would have hoped. Will go ahead and post another pair since I already have them photographed.

Pair #10

Painting A: 10" x 14"


Painting B: 25" x 22"

 

I like B; the colors are great and I like the dragonfly. Signed Brian Bruso(?) . I rather like A too; it looks like a lake shore, but it doesn't "sing" at me like the second one.

 

I like the first one of these better. It has an interesting and sustained level of abstraction, which I think is sometimes hard to maintain. And I think the contrast between the lightness of the 'trees' and the solidity of the 'ground' adds to the depth of the piece.

B seems dated to me: the colors and the way they're arranged seems very 1970's -80's and for some reason that makes it less interesting to me personally.

(And thanks for doing these verybrad. I thought there'd be more responses too!)