« Marginal Revolution? | Main | Markets in everything: Canine edition »
London
That's by Peter Doig, who has a big show on at the Tate.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 17, 2008 at 03:57 PM in The Arts | Permalink
Comments
Stunning ... Are you in London at the moment?
Posted by: Geoff Riley at Feb 17, 2008 4:45:27 PM
That's beautiful.
For those wondering, the exhibit is at the Tate Britain (i.e., the better one) near Pimlico, not the Tate Modern on the South Bank.
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Feb 17, 2008 5:11:12 PM
I enjoyed Tate Modern more than Tate Britain. The building is fantastic (is there a better setting for modern art?). The exhibits were organized in a creative manner. And the art is accessible.
Posted by: thehova at Feb 17, 2008 6:17:36 PM
Looks like they need to move some wires underground :)
Posted by: David Zetland at Feb 17, 2008 6:57:00 PM
Talking of art and the city, a little map I drew for those who know New York but not London (or vice versa).
Posted by: R N B at Feb 17, 2008 7:11:36 PM
I recommend the boat trip from one Tate to the other (although it was cowardly of them to call it Tate to Tate).
Posted by: dearieme at Feb 17, 2008 7:22:36 PM
That is a fine painting indeed, but I have to agree with the previous commenter's support of the Tate Modern. It might not be great architecture for a museum per se, but it's certainly a fine venue for viewing modern art. Indeed, I'd rather stroll down the South Bank from City Hall to the bridge near Westminster than do the same on the more illustrious North.
Posted by: cure at Feb 17, 2008 7:41:16 PM
I was referring to the art only, and it's not even close between the two.
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Feb 17, 2008 7:44:45 PM
I don't get it.
What does it mean?
Posted by: Student at Feb 17, 2008 9:19:05 PM
student:
"all our senses have in fact become somewhat dulled because we always inquire after the reason, what 'it means' and no longer what 'it is.' ...some painters have made the eye more intellectual, and have gone far beyond what was previously called a joy in form and color."
--nietzsche, human, all too human
Posted by: massrepublican at Feb 17, 2008 11:15:54 PM
Looks like the work of a contemporary Chinese artist. There are a few that could have painted this piece, but this is very nice indeed.
Posted by: Al at Feb 18, 2008 12:22:22 AM
mass,
Okay. So what "is it"? And why is it, beautiful?
I'm not trying to be glib, I just don't understand why it's great.
In fact, all those little lines kinda make it hard to look at.
So I wonder why everyone else seems to like it.
Is it because Tyler likes it, or is there some aesthetic quality I'm not getting?
Posted by: Student at Feb 18, 2008 12:37:01 AM
"I was referring to the art only, and it's not even close between the two."
I understand your point of view. But the Tate Modern is so much cooler. And London is all about being cooler.
Posted by: thehova at Feb 18, 2008 4:41:14 AM
Come on, chaps. The advantage of the Tate Modern is the view of St Paul's from the coffee bar.
Posted by: dearieme at Feb 18, 2008 5:27:37 AM
Personally, I like the little lines because they evoke looking at the house through bare winter trees. Together with the cool blues, they make the painting feel very wintry. It's like going hiking in the woods and suddenly coming upon a house, almost voyeuristic. And I just think the color and composition are beautiful in their own right.
Posted by: Greg at Feb 18, 2008 8:08:46 AM
Trieu,
Thank you for showing some love to the oft-neglected Tate Britain. The first time I went there, I immediately regretted not having visited it much earlier.
Posted by: Petrarch at Feb 18, 2008 8:20:06 AM
The small white lines seem to lack purpose and thought. Perhaps an interesting experiment, but one nonetheless, that didn't bear fruit in my opinion.
Posted by: Gunther at Feb 18, 2008 10:50:20 AM
When I first looked at it, the trees stood out more than the lines.
Posted by: jorod at Feb 18, 2008 5:04:08 PM
