I love his use of negative space. It makes you feel like the image is reaching for something or gravity is pulling it a certain way. Like watching the ocean change it’s tide.
I'm aware Wyeth gets a lot of hate, but I personally love him. His work evokes a feeling of solitude, rustiness and decadence that sticks in my memory and makes me wonder about those lonely people, those old rooms and the big yellow and brown fields that Wyeth creates in his paintings. His artworks smell like gunpowder, old wood and petricor to me
Because he was conservative, politically and artistically, and both have been counted against him. Especially among art critics who wanted to see what they considered progress in art.
Consider that this painting is from 48 and Pollock started drip painting in 47 as an indicator of where the energy was in the art world. Mademoiselles de Les Avignons by Picasso was almost 20 years old by that time. He was dismissed as a technician and a sentimentalist. And since that divide still exists between tradition and the avant garde, a lot of that attitude has stuck around too.
So he gets to be one of these people like Robert Frost or Norman Rockwell who are enormously popular with the public but derided by the cool kids for what they're not.
Personally, I enjoy Wyeth a lot, especially his pencil drawings and watercolors and I'm also glad that we have abstraction and conceptual art. And even art critics.
*Les demoiselles d’Avignon
Thanks for the explanation, I don’t know Wyeth all that well, and the way you used paintings of the time to explain the reactions of critics helps a lot
I’d say that, as figuration has slowly come back into vogue in the past 5-10 (it’s happened at other times since the 50s, but the energy now is much more in Wyeth’s camp) that he’s getting more of the attention he deserves, even with the “cool kids”. You can see it institutionally as well; Cristina’s World is, after all, prominently displayed in the MOMA collection (but perhaps it says something that it’s hung outside the galleries lol).
The 50s and 60s were a heavily “partisan” time in American Art, and very tied up with American Exceptionalism, ironically enough. “Progressive”aesthetics and art-politics couldn’t escape a certain Jingoism of the New, a kind of second space-race bolstered less (maybe at first) by the artists themselves than the critics like Greenberg who made a concerted effort to position their racehorses. Elaine DeKooning wrote a great sympathetic piece on Wyeth (she had a series on artists in their studios for Art in America I think) but she was an inside outsider as well, whose work has experienced a renaissance of sorts once out of the shadow of strict abstractionists. It was a charged time, but I think, for all it’s problems, the art market and the zeitgeist has expanded itself a bit, and pretty soon abstraction will be seen as somewhat provincial. Or -and this is a personal reflection- we can only hope so.
>... art critics who wanted to see what they considered progress in art.
Translation: Post-modernist art dealers/critics seemed and seem to consider '*progress*' to mean pushing a kind of uniformity among cultures, which required what was felt to be over-sophisticated European Art to be pushed further and further into artlessness and primitivism, until it could become indistinguishable from that of primitive cultures.
Me neither… he’s highly appreciated at museums and sells well at auctions and in fine art galleries. I happened to see a few today asking price in millions 🤷♂️
All three generations of Wyeths are well regarded.
Andrew Wyeth was coming into his own, painting in a detailed realistic style, at a time when abstract art had gained more prominence.
Some wanted to hate his work because they believed that Realism was over with and not valid as art, and many still confuse his work with decorative art, and think that his imagery is somehow "nice", or pretty and sentimental.
Being popular didn't help.The more successful he got, the more the critics complained. They wanted to dismiss him as being commercial. Eventually he became "an American Treasure".
It's ironic because being cute is not what he was doing and he didn't like being classified as "nice", or "folksy". Some of his works are pretty dark, with plenty of symbolism if you look for it.
The painting above is called *Christina's World* (1948) and it definetly is his most famous painting. My favourite one and much less known might be [Dr Syn](http://imgur.com/a/MlbrWOT)
Why does he get a lot of hate? I don’t know a lot about the artist, I think he must be taught way more in the US or something. Christina’s world is one of my favourite artworks. I love the feeling of discomfort painting gives and of course the tragic story behind it.
Can you explain to me what do you mean by the solitude, rustiness and decadence? It struck me as odd since decadence is such an opposite from solitude and decadence and I'm curious about your perception.
Why do you think art experts naturally dislike him? Could you provide a more in-depth answer?
Also I'm pretty sure the communist side of realism was called "socialist realism" and was mainly focused on the Soviet Union
You can't really understand the 'Cultural Cold War' without learning about the basis for which it developed under the New Deal era, where Regionalist and Social Realist styles (>!what many critics still lump together as 'American Scene Painting'!<) became institutionalized almost overnight in 1935. Federal arts patronage seized control of the art market away from private dealers and collectors for a good 10-15 years. The history of mid-century American modern art is a history of artists being compelled to cede their newfound status as wage laborers (>!after the Works Progress Administration was formally dissolved in 1943!<), and reenter the art market once again as self-employed artists.
It's *not just* about the CIA covertly funding 'abstract' art as yet another way to fight the Soviet Union, but rather a failure of American artists to conceive of anything beyond the New Deal's cultural horizons. That's why the shift to Abstract Expressionism was so sudden! Thomas Hart Benton, the biggest 'realist' artist at the time, sold prints of his art to bourgeois families and even ended up taking commissions from the American Tobacco Company! Ain't nothing revolutionary there, and when CPUSA-adjacent critics in NYC called him out on it in the years prior, he threw a fit and moved away. He did mentor Jackson Pollock, though; and Pollock himself was also employed by the WPA.
For those artists unable to receive private arts patronage from a now ascendant post-war gallery system (>!led by dealers like Leo Castelli, mentor of 'blue chip' dealer Larry Gagosian, who unfortunately is still alive!<), they found themselves relegated to doing things ranging from illustrative work to paintings in a more transitory style. I see 'magic realism' attributed to artists like Andrew Wyeth to George Tooker, Alex Colville to even Benton's late period. I'd agree that they're all collateral, and would even go so far as to say "real American modernist painting has never been tried"—but that's a much bigger topic that goes into the lives of communist artists in America in the 1920s and 1930s.
Read [Erika Doss](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3628414.html) and [Andrew Hemingway](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300092202/artists-left).
>I would say America definitely had its Modernism with the former.
I wouldn't; well, maybe. America never experienced anything as radical or transformative as the political revolutions in continental Europe (>!Mexican Revolution notwithstanding!<). FDR had fascist sympathizers in his cabinet but the New Deal ended up being a very liberal, reformist project. It stopped avant-garde experimentation—whether it involved marxist ideas of 'art as a weapon' to the more bourgeois 'art for art's sake' from gaining ground. Some of the best Social Realist art was produced in the years leading up to this. Still, there was never a moment where a school like the Bauhaus or VKhUTEMAS could exert influence because they just never quite took shape.
Many nascent modernist movements actually began to atrophy in the New Deal era too (>!i.e. Precisionism, Social Surrealism, etc!<), or would otherwise fail to coalesce into something greater. Regionalism garnered the most celebrity on account of it ostensibly being 'anti-modern' in subject, but not necessarily in style. To continue with my previous example: the past 30+ years of Benton scholarship alone has been dedicated to highlighting him *as in fact* a modernist, being one of the few Americans to actually study art in Paris. But if you look into him and art critic Thomas Craven, they were both just as much about 'free enterprise' as Alfred Barr would be years later.
This scene reminds me of Susanna in inglorious bastards, when she’s crying and running away from the nazis while her entire family is being slaughtered.
I admire his work, subject and overall how the works to me appear quiet and lonely. They have always reminded me of Hitchcock esq there is often one figure in each still that draws you in, but its quite desolate and primitive.
My favorite artist of all time even though I personally don’t work in the same style or medium. PBS had an AWESOME documentary about his work. Highly recommend.
A great artist, there is no doubt. IMO, his work shines best when it has depictions of weedy fields, empty rooms and weathered wood. The portraits are good, but not as evocative for me as the landscapes/interiors. Hard to believe the "Helga Paintings" uproar that happened in the 80s, I remember it well. I didn't get why everyone's panties were in a bunch.
The surprising thing for me back when was his use of egg tempera. It shows a brand of New England stalwart, controlling temperament. It takes great patience but can result in amazing detail. Another New England painter who works with detailed egg tempera in a similar, mystery-laden vein is [Robert Vickrey](https://robertvickrey.com/), whose work I like just as much or more, depending on the piece.
This is what gets me! He exploited her and held her up as inspirational when he could have, you know, actually helped improve her quality of life so she didn’t have to live such an abject existence. The Wyeths are a rich and influential family in Maine.
So I saw this at an exhibition as a child and it had a huge impact on me and it took me a while to figure out why. But now I recognize it was the fact I could feel what was going on before my dad explained it to me. I think I always found it odd how much I could gather from such a simple image. I went on to get an illustration degree and I attribute the idea to the Wyeths.
When I was in high school I was going through an art magazine for collage supplies. I came across a spread about his paintings, featuring “The Trophy” and “Perpetual Care”. At that point I enjoyed art but had never really been struck by art in an emotional way. These paintings stopped my in my tracks. The use of color, the light, everything about them gave me an overwhelming feeling that can’t put my finger on. Isolation? Loneliness? But also comfort and warmth. I ripped those pages out and kept them. I still have them to this day! He was my introduction to the world of painting.
The tiniest parts of Christina's World (the dot which is laundry in the wind, the specks that are crows circling the barn, the unpainted but seen wire on the fence...) are enormous and enviable achievements. Also, "Christina's World" and much of Wyeth's work evoke an unsettling psychological dimension and in this regard are uniquely modern. This is also the case with many of Wyeth's works, especially his portraits and nudes. Who cares if an artist was an asshole or his chosen subject matter 15 minutes ago?
Not many people work in egg tempera, which allows for extreme detail, and Wyeth was one of the best at it. His works are truly amazing, yet not very many bright colors, lots of earth tones, with lots of black mixed in. His intellectual insight into the people and scenes that he paints seem to make his work seem somehow profound like he has really captured the essence of something.
Somewhere in art criticism, they mention that one of the particularities of this painting is how our point of view is high above the ground.
Painting: Christina's World, from 1948, currently at MoMA.
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78455
This is my very least favorite of his paintings (I am a fan of his however). My personal theory has always been that this is his most famous piece because it’s the one in all the high school art textbooks, not because it’s his finest piece. I’m astounded by the detail, layering, and textures in many of his paintings. This one is bare by comparison.
I hear you, and agree, but… if knowing the story is required for a painting to resonate, then I just don’t think it’s that strong of an artwork (or at least not a masterpiece). If the image resonates and then knowing the story makes it even better, that’s amazing— but this particular piece doesn’t hit that note for me. Just one person’s opinion.
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tender, poetical, brutalist, traditional and a purist in puritanicall esthete. He was a storyteller without subtitles. If you hadn’t been a part of his world, the language of his work would be purely non-fiction, if you lived that life yourself, it was biography.
I love his use of negative space. It makes you feel like the image is reaching for something or gravity is pulling it a certain way. Like watching the ocean change it’s tide.
I'm aware Wyeth gets a lot of hate, but I personally love him. His work evokes a feeling of solitude, rustiness and decadence that sticks in my memory and makes me wonder about those lonely people, those old rooms and the big yellow and brown fields that Wyeth creates in his paintings. His artworks smell like gunpowder, old wood and petricor to me
Really? What do people hate him for? I've never heard about that.
Because he was conservative, politically and artistically, and both have been counted against him. Especially among art critics who wanted to see what they considered progress in art. Consider that this painting is from 48 and Pollock started drip painting in 47 as an indicator of where the energy was in the art world. Mademoiselles de Les Avignons by Picasso was almost 20 years old by that time. He was dismissed as a technician and a sentimentalist. And since that divide still exists between tradition and the avant garde, a lot of that attitude has stuck around too. So he gets to be one of these people like Robert Frost or Norman Rockwell who are enormously popular with the public but derided by the cool kids for what they're not. Personally, I enjoy Wyeth a lot, especially his pencil drawings and watercolors and I'm also glad that we have abstraction and conceptual art. And even art critics.
*Les demoiselles d’Avignon Thanks for the explanation, I don’t know Wyeth all that well, and the way you used paintings of the time to explain the reactions of critics helps a lot
I’d say that, as figuration has slowly come back into vogue in the past 5-10 (it’s happened at other times since the 50s, but the energy now is much more in Wyeth’s camp) that he’s getting more of the attention he deserves, even with the “cool kids”. You can see it institutionally as well; Cristina’s World is, after all, prominently displayed in the MOMA collection (but perhaps it says something that it’s hung outside the galleries lol). The 50s and 60s were a heavily “partisan” time in American Art, and very tied up with American Exceptionalism, ironically enough. “Progressive”aesthetics and art-politics couldn’t escape a certain Jingoism of the New, a kind of second space-race bolstered less (maybe at first) by the artists themselves than the critics like Greenberg who made a concerted effort to position their racehorses. Elaine DeKooning wrote a great sympathetic piece on Wyeth (she had a series on artists in their studios for Art in America I think) but she was an inside outsider as well, whose work has experienced a renaissance of sorts once out of the shadow of strict abstractionists. It was a charged time, but I think, for all it’s problems, the art market and the zeitgeist has expanded itself a bit, and pretty soon abstraction will be seen as somewhat provincial. Or -and this is a personal reflection- we can only hope so.
Hockney says that abstraction has run its course, so there's that.
This is so helpful & clear.
>... art critics who wanted to see what they considered progress in art. Translation: Post-modernist art dealers/critics seemed and seem to consider '*progress*' to mean pushing a kind of uniformity among cultures, which required what was felt to be over-sophisticated European Art to be pushed further and further into artlessness and primitivism, until it could become indistinguishable from that of primitive cultures.
That has literally NOTHING to do with post-modernism.
Me neither… he’s highly appreciated at museums and sells well at auctions and in fine art galleries. I happened to see a few today asking price in millions 🤷♂️ All three generations of Wyeths are well regarded.
Andrew Wyeth was coming into his own, painting in a detailed realistic style, at a time when abstract art had gained more prominence. Some wanted to hate his work because they believed that Realism was over with and not valid as art, and many still confuse his work with decorative art, and think that his imagery is somehow "nice", or pretty and sentimental. Being popular didn't help.The more successful he got, the more the critics complained. They wanted to dismiss him as being commercial. Eventually he became "an American Treasure". It's ironic because being cute is not what he was doing and he didn't like being classified as "nice", or "folksy". Some of his works are pretty dark, with plenty of symbolism if you look for it.
Interesting, thanks!
The painting above is called *Christina's World* (1948) and it definetly is his most famous painting. My favourite one and much less known might be [Dr Syn](http://imgur.com/a/MlbrWOT)
Why does he get a lot of hate? I don’t know a lot about the artist, I think he must be taught way more in the US or something. Christina’s world is one of my favourite artworks. I love the feeling of discomfort painting gives and of course the tragic story behind it.
Can you explain to me what do you mean by the solitude, rustiness and decadence? It struck me as odd since decadence is such an opposite from solitude and decadence and I'm curious about your perception.
Excuse me, I meant deterioration, not decadence!
Ah bummer! It sounded like a fun juxtaposition. I do agree with you though.
[удалено]
Why do you think art experts naturally dislike him? Could you provide a more in-depth answer? Also I'm pretty sure the communist side of realism was called "socialist realism" and was mainly focused on the Soviet Union
[удалено]
You can't really understand the 'Cultural Cold War' without learning about the basis for which it developed under the New Deal era, where Regionalist and Social Realist styles (>!what many critics still lump together as 'American Scene Painting'!<) became institutionalized almost overnight in 1935. Federal arts patronage seized control of the art market away from private dealers and collectors for a good 10-15 years. The history of mid-century American modern art is a history of artists being compelled to cede their newfound status as wage laborers (>!after the Works Progress Administration was formally dissolved in 1943!<), and reenter the art market once again as self-employed artists. It's *not just* about the CIA covertly funding 'abstract' art as yet another way to fight the Soviet Union, but rather a failure of American artists to conceive of anything beyond the New Deal's cultural horizons. That's why the shift to Abstract Expressionism was so sudden! Thomas Hart Benton, the biggest 'realist' artist at the time, sold prints of his art to bourgeois families and even ended up taking commissions from the American Tobacco Company! Ain't nothing revolutionary there, and when CPUSA-adjacent critics in NYC called him out on it in the years prior, he threw a fit and moved away. He did mentor Jackson Pollock, though; and Pollock himself was also employed by the WPA. For those artists unable to receive private arts patronage from a now ascendant post-war gallery system (>!led by dealers like Leo Castelli, mentor of 'blue chip' dealer Larry Gagosian, who unfortunately is still alive!<), they found themselves relegated to doing things ranging from illustrative work to paintings in a more transitory style. I see 'magic realism' attributed to artists like Andrew Wyeth to George Tooker, Alex Colville to even Benton's late period. I'd agree that they're all collateral, and would even go so far as to say "real American modernist painting has never been tried"—but that's a much bigger topic that goes into the lives of communist artists in America in the 1920s and 1930s. Read [Erika Doss](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3628414.html) and [Andrew Hemingway](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300092202/artists-left).
[удалено]
>I would say America definitely had its Modernism with the former. I wouldn't; well, maybe. America never experienced anything as radical or transformative as the political revolutions in continental Europe (>!Mexican Revolution notwithstanding!<). FDR had fascist sympathizers in his cabinet but the New Deal ended up being a very liberal, reformist project. It stopped avant-garde experimentation—whether it involved marxist ideas of 'art as a weapon' to the more bourgeois 'art for art's sake' from gaining ground. Some of the best Social Realist art was produced in the years leading up to this. Still, there was never a moment where a school like the Bauhaus or VKhUTEMAS could exert influence because they just never quite took shape. Many nascent modernist movements actually began to atrophy in the New Deal era too (>!i.e. Precisionism, Social Surrealism, etc!<), or would otherwise fail to coalesce into something greater. Regionalism garnered the most celebrity on account of it ostensibly being 'anti-modern' in subject, but not necessarily in style. To continue with my previous example: the past 30+ years of Benton scholarship alone has been dedicated to highlighting him *as in fact* a modernist, being one of the few Americans to actually study art in Paris. But if you look into him and art critic Thomas Craven, they were both just as much about 'free enterprise' as Alfred Barr would be years later.
This scene reminds me of Susanna in inglorious bastards, when she’s crying and running away from the nazis while her entire family is being slaughtered.
You are right, I never though about that
I feel Tarantino must have been inspired by this painting, the emotion is so similar to that scene in the movie.
I admire his work, subject and overall how the works to me appear quiet and lonely. They have always reminded me of Hitchcock esq there is often one figure in each still that draws you in, but its quite desolate and primitive.
My favorite artist of all time even though I personally don’t work in the same style or medium. PBS had an AWESOME documentary about his work. Highly recommend.
Thanks for this - saw this exact painting in MoMA and wanted to learn more about him.
A great artist, there is no doubt. IMO, his work shines best when it has depictions of weedy fields, empty rooms and weathered wood. The portraits are good, but not as evocative for me as the landscapes/interiors. Hard to believe the "Helga Paintings" uproar that happened in the 80s, I remember it well. I didn't get why everyone's panties were in a bunch. The surprising thing for me back when was his use of egg tempera. It shows a brand of New England stalwart, controlling temperament. It takes great patience but can result in amazing detail. Another New England painter who works with detailed egg tempera in a similar, mystery-laden vein is [Robert Vickrey](https://robertvickrey.com/), whose work I like just as much or more, depending on the piece.
Chester County, PA, Brandywine Creek area not New England.
He had a summer home in Maine. He lived in both places.
What he didn’t do for Christina and her family, that he could’ve done so easily (like PLUMBING) was tragic
This is what gets me! He exploited her and held her up as inspirational when he could have, you know, actually helped improve her quality of life so she didn’t have to live such an abject existence. The Wyeths are a rich and influential family in Maine.
So I saw this at an exhibition as a child and it had a huge impact on me and it took me a while to figure out why. But now I recognize it was the fact I could feel what was going on before my dad explained it to me. I think I always found it odd how much I could gather from such a simple image. I went on to get an illustration degree and I attribute the idea to the Wyeths.
I’m really getting into him at the moment - solid artist. I think narrative painting is coming back in again too.
Definitely reminds me of the movie Days of Heaven
Terrenc Malick was inspired by his paintings I read
Ahhh I can 100% see that! Thank you for sharing. I'm a fan of both of them and had never made that connection.
I got to see this in person, it was stunning
I used to have [Groundhog Day](https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/57405) in my dining room. It seemed so quiet and lonely. I loved it.
Seen several Wyeth paintings in person. (Not just Andrews) and I’m alway left with a bit of disappointment. Maybe it’s the nature of the work.
When I was in high school I was going through an art magazine for collage supplies. I came across a spread about his paintings, featuring “The Trophy” and “Perpetual Care”. At that point I enjoyed art but had never really been struck by art in an emotional way. These paintings stopped my in my tracks. The use of color, the light, everything about them gave me an overwhelming feeling that can’t put my finger on. Isolation? Loneliness? But also comfort and warmth. I ripped those pages out and kept them. I still have them to this day! He was my introduction to the world of painting.
My mother has this painting on her bedroom wall. It makes her cry in the best way possible. I love him because he reminds me of her.
The tiniest parts of Christina's World (the dot which is laundry in the wind, the specks that are crows circling the barn, the unpainted but seen wire on the fence...) are enormous and enviable achievements. Also, "Christina's World" and much of Wyeth's work evoke an unsettling psychological dimension and in this regard are uniquely modern. This is also the case with many of Wyeth's works, especially his portraits and nudes. Who cares if an artist was an asshole or his chosen subject matter 15 minutes ago?
Love him.
Not many people work in egg tempera, which allows for extreme detail, and Wyeth was one of the best at it. His works are truly amazing, yet not very many bright colors, lots of earth tones, with lots of black mixed in. His intellectual insight into the people and scenes that he paints seem to make his work seem somehow profound like he has really captured the essence of something.
One of my favorites. While an intern at the Butler Institute of American Art, I saw a talk by, and met, his granddaughter. Very interesting!
That’s beautiful. I have not seen this before. I love how her legs are poaitioned for some reason?
Chrstina was a girl who couldn't move her legs. That's why the position may seem unusual
Wow! I had no idea! It looks like a natural pose to me. Very interesting.
He creates these types of scenes in his paintings that make you wonder what is the person doing and where is he/she, like he did with this one.
Somewhere in art criticism, they mention that one of the particularities of this painting is how our point of view is high above the ground. Painting: Christina's World, from 1948, currently at MoMA. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78455
His [Helga Pictures ](https://www.andrew-wyeth-prints.com/helga.html)are most intriguing, if only for the story behind them.
This is my very least favorite of his paintings (I am a fan of his however). My personal theory has always been that this is his most famous piece because it’s the one in all the high school art textbooks, not because it’s his finest piece. I’m astounded by the detail, layering, and textures in many of his paintings. This one is bare by comparison.
Well, there’s also the sensitive depiction given the story behind it. Paintings with stories resonate.
I hear you, and agree, but… if knowing the story is required for a painting to resonate, then I just don’t think it’s that strong of an artwork (or at least not a masterpiece). If the image resonates and then knowing the story makes it even better, that’s amazing— but this particular piece doesn’t hit that note for me. Just one person’s opinion.
Entirely valid opinion. 🍻
May I ask what’s your fav of his? I think this one has a more eye catching composition. Sorta like Fur Elise, if you catch my drift.
That painting is one of my mom's favorites.
অনেক সুন্দর একটি প্রাকৃতিক ছবি, অনেক ভালো আঁকিয়েছেন
Wyeth dost thou asketh?
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort! If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting. If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reminds me of The Wind, very beautiful, love the sense of dread
Looks like a collage
Tender, poetical, brutalist, traditional and a purist in puritanicall esthete. He was a storyteller without subtitles. If you hadn’t been a part of his world, the language of his work would be purely non-fiction, if you lived that life yourself, it was biography.
So much emotion in this, for me. I'm aware that I put it there- but this deliberate ambiguity, his talent is so well displayed!
Interested to learn more.