CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › GEORGIA O'KEEFE (2009)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GEORGIA O'KEEFE (2009)

post #1 of 7
5/3/10 at 2:17pm
Thread Starter 

My favorite flower!

I watched this one on Saturday, and it was pretty good. Under the steady direction of Bob Balaban* the story and scope were kept small, but remained intimate and it never felt too stagey. Allen was superb as always, and it was a treat to see Irons engaged and lively after years of phoning it in. His enthusiasm for Ms O'Keefe's work was infectious, and even though I've never been a particular fan of hers* he got me exicted about her place in art history.

But anyway, yes, it was alot of fun and I felt like I learned something. We had an O'Keefe show at our local museum a few years back, but I didn't bother to go (for a few reasons, not all of them relating to my feelings about her art). However, since I'm starting to paint now on my iPod this seemed like a good time to check out her biopic and the cast ensured that I was never bored.



*Forgive me, but if I want to look at a flower I'll just grow one. I don't see the need to adorn your house with paintings of plant life.

EDIT: I thought it was odd but cool that the film was directed by Balaban. I've only ever known him as an actor

Reply
post #2 of 7
5/3/10 at 2:18pm
Cronenberg should have directed this.
Reply
post #3 of 7
5/3/10 at 2:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Cronenberg should have directed this.
The first true LOL I've gotten from the board today. Thanks, Patrick.

Mr Irons could have devised a special series of brushes for flower painting
Reply
post #4 of 7
5/8/10 at 3:28am
Art History nerd.......reacting.....rearing head....can't hold back the bile.


If you think O'Keefe's work is just about looking at plant life, as opposed to 'growing a flower just to look at it'....
Then you missed the whole point of the freakin image.

Matter of fact, all these Lifetime Original movie bullshit productions, the first with Chanel, now with O'Keefe, can suck my big fat non-existent cock.

Chanel was a brilliant, cunning whore. O'Keefe..Well, she wasn't a whore, nor was she particularly 'cunning', but her work is important, yes, even the damned flower series, which wasn't the end all and be all of her work (And brilliant independant of her association with Stieglitz, despite him being a major player in the art of the period).

Grrraaawrgh. Must...contain...rage.
Reply
post #5 of 7
5/8/10 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
Art History nerd.......reacting.....rearing head....can't hold back the bile.
Well not being an art history student perhaps let me enjoy the film without getting caught up in the details

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
If you think O'Keefe's work is just about looking at plant life, as opposed to 'growing a flower just to look at it'....
Then you missed the whole point of the freakin image.
I know what the point was but at the end of the day it's still just a picture of a flower and when it comes right down to it.. I'd rather have a real flower in a vase than a picture of one on my wall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
Matter of fact, all these Lifetime Original movie bullshit productions, the first with Chanel, now with O'Keefe, can suck my big fat non-existent cock.
Oh, I didn't realize they were from Life Time. I still liked it though. It was interesting. PS I have not seen the one with Audrey Tautou, but she was great in Amelie
Reply
post #6 of 7
5/8/10 at 5:37pm
O'Keefe's work, and since we are going to talk about it, the flower series in general, are notable not because they're flowers.

There's a whole tradition of female artists being relegated to still lifes of flowers and the such. Check out Mary Moser who was one of the two women involved with founding the Royal Academy of London for excepted 'women's art' vs the more ambitious Angelica Kauffmann.

What O'Keefe has done, as a member of the Precisionist movement, is subvert the stereotypical flower painting that has long since been part of the definition of women's art. Her images cause you to approach the flower in a way other than "It's just pretty". She is quoted as saying that her paintings really make you look at them, and I"d agree. It's an almost analytical, abstracted view of a flower that removes from a purely sentimental, aesthetic point of view. It's crystal clear, realistic, and 'precise'. It's about form and color, rather than the object itself.

In another way of saying it, it's a cerebral experience. As a woman, and as an artist, this is why her flower paintings are so famous, so iconic. It's these details that make it all worthwhile, not her hot/cold tumultuous relationship with Stieglitz, or any female empowerment message these bullshit movies try to espouse. It's degrading to hjer legacy as an artist by pigeonholing her......Just. gah.

Ptuh. I spit on them. I dont care if it's Audrey Tautou, Shirley McLaine, Joan Allen or who the fuck ever. I spit on them.
Reply
post #7 of 7
5/10/10 at 1:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
O'Keefe's work, and since we are going to talk about it, the flower series in general, are notable not because they're flowers.

There's a whole tradition of female artists being relegated to still lifes of flowers and the such. Check out Mary Moser who was one of the two women involved with founding the Royal Academy of London for excepted 'women's art' vs the more ambitious Angelica Kauffmann.

What O'Keefe has done, as a member of the Precisionist movement, is subvert the stereotypical flower painting that has long since been part of the definition of women's art. Her images cause you to approach the flower in a way other than "It's just pretty". She is quoted as saying that her paintings really make you look at them, and I"d agree. It's an almost analytical, abstracted view of a flower that removes from a purely sentimental, aesthetic point of view. It's crystal clear, realistic, and 'precise'. It's about form and color, rather than the object itself.

In another way of saying it, it's a cerebral experience. As a woman, and as an artist, this is why her flower paintings are so famous, so iconic. It's these details that make it all worthwhile, not her hot/cold tumultuous relationship with Stieglitz, or any female empowerment message these bullshit movies try to espouse. It's degrading to hjer legacy as an artist by pigeonholing her......Just. gah.

.
Fair enough, and the history behind her art is intriguing. At teh end of the day though when it comes to art I'd like to put on my walls I'd rather put up a work by David Roberts and keep the plant life potted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
Ptuh. I spit on them. I dont care if it's Audrey Tautou, Shirley McLaine, Joan Allen or who the fuck ever. I spit on them.
I do not share your visceral reaction to the film, I'm afraid.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › GEORGIA O'KEEFE (2009)