Which Artists inspire you, and why?

Alive or dead, which artists inspire you, and why?

Thought it would be good to have another one of these types of threads. :)


  • Great idea @Richard_P, this will help expose me to other artists!

    Here are a few that I find particularly inspiring to me.

    When I was in The National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, there were many extraordinary paintings but 2 paintings really stood out to me. I couldn't stop staring in wonder at Claude Monet's Woman with a Parasol-Madame Monet and Her Son, 1875.

     John Singer Sargents Simplon Pass 1911. I realize that both artists have many other more famous works, but wow, both of these just blew me away, not really sure why. 

    Andrew Wyeth - love his subject matter, simplicity, and starkness of his works.

  • I love Peter Brown's works. His works are very attractive! 
    I don't want to get into John Constable, Turner, impressionists. Most influential modern painters to me are as following, mostly due to closeness of technique. 

    Stefan Baumann. 


    Jeremy Lipking

    Mark Carder

  • @MichaelD, being myself a bit individual and somewhat a 'romantic', I can read Nicolas Martin's emptiness paintings quite naturally. Cleverly contrived subject and very capable brushwork. Almost 50/50 regards whether the pictures might inspire or appeal somehow. Certainly, there is a sort of 'vacant' drama in the paintings you've presented here. Very competent and sensitive indeed, but where as a painter is he going?
    'Pete The Street', on the other hand, is marching forward – and at pace. Look at the people as he paints/invents them. They've got no legs, they've got no person, they have no real presence – they are there as confetti. No, that man is into architecture, shapes and surfaces. He even makes the road vehicles – buses, vans, and such – part of the architectural environment. And he makes them fit together, clever man. And well done you for posting them here.
    Rgds, Duncan

  • @MoleMan

    Well Nicolas Martins work appeals to me, and thats why I posted it. As for your question on “where as a painter is he going ?” Why not contact Nicolas and ask him that yourself. I have always found him to be most amiable, particularly recently when I sought advice on his pochade plein air box.

     I dont think I could answer that question if it was put to me.  :)

    You have kind of done a bit of a critique as well as a comparison on them.

    I just see them as individuals whos work I really enjoy.

    Subjectivity is the word.

    I am glad you appreciated my posting them.

  • @MichaelD what a mood in the paintings of Nicolas Martin. I'm glad you made me discover him. Very inspiring.
  • I am glad you like his work @adridri I find it wonderful  :)
  • edited November 24
    Great idea @Richard_P. Here is my take. 

    My absolute number1: Richard Schmid. He is for me the master of 'ugly' painting as Marc call it, with a personal touch that makes his work recognizable among many. His abstract brushmarking is just astonishing. Realism and impressionism at the highest level, and a touching character. Wish I had started painting when he was alive.

    Number 1 ex-æquo: Nathan Fowkes. I don't like so much what he mainly advertise for on media, namely animation oriented art, but his landscape quick sketches in watercolor and gouache have had the most influence in my introduction to art. What a born teacher he is, and what he can achieve in a minimal number of brushstrokes in pocket size sketchbooks is just marvellous to me. His portraits sketches are a delight as well. 

    Mark boedge: similar to Schmid, a sense of edge and dirty color that really appeal to me.

    And Sargent, Marc carder, Scott Christensen.

  • Lipking, Carder, but Ver Meer is the man.  There is no one who inspires me to paint like Ver Meer. From tronies to genre paintings, I have him in mind whenever I paint.
  • edited November 25
    Great idea for a thread, @Richard_P

    There are so many I could mention, but up at the top of my list of landscape painters I'd put Ivan Shishkin, Arthur Streeton, and Richard Schmidt. These are painters whose work inspires because they are all great colorists and draughtsmen. And because I love their compositions and the way they handle paint. And because their subject matter speaks to me. 

    Here are two I love - one by Streeton and one by Shishkin. They both did many wonderful paintings but these two are perhaps their best known.

    Arthur Streeton - The purple noons transparent might - Google Art Projectjpg

    Streeton The Purple Noon's Transparent Might

    Morning in a Pine Forest 1889

    Shishkin Morning in a Pine Forest
  • Impressionists and their predecessors will never tire me. I want variety. I can browse through their works and every time find something new.

    Now get into our age. I find some interesting works, look up for more of the same artist, enjoy for some short time and then start noticing that they basically paint the same thing with the same style, brushwork etc.

    Lipking and Volegov are mentioned above. Yes. I also liked Gerhartz first. But look closely. Volegov: amazing color, brushwork so light that you feel his hands were flying and dancing above the canvas. The subject? I don't even need you to tell me what is there. A pretty young woman in a pensive romantic mood waiting for some handsome gentleman to take her to the next paradise retreat. A glass of champagne optional. 

    I remember I found an artist doing amazing cityscapes. Wow. Went to his website. A city nocturne displaying car lights reflected in wet asphalt. Repeated about 200 times. I am not exaggerating. He did not do anything else at all. Volegov at least did some still lifes.

    The variety is what I like on this forum and on Wetcanvas. 

    Ah yes. Richard Schmid is in the same range as classics. Never ever tires, any subject, any size. 
  • Thomas Moran.

    He was almost entirely self-taught from studying black and white prints. I find his determination to become an oil painter inspirational. I like the easter eggs he put into most of his famous, large landscapes. He was not very good at depicting some subjects, such as still lives or Indians in the landscapes, and this did not bother him.

    He and his brother devised their own way of figuring out what something looked like, and how earlier artists had made compositional decisions about what to keep and what to eliminate from the composition.  For example, he and his brother bought a cheap print of some British seascape, hired a rowboat from the same area, rowed out into the ocean until they were about in the same spot as the perspective of the seascape print indicated, and then studied the print, comparing it to the actual seascape to see how the artist captured the scene. His brushwork was extraordinary, yet this meant little to him: it was the composition first and last

    Three of his monster-sized landscapes are in the Smithsonian Museum of American Art; these three are hung next to each other. One can see how his goals and abilities changed over time, even if the main compositional elements did not. 

    His chief competitors, in his lifetime, were Church and Bierstadt.  He made his living from his craft; supported his family; was a good businessman; and was not a snob nor a manipulator of patrons.

  • Andrew Wyeth. Incredible composition and abstraction. A superior draftsman. And master of tempera and watercolor. Winslow Homer. His Watercolors OH His Watercolors. Sargents watercolors. Norman Rockwell The guy could paint. His colors, neutrals, lights and darks. His mid career works are amazing paintings. The guy could paint. 

  • @GTO
    Very 1960s illustrative Surprising.
  • I like Julio Reyes use of warm and cool colours, and his mark making. He paints in egg tempera:

  • CBGCBG -
    edited November 29
    Richard_P said:
    I like Julio Reyes use of warm and cool colours, and his mark making. He paints in egg tempera:

    It's delicious!


    Seriously though, very beautiful.
  • That looks similar to gauche painting.  The realism in her face is what makes this painting work.
  • My favorite artists are Bartolome Esteban Murillo, Ivan Shishkin, Peder Mork Monsted.  Why?  Because their art is incredibly beautiful.  The landscapes of Shishkin and Monsted have something about them that just makes my jaw drop.  I want to just sit and stare at them for a long time.  Murillo did some Christian paintings, one of which I did a master study called Ecce Homo, all the while wishing he was there to explain his process.  The light and atmosphere in all of these paintings really grab my emotions.  It's hard to explain.  It's like they resonate with history and at the same time are timeless, except for the period clothing in some.  

    Ivan Shishkin

    Bartolome Esteban Murillo 

    And we all know Monsted.

    I also like Ernest Walbourn

    And Barend Keokkoek 

    And I like Carl Bloch

    There really are so many!!  

    Edouard Bisson 

    Emile Munier

    I love looking at the old master's works and hope to do master studies at some point.  This was my Ecce Homo master study of Ecce Homo.  It didn't turn out too bad for my first ever portrait when I was not even 2 years into oil painting. 

    I just love these artists.  It makes me wish I could have studied under them when they walked the earth.  The resulting realism really appeal to me.  
  • I agree, his work is stunning.
  • Forgot to mention...from the historic artists, I am quite taken by Edwin Lord Weeks. He painted India more than the Indian artists realistically. Slightly older subject matters from his time but superb and spectacular. We don't get these colors in North India anymore due to pollution and many other factors but an amazing learning for me. Here's an old monument...no different from today's. BTW he took a lot of photos, developed them and used them as references.

  • I positively love that painting by Monsted @tassieguy.  I like how you described his work, you nailed it.
  • There is also something about his high contrast range that makes his work very recognisable when looking at classical landscapes.
  • In my instagram feed i get lots of paintings coming through. I can instantly recognise Monsted because of the way he handles light. Once glance - I think, that has to be Monsted. In every painting it has this perfect quality. The only times I might get it wrong would be the occasional Shishkin.
  • ... The only times I might get it wrong would be the occasional Shishkin.
    So what's wrong with Shishkin? He liked trees more than he liked people, perhaps. Perhaps the trees sold better? Who would want to buy - off the shelf - a painting of persons that they felt no natural affinitive with. There is meaning in that, maybe, but really he was - and confidently - just finding a place and doing his trade.

    A very competent painter nonetheless, albeit one that carefully designed himself to produce paintings designed more for relaxing into his pictures than to charm excitement. You do it rather better, and rather more athletically. It takes a good man, to see through water.  ;)

    Shishkin's beard - it's impressive. Mostly due to the fashion of his time I suppose. It's better than Jim Kingston's beard, however, despite Jim's various beard permutations and his tantrum hedge-clipping he wears it well. I wear a robust beard. There is an art in wearing a beard - and usually - there is a solid man behind it.

    Kind rgds, Duncan
  • @MoleMan There is nothing wrong with Shishkin, I love his work. I only meant his handling of light is also so superb that I sometimes guess his paintings might be Monsted. The forests seem so much deeper and more lonely in a Shishkin like the old Russian folktales. I grew up on Russian and Ukrainian folk tales because my grandmother was Russian. Her father was an officer in the Tsar's personal guard. He had to flee the revolution because he was known to be loyal to Nicholas.
Sign In or Register to comment.