I love the lighting in these interviews. Even when they move their heads around and talk , the light , shadow , and color is perfect. I can pause it anywhere and have a great reference to paint.
Thankyou very much! I´m happy to get several questions answered. Ödes straightforward way is very refreshing. You are taking the burden of modernism and contemporary art theories of my tired body and mind.
I love these types of discussions. I participated in an Art exhibition today and came out so deflated. The Art? judge awarded first prizes to very poorly executed paintings about nothing---most of them were by people who have only recently started to paint with minimal training or understanding about Art history . Art today is dead --very few people seem to understand what it is all about.TThis discussion was good theraphy for me
What I especially appreciate is that young Ode being able to string whole thoughts together making intelligent sentences and keeping to the narrative... How rare in our time and age!
Who would Ode and Turid send potential students to, for those who need to improve before applying to the school, if the students are living in England?
Odd Nerdrum: "There are stylistic similarities between late Titian and Rembrandt, therefore there are no stylistic differences between any great masters." St. John: "Never trust a philosopher who is too red in the face."
Very interesting observations by Ode Nerdrum but Tuv's odd way of laughing at things is a bit distracting. He laughs when you would not expect him to so it's rather jarring and destroys the flow of the conversation. Ode himself asked towards the end why Tuv was laughing at something that, if anything, should have elicited tears and Tuv said he was laughing because "it was true." Hmm. The laughing was much worse when he interviewed the Chinese painter Cheng Wu. It was so distracting I could hardly finish watching that video. Maybe it's a nervous laugh. Wish he could stop it.
Are you such aristocrats and Lords and Ladies that you can speak of others as commoners in a demeaning manner? Let's see your heraldry and titles. Your conversation was fine up until that point.
Contempt for ordinary people and slavish defence of dead end capitalism is one of the problems with this philosophy, it's a shame because in terms of aesthetics they have a point.
Did he just say that in the Army all Generals worked their way up from the rank of Private? Has he ever heard of Sandhurst or West Point? The army is riddled with class. Complete fantasy.
Other painters are the only critics entitled to speak . The same way an individual who turns up to a plumbing job without experience is sent home , so to should be the critic . Everyone is entitled to an opinion but most opinions are fantasies ..why the painters tolerate curators critics and galleries is a matter of cowardice . I don't think painting has a problem . The painters , must exclude all institution s and only talk amongst themselves and show together independently . Watch the standard immediately increase .
Ok, where have you found that universal charter that states that the only correct way to define what a person is and does is based on their formal education? Is "philosopher" a protected title in your country perhaps? In most people's view a philosopher could be defined as a person who thinks, seeks wisdom, enlightenment, a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier etc. But in your world I guess you can and are solely limited to be defined on your degree?
@@paleikas3180 It's his formal title, professor of psychology, not professor of philosophy It would be pretty confusing to call him a philosopher then just as a professor of philosophy speaking about psychology don't get called a psychologist without creating a lot of unnecessary confusion. But then again I guess it's the postmodern trend nowadays to conflate terms until they are all muddled up, so sure, go ahead and call him a philosopher then since he thinks about stuff. 🙂
Dunno the points he makes are kinda dumb and proposterous, especially arguing that beauty in 19th century art lead to modernism makes no sense, when the people associated with modernism were totally different people than the Academic painters who often fought modernism.
Exactly, it's false information. The 19th century salon artist were in active war AGAINST modernism. Yet they seem to think that it's them who created modern art lol.
@@Thesamurai1999 In my opinion these people are just too spineless to expose the true historical roots of modernism and rather repeat old diatribes against Academism and Historicism in order to stay trendy and keep up with the same degenerate art critic snobs who coined these terms and still run our current society, usesless. People like Hans Laagland are better and much more articulate and vocal about their critique of modern art.
I love the lighting in these interviews. Even when they move their heads around and talk , the light , shadow , and color is perfect.
I can pause it anywhere and have a great reference to paint.
Thankyou very much! I´m happy to get several questions answered. Ödes straightforward way is very refreshing. You are taking the burden of modernism and contemporary art theories of my tired body and mind.
Awesome interview, Thanks to both of you and the team!
Thank you so much for putting this up on UA-cam
I love these types of discussions. I participated in an Art exhibition today and came out so deflated. The Art? judge awarded first prizes to very poorly executed paintings about nothing---most of them were by people who have only recently started to paint with minimal training or understanding about Art history . Art today is dead --very few people seem to understand what it is all about.TThis discussion was good theraphy for me
To be completely unoriginal, that is overwhelming to me.
Thanks for this video, lads. I really needed to hear it.
Amazing. Thanks !!!
Love these convervations and his self portraits.
As Arikha said, "a good artist has compasses in the eyes" & doesn't need time travel & a Casio watch!
Awesome
Most of the salon painters of the 19th century did work from nature.
What I especially appreciate is that young Ode being able to string whole thoughts together making intelligent sentences and keeping to the narrative... How rare in our time and age!
Not so rare - you just need to talk to more young people.
Who would Ode and Turid send potential students to, for those who need to improve before applying to the school, if the students are living in England?
Some Norwegians are just not thinking straight. That's all there is to it. The Danes have the same issue.
The northern surface is the Aussies depth . If painting is in trouble in Europe , believe me Painting in Australia has already been executed .
very interesting
How long is a residency/study at studio Nerdrum if you were to be accepted?
Support our show: patreon.com/caveofapelles
When will we see part #2 from Odë?!?! Lol
My kind of people!
Odd Nerdrum: "There are stylistic similarities between late Titian and Rembrandt, therefore there are no stylistic differences between any great masters."
St. John: "Never trust a philosopher who is too red in the face."
This is too much.
How does one “fix his own face”? Furthermore, I look like a Nerdrum. Should I paint like a Nerdrum?
Daddy pulled up in the fur respect lmao
Velazquez painted even more quickly than Sargent!
ok ofcourse he did...according to the time traveller with a casio watch and timed them both.
Its humble to admit you can learn from Bonnard?
Very interesting observations by Ode Nerdrum but Tuv's odd way of laughing at things is a bit distracting. He laughs when you would not expect him to so it's rather jarring and destroys the flow of the conversation.
Ode himself asked towards the end why Tuv was laughing at something that, if anything, should have elicited tears and Tuv said he was laughing because "it was true." Hmm.
The laughing was much worse when he interviewed the Chinese painter Cheng Wu. It was so distracting I could hardly finish watching that video. Maybe it's a nervous laugh. Wish he could stop it.
Are you such aristocrats and Lords and Ladies that you can speak of others as commoners in a demeaning manner? Let's see your heraldry and titles.
Your conversation was fine up until that point.
Contempt for ordinary people and slavish defence of dead end capitalism is one of the problems with this philosophy, it's a shame because in terms of aesthetics they have a point.
There's a faint whiff of smugness there
Did he just say that in the Army all Generals worked their way up from the rank of Private? Has he ever heard of Sandhurst or West Point? The army is riddled with class. Complete fantasy.
Other painters are the only critics entitled to speak . The same way an individual who turns up to a plumbing job without experience is sent home , so to should be the critic . Everyone is entitled to an opinion but most opinions are fantasies ..why the painters tolerate curators critics and galleries is a matter of cowardice . I don't think painting has a problem . The painters , must exclude all institution s and only talk amongst themselves and show together independently . Watch the standard immediately increase .
All personality is a flaw
Excellent, but to refer to Jordan Peterson as a philosopher.... come now gentlemen - are there no standards left?
What's wrong with Jordan Peterson? Please explain.
How is he not?
@@paleikas3180 He's a psychologist, not a philosopher.
Ok, where have you found that universal charter that states that the only correct way to define what a person is and does is based on their formal education? Is "philosopher" a protected title in your country perhaps? In most people's view a philosopher could be defined as a person who thinks, seeks wisdom, enlightenment, a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier etc. But in your world I guess you can and are solely limited to be defined on your degree?
@@paleikas3180 It's his formal title, professor of psychology, not professor of philosophy It would be pretty confusing to call him a philosopher then just as a professor of philosophy speaking about psychology don't get called a psychologist without creating a lot of unnecessary confusion. But then again I guess it's the postmodern trend nowadays to conflate terms until they are all muddled up, so sure, go ahead and call him a philosopher then since he thinks about stuff. 🙂
Dunno the points he makes are kinda dumb and proposterous, especially arguing that beauty in 19th century art lead to modernism makes no sense, when the people associated with modernism were totally different people than the Academic painters who often fought modernism.
Exactly, it's false information. The 19th century salon artist were in active war AGAINST modernism. Yet they seem to think that it's them who created modern art lol.
@@Thesamurai1999 In my opinion these people are just too spineless to expose the true historical roots of modernism and rather repeat old diatribes against Academism and Historicism in order to stay trendy and keep up with the same degenerate art critic snobs who coined these terms and still run our current society, usesless. People like Hans Laagland are better and much more articulate and vocal about their critique of modern art.
@@zabooza74 Aye I suppose. Or maybe they’re just misinformed. Where they stand certainly makes no sense to me lol.