On the left is a print by the famed Japanese artist Hiroshige. On the right is the famous Vincent Van Gogh, who copied Hiroshige's work, but did it in a more Western, more Van Gogh-ian style. Which work do you prefer and why? [12]
All Responses
-
-
Just answering this again because I got my lefts and rights wrong (it was about 6am when I answered it):
What's strange about these two images is that Hiroshiges draws attention to the foreground whereas attention to Van Goghs is spent more in the background. I personally don't think Hiroshige did a great job on the foreground, for some reason I just don't like the 2D cartoon like feel he gave to it, whereas Van Goghs bland tree doesn't interfere with your sight for too long before you start looking through it and notice the lovely background.Van Goghs brush strokes are much larger and messier than Hiroshiges which I think also helps in his case, because if you use intricate detail people will look at it and nit pick at what doesn't look right, whereas if you use bigger confident strokes people are more likely to fill in the gaps with their imagination and look at it as a more detailed thing than it actually is. Yeah, I like Van goghs better. -
I think I like the original better. The colour scheme just seems much more suitable; Van Gogh's is just looks dark and somber. Plus, the border and all that extra calligraphy seems completely over-the-top and unnecessary. I'm a little confused as to what exactly he was trying to do to that print, and why.
-
-
Honestly lil biased. Tho I love both artists' works, I prefer Hiro's original. It is quite traditional style but I feel color and form wise it's more vibrant and "eye-popping". Tho Van Gogh's is subtle subdue in feel. Lol same subject matter but kinda feels like different seasons :)
-
Why did Van Gogh add extra calligraphy to the outside of the print? That seems odd to me.
-
-
Ok, I know this one wasn't in my inbox, but I saw everyone answering it and as an art nerd I had to answer it haha. Everyone seems to be liking the original, and that's fine if it's because of the painting itself but I think people are saying that because the other one is a copy. I like the van gogh better, and people seem to be taking it the wrong way. It wasn't plagerism because he couldn't think of his own ideas. He was in an asylum at the time, trying to find his own view on things, he was trying to refresh himself artistically so he started creating his own versions of paintings. I'm pretty sure he painted almost 40 "copies" of other painters works (most of them being Millet's). Instead of just aiming to create exact replicas of these paintings, Van Gogh tried to put his own spin on them, to paint things in his own style. By seeing how he compared to other artists he could see who he was as an artist and see his own style more clearly. He wasn't even concerned about selling paintings, it was more of an emotional/personal growth thing for him.
Sorry. I wrote a paper on this.
Maybe I should have just kept that in my head. -
I prefer the original. The Van Gogh seems darker and more sinister for some reason. I like the lighter tone of the original.
-
-
I like the color scheme of the one on the right better, but I like the crispness of the one on the left more.
-
I prefer the left. The colors are vibrant and full of life. They jump out of the picture it seems. Van Gogh was too emo and his picture shows it.
Loading...
