A flaw in this doc is that they don’t talk about the importance of Diego Giacometti who was Alberto’s tireless studio assistant and the caster of all of his sculptures. Without Diego’s dedication many of Alberto’s sculptures would not exist.
THANK YOU for this information! I wonder if that is in the film? The people who tirelessly and faithfully support artists are some of THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE!!! Without whom, so much is lost.
Great documentary. There is one thing that bothers me deeply however. The argument that Rohan Harris has to destroy the artwork he created for reasons of copyright. First of all he did not copy an existing work, rather created a completely new one. Second he did not sign it with Giacomettis name and hence created no forgery. It is Rohans own work in the style of Giacometti. And the style of Giacometti has no copyright on it whatsoever. It's simply dramatized.
No. Since he is doing it specifically in His style AND it is explicit in film that that is his intentention the estate or co. that owns said copyright may very well have given those instructions when asked,
They asked him to destroy the copy for copyright and commercial reasons. This video is a commercial enterprise. Also because provenance is important, someone can say, "see this portrait was done on video, therefore it's worth more", so people could profit off of Alberto's name.
Constantine Papadakis; True. I just looked up Greek Kouros - the standing figures with arms straight down at their sides. They alluded to that in the video, “ In Giacometti’s work there are links back to ancient times.”
This was wonderful. My high school art history teacher introduced us to the work of Giacometti and I was blown over by it. Later I saw one of his 'walking men' at the (Pei-built) East Wing of the National Art Gallery in DC. And I have been to the Galerie Maeght, which is jaw dropping. Thank you Stanley Tucci, my evening is now perfect.
I scoff openly at the very notion that "they" could require an original piece of artwork done in the "spirit" of a long-deceased artist be destroyed out of some form of deference to proprietary style held under sole dominion. I discovered his work 30 years ago while in Architectural Grad School and actually have found far more interest in the interstitial space between his lines brought forth in three-dimensional form than in the loose gestural linework alone. Something the artist himself never articulated and I'll be damned if I am destroying any of my exploratory work! I think Alberto would agree!
I don’t understand the concept of a foundation that has the legal right to protect a style of painting to the extent that you could be forced to destroy a piece. I understand the right or point of denouncing a fake but not this.
My thought was that since it was being painted "in the style of" for a television broadcast, legal problems could result and they wanted to prevent problems. I don't think an artist whose style is similar to Giacometi's would normally have a problem unless they advertised it as such.
I have always been fascinated by the works of Giacometti that I have seen. The words "essence" and "distilled" repeatedly are noted about his works. They leave one without words to express their power.
Wait a minute. They have a copyright that stops people from making a new painting that just looks like Giacometti's style? Am I understanding that right? Because that is BS.
I love when Stanley is finally in the space talking to the tenant, and there is a Bacon pope print behind him. Talk about a squalid studio, Bacons was world famous chaos. Were Giacometti and Bacon aquatinted?
The reason he continued to live in a humble home was that he wasn't vain and he was focused on doing his work which was what he liked to do in life. It likely doesn't have anything to do with "obsessively" pursuing anything. The average person today is so vain that they lose sight of the basics.
for a drawing exercise, I did two studies based on Giacometti's line drawing portraits. I also concluded that his drawings felt an awful lot like sculptures (or perhaps studies to lend to sculptures). it felt like he really thought in terms of 3d in the communication of drawing.
every serious artist do watch and understand '3d'. Even when it does not obviously look like. It is the only way to understand optical phenomenon. Some do not bother to merely watch around and go all the way mental to process their dejections. Those are the (many) slackers who parasite contemporary art.
It’s amazing how people are conditioned to love something…they are shown anything and they become mesmerized if critics use fancy descriptions. How many people have the courage to just openly not like something ? Some artists are a little disturbed mentally and they manifest their condition in their art and some people are supposed to be in awe.
You are making a point about what I myself question all the time!!!!!thank u,if you look at some modern art it doest seem to be done by anyone older than 5yrs old,or like you said mental problems,I 👍Cy Twombly omg look at his work,one line a scribble is worth 10 million dollars, it's not right I just think it's who you know,and how much money your family has helps
This was wonderful ... ! Fantastic! Well done ..! I had heard of Giacometti and then by accident saw his work many years ago but I never knew the history of his life. Crazy interesting and I will be thinking of this special for quite some time. Thank you again.
The loo in the passageway is very typical of Parisian buildings. Nothing odd about that at all. When I lived in Paris, in the early 80s, I had a chambre de bonne on the 7th floor (walk-up) and shared a 'Turkish toilet' (hole in the floor that flushes, so you have to squat) with another person on the palier. And no light. Just a tiny window up high (making it freezing in winter). Surprisingly, not a lot had changed since the earlier part of the century.
Fabulous movie with terrific actor! Swiss Italian that doesn't trust banks! It'll kill you trying to get your own cash! But it's also the truth of how artists relied on prostitutes for subject matter giocometti trusted more than the financial institutions I find fascinating! Plus what a brilliant drawer he was! Revolutionary of giocometti to portray female figure for sculpture is a very very insightful for other artists
molds should be made from his sculptures so there are accurate copies - and just incase 'man pointing' becomes 'man was pointing but drunk millionare snapped his arm off'.
Also, no offense. Stanley Tucci is awful here. His responses are a constant nod. Someone can say that there are lasers shooting out of Giacommeti's eyes, and he'll nod and say "mm hmm, yes". His questions are pedestrian and leading. A sculptor is speaking about how sculptures literally take up space and Tucci's response is "mmm time and space" LOL.
It's an enlightening story about Giacometti's insecurity and frustration in capturing the resemblance. It is an issue that artists have struggled with for millennia. We have no idea if all of those "famous" portraits really resemble the sitter, or if 'license' is in full play as the artist admitted defeat.
I first saw his work at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, CA. I loved it and was moved by it immediately. The marks and the scars on the artwork remind me of what the Japanese talk about when they say not to make it perfect like nature, but not quite perfect and flaws are okay. This to me is what gives it its' uniqueness and essence. I cry of joy and become very moved by his work. Thank you.
Art itself is inneresting. One of the most fascinating aspects is that it makes the eye of the viewer explicit. Visual art is an experience that exists in the interior of both creator and viewer. It is not in the actual piece itself. What the artist is experiencing inside as they create their piece is half of it. And then the experience inside the viewer is the other half. Stanley had that wonderful interior experience when he first saw Alberto's pieces. But other viewers such as myself didn't have that experience. This makes this experience explicit and makes me wonder about what is going on. I've had the kind of experience he describes with other works that others wouldn't like. What is this experience? And why do humans have this capacity to have it? It's so mysterious.... But I've never hears anyone else talk about this. All everyone seems to talk about is the piece. This is a lack of self-awareness. As an example, I've never heard anyone correctly interpret "This is not a pipe". Ever. What is going on????
16:55 It's interesting that he seems to believe he must immediately fill the air with his interpretation/description of his own experience instead of letting our own experiences arise - whatever they may be. Why? Is he afraid that our experience will be so different that it will expose the fact that we are so deeply alone?
I recommend that you read and study the philosophy of art. "Art and Its Significance" edited by Stephen David Ross is an excellent point of departure. John Dewey, Robin Collingwood, Nelson Goodman, and Arthur Danto should keep you occupied for a while. Also consider Panofsky, Gombrich, Bryson and Wollheim, and be prepared for rigorous inquiry.
And about passion = every serial killer has a great passion for killing! Every botanist has a great passion for botanic! Every dictator has great passion for dictating! Every writer has great passion for writing ... etc. It is HUMAN NATURE to become obsessed by something. EVEN ARTISTS HA_HA_HA
43:00 the son of the gallerist? BS! Come on.... this is rubbish interview he had NO connection with Giacometti AND his conversation was completely unintelligible !!!
Was Walking Man once housed in the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania back in the 80s? I’m almost positive that I have a photo of my younger self standing next to him.
yes, i used to catch the bus to oakland sometimes just to see that one piece. early 1970s scaife gallery, newer part pf the museum. i;m sure they still own it,
It's impossible to say which artist is the greatist artist. Alberto Giacometti is definitely one of those few who fit into that category but Louise Bourgeios is also right up there at the top of that list because of her unfilterered expression of her experiences and emotions.
Alberto Giacometti was considered a sort of loner, not affiliated with any of the art movements of that era: Surrealism, Suprematism, Cubism, etc. Even though he started out as a Surrealist. I first heard of him in 1972, when I borrowed a book about him from my school’s library.
His works in sculpture are "primitivist" , he definitely is a key figure of this ideology. We know now none of the 'movements' happened sequentially but consistently overlapped, and re appeared. But it can not be denied that this work, famous in its own time, was a huge endorsement of primitivism and other kinds of work that appropriated the art of other cultures such as Africa..
I loved this documentary on Giacometti by Stanley Tucci..I am so sad I was in Amsterdam and missed the museum with the most profound collection of his sculptures.. I love this channel. Thank you~🙏
I think he had a gimmick he called art. His sculptures all look like weapons. Or deformed rebar. If you found one on the side of the road it would be amusing but worthless scrap iron.
Should've been titled : ''Stanley Tucci' on Stanley Tucci and his love of Giacometti explained in detail.'' Although I have to admit ''Alberto Giacometti by Stanley who? Tucci '' is even better.