Your Favourite Paintings/Artists | INFJ Forum

Your Favourite Paintings/Artists

Night Owl

This Bird Has Flown
Apr 9, 2016
What is your favourite painting? And why? Feel free to share a few if you have them.

Do you have a favourite art period?

A favourite artist? Or two, or three? What do you like about them, or their work?

Mainly in regards to paintings/painters, but feel free to branch out beyond paintings/painters in regards to other forms of visual art: drawings, digital art, sculpture, etc.
One of my favourite artists isCharles Blackman. I especially love his Alice in Wonderland series with it's quirky, surrealist, and slightly provocative/disturbing quality juxtaposed with the beauty of his use of soft-bold colour and delightful subject matter (i.e. flowers, tea, Alice herself etc.). I especially love his style. I'm also biased since Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' has always had an alluring appeal to me.

My favourite of his works, is "Feet Beneath the Table"


Other works of his which I really like from the same series:



And another, titled 'Into the Beautiful Garden'

I look at art sort of piece by piece. Some artists have a lot of work that is just meh to me and some have a lot of really enjoyable pieces. But it's the ones that really give me that impact punch that I look for. It's pretty rare, but when I find one it makes me fall in love with art all over again. Here are just a few since I don't have a ton of time at the moment.






  • unusual_statues_around_the_world_4.jpg
    89.1 KB · Views: 61
  • Starry_Night_Over_the_Rhone.jpg
    712.6 KB · Views: 6
  • Goya.4.11s.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 68
  • the-mysteries-of-the-horizon.jpg
    66.3 KB · Views: 61
I dunno. My introduction to art as a child was Van Gogh's "Siesta" and I even loved it so much more when I saw it in person, it was a revelation and I still love Van Gogh. I guess my favourite painting is Bacon's Triptych May - June 1973, for me it represents everything that great art should be, sublime and death-defying. I love Varo for her academic symbolism and her intricate mannered graphical style that is almost medievalist, her work is so deceptively delicate. I love Dali, he must be a contender for the greatest modernist, he's the only thing approaching superrealism that I can truly warm to. Wyote's post reminds me how much I love the "Black" mural collection attributed to Goya. I love Goya's works about war too. I absolutely love Waterhouse and his approach to classical mythology, he charms me into a swoon. I also really love Rodin's sculpture, I just want to look into it for hours and hours and explore its psychological dimensions. I love some of Monet's paintings of water lilies, I once read a description of them as "celestial" and I think that's the best description ever. I've got a little replica of the Venus de Milo in my cabinet, I think everyone has to fall in love with her at least once in their life and mourn her lost arms. I love Cindy Sherman and her sneering theatrical feminist selfportraits. I love da Vinci, but doesn't everyone, his apprehension is so effortless he's like the visual Shakespeare. I love looking at landscapes but I have a crappy memory for their painters. My birthday is the same as Botticelli's, that's just a little piece of trivia I use to feel irrationally good about myself. There are others but those are my favourites. I'm very ignorant about visual art apart from the ways my favourites have touched me.
Cheers [MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION], a pleasant read. I love hearing about how people feel about visual art which resonates with them.

I love Varo for her academic symbolism and her intricate mannered graphical style that is almost medievalist, her work is so deceptively delicate. I love Dali, he must be a contender for the greatest modernist, he's the only thing approaching superrealism that I can truly warm to.

I'm very much a fan of her style also. There's something in the Spanish soul that has an underlying mystical trace, an element that gleams through in Varo and Dali's work. I'm a big fan of Dali - I think it'd be hard to not be; I particularly enjoy 'Metamorphosis of Narcissus'. I tend to like Spanish surrealism quite a lot. Then there's Picaso, I quite like his realist works and his later cubist works.

I've got a little replica of the Venus de Milo in my cabinet, I think everyone has to fall in love with her at least once in their life and mourn her lost arms.

I just love classical and Hellenistic Greek sculpture, especially statues of the feminine deities. The beauty enamors me. Black-figure pottery is also asethically appeasing to me. I must admit, aesthetic quality (what I subjectively deem as such) although not the most essential, is core to any art I really like. Generally speaking I prefer organic shapes involving cures as opposed to hard geometric lines. Yet cubism I quite like and Piet Mondrian I don't mind.

Painting with a stylised realism, employing a pleasant aesthetic prompts cupid to release his quiver into my emotional core (lol). Duccio's Madonna and Child, William Dyce's 'The Meeting of Jacob and Rachel', Sassoferrato, and Da Vinci - as you said, it's a given.

Then there's the Pre-Raphalites. Generally I'm not so much a fan of Dante Rossetti's work, but the majority of all work associated with this movement I find very alluring. There's an organic mystifying quality that draws me in and arouses my sensibilities. Some of my favourites: all of John Williams Waterhouse, I really like 'Hylas and the Nymphs', his paintings of Ophelia, but most of all 'The Lady of Shalott'; Cowper's 'Vanity', Collier's 'Lady Godiva'. It's hard to express the stirring of beauty that takes place within me when look I upon such works.

Medieval illumination: how marvelous. Such intricacy and organic creativity is lacking today - modern architecture generally reflects such a lack in my view (but that's another story).

Yes, art which has some form of transcendental quality, which evokes emotion in a natural way (i.e. vomit on a canvas I'd say evokes emotion in a contrived way), and is beautiful in some way, shape or form (in accord with my tastes) is the kind of art that's 'for me'.

For the adornment of this forum I'll share a few works mentioned:




Edit: I think triteness and speaking about art always go hand in hand. It's the one place I welcome it!
Last edited:
Great post Night Owl, lots of content there

Speaking as a person whose approach to the world can loosely be defined as secular in orientation, I absolutely love religious iconography. It is so beautiful. Right now I'm trying to remember something highly critical I read about iconography. Post-structuralist? Oops, my mind is displaying a 404, I might think of it later. Anyway, no amount of criticism can spoil my joy in looking at iconography.

Do you think the Spanish thing is a magic-realist thing?

I don't understand Picasso. I had the great good fortune to visit Paris when I was younger and I went to the museum of his work there. It was my least favourite thing about Paris. I legitimately do not grasp Picasso. I've tried, but I just get fragments, never the whole vision. I always feel like I'm watching a lousy drag queen who can't dance and just turns her missteps into part of the show. Not that there isn't an art to that... but I just feel like I'm watching a second-rate show. I do understand that he is the kind of the progenitor of portrait distortion or whatever... etc... I just don't get it on an emotional level for some reason. I don't understand his work.

Same, don't like Rossetti. I hate Rossetti actually. I like him in theory because I like Pre-Raphaelites. I took a photograph of the blue circle plaque at the house where the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was formed when I was in London. (It may sound like I travel a lot, but I don't, I have just had a lot of luck to visit certain places once in my life.) Maybe I just hate him cause I love William Morris so much.

I was going to add to what I wrote before that I don't just Love Van Gogh for sentimental reasons, I love his way of connecting things to each other. Sky in sleep, rage in flowers. Our perceptions shape our world and everything is a part of everything else. I truly believe Van Gogh is one of the greatest artists of all time.

Sorry, life is busy and I am drained, must video games now. More responses later.
  • Like
Reactions: bolognamacaroni
[MENTION=14675]Night Owl[/MENTION], as a Christian, what kind of terms are you on with some of the non-essentialist themes of modernist art? I really need to make it clear that I am not asking in any kind of disrespectful way, and I certainly have no desire to argue with you, I am just interested in hearing your perspective on this.
My first love in art was probably the pre-raphaelites. All the gorgeous colors and romantic/mythological imagery. I love many things from Picasso's blue period. I adore the celebratory colors/images and mystical quality of Chagall. And like [MENTION=251]Wyote[/MENTION], I enjoy surrealist work too. Hard question to answer really because there is just so much to love!



Last edited:
I am really fond of neoclassicism, realism and classic styles. There is so much emotion in them that I cannot help but love them.
Digital art wise, I like realism and fantasy a lot. Hell I'm afraid I'm going to have to spam a bit here... ^^"

Let me start of with sharing my pinterest which contains it all in separate albums:

I'm going to post a bit of everything ^^"
Sculptor wise I like Rodin and Bernini A lot, painting wise there are too many to name, though most should be easy to find if you got google chrome and rightclick the image.
Among the currently living painters I really like Eric Velhagen, Liu Yuanshou, Shi Tau and Gottfried Helnwein


There is just so much happening in this one, so much detail, its a painting that shows the liberation of budapest. It's also been recreated by a hungarian artist in 3D which is really awesome to see. I think what I like best about this painting, is the drama, detail, colors and how lively it is.


Again it's really the detail that pulls me in and all the faces gently guiding you to the center of the image, telling you where to look. There are some very intense faces as well which makes me think that some people perhaps were not fully behind the crowning.


I love the dramatic posing of Liu Yuanshou's paintings, the realism and the emotion.


What I like about this painting is the fact that there is so much going on, lots of animals and lots of detai and you can simply stare at it for a long time and discover new things.


Shar I like about Shi tao's paintings is the sincerity of the subjects, the genuine slice of life moments, and the thoughts and emotions reflected in them



What I like about Eric Velhagen's paintings is the life, the energy and power of his subjects. It's got something primal to it.


What I like about this old painting is again the detail of it and the plentitude of people partaking in this battle, I also love how well the softness of the skin comes across.


What I really like about this more modern piece is the angle and depth, to me it also shows a bit of hardship and someone reflecting upon it. I think it's a beautiful painting.


What I like about Gottfried Helnwein is the realism of his paintings. It's like a stylised photo and it's just a mindblowing display of skill.
Last edited:
Some other art forms:


What I like here is the softness of the sculpture's skin and hair even though it is made out of stone. It looks so soft!


This is a shot I really like from a guy on deviant art, It had my favorite tree in a breathtaking landscape with amazing powerful colors.


What I really like from Mario Wibisoni is his unique style that is on the fringe of Manga, Fantasy and Realism. It's a unique blend and it looks great with the bright flashy colors he tends to choose. I also like how each character he makes in this way is a completely new experience, He is one of the most versatile character artists that I subscribe to.


This is another painting by Mario, and what I like here is the traditional influence of japanese art mixed with mario's own style.


Here I really like the emotion of the street art and how it pulls you in, it has this urban, yet sensitive feel to it.
As for the crow I really like the detail and the idea of using ornate metal spoons to shape it.


What I like about the classic sculpture here is the weariness of this powerful warrior and the detail and posing.
As for the feary made out of wires, I just think it's one of the most lively sculptures I've ever seen, it looks so dynamic!


What I like here is the gentility of the sculpture, death is a painful subject but it is eased and provided solace by the fact that there is this angel waiting to receive the dying and to guide them.
As for the horse made out of driftwood, I simply love it for what it is. IT's a beautiful wooden horse, in a powerful dynamic pose.
Last edited:

Can you believe this dear was made out of metal and metal wires? My friend even thought it was computer made at first because it looks like some kind of particle effects. Awesome isn't it ? It's like its dissolving whilst it's grazing in the wind. As for the marble statue, I really like the drama in it and the amount of detail. I also like how it has a composition much like paintings do that draws your gaze to the face of the man in the center.

Is'nt it amazing what people can sculpt from ice? It's just frozen water after all :eek: I really like this painting of a forest too, it looks almost like a photo of a magical world.

How can someone not love Bernini, can you believe how soft the skin looks of those statues? even though its made from marble ?
The same is the case for Canova and Rodin. Their skill in sculpting, it makes you see color, transparent cloth and skin through their skill in sculpting marble. These 3 have become some of my favorite artists, They got drama, composition, technique, skill, emotion and beauty. They're just amazing.
Last edited:
Impressionists, Post Impressionists, Art Nouveau

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Jeunes filles au piano (1892) Les Grandes Baigneuses 1887 Many others, most of his work - Complete connection
Paul Gauguin Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?, 1898 Many others, most of his work - Complete connection
Henri Rousseau, Most of his work - Complete Connection
Vincent Van Gogh, Most of his work - Complete Connection
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec Most of his work - Complete Connection
Diego Rivera, Frieda Kalho, René Magritte. Salvador Dalí. Pablo Picasso (many of his work especially The Blue Period, Rose Period, and African Influenced)

Anything else that speaks to me, modern art or otherwise
[MENTION=11651]Artisan[/MENTION] what pleasant spam. I really like neoclassicism too, especially the rekindling of the Ancient Greco-Roman mythologies (this is also a reason I like the Pre-Raphelites like [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION]), the sense of drama and detail, and just love the marble sculptures. You mention a few times about the softness of the skin as an alluring quality, and I'm the same, it's among my favourite aesthetic qualities.
Speaking as a person whose approach to the world can loosely be defined as secular in orientation, I absolutely love religious iconography. It is so beautiful. Right now I'm trying to remember something highly critical I read about iconography. Post-structuralist? Oops, my mind is displaying a 404, I might think of it later. Anyway, no amount of criticism can spoil my joy in looking at iconography.

I've read on critical perspectives of iconography but do not recall their specific arguments, nor the movements/philosophical stance attributed to such critiques. Understandably I am favorably disposed to iconography, after all it is in a particular way in a Catholic view what is deemed 'a sacramental' something which can serve as 'a material portal' to that 'higher thing' which is signified but only by means of transcendental belief. Although on a stylistic level I'm not a fan of some Byzantinian iconography. My favourite is latter iconography (i.e. Romanesque and Gothic).

Haha, your comments on Picasso made me laugh. I partly share your sentiments. Yet on a meaning, emotive and stylistic basis I like (but not love) a fair bit of his Blue Period works, similarly as [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION] and [MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION]; but on a conceptual (the idea behind them method of cubism) and stylistic basis I like his earlier cubist works (~1910 and before; i.e. Girl with a Mandolin). Emotion doesn't really come into it for me in the latter.

Same, don't like Rossetti. I hate Rossetti actually... Maybe I just hate him cause I love William Morris so much.

I never knew the guy, but I can share in your passionate disdain for his work. Actually I would probably like his work if only he used a different face as his subject matter! I do enjoy Morris' designs - intricate organic curvature, it's the same quality I love about medieval illumination.

Do you think the Spanish thing is a magic-realist thing?

Definitely, but I think such magic-realism in Spanish surrealism stems from the Spanish collective subconscious which has been permeated for centuries with a Catholic mystical outlook on life and nature that looks beyond the 'face value' of experienced reality. (Such mysticism has origins further back than the 16th century, but involving figures such as John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila etc. who even on a literary basis influenced the Spanish language). Hence I think in this instance Spanish magic-realism partly manifests such 'roots'.
Last edited:
[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION] I am a huge William Morris fan too. The textile patterns are superb and I wish I could have an Arts and Crafts style house with Morris textiles and Greene brothers architecture.
@Night Owl , as a Christian, what kind of terms are you on with some of the non-essentialist themes of modernist art? I really need to make it clear that I am not asking in any kind of disrespectful way, and I certainly have no desire to argue with you, I am just interested in hearing your perspective on this.

Certainly! I was busy but I've time now. Glad to answer as best I can. Trigger wanring: this is loooong. As a Christian (however being a Catholic lends a particular theological view not shared by most post-Reformation forms of Christianity, so I can't speak on their behalf)* I have no problem with non-essentialist themes in and of themselves (i.e. if a work represents a deer as a green blob, or the sky as a thin line), yet on a purely personal basis I am not a fan of art which is solely non-essentialist like many abstract expressionist works, which often I see at the most as aesthetically pleasant compositions from which I cannot and do not want to draw meaning. Surrealism can demonstrate a watered down non-essentialism but it arguably twists what is perceived at face value as reality as opposed to recreating a whole new subjective reality extrapolated from the world - as does most abstract expressionist works which do not make it even slightly clear what at all 'they' represent unless one is told as such. Either way, the presence of [what is perceived] as non-essentialist themes I have no qualm with.

What I do disagree with is the conceptual stance of non-essentialism which concurring themes may simply reflect. This of course arises because Christianity* holds an essentialist metaphysical view (of which there are different nuanced views), but this essentialism doesn't extend beyond what is viewed as objective reality, i.e. ontology (involving everything that exists) and morality. So that a human person is a person sharing in 'the form' or essense of a human nature. And a specific act is deemed intrinsically immoral on the basis of the nature of the act itself (with moral culpability determined on the basis of the knowledge and intent of the agent of that act; and some acts neither instrisically good/bad, but only deemed as such based on intent behind the act). Yet such essentialism doesn't extend to what is deemed wholly relative, i.e. I don't think there is a colour that is intrinsically better than another, or that one culinary dish is intrinsically tastier than another. Yet such essentialism does assert that there is an ontological reality which just is, and that relativity stemming from the subjectivity possessed by intellectual beings is simply conceptual, and is itself a product of the power of rationale etc. belonging to the essential being of a human person.

Hence the very word "camel" is a subjective-conceptual 'thing' but it describes a real existing thing - that which is a 'camel'. Similarly someone may hold a certain meaning concerning a particular piece of art, but that is a constructed meaning which is a subjective-conceptual 'thing' which is employed to describe a real existing thing - that piece of art. Yet stressing the ontological reality of things, a Christian view might state that a piece of art has an intrinsic/essential meaning pertaining to its ontology - distinct from the subjective-conceptual meaning 'given' or 'construed' by the viewer or artist - and this essential meaning would be what that piece of art actually is in relation to God and the telos (purpose) of human life (Christian view: to be in unitive relationship with God who is Goodness, Love etc.). Thus in this view, ontologically art is deemed more meaningful and valuable to the degree in which it glorifies and leads people to contemplate the Creator. This meaning and value is ontological since it is an intrinsic property pertaining to the art in and of itself, and is a role carried out 'by it' by its very existing. Hence art would be 'good' in proportion to how much (qualitativelyquantitatively) it gloried and ed people to the Creator. And 'bad' in so far as it did the polar opposite. In this view actual 'bad art' would thus be deemed essentially meaningless and worthless if it offended or functions to 'try' and lead people away from the Creator (evil as meaningless since evil is considered not as existing per-say but a privation in being itself). But before one thinks this view denigrates all non-religious art...

In a Catholic view intrinsically 'bad art' would only be that which was explicitly against 'the Sacred' (i.e. art deemed sacrileges); 'vain art' would be that which is not sacrileges but does not lead one to the Divine be it due to a lack in aesthetic-appeal or quality, or certain subject matter (i.e. vulgar, explicitly divorced from perceptible reality - since divorcing itself from the natural world which reflects the Creator would lead such art 'to exist' not for the Creator); and 'good art' - in it's varying degrees - would include non-Christian art and art without Christian subject matter which implicitly carries out the aforementioned function of glorifying and leading one to the Creator; and art which explicitly carried out this function - religious art. (With this view Catholicism esteems much non-Christian art, such as Classical Greek art).

Keeping in mind that this essentialist view (and value) of art is distinct from the subjective-conceptual view (and value) of art, the latter of which concerns the realm of general artistic analysis (such as in this thread thus far).

I am against a non-essentialist approach to art which views reality itself as intrinsically meaningless and uses art 'to paint' a subjective reality. I prefer an essentialist approach which views reality itself as intrinsically meaningful and uses art 'to paint' a subjective view on this objective reality. This is why I like surrealism. A non-essentialist may employ surrealism as a way of giving meaning to something, or of making meaning which doesn't exist. Yet an essentialist may employ surrealism as a way of grasping out into the depths of reality so as to pull forth a straw from the bale of intrinsic meaning - a meaning constructed in the mind of the artist based on his apprehension of the ineffable mystery behind reality itself - doing so to try get to the essence of things. At face value the surrealist works of both artists may appear to have non-essentialist themes because they're surreal; but such artistic form could equally represent essentialist themes.

It's very hard to speak on this matter, and I was forced to generalise without proper elaboration (despite essay length) which could lead to misinterpretation of what I intended, but that'll give the gist of my Christian view which you politely asked for. I'd be glad to hear of your views and respect anyone who has views contrary to mine.
[MENTION=4798]Endersgone[/MENTION], never heard of Beksinski but I like his work. Reminds me of the art work on the original Magic the Gathering, cards game.