Painters Painting

This film about modern American painters working in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is much better than any of the others I have seen to date. No curators, no art history Ph.D.s attempting to demonstrate that they are experts. Instead, the primary focus here is upon the views of artists themselves and what they take themselves to be doing. I found the interviews with Rauschenberg, William de Kooning, Barnett Newman, Jasper Johns, Frank Stella, Helen Frankenthaler, Andy Warhol, and many other working artists incredibly insightful. There are a few other people interviewed (collectors, gallerists, etc.), but they are happily not of the pedantic sort which I have seen in most other films on the topic. Highly recommended.

One of the best films about America's involvement in Vietnam is undoubtedly Emile De Antonio's "In The Year of The Pig." Similarly, "Millhouse: A White Comedy", is, I believe, the best film about the life of disgraced former U.S. President, Richard Nixon In 1974, Emile De Antonio turned his attention to the work of the "abstract expressionist" painters, who blossomed and flourished in New York, primarily between the years 1940 and 1970. The resulting film, "Painters Painting" has finally turned up on DVD. The film consists of interviews conducted by the filmmaker with such famous artists like William de Kooning, Barnett Newman, Jasper Johns, Robert Motherwell, Barnett Newman, Helen Frankenthaler and Robert Rauschenberg, as well as famous gallery owner Leo Castelli, art critics Clement Greenberg and Thomas Hess, plus John Hightower, of the Museum of Modern Art, Henry Geldzahler of The Met, and collectors, Robert and Ethel Scull. Unfortunately, the film is let down by some very sloppy camera-work and the conversations, especially the ones recorded in the studios of the artists themselves, is very poorly recorded – this may be due in part to the acoustics of the studios, with their high ceilings and cavernous floor space. The film jumps from colour to black and white for no discernible reason. Many of the shots appear to be repeated. The names of some of the artists have been omitted entirely. In short, what could have been a dynamite film about some of the giants of 20th. Century modern art is, overall, a travesty, which is a crying shame when one realises that the majority of them have long since died.

1st watched 9/9/2001 - 6 out of 10(Dir-Emile de Antonio): For all but the Andy Warhol scenes, this documentary gives you a good view into how these "abstract" painters did their work. The artists' actually seem more concerned about how to accomplish the work, rather than what it means(which is what we think they care about). Warhol comes across like he's trying to trick the interviewer and not present the truth about his art form, but all the other artist's present true impressions of who they respect, how they accomplish their work, and why they do their work the way they do. I still don't know why they do what they do, but after viewing this film I respect them as people trying to do something different than the norm and in this express who they are in some way.

'Painters Painting' is a collection of interviews from 1973 with some of the most influential modern artists alive at the time. You should expect to mostly hear them 'talking' about their work, rather than seeing them in action. (There are a few, brief exceptions, but it's not like the documentary 'Gerhard Richter – Painting', in which he's mostly shown moving paint around). It's a real luxury to be presented with so many talented people, whose work I love. A number of important art critics and collectors also participate in the film and, in some cases, share personal anecdotes involving the showcased artists.

Not everything that is said is fascinating. Some parts are a little bit dry and boring. But the parts that work (for example, the interviews with Jasper Johns, Frank Stella, Jules Olitski and Larry Poons) offer great insights into their processes. Another IMDb reviewer complains about what he/she regards as Andy Warhol's "tricky" attitude. It's true that he often avoids responding to questions with a straight answer, but I think he's just being playful and tongue-in-cheek, which is something that reflects on his work anyways. And there are also instances in which he seems very candid.

I agree with another reviewer who criticizes the sloppiness of the camera work and the sound here and there. I wouldn't say it's horrible, but it could be sharper.

I don't necessarily recommend this film as an introduction to Modern Art (to people who know very little or nothing about it), but it's well worth a watch if it's a topic that you're already familiar with and interested in.

I saw this film at art school in the 1980s. It had a profound effect on me - at the time I wanted to go into commercial art, graphic design etc. After seeing this film I decided that I wanted to be a painter. Everyone else in the class hated the film - when the art tutor asked one girl what she thought the only thing she come up with was that Frank Stella sounded like Woody Allen...

I ended up doing a degree in Fine Art. Now I've come full circle and work as a "commercial" artist in the film industry making visual effects for movies. I still recall this film fondly - it captured something of what got me excited about making art in the first place.

Emile De Antonio made several other films which are worth watching - I wouldn't be surprised if he is rediscovered given the current popularity of documentary film making.