I love velvet paintings. Does that mean I have no taste in art?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Why are velvet paintings considered lower class, trailer trash, junk, not actually art, made fun of and often alluded to in television comedies as being on the walls of white trash homes, like ‘velvet Elvis’?

The first time I saw a velvet painting it was of a tiger and I was impressed by the luminous quality of the work. It actually seemed to glow against the dark background. Since then, I’ve seen many wonderful and remarkably beautiful works ranging from scenery to people that, in my own opinion, are bright, cheerful, full of glowing hues and simple, smooth textures.

I examined velvet in bulk cloth shops and examined the paintings on velvet closely. Painting on the material takes a skill not needed on canvass nor wood because of the texture itself.

I’ve seen many great paintings and few turn me on. I like bright, vibrant colors that are cheerful and seem to glow but few of the Great Works of art have these. While impressed with the great artistry involved, the techniques used, and the high skill level applied, the regular works of art somewhat bore me.

I like prints which are turned out in bright colors, landscapes, some village and town scenes and a few portraits have fascinated me. I just like the velvet paintings more for their depth, over all brightness and luminosity.

So, why are they generally considered a joke? I’ve done some primitive oil, water color and acrylic painting and would never even attempt to paint on velvet because the texture of the material changes depending on how you make a stroke and even the weight of the stroke.

I’m not into Elvis nor portraits on velvet, but the animals and scenes just captivate me and I do not consider myself as having little or no taste.

Are velvet paintings trash?

2

Well, when you consider what some people nowadays call “art”, I consider velvet paintings to be a masterpiece by comparison.

If anyone critisizes your taste, ask who made them an arbiter of aesthetics.

3

I think it’s like this:

If you like velvet paintings good for you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Don’t let what I think about velvet paintings factor into what you like.

But…

You asked why people consider it lower class.
The short answer IMO is because it is.

So what? A hamburger is not a steak; T.J Swann is not a fine chardonnay. I’ve had a lot of hamburgers, steak, T.J. Swan and fine chardonnay I like em all but certainly there is a difference.

4

Do you have velvet paintings in your home? I ask because I, too, have been struck by the vibrant colors and contrasts of velvet painting, but I can’t imagine living with them. I fing that the initial attraction wears off rapidly, while the subtlety of other works makes them more interesting over time.

On the other hand, velvet paintings are interesting and unpretentious. I would happily display nothing but velvet paintings in my home if it gave me the right destroy to any Thomas Kinkaid painting I saw.

5

Those luminous colors you adore may be more present in fine art than you think. A lot of those bright colors (and the luminosity of the paint) do not reproduce well in prints and art books.

I have always loved Renoir’s "Luncheon of the Boating Party’ (I might have the name wrong). When I finally saw it in real life, I was simply amazed. It was almost a different painting than the reproductions I have seen. The colors seemed to glow.

But rock on with you velvet paintings. I personally have a small museum of thrift store art in my house, so I can sympathize with your cause.

6

See, this is what I mean. ‘Thrift store art,’ ‘lower class art.’

What distinguishes the ‘great art,’ including Warhol posters, from these paintings? Aside from the mass of (shudder) Elvis representations, I find them of good quality.

I’ve been to museums and looked at actual paintings. We have a small museum here, which sucks, but it has good representation of various forms of artwork on canvass and wood. I don’t dislike all paintings, but just most. The only difference I see between the velvet paintings and the great or good oil and canvass is the difference in luminosity and the simplicity of stroke and subject matter.

I’ve spotted art done by animals and toddlers that looks like it was done by animals and toddlers, but it is considered good art. I’ve studied American folk or primitive works from back woods people that hang in great galleries and to me, it sucks, looks like a 6 or 7 year old did it, but people rave about it. I consider the art on velvet paintings much better, but people consider them trash.

See, I don’t quite get it.

I know that situation comedies sure like to portray hicks at home by having lots of velvet paintings shown on the walls.

7

This is true. I love Vermeer; I once practically had to be dragged away from “Woman Holding a Balance”. Yet I’ve never wanted to buy a Vermeer print. I wouldn’t even shell out the money for a postcard. The colors and luminosity reproduce so badly that I just find them depressing.

8

Velvet paintings are cool. I know what you mean about the colors glowing. Something about the textured, matte-black background gives the pigments a vibrance and “juice” that primed canvas never could. Velvet paintings lend themselves especially well to fantasy art: sprays of showering stardust, fierce flames, shimmery mystical beasties. I paint as a hobby, while I have never painted on velvet (yet!), I can appreciate the three-dimensional richness of oil on velvet and the sheer exuberance it conveys.

Your taste is fine!

9

Sounds like we have one of those situations where it’s OK to like certain types of something that is sometimes seen as “tasteless” or “trailer”. Sort of like “kinky” sex(between consenting adults, of course). Some people want to be told that the particular type they are into is OK, but make sure they explain to everyone that it’s not as bad as (fill in the blank). Like what you like. Why wonder why.