January 9th, 2017
Information Impressionism Art Pierre.
PIERRE VAN DIJK - IMPRESSIONIST - EXPRESSIONIST.,
www.artpierre.com , firstname.lastname@example.org ,
MAISON / ATELIER PIERRE,
Pierre van Dijk was born on 5 June 1950 in ’s-Hertogenbosch. At the age of only 4 Pierre wants to draw and paint in all quiet. On his tenth birthday he is given his first ‘real’ set of oil paint, palette and canvas.
In 1954 he and his family move to The Hague. This is where he studies at the Royal Academy for Fine Arts (NL)(1967 – 1972). From 1972 to 1974 he pursues his studies at the Free Academy (NL) guided personally by Livinus van der Bunt, rector of the academy as well as artist. A great number of exhibitions – both in the Netherlands as well as abroad – follow from 1974 onwards.
In 1977 Pierre moves to Gorinchem and becomes a member of ‘Pictura’ in Dordrecht. After a number of modern art projects such as ‘Les Enfants Terrible’ and ‘Monument Affaire’ he returns to his native city ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 1984.
Pierre then withdraws in himself to contemplate his art, meanwhile developing his painting techniques. Apart from traditional techniques he also masters paintbrush techniques. Due to the increase in quality in his work applications for exhibitions come pouring in.
The authoritative magazine ‘Kunstbeeld’ requests him to exhibit in New York. In 1989 Pierre even moves to the US for a number of months where he exhibits in various galleries; in Gallery 54 in New York among others. In this period he also teaches at Lock Haven University in Pennsylvania.
In the course of the eighties Pierre became more and more internally driven to capture the phenomena of light and colour in all their splendour. Pierre developed a unique palette, style and vision. This vision, the typical use of colours and his handling of light have become famous and trademark Pierre’s impressionist paintings. His vision can be described as vitalist optimism; he paints the beauty of life. His use of colours can be called contradictory. Through the use of a refined combination of a limited number of base colours he achieves an inimitable wealth of colours. His use of light is more than just lighting; it does not fall externally on the object or scene; it is mostly a light from within. Pierre van Dijk colours life and exposes a world of light.
In 1998 Pierre decided to open a gallery in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, together with his partner Arieke (died 2003) . The dream to set up another gallery in France came true when Pierre opened a Maison/Atelier Pierre in the medieval town of Beynac, origin of impressionism. The Maison/Atelier Pierre is surrounded by historic monuments and the overwhelming nature of Dordogne.
Pierre is represented by several Fine Art Galleries in Switserland, France, Holland and in the USA.
His beautiful paintings are on show at several international known art Fairs, LA FINE ART SHOW, Los Angeles, USA - PAN AMSTERDAM Art & Antique fair, Amsterdam, Holland.
"Colours have a beauty of their own which must be preserved, as one strives to preserve tonal quality in music " - Henri Matisse
"No one is an artist unless he carries his picture in his head before painting it, and is sure of his method and composition " - Claude Monet
© Pierre van Dijk
July 7th, 2016
Anthony Haden-Guest on Why He Did Not Kill Jean-Michel Basquiat.
It began some five years ago with a startling question: A woman I barely knew asked was I responsible for the death of Jean-Michel Basquiat. I said no, and asked where that idea had come from? It was something she had heard, she said.
Over the following weeks I heard the accusation again. And again. The origin, I learned, was the Radiant Child, a documentary directed by Basquiat’s former girlfriend, Tamra Davis. During the course of this scene, the writer Glenn O’Brien discusses the artist’s drug overdose and observes that he had been really worried “about an article that Anthony Haden-Guest was writing for New York magazine.”
Thanks for the mention, Glenn. But that wasn’t quite the way it was.
Yes, I had been commissioned to write a profile of Basquiat, though by Vanity Fair, not by New York. It was to be about his remarkable career, with the timely touch that he was kicking heroin. So I had a first interview with him in his studio on Great Jones. He was open to difficult subjects, such as his family, and told me that he was “controlling” his heroin use. I set off to do the other stuff one does before getting back to him for a second interview. But then the collector Ethel Scull telephoned. “Anthony,” she said. “You are putting Jean-Michel under a lot of pressure.”
Meaning: Basquiat was still trying to kick drugs and that this project was not helpful.
No problem, I said. I would take care of it. I called Basquiat and told him I would put the story off until he was up for it.
I didn’t see the artist again until about one in the morning on a Friday night in August 1988, in Club MK on West 16th Street.
I hadn’t known it was him right away. He looked fuller, both in body and face.
“That is you, Jean-Michel?” I asked.
“Yeah… ” He said. He was missing a front tooth.
I would learn that he had just returned from a trip to Hawaii. He OD’d very shortly after.
Then I did write the Vanity Fair article, both as a celebration and an obituary. In that piece I quoted Glenn O’Brien a couple of times. Of Basquiat’s OD he spoke thusly: “Everybody was sitting around, waiting for him to do what he did, so he could be the Jimi Hendrix of art. He burned out his body, I guess. But I don’t think he intended to die—I think he could have recovered.”
Next time I saw O’Brien I told him that his account in the Radiant Child was inaccurate. But clearly Basquiat had complained to him, presumably about the same time that Scull had called me, so I didn’t suspect malice; perhaps I was insufficiently outspoken.
Recently I was sent a snippet from a new book O’Brien has written about another dead, young artist—Dash Snow. It reads: “Basquiat was living in fear of a forthcoming article in New York Magazine that Anthony Haden-Guest was writing. By the time it came out, he was dead. The shadow of that piece hadn’t helped things.”
Yes, being pursued by a shadow must be pretty unpleasant.
July 7th, 2016
Nahmads Fire Back at ‘Art-World Ambulance Chaser’ Over Looted Art Claim
In a recent New York Post story, the Nahmad family of art dealers took the opportunity to fire back at persistent claims they are holding on to a piece of Nazi-looted art.
James Palmer, founder of Toronto-based recovery firm Mondex, has been retained to help recover the work, a valuable painting by Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani painting, Seated Man with a Cane (1918), which the Nahmads have owned for two decades. The Post cites sources who refer to Palmer “as an art-world ambulance chaser,” who employs “Wild West techniques,” in order to achieve his end goals. The Nahmads’s attorney, Aaron Richard Golub, even referred to Palmer as a “Holocaust hustler.”
Related: David Nahmad Denies Modigliani Painting Is Nazi Loot
The Nahmad family recently hired a PR firm to help it address the incendiary claims surrounding the Modigliani work, which the family unsuccessfully attempted to sell at Sotheby’s in 2008. “Looted art, hidden art—they made me look like a crook instead of doing real battle in the court,” David Nahmad told the New York Times.
Golub tells the Post that “Palmer’s strategy is to attack the Nahmads—saying that the family is a monopoly, saying that Helly [who served five months in prison on gambling charges in 2014] is a criminal to bring about a settlement.”
Helly Nahmad tells the Post that Mondex “is trying to use bad publicity to force my family into a settlement. All they seem to care about is money. They don’t care about the plaintiff. They don’t care about art. They…don’t do their research.”
The Post cites sources who allege that Palmer goes about his process “backward,” and suggests that he can be aggressive with clientele.
Related: Newly-Revealed Documents Show Sotheby’s Contacted Helly Nahmad About Modigliani Claim
Michel Strauss, a former head of Sotheby’s Impressionist and modern art department in London, tells the Post that Palmer sent a letter in 2014 stating that an Edgar Degas painting that had once belonged to Strauss’s grandfather could possibly be Nazi loot. When Strauss conducted his own research and was satisfied with information indicating that the painting had been sold properly in 1932, Palmer “was a bit pissed off at me,” Strauss says. “He tried to insist and insist,” that the painting had indeed been stolen.
It’s certainly not the first time art recovery firms have drawn scathing criticism for issues ranging from aggressive research and recovery tactics to extreme greed with respect to recovery charges. It’s also not unusual for the barbs to come from competing recovery firms, or disgruntled clients.
The Nahmads’s longstanding denial regarding ownership of the painting has not helped their cause in the eyes of critics. For years, the family insisted it was owned, not by them, but rather by an entity known as International Art Center (IAC). But the early April massive leak of the Panama Papers, which exposed the Nahmad family as the sole controllers of IAC, shattered that claim.
In May, artnet News obtained letters, produced as part of a court subpoena, showing Sotheby’s contacted Helly Nahmad twice about a potential pending claim on the Modigliani painting following its 2008 failure at auction, even as the family continued to assert that it did not own the work.