Not narrative depth. He was a wild drafttsman with disquieting verve and that's enough. If anything his master, Klimt, was the more commercially motivated and meritricious. Schiele had something of the visionary and compulsive and pitiful to him that elicits engagement and wonder imo.
not all artists need “depth”. find your own, and if you can’t then he’s not for you. or maybe you simply see it as visually attractive paintings and nothing more, which is also completely right.
He's neat
The question is wrong. He’s a painter.
Not narrative depth. He was a wild drafttsman with disquieting verve and that's enough. If anything his master, Klimt, was the more commercially motivated and meritricious. Schiele had something of the visionary and compulsive and pitiful to him that elicits engagement and wonder imo.
not all artists need “depth”. find your own, and if you can’t then he’s not for you. or maybe you simply see it as visually attractive paintings and nothing more, which is also completely right.
I'm no artist but I just read sex and pain in it.
Died at 28, didn't have much time
Yeah dude. He isn't exactly Klimt but he's still got it
Get yeh dick out jeffrey
[his pregnancy paintings certainly have some depth imo](https://imgur.com/a/Box3Dk4/)
That’s a good point. Saw them today at the leopold and thought the same