Phillip Guston
mdeli
Guston had no talent or skill. When he stopped painting politically
correct Abstract expressionism, his biggest mistake, and tried to
paint subject matter the critics yawned. His abilities at this were
nil.
Guston is a "has been" mostly relegated to the museum basement because
his auction prices are nothing special. As Eicher says he produced
"thousands of major works," one worse than the next. Some museums
still hang a Guston or two in memory of the idiot curator who spent
money purchasing that crap.
Soon Twombly will fill in all of Guston's space. He may last longer
than Guston if he sticks to his chicken scratches and stays away from
anything that will reveal his lack of ability and dies early enough to
make his output rare enough for dealers to ration the crap .
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
lake
have reason. But unless you can present some alternative, some painters
YOU think are good - and so to give those you criticize an equal chance
for rebuttal - then your comments are indeed very Groucho-Marxian.
Is there ANYONE besides Dali you admire? Or is he the be-all and
end-all of modern painting?
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Erik A. Mattila
lake wrote:
> In lambasting painters who are generally considered to be good, you may
> have reason. But unless you can present some alternative, some painters
> YOU think are good - and so to give those you criticize an equal chance
> for rebuttal - then your comments are indeed very Groucho-Marxian.
Wouldn't it be "Groucho-Marxist," Lake. I like that...
Erik Mattila
lake
Paul Cadmus too? I'm glad that you do like something but.....
I'm a little disappointed, since your rhetoric far outstrips the talent
of your heros. You have the audacity to criticize Picasso's
draughtsmanship, while espousing that of Tamara!?? What do you think
those geometrical half-cylinders in his paintings are, if not a
ten-years-too-late rip-off of Leger? De Lempika and Cadmus, both of
them overblown illustrators, their vision painfully literal,
embarrassingly short-sighted. Do you really think that Cadmus'
take-offs on baroque composition are anything better than simply
absurd? And NEITHER of them could draw half so well as Picasso!
Of course what they DID know about drawing, they were at great pains to
show off - unlike Picasso, who seemed to have this weird idea that
there was something more to serious art than "good drawing".
I'll skip Blume and Tooker for the moment (easily done) and go directly
to Wyeth and Rockwell - both of them artists I admire, to a certain
extent. Wyeth was a passionate, driven artist, and his paintings are a
monument to a certain Calvinist aesthetic. AND he could (as opposed to
Cadmus and De Lempika) really draw very well. Also he was original - he
was not merely lampooning previous painting.
But if you get a chance mdeli, take a good reproduction of a Wyeth
painting into the gallery and compare it with the original - I think
you will see that the reproduction looks better. The originals are
marred by the laborious, and graceless process of their actual
production. There is none of the ease and fluidity that you find in a
Breughel say, or a Lucas Cranach, or a Holbein. No, Andy Wyeth has been
fighting with his materials every inch of the way. The fact that he
finally wins the battle notwithstanding.
As for Rockwell, well everybody loves Rockwell, or should. But that's
the problem. His work is just so sweet, and so virtuous, so
indisputably "good" that one wonders how it could have been produced
during a historical period of genocide, mass-murder, world war, and so
on. I'm not suprized that the Chinese Communist "Social Realism" is so
very similar to what Rockwell was doing in the USA back in the 30's and
40's.
You might call it realism - I call it propaganda.
lake
who are excellent draughtsmen, besides Picasso. You don't seem to
understand though that we are going in a different direction. We are
not trying to do what Ingres did.
A good case in point is James Ensor, who was a SUPERB draughtsman. He
could have bested the best, if he had chosen to do so. But his goal was
not to compete with the masters in that way. He chose instead to break
new ground, as many of them had done.
Other great drawers of the post-Ingres era include Pierre Bonnard,
Gustaf Klimt, and Chaim Soutine. Beyond them are a wealth of
brilliantly experimental draughtsmen, whose work you probably haven't
the SKILL to decode, like Hans Hoffman, Robert Motherwell, and Morris
Graves. No doubt you prefer to dump them all into the same category -
namely the "it doesn't look realistic so therefore it's trash" category.
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>In lambasting painters who are generally considered to be good, you may
>have reason. But unless you can present some alternative, some painters
>YOU think are good - and so to give those you criticize an equal chance
>for rebuttal - then your comments are indeed very Groucho-Marxian.
>
>Is there ANYONE besides Dali you admire? Or is he the be-all and
>end-all of modern painting?
Some modern artists I mentioned here who you probably know: Tamara,
Rockwell, Whyeth, Blume, Tooker, Cadmus.
>- Lake
Check out my web site for a list of Moderns. Check out comics and
IIlustrators Annuals for hundreds more.
Artzy fartzies typicaly imagine that anyone who dislikes their
favorites likes nothing. It makes them feel secure.
Is there anyone you admire who can draw somewhat? Until you name
someone besides Picasso you comments are indeed very artzy fartzy
conformist.
Chris
lake wrote:
>
> But if you get a chance mdeli, take a good reproduction of a Wyeth
> painting into the gallery and compare it with the original - I think
> you will see that the reproduction looks better. The originals are
> marred by the laborious, and graceless process of their actual
> production. There is none of the ease and fluidity that you find in a
> Breughel say, or a Lucas Cranach, or a Holbein. No, Andy Wyeth has been
> fighting with his materials every inch of the way. The fact that he
> finally wins the battle notwithstanding.
>
> As for Rockwell, well everybody loves Rockwell, or should. But that's
> the problem. His work is just so sweet, and so virtuous, so
> indisputably "good" that one wonders how it could have been produced
> during a historical period of genocide, mass-murder, world war, and so
> on. I'm not suprized that the Chinese Communist "Social Realism" is so
> very similar to what Rockwell was doing in the USA back in the 30's and
> 40's.
> You might call it realism - I call it propaganda.
>
I wonder if you aren't being a little hard on Wyeth - after all, he
chose to do a large amount of his work in tempera, which lends itself to
a stiff and formal (in the common usage) approach to painting. It is
very unforgiving. Personally I would assume that he chose his media (and
his approach) to match his artistic intent.
As for Rockwell, I think the analogy to Socialist Realism a bit unfair.
Certainly his series on the 4 freedoms may seem a bit over the top these
days - but that's judging it from a critical perspective shaped by an
affluent and comfortable society. That series in particular was one
man's response to the "genocide, mass-murder, world war, and so on."
that characterized the 30's and 40's. Later in life he took on other
difficult political themes, particularly racial integration - though
this is carried on work he had done earlier, such as "Love Ouanga"
(1936), which is a pretty frank analysis of racial relations based on
fear and mistrust. One might also keep in mind that one of the
hallmarks of Socialist Realism (and propaganda in general) - the lack of
individuality of subjects - seems pretty much opposed to Rockwell's art,
where individual characteristics & traits are often so well defined.
On a more positive note, Rockwell reputedly did not hold the
contemptuous view of modern art that many of his acolytes would like him
to have had; check out some of the critical analysis of his painting
"The Connoisseur" (1962), for example.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting post....
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
new art + some self portraits - http://www.gammarat.com
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>(continued) There are plenty of devotees of "The Church of Modern Art"
>who are excellent draughtsmen, besides Picasso.
Picasso is a third rate draftsman who can't even do well when he
copies a photograph.
> You don't seem to
>understand though that we are going in a different direction. We are
>not trying to do what Ingres did.
The usual art school mythology!. He and thousands of art teachers who
can't draw imagine that anyone who can draw well is going in the
direction of Ingres. Show me a fine comic book, a commercial
illustration, a Dali or Rockwell that anyone would mistake for an
Ingres or anything in the 19th century. NAME SOME.
Bet I get the usual nothing answer.
>
>A good case in point is James Ensor, who was a SUPERB draughtsman.
He's a total slob. His paintings are big cockeyed schmiers. I saw a
huge Ensor show At the MOMA may years ago, terrible. Outdoor art
exhibits are full of equally bad somewhat better work. All he ever did
was paint large. Biggism fools collectors. They think big is good.
Picasso and Matisse started the trend.
>He
>could have bested the best, if he had chosen to do so. But his goal was
>not to compete with the masters in that way. He chose instead to break
>new ground, as many of them had done.
Neither you or I really know a fucking thing about what any artist
really chose to do. The only thing that really counts is what's on the
wall. Shitty drawing does not constitute "breaking new ground."
Ensor's is conventional contemporary art student schmier.
>
>Other great drawers of the post-Ingres era include Pierre Bonnard,
>Gustaf Klimt, and Chaim Soutine.
Excepting Klimpt, as I said before, Artzy Fartzies admire the worst
because they can often do things that badly. I just saw the giant
Bonnard (Bath) in Pittsburgh. The stupid rectangles and the mutilated
schmier in the so called bathtub. A true horror. Breaking new ground,
my foot.
You forgot to include super schmierer Kokoshka who I'm sure you love
for the same reasons..
Interesting you should say new ground as their subject matter as badly
painted as it is, is completely conventional 19th century.
> Beyond them are a wealth of
>brilliantly experimental draughtsmen, whose work you probably haven't
>the SKILL to decode, like Hans Hoffman, Robert Motherwell, and Morris
>Graves.
Translation: "Experimental" means they can't draw.
I'm sure a sensitive intellectual soul like you has decoded these
masters. Please tell us something of what you cryptological expertise
has discovered in planetext.
I maintain that artwork that looks crappy at a glance and claims to be
cryptic is probably bullshit. Have you worked on decoding Ingres yet?
> No doubt you prefer to dump them all into the same category -
>namely the "it doesn't look realistic so therefore it's trash" category.
>
No Lake it looks like trash, whether or not it is realistic is
irrelevant, even after all experts of your ilk claim to have "decoded
it."
If you would like to see something awful done before 1923 "decoded"
look at "Behind the Behind " on my web page.
mdeli
wrote:
>
>
>lake wrote:
>>
>
>> But if you get a chance mdeli, take a good reproduction of a Wyeth
>> painting into the gallery and compare it with the original - I think
>> you will see that the reproduction looks better.
If you are talking about the father NC Wyeth I agree. ANdrew looks far
better because the repros lose detail.
>>The originals are
>> marred by the laborious, and graceless process of their actual
>> production. There is none of the ease and fluidity that you find in a
>> Breughel say, or a Lucas Cranach, or a Holbein. No, Andy Wyeth has been
>> fighting with his materials every inch of the way. The fact that he
>> finally wins the battle notwithstanding.
>>
>> As for Rockwell, well everybody loves Rockwell, or should. But that's
>> the problem.
I assume loving Picasso isn't a problem.
>His work is just so sweet, and so virtuous, so
>> indisputably "good" that one wonders how it could have been produced
>> during a historical period of genocide, mass-murder, world war, and so
>> on.
One must romanticize the gutter to be in fashion these days. When an
idiot like Pollock dribbles during what you call this terrible period
that's OK because his ilk was close to the gutter.
> I'm not suprized that the Chinese Communist "Social Realism" is so
>> very similar to what Rockwell was doing in the USA back in the 30's and
>> 40's.
It isn't
>> You might call it realism - I call it propaganda.
Any subject whether you like it or not can be well or poorly executed.
>
>I wonder if you aren't being a little hard on Wyeth - after all, he
>chose to do a large amount of his work in tempera, which lends itself to
>a stiff and formal (in the common usage) approach to painting. It is
>very unforgiving. Personally I would assume that he chose his media (and
>his approach) to match his artistic intent.
I doubt that lake ever took a close critical look at anything.