Paul McCartney...artist???
jolly
Paul McCartney and thought this subject might be worthy of a new thread!
Most artists struggle for many years throughout their life and I am no
exception - I trained, produced rubbish, got better, developed a greater
understanding of art and of myself as an artist, before - dare I say it - I
became reasonably good(I didn't say great!!!). And now I struggle for
greater insight and more effective ways of realising my artistic vision, a
vision which changes subtly the more I learn - so on it goes.
I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained artists. It
would interesting to see a parallel with another profession ("I don't know
much about brain surgery but...!") where amateurs could perform open heart
surgery or play around with nuclear fusion on the weekend. An individual may
have a flair for drawing and an exquisite touch for paint but it takes a
considerable amount of knowledge and experience to turn this 'gift' into
real art, so in the meantime those with a talent (and alas those with no
talent at all)can exhibit in libraries and church halls and (bizarrely) hair
salons (?) etc - which is fine. The problem arises when that very
underdeveloped and ignorant amateur artist happens to be a celebrity. And
celebrities don't come much bigger than Paul McCartney (except maybe
Sylvester Stallone, David Bowie, Bob Dylan and Winston Churchill). I try to
ignore celebrity amateurs but in Pauls case I can't. I live in Liverpool
(UK) where the minicipal gallery- Walker Art Gallery, after a 'X' million
pound facelift has decided to honour it's second most famous son with a huge
exhibtion of his paintings!!! Of course I am livid - particularly as
Liverpool has provided the world with many great artists over the years, not
only musicians and actors but painters too, who are far more worthy (and in
need) of a show of such high exposure. The biggest gripe though is not that
a celebrity has been given this opportunity - because that's inevitible
these days with much funding being based on 'bums-on-seats' attendance, it's
just that his paintings are so bloody awful! I'm not ceratain of this but I
think his work might even be worse than that of Sylvester Stallone - a
comparison I wouldn't make lightly!! Macca (his world-wide pet name) seems
to be on something of a massive ego trip at the moment after a new album
(which I won't criticise because that's his arena), the release of a book of
bastardised John Lennon song lyrics which he relabelled 'Paul McCartney
Poems' (okay, that was a bit bitchy), then the release of a very lavish
hardback of his paintings (what I would give...) and now this! A very high
profile solo exhibtion at one of Englands oldest art galleries, adjacent
rooms showing Matisse, Cezanne, Constable, Rembrant, Giotto... - great great
artists. I'm sorry but this really hurts.
Does anyone agree with me? Or am I just being a bit sensitive?? Are there
any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
mdeli
>I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
>that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
>'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained artists.
The general public is right in this respect.
> The problem arises when that very
>underdeveloped and ignorant amateur artist happens to be a celebrity.
No, the problem arises when most so called modern artists are as
incompetent as most somewhat talented amateurs.
> Of course I am livid - particularly as
>Liverpool has provided the world with many great artists over the years, not
>only musicians and actors but painters too, who are far more worthy (and in
>need) of a show of such high exposure. The biggest gripe though is not that
>a celebrity has been given this opportunity - because that's inevitible
>these days with much funding being based on 'bums-on-seats' attendance, it's
>just that his paintings are so bloody awful!
Most of the crap hanging in the modern sections of museums is just as
bad. Why shouldn't Paul's hang in a similar place? He's got the
connections.
>--- and now this! A very high
>profile solo exhibtion at one of Englands oldest art galleries, adjacent
>rooms showing Matisse, Cezanne, Constable, Rembrant, Giotto... - great great
>artists. I'm sorry but this really hurts.
I glad it does. I hope similar nonsense kills Modern Academic Art. I
don't think Matisse and Cezanne should hang there either.
>Does anyone agree with me? Or am I just being a bit sensitive?? Are there
>any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
Churchill is as good as any Impressionist. Paul is as bad as any
famous abstract schmierer. He has better connections than most and
abstract schmiering is mostly a matter of connections.
...no skill no art...
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
jolly
that I claimed about the ill-educated and unknowledgable in so-called
art-appreciates. I suppose if you are unable to study this short essay
properly I shouldn't expect you to have studied art - modern or otherwise,
to any significant degree.
Thank you for your comments.
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3ce5bf8c...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Acker Bilk
>
>Does anyone agree with me? Or am I just being a bit sensitive??
I'm sure there are plenty of REAL artists who will agree with you, "vanity art"
sucks.
>Are there
>any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
The best I've seen is Martin Mull (He has a BFA) but his work is mediocre.
lod...@webtv.net
but the cult of fame, How sad that he did not have the courage of his
youth, the works should have been shown under a derived name. .
Up the ass of the consumed. let collectors eat their collections. The
first to buy, the first to cry, the last to understand why.
Gus Horne
lod...@webtv.net at lod...@webtv.net wrote on 5/19/02 11:08 PM:
Why shouldn't everyone paint?
Haven't seen McCartney's stuff, but have seen the artwork of novelist Henry
Miller and enjoyed it.
The book "Paint as you Like and Die Happy" by Miller is wonderful.
A few of his child-like watercolors are posted on Maurice Bassett's Henry
Miller website at:
Gus Horne
jolly
"Gus Horne" <gush...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B90DFEAD.727%gush...@earthlink.net...
> in article 8911-3CE...@storefull-2237.public.lawson.webtv.net,
> lod...@webtv.net at lod...@webtv.net wrote on 5/19/02 11:08 PM:
>
> >
>
>
>
> Haven't seen McCartney's stuff, but have seen the artwork of novelist
Henry
> Miller and enjoyed it.
>
Yet another who has totally missed the point of what I have written!! I
don't know why some people are so defensive. Why shouldn't everyone plumb
their own house? - why shouldn't everyone build their own cross river
suspension bridge?
Of course anyone can do exactly as they please - It was never my opinion
that non-trained artists shouldn't paint, but that they shouldn't be
rewarded for doing so! I also think it is the duty of a municipal gallery to
exhibit real art that has been produced with passion, sincerity and
expertise. The work of Paul McCartney is derivative, it is shallow and
crude. The public do need educating and unless this exhibition is to
illustrate everything that art is not and should never be - then it is a
travesty of curating and will only fuel an already strong public opinion
that art is valueless and unnecessary.
Nik Maack
jolly wrote:
> Of course anyone can do exactly as they please - It was never my opinion
> that non-trained artists shouldn't paint, but that they shouldn't be
> rewarded for doing so!
Sounds like you're jealous. You struggle, you strive, and you get no
respect. Paul McCartney farts paint on paper and they dedicate an
entire planet to his works.
Welcome to the real world. When the slave draws in the dirt with a
stick, no one cares. When the Pharaoh draws in the dirt with his golden
staff, everyone gathers around to watch. This should come as no
surprise to anyone.
jolly
people deserving a show of such stature -
I'm painfully aware of the 'real world' and how it works ut that doesn't
mean I have to lie back and let it shit all over me! I would love to receive
a bit more intelligent comment than 'jealous'!!
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CE8EFD6...@sympatico.ca...
Gus Horne
ma...@keithsgallery.co.uk wrote on 5/20/02 7:04 AM:
> Yet another who has totally missed the point of what I have written!!
I don't think so.
> they shouldn't be rewarded for doing so!
Why not? Maybe they have "good karma," or something equally preposterous.
Gus Horne
Discussion
I read somewhere he sells to celebs.
I quite like them myself. Mostly US sports theme, but there is
one I remember showing a female gymnast at the mat.
Forgotten his name.
N.H
<st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:acaih7$h9i$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> >Are there
> >any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
>
> (best known as an actor) reproduced in books;
> seemed quite good to me.
> Jack Russell (former England wicket-keeper)
> takes his painting seriously:
> http://www.jackrussell.co.uk/
> though I prefer Don Van Vliet (TAFKACB):
> http://www.beefheart.com/runpaint/
>
> -- Ewart Shaw
>
> --
> J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476
523069
> Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL,
U.K.
> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
> 3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Nik Maack
jolly wrote:
> I would love to receive
> a bit more intelligent comment than 'jealous'!!
The bait you use determines what sort of fish you'll catch.
Speaking of catching fish, there's a new dirty word on my website:
SCREW YOURSELF SILLY
http://www.nikart.com/dirty/dirty.html
Just another reminder that this project is open to ANYONE who would like
to submit a dirty word. Even Paul McCartney.
Mayo Florece
go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom says...
>
>There is a former US sports star who has made a success.
>I read somewhere he sells to celebs.
>I quite like them myself. Mostly US sports theme, but there is
>one I remember showing a female gymnast at the mat.
>Forgotten his name.
I don't think he was ever known as an athlete,
but Leroy Neiman has made quite a good living
producing poster art that depicts various
sports events. I would guess he is a multi-millionaire
several times over from sales of his reproductions.
For those who are slavering to see his work:
It's his OFFICIAL Web site!
PhtgrphrBn
it i liked some of it hoh humm
Gus Horne
phtgr...@aol.com wrote on 5/21/02 12:39 AM:
> i got to go to Anthony Quinn's studio once. And he did paint a lot. Some of
> it i liked some of it hoh humm
He had passion.
The argument for calling Quinn or McCartney "artists" is not as tenuous as
it would be for other people.
It's not like, suddenly, Bill Gates picked up a paint brush and immediately
got a show at the Guggenheim.
Gus Horne
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Gus Horne <gush...@earthlink.net> writes:
...
>
>The argument for calling Quinn or McCartney "artists" is not as tenuous as
>it would be for other people.
>
>It's not like, suddenly, Bill Gates picked up a paint brush and immediately
>got a show at the Guggenheim.
But it is rather like, suddenly, David Hockney picked up a cello
and immediately got a show at the Royal Opera House!
Discussion
No, I have searched the web but cant find that link again.
Here is some more that I remember.
Definitely not Neimann, different style. There is something more
in his paintings than just a view.
He is African American. He has done mostly gridiron sport,
but also baseball, basketball etc.
I am not all that sure now that he was a sports star, since my
failure to find him.
His promoting web site claims to have sold to the usual celeb
collectors including Oprah, etc. The estimated prices were
something like 400,000 dollarsUS.
N.H
"Mayo Florece" <ma...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3ce97...@oracle.zianet.com...
Gus Horne
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk at st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote on
5/21/02 5:02 AM:
> But it is rather like, suddenly, David Hockney picked up a cello
> and immediately got a show at the Royal Opera House!
And your point is . . . ?
That it couldn't happen?
Or that it shouldn't happen?
Peter H.M. Brooks
draws better pictures with his golden staff than the slave does. Then
the envious really get in a hissing fit.
--
How Long is a Chinese Name - Heist
Discussion
the worth of his work. One declared that his work would not have been
worthy enough to have earned an exhibit without his name, but the
fact that it was about him was the sole interest.
Further, he admired him for "going for it" rather than painting works
that were merely holiday snapshots. (I think that this aside was
directed at the work of Prince Charles). More talk revealed that
his work was too much like several other known artists who had
influenced him, in particular de Kooning.
Hope this adds to the thread.
N.H
"jolly" <ma...@keithsgallery.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XC5G8.433$vhi2.8...@news2.randori.com...
mdeli
>I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
>that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
>'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained artists.
The general public is right in this respect.
> The problem arises when that very
>underdeveloped and ignorant amateur artist happens to be a celebrity.
No, the problem arises when most so called modern artists are as
incompetent as most somewhat talented amateurs.
> Of course I am livid - particularly as
>Liverpool has provided the world with many great artists over the years, not
>only musicians and actors but painters too, who are far more worthy (and in
>need) of a show of such high exposure. The biggest gripe though is not that
>a celebrity has been given this opportunity - because that's inevitible
>these days with much funding being based on 'bums-on-seats' attendance, it's
>just that his paintings are so bloody awful!
Most of the crap hanging in the modern sections of museums is just as
bad. Why shouldn't Paul's hang in a similar place? He's got the
connections.
>--- and now this! A very high
>profile solo exhibtion at one of Englands oldest art galleries, adjacent
>rooms showing Matisse, Cezanne, Constable, Rembrant, Giotto... - great great
>artists. I'm sorry but this really hurts.
I glad it does. I hope similar nonsense kills Modern Academic Art. I
don't think Matisse and Cezanne should hang there either.
>Does anyone agree with me? Or am I just being a bit sensitive?? Are there
>any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
Churchill is as good as any Impressionist. Paul is as bad as any
mdeli
>I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
>that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
>'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained artists.
The general public is right in this respect.
> The problem arises when that very
>underdeveloped and ignorant amateur artist happens to be a celebrity.
No, the problem arises when most so called modern artists are as
incompetent as most somewhat talented amateurs.
> Of course I am livid - particularly as
>Liverpool has provided the world with many great artists over the years, not
>only musicians and actors but painters too, who are far more worthy (and in
>need) of a show of such high exposure. The biggest gripe though is not that
>a celebrity has been given this opportunity - because that's inevitible
>these days with much funding being based on 'bums-on-seats' attendance, it's
>just that his paintings are so bloody awful!
Most of the crap hanging in the modern sections of museums is just as
bad. Why shouldn't Paul's hang in a similar place? He's got the
connections.
>--- and now this! A very high
>profile solo exhibtion at one of Englands oldest art galleries, adjacent
>rooms showing Matisse, Cezanne, Constable, Rembrant, Giotto... - great great
>artists. I'm sorry but this really hurts.
I glad it does. I hope similar nonsense kills Modern Academic Art. I
don't think Matisse and Cezanne should hang there either.
>Does anyone agree with me? Or am I just being a bit sensitive?? Are there
>any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
Churchill is as good as any Impressionist. Paul is as bad as any
Andrew D
+ "jolly" <ma...@keithsgallery.co.uk> wrote:
+
+>I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
+>that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
+>'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained artists.
+The general public is right in this respect.
The general public are in a position to comment on a whole range of
professions about which they have little intimate knowledge. For example,
I don't need to study medicine to know that a surgeon removed the wrong
leg in an operation. I don't need to be a carpenter in order to know that
a crooked, leaky roof isn't up to scratch. I don't need to be a mechanic
to know I've got a problem when my car won't start.
Art is no different. The average punter might not know the hows and whys
of art but that doesn't mean they are in no position to pass judgement on
the finished job.
If it needs a three page thesis to explain it, then is it really art?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
chris
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-04060...@i204-226.nv.iinet.net.au...
> In article <3cf6fb9c...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com (mdeli)
wrote:
>
> + "jolly" <ma...@keithsgallery.co.uk> wrote:
> +
> +>I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
> +>that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
> +>'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained
artists.
>
> +The general public is right in this respect.
>
> The general public are in a position to comment on a whole range of
> professions about which they have little intimate knowledge. For example,
> I don't need to study medicine to know that a surgeon removed the wrong
> leg in an operation. I don't need to be a carpenter in order to know that
> a crooked, leaky roof isn't up to scratch. I don't need to be a mechanic
> to know I've got a problem when my car won't start.
>
> Art is no different. The average punter might not know the hows and whys
> of art but that doesn't mean they are in no position to pass judgement on
> the finished job.
>
And you forgot the most important point - average folks are the ones who all
to often pick up the tab (through taxes) for work no one would buy with
their own money. There's a good reason socialism is so strong in the
arts....
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
>I think this must be the only profession where the general public thinks
>that they need no prior knowledge whatsoever to form an opinion, produce
>'art' and actually exhibit it alongside professional and trained artists.
The general public is right in this respect.
> The problem arises when that very
>underdeveloped and ignorant amateur artist happens to be a celebrity.
No, the problem arises when most so called modern artists are as
incompetent as most somewhat talented amateurs.
> Of course I am livid - particularly as
>Liverpool has provided the world with many great artists over the years, not
>only musicians and actors but painters too, who are far more worthy (and in
>need) of a show of such high exposure. The biggest gripe though is not that
>a celebrity has been given this opportunity - because that's inevitible
>these days with much funding being based on 'bums-on-seats' attendance, it's
>just that his paintings are so bloody awful!
Most of the crap hanging in the modern sections of museums is just as
bad. Why shouldn't Paul's hang in a similar place? He's got the
connections.
>--- and now this! A very high
>profile solo exhibtion at one of Englands oldest art galleries, adjacent
>rooms showing Matisse, Cezanne, Constable, Rembrant, Giotto... - great great
>artists. I'm sorry but this really hurts.
I'm glad it does. I hope similar nonsense kills Modern Academic Art. I
don't think Matisse and Cezanne should hang there either.
>Does anyone agree with me? Or am I just being a bit sensitive?? Are there
>any celebrities that have turned out to be quite good I wonder.
Churchill is as good as any Impressionist. Paul is as bad as any
famous abstract schmierer. He has better connections than most and
abstract schmiering is mostly a matter of connections.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Richard
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:38:52 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Churchill is as good as any Impressionist. Paul is as bad as any
>famous abstract schmierer. He has better connections than most and
>abstract schmiering is mostly a matter of connections.
You're 100% correct.
I'm disappointed that Paul McCartney decided to make ugly modern fart
instead of learning proper drawing & painting skills and using them to
express himself in a meaningful way. He learned to play the guitar,
sing, and compose music, but he didn't learn to paint or draw. That is
such a waste. With his creativity, he might have had the potential to
make some very interesting paintings.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mani Deli
wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:38:52 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Churchill is as good as any Impressionist. Paul is as bad as any
>>famous abstract schmierer. He has better connections than most and
>>abstract schmiering is mostly a matter of connections.
>
>You're 100% correct.
>I'm disappointed that Paul McCartney decided to make ugly modern fart
>instead of learning proper drawing & painting skills and using them to
>express himself in a meaningful way.
I'm delighted!
His work shows that Modern Academic Art is a branch of stupidity in
which anyone can perform and only the right connections will get you
anywhere.
Richard
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:32:44 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>I'm delighted!
>
>His work shows that Modern Academic Art is a branch of stupidity in
>which anyone can perform and only the right connections will get you
>anywhere.
>...no skill no art!
So now all Dan Fox has to do is become a rock legend.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:v4n6sucv5v8m9kcn1...@4ax.com...