Art critics sharpen their knives for Paul
jen
<snip>Unfortunately, the art critics have not been kind. Even before
seeing the show, leading British art critic and broadcaster Brian Sewell
said, "His work has no merit. It is rubbish. What is worse, the man thinks
he is a genius. He will be walking on water next. It is a bit like a
renowned writer, say for instance Muriel Spark, suddenly deciding at a late
age to become a pop singer." Robin Simon, editor of the British Art
Journal stated, "Unlike Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones, McCartney's art
is indescribably bad. I was shown examples of his work last year and asked
to comment on them without having any idea who had painted them - which is,
of course, how one should always review art. What I saw was a dog's
dinner."<snip>
Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
Paul? They did the same thing with his orchestral stuff and his poetry.
And these same critics wonder why he seems somewhat insecure or has a
inferiority complex? Wonder how they would feel if someone referred to
their work as "a dog's dinner". Sure Paul's filthy rich and has had more
success than just about anyone in the world, but I would imagine vicious
comments like that do affect him. I'd love to know what he's done to
deserve attacks like this. He took up painting as a hobby and decided to
show his work to the public. What's the big deal?
AppleCorp3
I can't stand art critics to begin with...but they seem even more like assholes
when they say stuff like "His work has no merit" what is that? I'm sure
Sewell's art is chock full of it.
When it comes to any critics, however, they insist that Paul McCartney can't do
ANYTHING...not even write music.
post-coital cigarette
>
> Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
> Paul? They did the same thing with his orchestral stuff and his poetry.
cuz his art, his "orchestral stuff" and his poetry (as well as his
recent efforts at pop music) are no good.
D
nowhere man
@canada.com:
> cuz his art, his "orchestral stuff" and his poetry (as well as his
> recent efforts at pop music) are no good.
as far as painting goes.....Paul is a great songwriter.
;3)
J. Juls
"jen" <jsn...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:acjt1r$pak$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> http://mcbeatle.de/macca/lnews.php?disp+20020523
> Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
> Paul?
Well, the guy said he reviewed the pics without knowing who painted them.
Who knows whether he was lying or not, but anyhoo I don't think Paul paints
well. IMHO.
Julie
robertandrews
>Sewell: "the man thinks he is a genius."
Irrelevant. He's used the gossip page to evaluate the art.
>Simon: "I was shown examples of his work last year and asked to comment on
them without having any idea who had painted them - which is, of course, how
one should always review art."
Suggesting the exact opposite -- that we are compelled to know nothing about
the artist. We might as well dispense with retrospectives & shows, &
evaluate each painting on its own. "Review art" is a silly term. Do we
"review music" when we listen to the Beatles?
These pompous fools are considerably beneath Paul's lousy art.
Mister Charlie
I think the real critics recognize what Paul is doing outside of rock n
roll is strictly vanity projects, and they don't have enough depth to
merit real criticism or praise.
However, I do like some of the images in some of his paintings.
Haunting.
>
>
edc...@bellatlantic.net
the critics. fuck them!!! I'd like to see them try to do half as well as some
of the people (including Paul) that they always critisize. Assholes.
Frannie
> <snip>Unfortunately, the art critics have not been kind. Even before
> seeing the show, leading British art critic and broadcaster Brian Sewell
> said, "His work has no merit. It is rubbish. What is worse, the man thinks
> he is a genius. He will be walking on water next. It is a bit like a
> renowned writer, say for instance Muriel Spark, suddenly deciding at a late
> age to become a pop singer." Robin Simon, editor of the British Art
> Journal stated, "Unlike Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones, McCartney's art
> is indescribably bad. I was shown examples of his work last year and asked
> to comment on them without having any idea who had painted them - which is,
> of course, how one should always review art. What I saw was a dog's
> dinner."<snip>
>
> Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
> Paul? They did the same thing with his orchestral stuff and his poetry.
Because that's the job of a critic, jen... to critique. Art critics
and literary critics are not bound by the loyalties of pop music fans.
> And these same critics wonder why he seems somewhat insecure or has a
> inferiority complex?
No, they don't wonder about Paul's insecurities. They don't care. It's
not their job to care about the artist's ego.
Wonder how they would feel if someone referred to
> their work as "a dog's dinner".
It happens. Comes with the territory.
Sure Paul's filthy rich and has had more
> success than just about anyone in the world, but I would imagine vicious
> comments like that do affect him.
Let's hope so... he might think twice before exhibiting 90 more
paintings, or publishing a book of poetry that consists of song lyrics
interspersed with private poetry that was not meant for publication,
and which would not be acceptable to major publishers of poetry.
I'd love to know what he's done to
> deserve attacks like this. He took up painting as a hobby and decided to
> show his work to the public. What's the big deal?
The big deal is, he's not a classical composer, a poet or a painter.
His ballpark is pop music.
Once he enters another arena, he doesn't carry the respect and
recognition he's earned as a pop star. It's another playing field, and
as a painter, he's an amateur. If you can't take the heat...
That's all there is to it.
Frannie
Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities
and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns
this, he knows where the danger is. ~ Tennessee Williams ~
Rich Forman
Unlike a lot of people, I've never had a problem with critics, even
when their assesments don't match mine. They're just people with
opinions, and a special, extra-enthusiastic, well-informed interest in
their subjects (be it movies, music, theatre, whatever), that makes
their opinions, not necessarily more valid than anybody else's, but
lots of times more interesting to read or hear because they're more
formulated and thought-out, especially if they also happen to be good
writers which is pretty often the case too. So I have no problem with
this guy having a negative opinion of Paul's artwork if that's his
real reaction, what should he do, like it instantly just because it's
Paul's?
richforman
JLW44
>this guy having a negative opinion of Paul's artwork if that's his
>real reaction, what should he do, like it instantly just because it's
>Paul's?
>
>richforman
No but how many have this opinion because it is Paul.
Mister Charlie
>From: franc...@excite.com (Frannie)
>Date: 5/24/2002 4:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <b8bebffe.02052...@posting.google.com>
>
>"jen" <jsn...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
>news:<acjt1r$pak$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> http://mcbeatle.de/macca/lnews.php?disp+20020523
>
>
>> And these same critics wonder why he seems somewhat insecure or has a
>> inferiority complex?
>
>No, they don't wonder about Paul's insecurities. They don't care. It's
>not their job to care about the artist's ego.
I absolutely agree.
>
>Wonder how they would feel if someone referred to
>> their work as "a dog's dinner".
>
>It happens. Comes with the territory.
A totally agree. AN artist puts their work out there. You never hear them
complain or demur when they are fulsomely praised. Artists know this. They are
paid extremely handsomely for what they do. They more than anyone know that it
comes with the territory.
>
>I'd love to know what he's done to
>> deserve attacks like this. He took up painting as a hobby and decided to
>> show his work to the public. What's the big deal?
>
>The big deal is, he's not a classical composer, a poet or a painter.
>His ballpark is pop music.
>
>Once he enters another arena, he doesn't carry the respect and
>recognition he's earned as a pop star. It's another playing field, and
>as a painter, he's an amateur. If you can't take the heat...
Absolutely agree. If I am a spray painter and I decide to try and do
glassblowing and my efforts are recognizable but nothing special, should I be
praised because my buddy painters and friends think I'm an ok guy?
If Paul wants to put this stuff out there and have it be received in a manner
where people have to pay to view it (or listen to it as with the Oratorio etc.)
then a critic has not only the right but the responsibilty to tell people
whether it's worth their time and money or not.
robertandrews
>Unlike a lot of people, I've never had a problem with critics, even when
their assesments don't match mine. They're just people with opinions, and a
Did you disagree with my critical assessment of these critics? The first
was well-informed by the gossip page, the second was either foolish or
dishonest.
Lizz Holmans
Anytime you're talking Brian Sewellk, you're talking foolish. I
wouldn't go so far as 'dishonest', but he does work for the Evening
SubStandard.
Lizz 'Imagine the Daily Mail, only *worse*' Holmans
--
Boys is easier, and if you have sons it's worth trying for three.
Nanny Ogg
post-coital cigarette
> On 24 May 2002 06:32:15 -0700, in article
> <f354f363.02052...@posting.google.com>, rfor...@optonline.net
> stated:
>
>
>>>Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
>>>Paul? They did the same thing with his orchestral stuff and his poetry.
>>>
>
> Not a good analogy. Both of those things are indeed indescribably bad. The
> poetry in particular.
some of the poetry's not as prosaically inexcusable as, say, the
liverpool oratorio
a difference of degree, i guess..
>
> interstate5
>
>
Ehtue
>>>>Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
>>>>Paul? They did the same thing with his orchestral stuff and his poetry.
>> Not a good analogy. Both of those things are indeed indescribably bad.
>The
>> poetry in particular.
>
>some of the poetry's not as prosaically inexcusable as, say, the
>liverpool oratorio
>
>a difference of degree, i guess..
It's shorter, for one thing.
-Ehtue
jen
news:b8bebffe.02052...@posting.google.com...
> "jen" <jsn...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:<acjt1r$pak$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > http://mcbeatle.de/macca/lnews.php?disp+20020523
> > <snip>Unfortunately, the art critics have not been kind. Even before
> > seeing the show, leading British art critic and broadcaster Brian Sewell
> > said, "His work has no merit. It is rubbish. What is worse, the man
thinks
> > he is a genius. He will be walking on water next. It is a bit like a
> > renowned writer, say for instance Muriel Spark, suddenly deciding at a
late
> > age to become a pop singer." Robin Simon, editor of the British Art
> > Journal stated, "Unlike Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones, McCartney's
art
> > is indescribably bad. I was shown examples of his work last year and
asked
> > to comment on them without having any idea who had painted them - which
is,
> > of course, how one should always review art. What I saw was a dog's
> > dinner."<snip>
> >
> > Why is it that the critics always sharpen there knives when it comes to
> > Paul? They did the same thing with his orchestral stuff and his poetry.
>
> Because that's the job of a critic, jen... to critique. Art critics
> and literary critics are not bound by the loyalties of pop music fans.
And I'm not suggesting they should't be objective and shouldn't criticize.
I'm just questioning their method, their choice of words. Is it necessary
to be so "mean-spirited"? What has Paul done to any of them to leave such a
sour tase in their mouths? He's encroching on their territory? I didn't
realise only certain people were allowed to be 'artists', and that the
clique cannot include 'pop stars'. Btw, I've seen photos of many of Paul's
paintings, and they do nothing for me. But I wouldn't feel the need to say
they make me want to vomit in the toilet.
>
>
> > And these same critics wonder why he seems somewhat insecure or has a
> > inferiority complex?
>
> No, they don't wonder about Paul's insecurities. They don't care. It's
> not their job to care about the artist's ego.
Um, some obviously do. The recent Telegraph interview dealt with this
subject. I'm not suggesting that they care, but I do think some wonder why.
>
>
> Wonder how they would feel if someone referred to
> > their work as "a dog's dinner".
>
> It happens. Comes with the territory.
Of course. But you have to admit that the venom spewed Paul's way is much
worse than most of his contemporaries receive. Instead of just saying 'his
paintings are not very good', they say "his paintings remind me of a dog's
dinner". Yes it happens, but is it necessary?
>
>
> Sure Paul's filthy rich and has had more
> > success than just about anyone in the world, but I would imagine vicious
> > comments like that do affect him.
>
> Let's hope so... he might think twice before exhibiting 90 more
> paintings, or publishing a book of poetry that consists of song lyrics
> interspersed with private poetry that was not meant for publication,
> and which would not be acceptable to major publishers of poetry.
> I'd love to know what he's done to
> > deserve attacks like this. He took up painting as a hobby and decided
to
> > show his work to the public. What's the big deal?
>
> The big deal is, he's not a classical composer, a poet or a painter.
> His ballpark is pop music.
>
> Once he enters another arena, he doesn't carry the respect and
> recognition he's earned as a pop star. It's another playing field, and
> as a painter, he's an amateur. If you can't take the heat...
>
I never said he couldn't take the heat. And from his most recent comments
it sounds like he could give a shit less what these so-called "critics"
think of his work (or at least that's what he's conveying to the public).
And I'm not saying the stuffy "art critics" need to respect him in any way.
But that doesn't mean they have to write with such bile in respect to his
work. I don't think there's any evidence that he is or ever has compared
himself with the greats or thinks his art is on par with them. Painting is
a hobby for him which he has decided to show the public. But because he's
Paul fucking McCartney the press makes a big deal out of everything he does.
If it bothers the "critics" that his worthless art gets too much attention,
don't blame him, blame the mass media.
jen
news:f354f363.02052...@posting.google.com...
Comparing someone's art to "a dogs dinner" is well formulated and
thought-out? These aren't objective criticisms of his work, they're
mean-spirited venomous attacks which aren't so much attacking his work as
the man himself. Sort of 'how dare the man who wrote The Frog Chorus think
he's a serious painter or classical composer'.
jen
"JLW44" <jl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020524093554...@mb-fi.aol.com...
Exactly. How many of these reviews are really objective? To me they just
prove the "critics" anti-Paul bias.
robertandrews
>Anytime you're talking Brian Sewellk, you're talking foolish. I wouldn't go
so far as 'dishonest', but he does work for the Evening
SubStandard.
What I found amusing is their extreme & opposite approaches. Sewell
condemned Paul for thinking he's a genius. I'm not aware the art was shown
in such a way that connotes "genius," like we'd find with a respected or
famous painter. It seems Sewell was unable to look beyond what he perceives
as Paul's personality. While some prejudice (or prejudgment) is expected
with celebrity art, this is simply mean-spirited gossip.
Simon said it doesn't matter in the slightest who painted the picture.
That's absurd, since an artist invariably signs his or her work.
Two extremes, both exercises in stupidity.
As far as calling art "dog's dinner," I'm reminded that the English are not
known for their cuisine. Though Nigella looks pretty tasty.
BlackMonk
> Comparing someone's art to "a dogs dinner" is well formulated and
> thought-out? These aren't objective criticisms of his work, they're
> mean-spirited venomous attacks which aren't so much attacking his work as
> the man himself. Sort of 'how dare the man who wrote The Frog Chorus
think
> he's a serious painter or classical composer'.
>
>
Or sort of "This is really, really bad."
Or maybe "If this wasn't Paul McCartney, no one would let this guy show
these paintings in public."
It seems like a fair trade-off, he might get some harsher criticism because
of who he is, but he also has a guaranteed outlet for anything he does,
along with some people who'll like anything he does.
BlackMonk
>
> "JLW44" <jl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020524093554...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> > >So I have no problem with
> > >this guy having a negative opinion of Paul's artwork if that's his
> > >real reaction, what should he do, like it instantly just because it's
> > >Paul's?
> > >
> > >richforman
> >
> > No but how many have this opinion because it is Paul.
>
> Exactly. How many of these reviews are really objective?
Those would be news stories. Reviews are supposed to be subjective.
Mister Charlie
They write with bile for the same reason trolls do. To get attention.
>
>
Doug Campbell
> Or sort of "This is really, really bad."
>
> Or maybe "If this wasn't Paul McCartney, no one would let this guy show
> these paintings in public."
I don't care for most of them but I've seen worse from people who *that's all
they do*...
It's a tempest in a teapot anyway - the market has no real interest in what's
"good". Individual gallery owners may have their own sense of that, just as
individual music producers might, but ignore the pretense of high culture vs.
pop culture and behold: the gallery/criticism system operates on the same
principle as that which made Fred Durst for some reason known to me. The same
principle as that which causes highway traffic to slow to a halt for no
reason. There is no "why", everybody just does.
I can tell by looking that painting is an enjoyable experience for Paul
McCartney. *That's* good. All else is vanity as they say - and not by any
means all *his*.
DC
Frannie
>
>
> Of course. But you have to admit that the venom spewed Paul's way is much
> worse than most of his contemporaries receive. Instead of just saying 'his
> paintings are not very good', they say "his paintings remind me of a dog's
> dinner". Yes it happens, but is it necessary?
>
Jen, who are you talking about when you say "Most of his
contemporaries"?
His only contemporaries (in this context) are other celebrity
hobbyists. He is not a contemporary of recognized painters his own
age, nor is he a contemporary of other well-known performers who also
paint. Jonathan Winters, Tony Bennett, and the late Anthony Quinn also
painted as a hobby, and although none of their shows attracted the
kind of attention a former Beatle generates, they were reviewed the
same way as Paul's work was. . . in the context of the hobbyist,
without favoring them for the work they did in their chosen
professions. Cruelty is a favorite tool of the better art critics!
If you've ever read art reviews in the New York Times, or Artforum, or
even in art history books, you know that "the dog's breakfast" is
comparatively mild. Read the early reviews of the Impressionists,
Vincent Van Gogh, and even Jackson Pollock!
Besides, one of Paul's paintings is actually called "Bowie Spews"...
that opens the door.
Frannie