Dan Fox - a review
mdeli
create an image which looks any different from the mass of put-ons
that fill any art theology magazine and crowds the NY galleries. A fan
of fashionable Practically-Nothing-Abstraction, Fox has nothing to
offer us in the realm of originality, Fox's latest quest for
advancement in the wrong direction reveals a spate of boredom similar
to Rothko's. Dan Fox's latest work has certainly come down a notch
from the monotony of his last show.
I suspect that the change in quality and direction might be caused by
the fact that Fox fired his chimpanzee assistant. His switch in style
from chimpanzee-competition to
senility-posing-as-childishness-abstraction leaves us with little more
to look at then flat chalky schmiery blobs hovering in fog bound
Arctic backgrounds.
Fox's titles, as usual are even less inspired than the paintings. This
shortcoming reveals that Fox's humor level is on line with that of a
boiled snail. Fox fails to realize the importance of humor when trying
to impress a really rich patron of Modern Academic bullshit.
On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian value
if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If
reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were
reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on
bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of
Walmart bedding supply.
Should Fox be lucky and win the Modern Academic Art lottery I predict
he'll make a fortune and become very pompous.
I suggest that all here visit Mr. Fox's web site and gage the vast
merits of his paintings for themselves.
"No art at all is better than bad art" O. Wilde
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Madeleine Norman
~Artist~
mdeli wrote:
> Fox's latest stuff shows that he lacks that special talent needed to
> create an image which looks any different from the mass of put-ons
> that fill any art theology magazine and crowds the NY galleries.
That is because he is a geek not an artist and he spends too much time
making sites to bother people.
> A fan
> of fashionable Practically-Nothing-Abstraction, Fox has nothing to
> offer us in the realm of originality,
Agree the works are shallow to the point I bet he mocked up the bio too.
Who really checks BIOS for truth anyway? The way he calculates all the
websites they have sent me it would not surprise my you check his bio and
all the stuff on it is BS!
> Fox's latest quest for
> advancement in the wrong direction reveals a spate of boredom similar
> to Rothko's.
Rothco can use paint Fox _ no way. I have held back critique on all of
you for many reasons but now I would like to expose Fox the Fraud in Art
and Beyond.
Better if he took the BS right out of this group as he is not deserved to
be here.
> Dan Fox's latest work has certainly come down a notch
> from the monotony of his last show.
>
The last show was sooo bad - I was to embarrassed for the guy to make one
comment. I figured he and the charade would split but it appears his
obsessions continue to the point where he is posting more bad art.
> Fox's titles, as usual are even less inspired than the paintings. This
> shortcoming reveals that Fox's humor level is on line with that of a
> boiled snail. Fox fails to realize the importance of humor when trying
> to impress a really rich patron of Modern Academic bullshit.
>
I don't think he will ever pull it off.
You could see through his garbage from day 1 with all that overloard
garbage. The guy is a liar simple as that, check out the bio and check
out what shows are real bet you can't find too many that check out.
> On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian value
> if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If
> reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were
> reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on
> bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of
> Walmart bedding supply.
>
> Should Fox be lucky and win the Modern Academic Art lottery I predict
> he'll make a fortune and become very pompous.
He already is pompous already is that is how he is getting shown.
Fox-Henderson expects all the women to fall for his looks and pompous
approach to them and some female curators have apparently gulped down his
bs along with the bad art.
I for one have stayed clear of the looser until this week because I was
sick and tired of his constant barrage of bs and lies.
Never in 9 year on the net have I had to complain about being bothered
like I have with pompous Dan Henderson Fox and his cronies.
>
>
> I suggest that all here visit Mr. Fox's web site and gage the vast
> merits of his paintings for themselves.
>
Why waste your time. The guy is a looser and a liar and so is his art.
> "No art at all is better than bad art" O. Wilde
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
For once Mani ~ I agree with you completely. Stupendous review.
Mattison
http://www.rhinodev.com/M
Seeing Millennium our film from Cannes is on the site check it out!
~Artist~
on the money here.
Mattison
Madeleine Norman wrote:
> you are rude, cruel and illiterate. I think you should jump in the lake.
>
> mdeli wrote:
> >
> > Fox's latest stuff shows that he lacks that special talent needed to
> > create an image which looks any different from the mass of put-ons
> > that fill any art theology magazine and crowds the NY galleries. A fan
> > of fashionable Practically-Nothing-Abstraction, Fox has nothing to
> > offer us in the realm of originality, Fox's latest quest for
> > advancement in the wrong direction reveals a spate of boredom similar
> > to Rothko's. Dan Fox's latest work has certainly come down a notch
> > from the monotony of his last show.
> >
> > I suspect that the change in quality and direction might be caused by
> > the fact that Fox fired his chimpanzee assistant. His switch in style
> > from chimpanzee-competition to
> > senility-posing-as-childishness-abstraction leaves us with little more
> > to look at then flat chalky schmiery blobs hovering in fog bound
> > Arctic backgrounds.
> >
> > Fox's titles, as usual are even less inspired than the paintings. This
> > shortcoming reveals that Fox's humor level is on line with that of a
> > boiled snail. Fox fails to realize the importance of humor when trying
> > to impress a really rich patron of Modern Academic bullshit.
> >
> > On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian value
> > if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If
> > reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were
> > reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on
> > bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of
> > Walmart bedding supply.
> >
> > Should Fox be lucky and win the Modern Academic Art lottery I predict
> > he'll make a fortune and become very pompous.
> >
> > I suggest that all here visit Mr. Fox's web site and gage the vast
> > merits of his paintings for themselves.
> >
> > "No art at all is better than bad art" O. Wilde
> >
> > Mani DeLi
> > ...no skill no art
> >
mdeli
my vote. (details can be found in my book)
1-Cezanne's "The Great Bathers." This picture is considered by most a
foundation for what was to follow, No-skill-Realism.
2-Matisse's "Dance" anticipated present day abstractifyed
recognizeable image. Modernism at the time of these creations
considered itself in mortal combat with the academy. It is ironic that
this work was executed by the one artist who probably held the unique
position of being the worst student the academy ever produced.
3-5 Picasso's "Dames of Avignion", "Guernica" and the gigantic "Night
fishermen of Antibes." These paintings are truly excruciating. The
first two have generated a seventy year-long filibuster joined by
every art buff sporting the title of intellectual.
In the "Dames of Avignion," the color, the drawing, the image and even
the hint that the subjects might just be naughty, set a trend for all
the preconceived excruciating work which would follow over the years.
The "Dames of Avignion" cleverly invited the questions; are they
whores? Is this a Bordello landscape?" It was just the kind of scandal
critics loved to chew on. Always remember that a really first class
successful painting of this sort has to be scandalous in order that
you never even get the opportunity to think that it might really be
rather poorly executed.
"Guernica" is the first and great last laugh of the 1930's. It is
little more than a giant political cartoon attempting to predict the
seriousness of times to follow. The "fishermen of Antibes" is another
story. It marks the high-point of what I call the "Picasso Bored
Period" which followed World War II. By now Picasso was getting creaky
much like the Sun King Louis 14th during his later years. Even the
critics were becoming a bit bored. They were in fact beginning to yawn
and needed to be refreshed.
6-Mondrian's Broadway Boogy Woogy. I've seen better neckties.
7-10 Just about anything by Pollock, Rothko de Kooning, Franz Kline
members of the Practically Nothing-ism school of Modern Art where what
counts is the steady barrage of verbal hype lest the public forget.
Indeed as soon as the verbal hype ceases these saints of Modern
Academic Art theology will be reassessed.
Jiri Borsky
>
> The ten most idiotically hyped paintings of the 20th century. Here's
> my vote.
(pruned)
> 3-5 Picasso's "Dames of Avignion", "Guernica" and the gigantic "Night
> fishermen of Antibes." These paintings are truly excruciating. The
> first two have generated a seventy year-long filibuster joined by
> every art buff sporting the title of intellectual.
We have not crossed our antlers yet, as I was mostly always in at least partial
agreement with a lot of your opinions.
However, hands off "Night Fishing at Antibes"!
It used to interest me a lot in my younger years. I may have mellowed since, but still I
could not attach a "truly excruciating" label to it.
Surely there are more deserving pieces?
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/borsky/
Tomi Holmberg
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> 3-5 Picasso's "Dames of Avignion", "Guernica" and the gigantic "Night
> fishermen of Antibes." These paintings are truly excruciating. The
> first two have generated a seventy year-long filibuster joined by
> every art buff sporting the title of intellectual.
i think most of picasso's works are famous because his shit he marketed
got into public. i'd like to hear from someone what makes 'guernica'
such a great work; visually it's nothing but a nice doodling. everytime
i look around i see dozens of if not as well produced semi-abstract
paintings, but better ones. moreover, picasso was mostly a ripper who
lacked originality. instead of creating his own ideas, he borrowed more
or less stuff for his work from outside.
--
Art Suxors!!
www.sci.fi/~tomppa1
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.