Three winners
Mani Deli
>Jackson Pollack is beautiful
>Barnett Newman is beautiful
>Jean Dubuffet is beautiful
Jackson Pollack is bearable but stupid and can be imitated by anyone
with enough minimal skill to do mediocre floor covering
Barnett Newman is moronic, uninspired and unoriginal. He is even too
stupid to design a good bath towel but why should he bother when he
can sell to even more moronic richy idiots for astronomical sums.
Bravo Newmann.
Jean Dubuffet is in the class of the worlds least talented charlatans.
He is totally incompetent and his draftsmanship is even worse than
that of Matisse. A definite plus these days. The only difference
between his painting and kindergarten art is what I class as his
dangerous surface. One can test this by firmly drawing a bare arm down
the painting and seeing whether it draws blood. Anyone who wishes can
learn this technique during the first week of art school provided his
teacher tells him how.
Dubuffet is a leading member of the European nitwit school of Abstract
Expressionist imitators along with Appel And Soulages etc.
His only redeeming characteristic is that his product sells for big
money and gives Modern Academic curators erections.
...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/
Flobby Bischer
struggled to find a voice within the form, was basically lost and let a
critic tell him what to do, then he did one or two good drip paintings, and
by the last few years of his life was a raging alcholic who made copies of
Pollacks that sucked, and ripped off every artist around him, for example
Tobey.
I agree that Newman is dull and Dubuffet nothing but unbearable schlock
right up there with peter max. (In fact Newman is the high modernist's
version of peter max. Thank god people no longer tolerate his work. A big
retro he was to recently have didn't travel to a number of venues. People
just weren't interested.
Flobby Bischer
Really this is a serious question.
I'm confused because the colors, composition and ideas are all Dali. If they
really are your works, isn't it time you develop your own style? You're the
first to criticize artists for painting exactly like so and so.
Mani Deli
<blube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Mani are those your works or just second hand Dalis?????
>
>Really this is a serious question.
They are second hand Dali's and fifth hand Vermeer's with a bit of
fourth hand Ingres thrown in.
>I'm confused because the colors, composition and ideas are all Dali.
Yes, you are confused.
>If they
>really are your works,
They aren,t. My grandmother's spirit did them.
> isn't it time you develop your own style?
No.
>You're the
>first to criticize artists for painting exactly like so and so.
>
True! I think most modern paintings in museums are second hand floor
covering, bed sheets, towels and third hand kiddie imitations.
Mani Deli
<blube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I agree that Newman is dull and Dubuffet nothing but unbearable schlock
>right up there with peter max.
I'm always amused that the guys who like the most ridicules modern
garbage are also pissed at Max (aka. Pete Finkelstein, I went to
school with him. ) His better stuff has a bit of flair and technique
while most of his garbage is I suspect a compromise.
> (In fact Newman is the high modernist's
>version of peter max.
Max isn't nearly as full of shit or as pompous as Newman who hasn't
the skill to paint his bathroom door.
>Thank god people no longer tolerate his work. A big
>retro he was to recently have didn't travel to a number of venues. People
>just weren't interested.
Dr. Slick
Good to see that I'm not alone!
It's quite obvious Mani!
Be yourself, Dammit!
Slick
Seagull Manager
> Jackson Pollack ripped off his ideas from French Surrealists then he
> struggled to find a voice within the form, was basically lost and let a
> critic tell him what to do, then he did one or two good drip paintings,
and
> by the last few years of his life was a raging alcholic who made copies of
> Pollacks that sucked, and ripped off every artist around him, for example
> Tobey.
A good summary, except for the word "good" where it appears before "drip
paintings". They're only "good" by the standards of an interior decorator
who wants to fill a lobby with something large, mute, bland and neutral with
a bit of texture.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bgc4l1$nff$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
pieces of such decoration as if they were fine art - the kind word for it is
'decorative art', not because good art can't be decorative (it doesn't, of
course, have to be), but because it cannot be anything more than that, and
sometimes it doesn't even get to that level. Sadly this term is seldom used,
such pictures are called 'abstract', which they are clearly not, or
'abstract impressionist', which they are also not. There isn't really a
proper, generally understood, term for what you call 'large, mute, bland,
neutral painted stuff with some texture'.
Sadly it has given a bad name to both abstract art and abstract
impressionism. There are, of course, also some people who throw the baby out
with the bathwater and think that all abstract art is decorative art (maybe
'decorative craft' might be a good term, though unkind to crafts). That is
also not true. Many great paintings, some Turners, for example, are not
realistic, but are genuine abstractions of a real scene.
--
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde