making sense of modern art
gerberk
gerberk
link they will find that the argument No Skill no Art is of no value.
"gerberk" <ger...@home.nl> schreef in bericht
news:bdtpmc$qo7$1...@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> http://www.sfmoma.org/richter/
>
>
>
>
gerberk
just dont like these abstracts or is it I just dont get it Or is it I hate
it when people paint better than me Or is it people just don't understand me
Lesende
Is it art?
Is it good?
Is the technique good?
colour?
emotion?
Is it a masterpiece?
regards
"gerberk" <ger...@home.nl> schreef in bericht
news:be0qa4$e1m$1...@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Mani Deli
>Or is it without skill No art or is it with skill there is art or is it i
>just dont like these abstracts or is it I just dont get it Or is it I hate
>it when people paint better than me Or is it people just don't understand me
>
Gerhard Richter: An Artist Beyond Isms By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN NY Times'
BS art critic ---I write about a few snippets
After a bit of introduction the Artspeak begins
>Since the mid-60's, Richter has been celebrated and attacked, pretty much equally, for the extreme physical precision, maddening opacity and daunting intellectual quality of his work, which switch-hits, sometimes almost as if arbitrarily, between realism and abstraction. (---snip) The abstractions sometimes perversely turn improvisational gestures into deliberate, mechanical-looking, freeze-dried marks. They have the quality of blue ice, pristine and cool. Richter's paintings are disciplined, contradictory, strange, melancholic, even sometimes morbid.
And the Enron talk begins: (read about how blue chip Modern Art is
created on my web site.)
>And they are among the great works of the postwar era. (&) Richter's reputation is as a prolific, tricky virtuoso, a deliberately elusive Conceptualist who, it is often said, paints only to prove that painting is dead.
Which shows that this guy has nothing much to say
>Spending time with Richter, talking to him, you discover that far from being sterile or evasive, he is at heart a traditionalist: in a completely unsentimental, cold-eyed way, he is a true believer in painting.
", he is a true believer in painting. " This should reassure all here
that his stuff is really worth millions.
More Artspeak
>His work asks people to think freshly and not romantically about control versus freedom, austerity versus exuberance, faith versus skepticism: about what we can trust in what we see. It raises questions about contemporary politics and German history, which Richter doesn't presume to answer.
I believe Richter work raises questions about quality in all Modern
Academic Art.
>Thirty years ago, Richter painted 48 black-and-white portrait heads copied straight from an old German encyclopedia. The subjects included Thomas Mann, Puccini, William James and Kafka. Dead white males. A pantheon of dour faces.
I saw all the originals and found them utterly stupid incompetent
third rate student knockouts of no interest whatever except perhaps to
art vendors pushing another Modern Art nobody to stardom.
>Richter has never said much about these pictures,
A wise move
>''Idiots can do what I do,'' he says, although of course he doesn't really think so.
I think he does.
''When I first started to do this in the 60's, people laughed. I
clearly showed that I painted from photographs. It seemed so juvenile.
The provocation was purely formal -- that I was making paintings like
photographs.
He hasn't the skill to copy a photo. And if he weren't hyped up by
dealers critics and curators who are making tubs of money on his
stuff, people still wouldn't laugh but would consider it garbage.
>"What I have is not facility, because this really doesn't take skill."
Right on!
>I have an eye.
Most have two.
>I couldn't make a drawing of you sitting here right now. I would love to have that ability, in the same way that I would love to play the piano. Virtuosity is a precondition for pianists, but in addition you have to be good. These are not the same thing. This is the big problem for painting today, the terrible side of modern art, because you can now do anything and simply declare it to be art -- with no sense of quality.''
The guy is a realist! Far more intelligent and cleaver than the boob
who wrote the article!
>In the mid-60's, Richter began painting color charts. They were like the paint charts in hardware stores, only bigger, and the colors were not in any particular order. The charts looked Pop and also Minimalist, but they weren't either, precisely.
Precisely?
>He starts with splashes of color or some geometric composition -- usually something gaudy and generic. Then he employs homemade wood-and-plexiglass squeegees to wipe and drag the paint. The process entails repeatedly building up and wiping off. The effects change depending on where and how he applies pressure with the squeegee. He has become very adept at this, but there is still an element of chance involved. He also pulls brushes through the wiped surface -- fine boar's hair brushes -- and in the end the pictures always turn out to look excruciatingly subtle and calculated.
Unlike this twit critic, Richter knows a bit more as he learned a
little about drawing. Richter's better abstractions have a slightly
three-dimensional look. No big deal. Lots of no-name abstractionist do
the same, but it is a far cry from the flat-as-a-board AE patzers that
are still in fashion. After all critics can't push every schmierer
they have to pick and choose.
Snip-the rest--I 'd go on if the NY Times paid me.
Michael Kimmelman is the chief art critic of The New York Times. He
has written recently for the magazine about Ellsworth Kelly, Bridget
Riley and Matthew Barney.
Try reading his stupidity on Kelly
...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/