Paul's Paintings
Mister Charlie
Art is subjective, either you like something or you don't. Even
without reason you can instinctively drawn to or repelled from art, be
it music, sculpture, dance, poetry, literature, or painting.
Paul has proven himself in one, maybe two such pursuits, and likes to
dabble in a few others.
I procured, totally by accident at the local library' a copy of Paul's
PAINTINGS book.
Not being a big artsy-type person, even though I have the soul of a
poet, I figured I would casually leaf thru the book and never pick it
up again.
I had seen caricatures Paul did when young, and his artwork was, to my
catroonist's eye (I dabble in a few things too), quite good. His
caricature of Patti Boyd was an excellent example of cartoon-y
caricature, as was Mr Kipp.
Although I can appreciate beauty in many forms (women, pink clouds,
puppies)I have never been a big 'abstract' fan. Surely it is my
inability to understand it or the intentions of the artist.
But I was quite pleasantly surprised at some of Paul's artworks.
I 'got' it on some of them. Some I liked were quite beautiful, or
effectively gruesome (Queen After her First Cigarette or Bowie Spewing)
and there was humor and a bit of pathos in some, whether intentional or
sublimated.
The Celt phallic pix were funny, and Red Triangle was a nice study.
One of my absolute favorites was Yellow Linda With Piano. Very, very
nice.
So, for those who are familiar with this book or his works, and to give
a clue as to what *I* find artistically interesting, I shall enumerate
a few more titles. This way I'm not being overly vague and praiseful
just because 'he's Paul' ( not that I ever would...I tend to like Yoko
but I don't necessarily appreciate her artwork either).
Black Scratch III, Is This A Self-Portrait?, Shock Head, Unfinished
Symphony, Oak Apple Twenties Man, Prehistoric Antelope, Elvish Me,
Beach Boy, Johns Room, The Kiss...there are some others I find of
interest as well.
Bulfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company released the book in 2000, an
oversized coffee-table artbook. I can't paint worth a damn and have
always admired those who could make pictures out of blobs of color. I
expected very little from Paul but found a lot of merit in what he is
doing. Not a professional by any means, nor would he live long as one
I don't think. But for a sideline, along with other talented artists
like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett, it is interesting and refreshing
to see another artistic output from a respected celeb.
PS: In the continuing interest of personal integrity and full
disclosure Internet laws, I was stoned the first time I saw the
pictures. But right now as I went thru again I still appreciated the
same ones straight. A true sign on artistic merit. :)
--
"...I've had a picture look cool just like Escher,
There's no 'Three' in 3 Stooges with Joe Besser..."
http://members.aol.com/tensevenfiftytwo
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mister Charlie
posting it! It has changed MY life, let me tell you!
(For those who want less arguing and more on topic posting...)
((PS: I realize this book is not widely read probably, so perhaps it's
obscurity prevents anyone from commenting. If so, so be it. But has
*no* one seen this?))
Aine nic an Fhilidh
<cc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ((PS: I realize this book is not widely read probably, so perhaps it's
> obscurity prevents anyone from commenting. If so, so be it. But has
> *no* one seen this?))
I saw it, Charlie, and I agree 100%. Thanks for posting it.
- d.
Mister Charlie
book. But again, I doubt that many people have seen it, so...not like
reveiwing a CD I suppose.
toad
I saw it too, and didn't have time to respond saying: it was a
sensitive encounter with the paintings, and I enjoyed it.
> But I was quite pleasantly surprised at some of Paul's artworks.
> I 'got' it on some of them. Some I liked were quite beautiful, or
> effectively gruesome (Queen After her First Cigarette or Bowie
Spewing)> and there was humor and a bit of pathos in some, whether intentional
or> sublimated.
But I don't think that the humor was unintentional: what do you
make of Celtic Eloquence, with the tongue of the orator chained to the ear
of the captive? This is intentional, my dears. Besides that, McCartney
has been funny for 40 years and counting, so why shouldn't he be funny in
paintings? I personally observed two ladies from the suburbs look at one
of his paintings at the Matthew Marks exhibit, and giggle. What did you
make of Upturned critic framed? I think those are cloven hooves on the
central figure.
Cheers,
toad
Bob Stahley
: ((PS: I realize this book is not widely read probably, so perhaps it's
: obscurity prevents anyone from commenting. If so, so be it. But has
: *no* one seen this?))
Oh, I saw it all right, not long after it first came out. I'm of the
opinion, tho, that if one can't find anything nice to say about something,
one ought say nothing at all.
But since you asked, I found the majority of the work included in the book
alternately amateurish and derivitive (an opinion not unlike my opinion of
his so-called "serious" orchestral works). There was the occasional piece
of interest, but was so rare as to suggest that such pieces were the
result of mere luck rather than purpose.
I've no doubt it'd make a handsome and colorful coaster for one's drinks.
Certainly far more colorful, if just as certainly far less handsome, than
Yoko's recent book, which is at least graphically appealing. I mean,
really: who designed Paul's book, anyway? The damn thing's about as
exciting to look at as a community college course catalog!
But, hey, it's printed in register, so that's something, right?
Now, aren't you glad you asked?
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com
__)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Fear No Art
R.A.G. Seely
>I've no doubt it'd make a handsome and colorful coaster for one's drinks.
>Certainly far more colorful, if just as certainly far less handsome, than
>Yoko's recent book, which is at least graphically appealing. I mean,
>really: who designed Paul's book, anyway? The damn thing's about as
>exciting to look at as a community college course catalog!
Another comment: I see it frequently in the window of a local bookstore,
and I have to tell you, that cover is really *bad*! - It makes Paul's face
look as if it melted. (Now, no comments about this being realistic art!)
I haven't been seduced into looking inside, I am afraid - usually in a
hurry, and that cover is no incentive to stop and browse.
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math.mcgill.ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
robertandrews
>I'm of the opinion, tho, that if one can't find anything nice to say about
I usually don't respond to lousy critiques, but this one caught my eye.
>There was the occasional piece of interest, but was so rare as to suggest
that such pieces were the result of mere luck rather than purpose.
If I like a piece, I'll give the artist the credit. Luck has little to do
with interesting, good or great art.
>I've no doubt it'd make a handsome and colorful coaster for one's drinks.
Compared to Mr. Charlie's insightful review, that's both misguided &
insulting. I could say the same about any book with a pretty cover.
You applaud "1" because the Beatles' music is merely pop, & is therefore
entitled to be sold in a crass & unaesthetic way. You demean Paul's book,
because it doesn't live up to some unspecified standards that are likely
untenable. If I may summarize your view, the Beatles music succeeds
magnificently at "low art." Paul's book fails miserably at "high art."
With this restrictive & predictable outlook, it would be pretty easy for me
to write your next review; in other words, I know what you're going to say
before you say it. Mr. Charlie told me something new, & inspired curiosity
in a book I would ordinarily dismiss.
Bob Stahley
: "Bob Stahley" <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
: I usually don't respond to lousy critiques, but this one caught my eye.
No accounting for taste...
: If I like a piece, I'll give the artist the credit.
How nice of you. Do you exchange birthday gifts, too, or is it
just limited to exchanging Christmas cards?
: >I've no doubt it'd make a handsome and colorful coaster for one's drinks.
: Compared to Mr. Charlie's insightful review, that's both misguided &
: insulting.
Compared to Mr. Charlie's review, a reading of the ingredients of a box of
cereal would seem "insulting." Charie's was a positive review. Mine was
negative. I'm sure Paul's mature enough to recognize that a critique of
his artwork doesn't equate to an attack upon his person.
You, tho, I'm not sure about.
I take great exception to the characterization of "misguided." I'll have
you know that the review landed exactly where it was intended, in
rec.music.beatles, and nowhere near soc.fern.adornment. My aim is true!
: I could say the same about any book with a pretty cover.
Then, by all mean, go to! Be sure to mention Stephen King's latest, 'cuz
he gets sullen if he feels slighted, and it's a sorry sight to see.
: You applaud "1" because the Beatles' music is merely pop, & is therefore
: entitled to be sold in a crass & unaesthetic way.
I never said _1_ was being "sold in a crass and unaesthetic way." You
did. I personally don't find the marketing of _1_ to be "crass and
unaesthetic" in the slightest.
Gee, there's that "putting words in my mouth" thing again. Sure happens
round here a lot, don't it?
: You demean Paul's book,
: because it doesn't live up to some unspecified standards that are likely
: untenable.
Nonsense. Paul's work can hardly be labeled "commercial," and even if one
were to critique it in those terms, it would fail dismally. Unless you
knew the name of the artist, I doubt if any of the pieces in the book
would increase the sales of much of anything. As far as its
"non-commercial" worth, there is simply nothing in his work that hasn't
been done before, and better.
Is that explanation of standards specific enough?
: If I may summarize your view, the Beatles music succeeds
: magnificently at "low art." Paul's book fails miserably at "high art."
That's pretty accurate. What's your point?
: With this restrictive & predictable outlook, it would be pretty easy for me
: to write your next review; in other words, I know what you're going to say
: before you say it.
Christ almighty, another psychic! The damn place is crawling with with
'em. Must be the water.
So tell me, oh great and powerful Oz, what'd I think of the score to
_Seussical_? Inquiring minds need to know!
: Mr. Charlie told me something new, & inspired curiosity in a book I
: would ordinarily dismiss.
Good for him! I do hope, tho, that you're not asking me to be another Mr.
Charlie. There's, I'm sure, only room for one Mr. Charlie 'round these
parts, and besides, I'd likely do a truly piss-poor imitation of him.
However, I'm the very best Bob Stahley you're ever going to find, so,
personally, I'll be him, if you don't mind. All his clothes fit me and
all, y'see...
Doug Campbell
Nonsense. Paul's work can hardly be labeled "commercial," and even if one
> were to critique it in those terms, it would fail dismally. Unless you
> knew the name of the artist, I doubt if any of the pieces in the book
> would increase the sales of much of anything. As far as its
> "non-commercial" worth, there is simply nothing in his work that hasn't
> been done before, and better.
>
> Is that explanation of standards specific enough?
>
> : If I may summarize your view, the Beatles music succeeds
> : magnificently at "low art." Paul's book fails miserably at "high art."
>
> That's pretty accurate. What's your point?
Mr. Stahley, I don't understand some of the distinctions you seem to
want to draw - for example, how exactly do you define 'commercial'
music? By definition, I would suppose it's music that is sold, or
perhaps made for the purpose of being sold - but there the distinction
between the Beatles and Gershwin or any of the other composers you've
mentioned doesn't hold. When the Beatles were playing, do you think
that record sales were their primary concern, or were they playing for
the love of the music? All artists hope for an audience, and the great
classical composers were no exception, often composing works for hire.
The same holds true for the visual arts - the patronage of the
aristocracy or church was the norm and a mark of success. Do you
consider those works 'commercial'? Here I have to disagree with your
claim that rock and roll is strictly dance music - 'if you can't dance
to it it's not rock and roll'....that's another argument altogether -
but even if it were true it doesn't constitute commercialism, unless you
want to argue that the large majority of traditional music around the
world is 'commercial'.
As I'm sure you are aware, much of the thrust of (particularly late)
20th century art has been towards blurring or demolishing the
distinction between so-called 'high' and 'low' art. Ironically, many of
the artists seeking to call attention to the commodification of "high"
art have found themselves name brands in exactly the same commercial
gallery & museum behemoth that their work critiques - doomed to either
repeat their successes ad nauseum or risk losing their affiliation. Your
comment above that without knowing the name of the artist, none of the
pieces in the book would be commercially viable can be said of *many*
commercially successful artists working today who are traded on the
strength of their name alone, bought as investments by the clueless on
the advice of gallery owners who read 'Art in America' like the Wall
Street Journal. Is that high art?
In my view, the Beatles and Brahms infused very different musical forms
with waters from the same well of human spirit and creativity. Both
with an eye to sharing something of themselves with other people, which
is not commerce but community.
DC
robertandrews
>Paul's work can hardly be labeled "commercial," and even if one were to
critique it in those terms, it would fail dismally.
It's those types of distinctions that I disagree with. Rather than cram art
into misleading & inaccurate categories, we're better served by exploring
the effects & meanings of the art itself. That's what Mr. Charlie did, &
that's why his review was honest & meaningful. Your critique told me
nothing about Paul's book; it wasn't even good coaster comedy.
Of course, it's your right to evaluate art any way you choose. And it's my
right to show the difference between what I feel is an honest review & one
that does not enhance our appreciation of art.
Stephen Carter
I'm pretty sure that when it was published I posted that I
had it. Not only did I get the book, but I got an
autographed (Paul) copy. Not the sort of thing a chap omits
to post here. :-)
If I recall correctly I was (and am) unkeen to post a
critique of the paintings. I was *very* glad I went to see
the exhibition.
To me the interest was bare curiosity to see how Paul (most
successful artist in last century, UK's richest pop star,
blah blah etc) expressed himself in another medium.
If he did an Origami show I'd go to that out of curiosity -
not out of automatic desire to praise - or condemn.
--
st...@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Bob Stahley
: Mr. Stahley, I don't understand some of the distinctions you seem to
: want to draw - for example, how exactly do you define 'commercial'
: music? By definition, I would suppose it's music that is sold, or
: perhaps made for the purpose of being sold -
"Music," in the strictest sense, is an intangible. One can only make it a
commodity (that is, sell or buy it) by packaging it it some way, either by
confining it in an enclosed space and selling a consumer the right to be
in that space when the music is being performed (such as a concert), or by
reproducing it on some medium (a CD or sheet music or in an mp3 file).
What one is actually buying is not the music itself (which actually cannot
be "bought or sold," but only its _use_ can be leased from the composer or
his representative [and that "right of usage" can be bought or sold]), but
the medium itself (the CD or file or the right to be in a certain space at
a certain time). So "commercial music" is that music that is used to sell
that medium.
Yes, it could be said that _all_ music is "commercial," after a fashion.
Like I said to begin with: they don't call it "show art."
robertandrews
>I feel obligated to point out that some of your comments about McCartney's
music have sounded a lot like Bob's comments about McCartney's painting.
Please show me where I've used criteria of commercial, high & low art in
discussing Paul's music. I'm not objecting to negative comments, I'm
objecting to the self-serving dismissal & what I believe is an unfair &
flawed way of evaluating art.
If you're accusing me of occasionally throwing a few barbs at Paul, I'll
plead guilty to that silly crime. They were likely in response to some
gossip or idol worship. They certainly weren't in response to a detailed
analysis of his music. There's a time to joke around & a time to answer
intelligently & politely (I think Ecclesiastes said that).
Fuck pretentiousness (I said that).
Bob Stahley
: "Bob Stahley" <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
: >Paul's work can hardly be labeled "commercial," and even if one were to
: critique it in those terms, it would fail dismally.
: It's those types of distinctions that I disagree with.
As I said elsewhere, you can "disagree" with 'em all you want, but the
distictions are there. To reinterate for those who missed the explanation
elsewhere: "commercial art" is that art that is attached to a commodoty
for the express purpose of selling that product. As I said: I truly
don't believe that, without Paul's _name_ attached to the art, the art
itself, if attached in some way to a product, would do absolutely nothing
to increase the sales of anything I can think of. It would, in fact, I
believe, _damage_ sales.
Again, that's just my opinion. Your mileage, as always, may vary.
: Your critique told me nothing about Paul's book;
To repeat: there was _nothing_ to tell! To me, Paul's paintings say
_nothing_ to me. And I believe I explained, albeit succinctly, why I
believed they had nothing to say to me.
(Christ, first they complain that I'm too verbose, then they complain
when I'm too brief; I can't win no matter what I do!)
What would you have me do? Lie?
: it wasn't even good coaster comedy.
Well, gee, then, perhaps, since you're ragging me about not going on about
"the effects and meanings of the art itself" and not "enhancing our
appreciation of art," perhaps you can tell me, in detail and with
extensive reference to the aethetics and history of humor, _why_ you
didn't find my comments "good coaster comedy." I'm sure we'd all like to
hear you expound at length about it.
(It was rhetorical, Robert...)
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like Pete Seeger to me.
>Fuck pretentiousness (I said that).
Sounds like Dylan to me.
Ian
robertandrews
>Sounds like Dylan to me.
Good call. A paraphrase from Talkin' World War Three Blues.