grampá's got it right. i praise "mesmo delivery" far more than three sloppy lines on a canvas. i mean, i could get total art fag about three lines and prenteniously bluff a meaning for it, but c'mon. it would take more effort than what the artist put into the painting.
At the Queensland Gallery of Art in Australia (not the crappy new gallery of modern art) they have this permanent exhibition that shows a big long timeline of Australian artists. I was walking through it yesterday and it dawned on me that as I moved forward in time, the art got progressively crappier and less interesting.
I would love to see Malevich's Black Square in person, but that's just because I know the context. It's kind of sad that museums display modern and contemporary art without explaining why certain artistic choices were made.
(I think the only show I'd walk out of is a Murakami exhibit the second time through.)
I've had the pleasure of seeing a lot of great modern art, I actually like modern art but I don't like it when it's unpainterly, lazy looking and rushed. Seriously the stuff at this exhibit... i mean some of the canvas wasnt even painted, I was like ugh it just looks BAD u know? lazy painters!
When and where was it from? It could've been painted as resistance to an overbearing government that demanded that art look a certain way. There's definite value in that.
I do know what you mean, though. It's hard to like it in 2008 when you've been training at technique for years and you feel that three sloppy brush strokes are more revered than all of the effort you've ever made.
this one guy's work spanned from the late 70's to now, and it was all like, exactly the same. sloppy, rushed looking, colors right out of the tube... i dunno man i couldnt see any value in it, haha! let alone 2 floors in a museum. plus, like i cant imagine painting for that long and not evolving at all.
Okay, I totally think I'm starting to come around to your POV regarding this specific dude. A lot of contemporary painting from the 70s-90s is kind of dubious in retrospect. Painting has never quite recovered from the 40s and 50s.
it would take more effort than what the artist put into the painting.
(I think the only show I'd walk out of is a Murakami exhibit the second time through.)
[P.S. I really enjoy Comic Attack!]
I do know what you mean, though. It's hard to like it in 2008 when you've been training at technique for years and you feel that three sloppy brush strokes are more revered than all of the effort you've ever made.