Thursday, December 10, 2009

If you dislike abstract painting


Commissioned by Michael Jackson from British artist David Nordahl.

11 comments:

Generic said...

Implying a false opposition?

Tulkinghorn said...

Yes.

But to the over-sensitive taste of the modern fashionartista all contemporary representational art reeks of the same tasteless, sentimentalized, cloying attitude seen here.

And they're correct, to a large extent, in the same way that James Horner bores a lot of people who love Stockhausen and Beethoven both.

Christian Lindke said...

Um..wow.

That is one disturbing painting.

Generic said...

If you dislike nihilistic modern fiction...

http://perusals.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/harlequin_01.jpg

Tulkinghorn said...

Yeah, that's a hard one to deal with.

Problem is that there are still novelists writing today who can stand comparison to the greats.

Really not true in the world of painting -- at least I can't think of any.

Generic said...

What would Nancy say? That it's now impossible to paint that way for some John Crowley-like reason? As if the zeitgeist was anything more than just an (often stupid) idea. Or that it isn't worth the effort because the opposition in the art wordl is insurmountable? Cf.MacArthur geniuses who get grants for scorching dress shirts with a blow torch.

Christian Lindke said...

I think in the realm of commercial art that there are plenty of tremendously talented artists. I don't think there are many within the realm of "artistes."

But then that has been true since before Andy Warhol devoted his career to pointing out the pretense of the contemporary art as art.

One does well to remember that Mucha was a commercial artist and that Shakespeare and Beethoven made art for money. It is only in the post-bohemian era that we have really had "artistic" culture. Every artistic clique thinks that they are as talented and important as the Lake Poets, but too few are.

Generic said...

It just occurred that the gist of your argument here is "That train has left the station."

Ha!

Tulkinghorn said...

Since the grand objects and environments created by many of the most fashionable and financially successful of today's artists are hard to, you know, sell, a couple of them have belatedly turned to painting (not representational painting, just painting).

Turns out that they are TERRIBLE painters -- as bad as I would be.

One reason why the train has left the station is that the skills necessary to create stuff that even looks like the paintings of the Dutch masters are being lost.

Forget attaching those skills to an artist of genius -- that's an event that's vanishingly rare.

Meanwhile the only stuff being done that I much like is commerical art -- graphics, design, whatever, where the market and the necessary skills combine.

Christian Lindke said...

Here's a photographically realistic painting:

http://scottpriorart.com/view_image.php?page=paintings&image_id=4

Oil on Linen.

Though I think I like this one better:

http://scottpriorart.com/view_image.php?page=paintings&image_id=7

Must be the dad in me.

On the commercial side, I like Jon Foster:

http://www.jonfoster.com/#goto=illustration-new&viewimage=8

John Cassaday:

http://www.johncassaday.com/uploads/galleries/2006033135620.jpg

And these Ballpoint Pen illustrations impressed me:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511688/Simply-birolliant--incredible-10ft-photographs-drawn-ballpoint-pen.html

Generic said...

The Scott Priors are astonishing. Arguably they go beyond photorealism into some other dimension. (Brace yourself for a lecture on why they're actually kitsch.)

I could almost imagine MRs. Tulk doing something resembling the Cassady. Only way better, IGWS.