I dont get it??

I am highly confident that given a paintbrush and some purple paint I could produce the equivalent of moving my brush back and forth on the page.

 

Well lets see, its pretty much up to ones own aesthetic as to what one creates. Although I really, really detest "installation" art, thats this dudes right (and bad taste) to do so.

Me, I enjoy Jackson Pollock, the explosion his paintings created for AMERICAN abstract painting in the 50's all the way up to modern abstract painting ever since(60s,70,s80,s and 90.s)ALL still excite me! I'm proud to be an American Abstract painter. Thats my thang & I don't know why, I LOVE abstract painting. I love beautiful messes. I love antiques and old buildings and rusted doors and old barns. Its all about aesthetic and having these things around you for no reason at all. Why do people put crap in their house? Rich and poor alike, all have crap in their house that have no function 'cept to hang on the wall or sit on a shelf. My house is full of crap, some modern paintings of mine and friends as well as some old nicknacks, old signs, rusted old horseshoes etc...its just all about ones own aesthetic as to what you like and what you wanna have around you. Maybe these things make people feel better, maybe a piece of art may remind them of a place or even evoke a feeling. Perhaps they become momentos of someplace or sometime. Maybe this empty room was made to create a place in this "artists" head and that was his "motivation". Whatever the case, people like crap around them for some reason and we all have different tastes.

Now comparing Rymans work to this installation artist, well, there is no comparison. One is almighty painting, the other is supposedly called "installation art", of which I think is wack and of which I have no ability to elaborate apon...nor interest. I hate installation art!

As far as Ryman or Modern painting for that matter goes, well lets step back a bit. Hmmmmm...my interpretation.
Remember thats MY interpretation, not fact or fiction.
Modern painting is about itself, over and over and over again.
This is a basic theme to think about when you "don't get it?"
Sure its REAL EASY for anyone whos never seen a Ryman to open up his book and say, "OH, I could do that with some house paint" or whatever, but do you know what you're doing? Do you know why you are doing it? There is history that a painting like Rymans' carries and modern painting SHOULD carry. There is a bit of calousness involved too, a bit of "been there, done that" that the painter should know and show. Pretty paintings of a doggie aren't good enough anymore. The artworld don't want that same old stuff. Painters who fill their lives and minds with paintings and artbooks and museums all their lives have probably seen more than the average person, I mean its their "job", their obsession. Thats is what makes them callous to boring stuff such as a painting of a doggie!
Soooo, when a modern artist such as Ryman approaches a canvas, the question is,"What is left?"

Oh yeah, modern paintings are generally pretty big in size. Looking at these things in a book or on a screen serve them no justice. Imagine being next to a railroadcar looking up at it, your entire vision engulfed by the wieght of it...thats what big modern paintings bring when you see'em in real life.

Nother thing, I'll bet Rymans an old man that has "worked" the artworld all his life and has much respect by now. Its too impossible to pick up at the end of his book or life to see if you like it. Like picking up a pice of fiction in the middle or the end and trying to figure out whats going on in the story? If you like modern painting, yes you will not have to "get it" and just like what you see. Its as easy as that! If you don't like modern painting in general, well yes, you might not ever get it, because there ain't nothing to get...but do you like what you see?

P.S. the artworld is ficle and political as hell. "The Best" art isn't necessarily on the walls of museums & galleries and that is the saddest reality of this modern artworld.
So you see, I am still unknown and all these rich people are losing out having my paintings over their leather sofa because they are drinking wine with the artists that "work it" and not the artist that is most talented...



BTW:
Some of my favorites:
Manuel O'campo- Philipine painter that blows everyone away! WOW Apocalyptic visions! Actually he did the inside of Becks album "Odele", the donkey drinking booze and stuff. He's only 1 year older than I and just amazingly, amazingly talented and super succesful. They got his books at Amazon.com
http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1997/Articles1097/MOcampoA.html


Sigmar Polke, awesome German abstract painter. There arent' many good sights online of his though!

Francesco Clemente: the best drawer in the world and a damn incredible painter. I met him once and he has one of my drawings in his collection. There are some excellent books of his at Amazon.com


Damien Hirst is my favorite artist of them all! I love this guys work and hes not even a painter! I think this is the perfect view of the world we live in today, life, death & art, two of them rule over the one, I thought you knew this... sweeeeet!
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/4686/hirsthome.html

 

f4p : lol. Great stuff.

 

Instead of writing and rewriting all over my last post, I should have just...

"Yeah, like he just said!"

 

It's all about perspective sometimes. You just never know. I mean yesterday I learned that the word Heston, as in Charlton Heston, means 'Pooped my pants' in the country of Greece. That's called perspective. It's also called freaking hilarious. So you just never know what people will see in something. We all bring something different to the table, but in my opinion, this piece of 'art' was crap in the pants.

 

That's a good point. I guess the difference wouldbe that this is suggested as art where racist remarks aren't. Now, if it was a racist painting, for example, then, yes, i would consider it artistic despite the fact that i wouldnt believe in or agree with it.

And I still say just because your carpenter didnt win any prizes doesnt preclude you from actually going out yourself, doing something stupid like this and trying to make a living.

 

Thats DoD's house .

 

I just don't get "Art"...

And I don't think anyone does

 

JayZ or Francis4 do you like this painting?

 

Hmmm,

Well, what some of you guys do not realize about certain types of art is that there is a wle philosophy behind it. I am not saying there is anything behind the gimmick art of the original story, but of some of the later mentioned types.

Anyway, there are a lot of exciting things going on in the art world right now, but there is also a lot of crap. As is the nature with our society, the crap gets all of the attention and gets treated like it represents the whole art world. There is an annoying beer commercial that plays upon the same ridicule.

It is a cylce. The people who make fun of it are the same type who participate in the crap, who perpetuate.

That is why commerce has greatly damaged art. Gimmicks sell, and sell quickly. Hard work is too expensive.

A few issues:

Nomar,

Abuse freedom of making art? I don't follow. Gimmicks such as this do not involve art any more than street vendors deal in fine jewelry. The art world (as stated in the article) does not take this as art. As for the work you saw at the Menil, you must understand that it represents a time, a mindset that was seeking something revolutionary. The problem is, there are still peole trying to tap into it, despite the fact that it lost relevance in many ways some 60 years ago.

JayZ,

Please don't try to bring beauty into this discussion, you do not realize what baggage you are bringing with it.

Oily,

Play the game or suffer.
What do you think of local Brian Portman? Have you seen Kermit Oliver's newest show (going on now)?

 

I don't particularly like looking at the painting but it at least looks like real art.

Now I thought that painting with the swastikas and skulls was pretty cool. There at least seemed to be some reason/symbolism (I probably didn't get it but that's beside the point) behind the painting and oh yeah, it was art.

 

Yeah, I know, play or suffer a nobody. I ain't playin just sayin' for these sportsfans here. I'm happy where I'm at anyhow!

I saw Portmans last work at Glassell last year. I've seen better than that show, although some pieces where hit or miss.
I don't like Kermit Olivers work at all. Cows and stuff aren't really my thang.

 

Damien Hirst ROCKS!!!

Here is a photo essay of a very controversial exhibit here in New York last year.

Very cool!

Sensations!

http://www.8am.com/sensations/sens1.htm

 

Oily,

I agree about the cows, etc, but I also think that his self portraits are some of the best I have seen in recent straight representational work.

Portman is generally hit or miss for me as well, but when he hits, I think he hits big.

 

This is precisely my complaint. In departing from a traditional artform and not having really anything in particular to actually look at, the artist is relying on the newness of the concept to drive its artistic merit. It not being art is what is supposed to make it art. But, this concept -- even down to using an empty room -- has been done to death already. How many empty rooms and white canvases need to be made to make the point? "The first person to compare a woman to a rose was a genius; the second was a hack." In other words, what is different about this empty room from the 1,000 other empty rooms that were previously claimed to be art?