« Asher at the Getty | Main | Wouldn't It Be Great If... »
May 04, 2005
Decline and Fall of Painting
Tim Gardner Family Portrait (this is a bad painting)
Check out the article on art netabout bad painting (but not trying to be bad) by the Art World's own Oscar the Grouch: Charlie Finch. Love Oscar, love Charlie?
How refreshing to see a few shows getting slammed for being glib and derivative--and doing it badly. It would have been more compelling, however, to at least mention some work he found interesting by way of contrast. I especially enjoyed Finch's Gollum-esque turn in which he referred to himself as "we". That said, there is nothing quite like a swig from a bottle of vitriol now and again...
Posted by Elizabeth at May 4, 2005 07:16 PM
Comments
The novelty of bad painting offers an interesting if unintentional byproduct to its maker. If a painter stabs through the veil of indifference by presenting a work of obvious incompetence they score readymade critical consideration. “Is it intentional? Is facility an automatic hindrance to Art’s lofty goal of subversion and disruption? Can flippancy comfortably replace a myth authenticity? In the end it doesn’t matter where you land on these questions. While critics are busy brooding and artists are busy closing ranks on either side, if the work sells or garners ample attention the artist has finagled the luxury of having time to build a theoretical defense for their work, make more work, and while they are at it learn to paint better. Bad painting is its own safety net. The problem for the viewer is in the meantime it is painfully boring to look at.
Posted by: butter gun at May 5, 2005 09:33 AM
Readymade Critique--sounds like an essay in the works. Yes, these particulart critiques do not differentiate between good and bad work. And I think they can made good work look bad, as well. We had an interesting talk with a student in Tennessee who was technically accomplished, had some really good ideas, but was making paintings that were painfully derivative of david salle and james rosenquist. He seemed afraid to take a risk with his technique. When this problem was raised, he said that he was planning to make some "bad paintings". Just mush the paint around and make something really awful. It was interesting that he felt that this was his only option.
It seems juvenile to think that an appropriate response to a critque of mastery is pathos or irony. I am more interested in work that is deliberate. Not necessarily intentional, but work that is carefully considered, and marked by interesting choices--as opposed to work that looks like it has opted for default choices established by trends, theory or critism. I believe this is entirely doable.
Posted by: elizabeth at May 7, 2005 07:24 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)