I don’t know, that one painting he did of the quaint little cottage with the light coming out of it was pretty good.
Seriously, my mother has a lamp at home, the base of which is a ceramic rendering of one of the quaint little cottages immortalized by the Painter of Shit. It was a gift from someone. She keeps it in what used to be my room. I was horrified, until I figured out why she keeps it there–it’s the one room in the house no one ever really goes into.
Dr. J
CanvasShoes, I’m so glad my follow-on was helpful; I felt your thoughtful question merited a thoughtful response - I didn’t think you were being flip about it. So does dance have an equivalent? Do you guys love Martha Graham and despise Paula Abdul?
El_Kabong, terrific hijack - seems to me a legitimate rant ought to be ready to morph into a Great Debate! And I agree with you, mostly, on Warhol. In the mid-'80s he was commissioned to do a piece on Pete Rose for the city of Cincinnati. It was a Big Deal. So I went traipsing over to the Art Institute, ready to be knocked on my ass - what a letdown! It was just a big baseball card with four images. On the other hand, during his peak I’m sure the context was different and thus the experience.
“I believe it was Twyla Tharp, or perhaps Vic Tayback, who said…”
Oh, wait, I also meant to call Kinkade a fartknocker.
And to point out that Edward Hopper has actually been called the Painter of Light. Of course he’s not the only one upon whom that title has been bestowed - Vermeer belongs on the list as well, as was pointed out in a previous year’s rant.
I’ve ranted in the older thread, but I wanted to add, THANKS, El Kabong, for bringing those Koons’es back into my memory. I had ALMOST blocked them out (actually I think they are hilarious). That was the oddest “20th century Art Survey” day ever-- last day of class. I’ve got to respect that professor for that-- everyone was BOLT UPRIGHT and AWAKE in their chairs that day. Koons and the more unsavoury Eric Fischls. Rated X art history lecture.
In one of the previous Painter of Shit threads, someone mentioned that his houses or cottages looked like there was a flare going off in every room.
That has always stuck with me.
What house has a 1000 watt lightbulb in every room?
Excellently put. I was going to address this myself, and was kinda dreading it since I have no formal artistic training. Half the time, when I try to talk about art, I end up babbling and making zero sense. But I saw Guernica when I was in Spain, and it made me feel physically ill. I had to go out of the gallery and sit down for a minute. Then I went back in and looked at it some more. That’s some fucking art.
Uh, how is asian a racial slur?
They are from Asia, hence them being Asian. People from mexico are Mexican Do you take offence to people from Mexico being called Mexican? What about Canadian?
Perhaps I’m mistaken about what you’re taking offence to, would you please explain?
no, Asian isn’t the racial slur, Aslan is!
Incidentally, I assumed Lib’s comment was a poorly-worded reference to the use of the word “cock-sucker” in the thread title. If I’m wrong, this’ll be the first Pit Thread I’ve ever seen that’s made it to the second page without being called on it by somebody.
Maybe the OP is being given slack for her evident good taste.
Oh, now I get it. I think? Anyway, no slam intended to my dear gay friends. Actually that part was inspired by a recently acquired friend from Great Britain, with a wonderfully lilting voice and a really raw vocabulary. Imagine the Queen of England saying “cocksucker” and you’ll get the effect.
And I misspelled motherfucking. I don’t think I’d ever typed that out before.
Could someone tell me what a “woosh” is?
BTW, the rants from previous years are awesome.
A “whoosh” is the sound a joke makes when it goes over someone’s head.
Welcome to the boards, btw.
Christian Lassen, perhaps?
I know jack shit about art, and I was still laughing myself silly at his website. Unfortunately, some celebrity twinks over here have raved about his work and now your can’t go anywhere without seeing crying dolphins or white tigers staring nobly from the walls. Ick.
Before we get too carried away with throwing stones at “commercially driven” art, let’s take a moment to remember that most stuff, the stuff acknowledged by history to be good stuff, is commercially driven–driven by the necessity to sell enough stuff to buy food and shelter, paint and canvas, get the kids new shoes and get the wife (or husband as the case may be) a fresh change of underwear. Rembrandt, with the possible exception of a few intimate portraits of his wife, was commercial. Michelangelo was commercial. Edward Hopper was commercial. Larry Rivers and Jasper Johns are (were?) commercial. All those guys were commercial. It is only the fortunate few, who like Van Gogh are supported by a patron, or who like Picasso have enough commercial success to be financially secure, that can be the pioneers and go out and do something new and exciting. That is just the nature of the trade. It is a lot safer to just follow and established path and produce something the market will accept than to starve to death trying to develop something new.
That said, the stuff being produced by Kincade is worse than commercial, it is shoddy commercial–popped off according to recipe like so many Little Debbie’s cup cakes with no attempt or thought about anything but decoration. Maybe the guy can do something technically skillful but we sure haven’t seen it yet. In the meantime, we can fully expect that time will relegate him and his stuff to anonymity but that for the time being he will live better than any of us can imagine. As has been pointed out here before, Menken was right when he said that no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence (and the taste) of the American public.
It seems a shame that this charlatan succeeds while quality painters are giving up to spend a life selling shoes because they cannot support themselves with their craft.
Oh, and don’t worry too much about saying “cocksucker.” It’s not so much a gay thing, as it is a general board consensus that a talented cocksucker is a rare and wonderful commodity, and shouldn’t be denigrated by comparison to assholes and criminals.
Sweet mother of God, I just looked at the Lassen web site. Clearly what is needed to be a success is a good slide projector, an air brush and balls. I think I will go blind myself.
Dear fessie,
I think I YloveY you.
Green Bean
p.s. You bring the funny.
For those interested in a fascinating commentary on commercially-driven art, artistic talent, and public taste, may i suggest one of art criticism’s classic essays:
Clement Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch.”
This essay first appeared in a 1939 edition of Partisan Review, but has been reprinted in many collections since then. Unfortunately, i couldn’t find a copy of it on the web - i assume it’s still under copyright and thus has not yet been posted.
I thought Libertarian’s post was referencing people being called asian. Please excuse my stupidity.
I think he was either offended by what you suggested, or “The little asian kids drawing it in for him” comment.
Miller - tee-hee Hadn’t considered that aspect Should’ve
Spavined Gelding - Whafuck - I’m likin’ your gist & agree w/your conclusion, but your examples blow & I don’t agree w/your assumptions about the marketplace, either. People do buy decent stuff, just not as often or in the quantity that they purchase utter crapola.
Firstoff, according to every version I’ve heard, van Gogh wasn’t supported by a patron (perhaps you’re counting that doctor at whose sanitarium he was staying when he offed himself?). No, it was his brother who paid the bills. With a great deal of ambivalence - begrudgingly, even. van Gogh sold, what, 6 paintings during his whole lifetime?
Secondly, Edward Hopper was most certain-ass-not-ly commercial. He painted strictly for himself, “I’m after me”. Yes, he had a brief career as an illustrator, but that was early on, around 1915 and separate from the body of his work. By 1930 or so he was established.
Michelangelo? Commercial? Because Pope Julius had him by the balls? Contrast these direct quotes (from “Artists on Art”) with shithead Kinkade:
“Why seek to embarrass the artist with vanities foreign to his quietness?”
and:
“In Flanders they paint with a view to external exactness or such things as may cheer you and of which you cannot speak ill…And all this, though it pleases some persons, is done without reason or art, without symmetry or proportion, without skillful choice or boldness, and, finally, without substance or vigor. Nevertheless there are countries where they paint worse than in Flanders.”
You’d have had an easier time w/the Picasso-as-commercial angle, had you chosen, b/c he DID have great fun selling every single piece of paper he could sign his name to. But he was adventurous from the beginning, not following success - I believe his “Blue Period” was during his late teens.
Making stuff b/c you’re driven by the necessity to sell, without regard to the elements Mr. Buonarroti mentioned above - man, ya might as well be makin’ shoes 'cause you sure as fuck ain’t makin art.
Back atcha, green bean (picture puckering smilie here)
It might be Lassen, but I don’t think this guy was from Hawai’i; I know who I can ask. She’s an art teacher at a local junior college (a fabulously wealthy junior college, but a JC nonetheless), and she told me this story about the whale guy.
Periodically, the college, like most schools, lets all the students off for a day so that the teachers can get some work done. Sometimes its just department meetings and faculty meetings and such, and other times there’s “teacher training.” Once in a while, there’s some sort of “crosscultural” event where teachers arrange a workshop in something they wouldn’t necessarily see otherwise. To such an event, the faculty invited Whale Painting Guy.
The science teachers loved him – they all did, except for the art department. His patter about whales, and ecology, and his love of nature, wowed everyone who didn’t know that you’re supposed to mix paint to get different tones, who didn’t know that texture is a critical part of painting, who didn’t know that, although there is photorealist art, this guy’s content-free snifflegrabbers were anything but.
I lived with this woman at the time, and she came home spitting nails.