Ok, the Byrne-Jones thread in GQ was the impetus for this thread (although B-J is not the primary object of my wrath). We occasionally have ‘favorite artists’ threads-- how about the least favorite?
At the top of my personal list, disregarding Tom Kinkaide and the like, is
WILLIAM HOLMAN HUNT! AGH!! I’m generally not keen on the Pre-Raph brotherhood, but my annoyance with such works as the Hireling Shepherd and, especially, the Awakening Conscience rages with the unspeakable intensity of a “Dante’s Inferno” jalapeno pizza in one’s gut (from Bear’s in Bloomington, of course). If you know what I mean.
Edward Hicks, for similar reasons. That frikking “Peaceable Kingdom” painting just irks me.
There’s a start. . .
Thomas Kinkade, if he even counts.
Just the ghought of one of those smarmy, soft-edged, charmingly rustic cottages encrusted in flowers with a babbling brook nearby, all surrounded in an atmospheric early morning mist…
thomas kinkaide should be cooked with his own turkey and buried with a paintbrush at his heart. to put it mildly.
sniff. i love the preraphaelites. j. w. waterhouse is one of my favorites. to each his own though. ^o^
Bacon, as in Francis Bacon? Too bad. I think he’s one of the most important and influential artists of the 20th century, if we’re thinking of the same person.
As for post-modern “artists,” Splanky, it’s easy to snicker at this genre. Most, if not all, of the modern artists were excellent draftsmen as well. Pollack gets a lot of flak from the casual observer, but have you ever seen his “normal” sketches? The guy could pencil a realistic likeness like anyone you’ve seen. And I’ve found most modern artists to be the same. It’s easy to look at a canvas and say “oh, a 4-year-old could do that.” I mean, Christ, I had a friend of mine say that while looking at a Kandinsky. A Kandinsky!? I would give my left arm to produce anything approaching a Kandinsky.
Anyhow, this is an opinion thread, so we’re all bound to differ. As for artists I can’t stand, I can’t think of any. Never been terribly hot on Dali, myself, but wouldn’t say I despise him.
Hey, just checked out the Thomas Kinkade stuff. Never heard of him before. Is he considered a serious artist? I mean, the technique is okay, but it’s all so damn kitsch to me. I would also put forth Anne Geddes with her cute baby photography for “most despised visual artist.” So I take back my statement that there are no artists I can’t stand…
Well, Norman Rockwell wasn’t really considered an artist by his contemporaries either. He was an ‘illustrator’. i.e. someone who turned out quick drawings for magazines and product packaging. (yeah, i know “those are 'quick drawings??”)
No. No. No. You are misjudging Norman Rockwell woefully.
Sure, he did the cloyingly sweet Saturday Evening Post covers. And sure, if you want to get technical, he was an “illustrator” and therefore not a real artist. (Just like when Prokofiev and Aaron Copland scored movies so those aren’t “real” music either. Not!)
He was an illustrator, sure. But he was a damned good artist too. His “quick drawings” (i.e. oil paintings) required a lot of work, and study. He had an incredible technical skill, for drawing, color, composition, etc. And he had some good concepts (see above). But yes, of course, a lot of his work was very commercial and corny and not really that “significant”. (Though some of it is pretty amusing and clever.)
As for my opinion on the most reviled visual artist: another vote for Thomas Kinkade. “The Painter of Light”? No, the “Painter of Blight”, more like it. (Thanks to my friend Randy for that name! )
I can’t let that go without pointing out that I find passion, conflict, and important themes in the work of Norman Rockwell. Rockwell did illustrations, but he also did some great paintings, and he has come to be more appreciated as time goes by.
Artists are despised in cycles – today’s golden boy may be tomorrow’s hack, and vice versa. The truly despised of course are the ones who never get anyone to look at their paintings, because they are so bad.
And on preview I see that yosemitebabe has beaten me to it. It’s good to see Rockwell getting the recognition he deserves. Who knows, someday we may see a reassessment of Kinkade (with luck none of us will be around to see it).
Wow, he takes images from his mind and transfers them to canvas?! This is truly an astounding process! I’ve simply got to tell all my painter-friends about that one! Think he’s got a patent?
For me, it’s Andy Warhol. I simply cannot stand that man’s masturbatory, self-important style of “art.” I don’t even call it that, to be honest, but since so many others do I call him my most-despised visual artist.
Kinkade has a few paintings of Yosemite National Park that aren’t too bad (not great, not really understanding Yosemite, but not horrible). However, this painting of Yosemite Valley is an atrocity. Too many clouds and “busy busy busy” with all his little whispy details. Blech. I know this view of Yosemite intimately, and I’ve never seen it look like that. He just doesn’t get it. He has to taint everything with his “Kinkade” touch.
I’ll also defend Rockwell. It’s utter snobbery to look down upon him simply because he painted “stories”; many other “artists” did, too.
In addition, the dichotomy between “illustrators” and “artists” is bogus. It’s just a means to look down upon those who do representational art. And the speed at which an artist works means absolutely nothing.
It’s well worthwhile to visit the Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, MA. Seeing the originals of his work gives you a much better idea of what he was doing.
OTOH, the reputations of Leroy Neiman and Peter Max are pretty low these days.
)
