Remember art is about gimmick
After Gerhard Richter Kugel 1989 a 8 cm Ball of high-grade steel
I very much liked Gerhard Richter's blurred paintings but during these observations I question his skill.and also question his subject matter. He immortalized American socialites like Jacqueline Onassis or Patty Hearst but I wonder if he ever painted the victims of the Berlin wall or Ann Frank? Oddly enough, I paint quite similarly to his abstract work, back in those school days at the Ontario College of Art, Toronto 1989
Gerhard Richter photographed by Lothar Wolleh parodied by Feinin
The both examples you gave are parodies, although Francisco Bolero is himself poking fun at it. Did you notice his attire? If these portraits represent a social consciousness in art, then one needs to have compassion for the subject, and to the spirit in which it represents. Clinton Fein's photographic reenactments has no relevancy, I say this because they lack an incite. The work more or less has a sadistic feel to it, no doubt the people who were responsible for this leaked "Abu Ghraib" mishap were sexually gratified in the brutality. The lessons we think we instill onto others haunts us eventually. Every physical act remains imprinted in the mind for eternity. Saddam Hussein' ghost calls, "Measure me oh highest being, call my mother's grave in destitute we grieve"
I value the intent.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Gerhard Richter door handles by Feinin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"I question his skill.and also question his subject matter. He immortalized American socialites like Jacqueline Onassis or Patty Hearst but I wonder if he ever painted the victims of the Berlin wall or Ann Frank?"
Do you find that over time there have been many artists who have chosen actual human victims as their subjects? More recently I've seen works by two artists - a painter and a photographer on the victims of torture at Abu Ghraib. They are Francisco Botero and Clinton Fein. I imagine you would call this socially conscious art.
Do you value this art more than you would realistic paintings of things, landscapes, people and nature that are meant to convey nothing more than that which meets the eye?
-WAPnin
"I value the intent."
I am grateful for your perspective as those thoughts had never crossed my mind. I saw the works and did not think "parody" and did not consider that in some way they could "further" the same abuse that they were representing. I assumed that the intent was to express, or to encourage the viewer to feel, compassion and outrage. I will revisit these works with the questions you have now raised.
-WAPnin
Post a Comment