Lehman Moment

goya self portraitAnybody know what a Lehman Moment is? Right… Ha ha.

Anyway, a few days before the Lehman Moment of 2008, I was in a typical argument on Natural Pigments forum with some of the smartest painters in the world, all learning how to paint like Old Masters by purchasing the Goya palette from George O’Hanlon. Thankfully George has analyzed by looking at Goya’s Self Portrait all the original pigments Goya had on his palette when he painted his immortal masterpieces. We can, of course, be certain that he used the same palette for all his paintings. This is what he was telling us in the painting above, as people deeply knowledgeable in the minds and habits of all Old Master painters like George have told us. Rush in your order today and grind up the pigments George sends you and in no time at all you’ll be painting like Goya. Just like everyone else attending the New Academies.

You need to also buy the piece of glass and carborundum and paint grinder and some of his fantastic Old Master oils and make your own paint. It’s worth making your own paint. I’d find a more reasonable source for buying pigments, where the prices aren’t so inflated. Maybe Amazon. They do some great art supply discounts.

But I digress. Back to the Natural Pigments debates. I was taking some blows, believe me. Defending David Hockney’s theories. Trying to argue about why de Kooning and Resnick were great artists. And Hockney pretty good. A pretty indefensible position I realized as they weren’t any of these things. But I gave it the old school try. Stick up for the old Alma Mater and what not. Not that they ever did anything but crush me flat. No gain, without pain though, as Swami Bolshevananda told me in one of my opium dreams.

Well, they were all kicking my ass pretty good. When I told one of them he was out of line for calling Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon artists who made paintings for sodomites, I thought I might have peeled off one or two to join my arguments. But anti-homosexual remarks were apparently fine with the Forum Master, Kenneth Freed, who was a great defender of freedom of speech regarding things he himself didn’t give a shit about.

Well, by now  I’m fucking invulnerable when it comes to that kind of shit. All part of taking the blows and eventually started to really kick ass toward the end of my tenure there when I finally told the Forum Leader he didn’t have the foggiest notion what he was talking about in regard to Peter Paul Rubens. IMHO. I pointed out his obvious deficiencies as politely as I could. No name calling or bad language (couldn’t write “fucking invulnerable”, e.g.). I was complying with these restrictions as I’d been throughout even though unnamed trolls were allowed to call me an arrogant bully and liar. Sticks and stones, up to a point. The point at which I was unable to answer in kind due to the Forum Leader terminating discussion.

I invariably chose the gentlemanly approach. Decorum and fine manners must, of course, prevail and triumph in these days when people by and large have no opinion whatsoever that they have borrowed from some art critic about anything having to do with art.  Politeness is de rigeur and I remained tranquil and firmly well within the rules of the forum’s guidelines of conduct.

Nevertheless I was kicked off anyway for some bogus reason. As I recall it was the fact that I’d brought up the fact I had a masters degree from SAIC in painting. At the time I was defending American Art schools, as Forum Master Kenneth Freed had cast aspersions on my old alma mater, as well as every other art school, for not having prepared artists with the academic training necessary for being able to paint like Peter Paul Rubens. An achievement he was claiming to have arrived at after much paint grinding (pigment naturally supplied free of charge by George in return for his services as Mentor to the ignorant artists like myself who had wasted their time in an American Graduate School rather than attending Academies in Rome or Florence, or the Gage Academy and the like up here in the US. Study with the New American Masters…. like Kenny Boy.

I hope I’m boring everyone to death so they fall back asleep instead of reading what’s coming up in the next paragraphs.

Anyway, while I was arguing with the collectivity of boneheads I predicted that Lehman Brothers would collapse within the week (which would set up a daisy chain effect bringing down the global banking system). Nobody had the foggiest notion what I was talking about. Who was Richard Fuld? What was Lehman Brothers? Did they make Old Master oil paint in small batches in a basement in New Jersey competing with Robert Doak? Well. Been there. Done that. Check it out. I’ll never go back there myself, so it could have been scrubbed for all I know as it’s 8 yrs. ago now.

I only bring it up in regard to the collapsing European banks getting crushed in the worst 2-day plunge ever. Italian Banks to get taxpayer bailout. Soros betting against Deutsche Bank, etc. But relax. I’m quite certain that if the European Banks collapse it won’t have the same effect on American Banks as the American Banks collapsing had on European Banks. The taxpayer bailout will shore them up just as our taxpayers bailout shored up our own hollow banking system and restored it the the health and magnificence of today where stress tests show there is nada to worry about.

Google “european banks collapsing” and read all about it. Fuck if I’m going to keep feeding everybody links, particularly since you’re too uninterested to read them. As you are already clear sighted enough and free of all delusions and pretty much have everything sized up even though you never bother to inform yourselves about anything. Why should you? After all you’re great artists and what do great artists need to know about the real world. Or if not geniuses yet, you’re well on your way. Just need to pick up some old master pigments and special original old master mediums made from the original recipes.

De Kooning used safflower oil he bought at the grocery story… it has the advantage of never drying, unlike the safflower oil actually competent artists in the past used. De Kooning. A great American  genius. Right up there with his ancestors Rembrandt, Vermeer and van Gogh. Better, actually,  as he had the good sense to move to America when he was young and get a job as a commercial illustrator. And triumph over the entire tradition, believe it or not. It’s in the history books!

Do the hustle, baby. Do the hustle. Just keep on doin’ it. It’s working out fine.

But, seriously kids. This is real scary stuff. Whatever you do, please stay away from “European Banks Collapsing”. Let the experts handle it. They know what they’re doing. Same as George O’Hanlon and Kenneth Freed. Check them out at Natural Pigments. You too, can paint like Goya! Believe in yourselves! Believe in George and Ken! It’s a roundtable of some of the most brilliant minds in the country who are at the center of  the New Renaissance that is going on in the arts here in America.

Here’s one by Kenny Boy himself. (Kenny Boy is a reference to Kenneth Lay, George W’s biggest pal over at Enron. Another completely secure corporation. Kenny Boy was the largest donor to W’s election campaign, funding him in Texas and so on. Wink)


Note the resemblance to Rubens in the mastery of highlights and skin tones. The zombie- like look in the self-portrait is no doubt an accurate depiction of the artist’s mental state in general, not to mention when he was painting it. Wish I could go back and resume the arguments of yesteryear a let them know about the banking collapse in Europe. Get the reaction. No doubt it would be just like the one Ken depicts above.

Anybody have a clue as to what that stupid looking head is behind him that he’s painted in such stunning similarity to the chiaroscuro effects of da Vinci? Beats the hell out of me. It’s fantastic how he’s added the “modern” touch of the hard diagonal in tribute to the trendy abstract painters of the past he no doubt copied when he was younger so as to fit in with the art school trends of the time. Just as he’s doing his OM schtick to fit in with the art school trends of today. Apparently in some sectors of the vast Art Metropolis we live in, the Neo-cademic New Masters are replacing the fumbling efforts of the Abstractionists, the Picassos, the Dubuffets and Miros and so on down the linet.

You can read all about in Donald Kuspit’s End of Art. (google it lazybones). Donald knows everything about art there is to know. Just like Robert Hughes and Arthur C. Danto. Basically anybody who has had a book published on art along with having a “high position” as an art critic writing for Time Magazine (Hughes) or The Nation magazine (Danto). The great man himself,  Clement Greenberg, penned his immortal purple prose for The Nation. The Liberals (Far Left back back in the 40s when CG wrote) have built a great Cahedral of Art. Thank you, Liberals! May you reign forever, even though you’re to the right of the Neoconservatives it’s certain you’ll keep up the fine standards in art you’ve supported right on down the line, through used condoms to sodomy and gomorrah. Art, art, baby. Cold as ice. Blacker than the blackest dark knight of the Soul.

Middle of the night. I’m raving again. Just ignore all the above. Take a nap. Go back to sleep. Deep and gentle. Sleep, sleep, sleep… The Sleep of Reason. Here’s your Old Master, you art aficionados you:


Cropped off, wouldn’t you know. But who cares? Certainly not me. I don’t want to see that massive black hovering shape above all these, let’s face it, really clumsily drawn owl like things. Learn to draw, man! How are you going to get across your message with that kind of clunky figure? Fortunately, in America we have academies that teach much more convincing figure drawing and painting methods. Masterpieces surpassing El Sueno de la razon produce monstruos, whatever that means are tumbling out pell mell and straight into the collections of the Rubellicons and such. We’re crossing our Rubellicon as I write. Is that a French word? Rubellicon? Those Frenchies bungled art completely. School of Paris. Phooey on you! But we’ve set it straight. Wasn’t easy. Took boatloads of cash. But it’s all back on track and movin’ like a locomotive at full speed. Where are we headin’? For the next big breakthrough!

No doubt! Have faith!

Or perhaps jump off the train before it goes over the cliff. Figuratively speaking of course. It’s not a real train. There is no “cliff”. They’re figments of La Reve. La Revolution. La Permanente Revolucion de la Avant-Gardismo. American-style. Dance, monkeys, dance! You’re free! All races and religions and political beliefs are welcome! Freedom from Communist rule! Free from Sharia Law! Free to express yourselves in the style that conveys your deep joy and happiness and individualism through dance style choice.

I’m not going to even read back through these posts and correct typos, grammar and such. I don’t even care if it makes sense. Nothing I write makes any sense. Babblings of a madman. Just like Flaubert in his memoirs: “Doubt…is an illness that comes from knowledge and leads to madness.”

Ok… here we go, art lovers. Kiss it. It has magical properties! The muse!:



Oh, sorry ladies, it’s my natural sexism. As hard as I try to get it under control. Apologies. Here’s something to inspire you as well:


Go team!

Note to Shep: Berman’s Dark Ages geniuses haven’t even mention the europcollapse yet. Right on top of things, as usual. They’re too far advanced in the future world to be tracking what’s going on in the present, apparently.

About trueoutsider

I'm an artist.
This entry was posted in Art and Money. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Lehman Moment

  1. wewordsmiths says:

    Bart, your problem is: you know too much. Apparently you read. Widely. And not just wide junk reading. This gives one the opportunity of perspective. Otherwise everything else is… flat. Even. Indis-tinguished. Indistinguishable.

    Hmm… Where have we heard that before?

    Dubuffet! I used to call him “the nougat guy”. Suspect he was Haring’s original inspiration. Noodles descending a staircase. The descent of art.

    Ah! This reminds me of Hananiah Harari:


    An eclectic guy, abstract-ish, figurative, trompe l’oeil, etchings…

    Stomped on during the McCarthy uniformity excesses.


  2. trueoutsider says:

    Scary Harari… the stuff of nightmares. I like Dubuffet quite a bit in the same way I like much outsider and art of the insane. Not like I like Old Masters, though.

    But I am more than happy for everybody to like whatever they want. I am not the Dictator of what is or is not Art. I leave that to guys like Clem Greenberg and Donald Kuspit, the ones who really know about it. The experts.

    As Col. Klink said. “I know nutting!” .. Ever see that film about Bob Crane by Paul Schrader. Owch!

    I liked seeing that Harari actually. Will do a google search. I like Norman Rockwell. I like Wyeth and so on. But not a great deal. Knowing how it’s done and being able to do it myself (that hyper realism) as I think most people can do if they set their minds to it, makes it not all that interesting.

    As Pollock noted, it’s contrived. And really, quite often these days my opinions shift and vary along with my thoughts and dreams. Just imagine. Cezanne thought van Gogh was nutty crap. Turner didn’t like Constable’s work at all. Turner said he’d cut off his right hand if he could paint like Girton (I believe it was). Google Thomas Girton. Not too shabby. So an opinion of an artist whose been doing it his entire life is subject to all kinds of vagaries and whims depending on what particular use they have for any other particular artist at an particular time.

    Please do not confuse me with any authority on art. You’re right. I’ve read way too many books. Gone mad quite a while back.

    Oh! I thought Dubuffet was total crap for years and years. Absolute rubbish. Then I saw him at some point as fantastic. There was a display room at the National Gallery of Art.. Beckmann on one wall. Gorky on another. And Dubuffet on the third… Naturally I loved Beckmann most of all but thought all three fantastic. Originals. Nothing else like them… They all worked their fingers to the bone day in and day out. No time for parties in the Hamptons! And jetting around the world to their openings.

    I haven’t seen Dubuffet in a while. I might have lowered him down some rungs, but it really doesn’t matter as that is what happens to art all the time. George de la Tour… he was in the dog house for a couple centuries. Now he’s up there on the pedestal. Human beings are fickle!

  3. Eric Wayne says:

    That was a fun read. I think I could match your style in a blog post if I wrote it stoned and didn’t go back and edit it, or went ahead and posted it anyway. Not saying that’s the secret to your, uuuh, style. It may just be madness. I quite enjoyed the stuff in the beginning about being banned from a forum while actually observing the rules of debate and not resorting to insulting others. I’ve been kicked off of two forums that come immediately to mind. One was a Salvia Divinorum forum, er, when that plant “entheogen” was new to Americans, and the other much more recent banning was from Hyperallergic after I pointed out that something actually wasn’t “insanely racist”. Nowadays I don’t practice that sort of academic debating style, because it’s like being in a dirt-clod throwing fight with people who just go ahead and hurl rocks. Trolls don’t respect you unless you go down to their level and show them you too can be nasty, but much more creative about your insults than they are. Anyway, it’s your position that gets you banned, not your demeanor. Great factoid about de Kooning and using Safflower oil.

    Note: Ai Wei Wei can’t dance for shit.
    Question: Why they gotta’ go and put oil on that big booty? It’s better than sand, but, kinda’ oily. On the other hand you can mix pigments on her booty and then make Goya paintings of crudely depicted owls.

    Kinda’ enjoyed the peppered insults to readers in their. I understand your frustration, including not wanting to go back and edit out all the typos and other grammatical mishaps in a rant.


  4. trueoutsider says:

    Fuck my readers! What have they ever done for me? Nah… just trying to insure I keep my readership down to a minimum.

    I’m really just thinking out loud. Write stuff in stream-of-consciousness manner, a la Kerouac, first thought best thought.

    But I’m no Kerouac by a long shot as I’m not a writer nor have I ever wanted to be a writer. Typos are ok with me, as I’m not an academic and never wanted to teach art so worked shit jobs, a la Kerouac again in order to keep my own independence. I realized early on that the only way one could go anywhere in the American art world was to kiss up and kick down. Not interested in that.

    I hit all kinds of comment sections and it was all pointless as there is no dialogue whatsoever going on, just people indulging in ego games. How can one have a dialogue when there isn’t even a common understanding of the meaning of words or basic facts vis-a-vis art.

    I recall a dialogue with an art writer from the New York Observer who was talking total rubbish. I asked him what he thought would be the case if Keith Haring and Basquiat showed up at a cafe where the Impressionists were gathered and telling them that this was the New Painting and the old boys were finished. Even further back they show up in Rembrandt’s Amsterdam looking to grab the commission to paint the Frans Banning Cocq and the gang….

    We’ve reached the point of maximum absurdity. Art as entertainment where the people considered major artists…Dzama, Kilimnik, Amy Cutler, Gronk, ad nauseum… would be tossed out on their ears if they showed up at Cal Arts or any other 1st year College Animation program.

    My son just began school up in Toronto. It’s a serious program where the kids work all day long drawing from the model. All that fine art schools teach is to talk a load of bullshit and do whatever the hell you think you can put over with the bullshit you’re slinging.

    One of my teachers was Shari Urquhart. Abominable painter. Marcia Tucker put her into the Bad Painting show where her fame was insured so she got a teaching gig. We filled the art schools with total incompetents chosen to be in shows by morons like Tucker, Walter Hopps, etc. After the Bad Painting show art kids got the idea that making crappy paintings was the way to insure getting noticed by the New Museum and so on and so forth. That’s the story of American art in a nutshell.

    But nobody and their brother wants to call a halt to this total nonsense and farcical clown show as it implicates everyone in the creation of it. Dave Hickey, Donald Kuspit, Perl, Salz, Smith, Cotter, right down the line.

    Read this Cotter piece on Kilimnik and Peyton, who I would call two of the most untalented painters I’ve ever seen had it not been for the elite art critics encouraging everyone else to paint like lobotomized teenagers.


    “I think of Ms. Kilimnik as a conceptual artist first and everything else second because her art so persistently examines the idea of value without trying to be valuable.”

    As Searle said of Derrida, this is the kind of writing that gives bullshit a bad name.

    • Eric Wayne says:

      Incidentally, I’m not getting notifications when you reply to me, which normally show up on my dashboard. I got a couple, but not the rest. Who knows why. Anyway, those tow painters are horrendous, the type of stuff only Jerry Salz would admire, and I suppose a few other critics who are cheerleaders for shows. I wonder how many people are actually visually literate these days.

      I know Robert Hughes gets flack for his pomposity and having limitations of scope like the rest of us, but he’d surely have taken a huge crap on these painters, as he did on Warhola, Koons, and Hirst.

  5. trueoutsider says:

    Know nothing about how wordpress works.

    Hughes did critique those artists but then look at the immense load of garbage he drooled all over. He finds Schnabel crap. And calls Rothenberg a genius. I think Schnabel pretty mediocre at best. But Rothenberg is a worst painter than Peyton and Kilmiak. At least the latter are painting something. On top of that Hughes changed his opinion on Warhol after shithead Christopher Hitchens told him he was being too “intemperate” about Warhol, who was an authentic genius. This coming from a former Trotskyite who found it a cushier life to help plan the invasion of Iraq with Richard Perle. Hughes also considers Rauschenberg a monumental figure. Yes. Another Goya. Hughes is so bloated and full of shit and a toady to monied power I find him more detestable than any of the others you’ve named. As Hughes gets away with it because of his posturing and pomposity. Two things that art lovers can’t get enough as long as it’s delivered by a buffoonish celebrity with a “cultured” accent. George Carlin calls it, “Fascism pretending to be manners.”

    In his last book, which I have yet to look at, he apparently describes all the double dealing of his fellow critics. Hess, Greenberg, etc. etc… The insider money nature of the art world is a disgrace and nobody says word on about it. I’d bet even money that Hughes is using misdirection, which is also a common feature. Insider loudly blow the whistle on other practitioners of what they themselves are involved in. Pot calling the kettle black, as it were.

    It’s all a load of baloney as far as I’m concerned, Eric. Everyone else is free to think what they want. I saw a lot of this stuff from a ringside seat while living in NYC. I worked at the New York Review for a decade. The folks who publish both Hughes and Hitchens. And where the editor was a frequent dinner guest of Henry Kissinger. My wife worked for years at the Whitney. I saw how the sausage was made. It’s all baloney. And it will melt down into it’s sewer condition once the monied elite that have created and promoted it collapse. Of course, it’s likely everything else will collapse along with their orgy of self-destruction.

    Not interested in politics particularly, as there aren’t any. There’s just the rich on the top and the working masses squatting underneath them getting shit on and doing everything in their power to kiss the asses of those above them. Hoping that they’ll either get invited to the feast/orgy or to be able to stand cheering as close to the action as possible.

    That’s what I draw.

    • Eric Wayne says:

      You can see some of my parodies bundled in this post: https://artofericwayne.com/2014/01/09/worst-than-hirst-a-review-of-my-work/

      Most of my parodies and whatnot fall under a category of criticism I may have invented, or re-invented (I don’t know who else does it), which are tagged, “art prank criticism” because they include parodies within them. You’ll see. Well, for example, I have a review of Emin’s drawings, and two I did with my left foot, but I don’t reveal that until the end. I have a long post about Koons’ paintings, and focus on one in particular, which is actually a parody by me, and nobody caught on. In fact, if you do a Google search for “Koons painting”, mine is in the first row of results (also because I Photoshopped him standing in front of it with his arms out).

      On Hughes:

      I disagree with Hughes on Rothenberg (horse paintings?), and am not such a fan of Rauschenberg, either. But that may be tastes. I’m also not into Guston or Paula Rego, who he goes on and on about. I mostly value him for being outspoken about the thin gruel that Koons, Hirst, and Warhol churned out, even if he IS a pompous toad. And while he despises the same artists I find vacuous, he loves Bacon, whereas Salz (HE is my least favorite, and a lover of not only Duchamp’s urinal, but that masturbation piece you’ve mentioned by Vito Acconci), Schendahl (I’m giving up spelling his name right) and Perl all fucking hate Bacon. So, I’m going to go with the guy I agree with when it comes down to art criticism. Hughes might have liked my work, and Kuspit might, but I can be fairly safe in assuming those other dudes wouldn’t even consider it. Perl and Salz from what I’ve seen have abysmal visual intelligence, and prefer second or third rate paintings (when they are talking about paintings) that I find never get off the ground, and are so boring I’d rather look at just about anything else. Salz is a big fan of Katherine Bernhardt. Look her up. You won’t find much worse shit than that IMO.

      So, I rather like a pompous toad (I’ve characterized him that way myself already) that I agree with on art better than guys who shit on my favorite 20th century painter. By me, they might as well shit on Van Gogh. Salz seems to pander to whatever’s popular, and is an apologist for it. Schendahl, well, his prose is so flowery he seems to be about himself more than anything else. And Perl, while he did write some good articles about the rich ruining art, likes bland-ass art. Someone gave me a book of his criticism, which I dutifully read, and towards the end he shared what he liked. I was shocked by how drab and uninteresting it was.

      I hear ya’ on the Dems, who are now righter than the right of the past, and I’m aware of Hillary’s love of war, including her cackling over the death of Qaddafi, “we came, we saw, we killed him”.

      I’ll try the email notifications so I know if there are replies. Uuuuh, you could try switching to a newer theme, but that can be a bit of a hassle if you aren’t into that sort of thing.


  6. trueoutsider says:

    I don’t care what art critics think, to be honest, Eric. I can’t imagine van Gogh or Bacon caring either. Don’t understand why you would care one way or another what they think. They aren’t artists and they can’t see art. It’s as simple as that as far as I’m concerned. Would you want to know what a guy who couldn’t play piano thought about Horowitz? Or what Dr. Seuss thought of Henry James or Thomas Pynchon?

    I greatly appreciate what Tom Wolfe had to say in The Painted Word. I enjoy Roger Shattuck’s writing. I like Dore Ashton. But critics who write about contemporary art when they have a vested interest in pleasing their editors/paymasters? You think I’m being cynical to suggest that their positions are owed to their promoting work much in the same way film critics are not going to be in their positions at corporate flagships if their reviews are killing box office receipts that are part of the same entertainment complex corporation.

    You actually think these guys are not pimping product? Greenberg taking Pollock, Rosenberg de Kooning.. the factional fighting and high power stakes attendant with the particular horses chosen and the access to collectors/museum higher ups. The enormous amounts of money that were being tossed around as soon as investors got wind of what kind of returns they could get with putting down what was peanuts to them?

    Have you read “Interlock: Art, Conspiracy, and the Shadow Worlds of Mark Lombardi”?… Lombardi, Nam June Paik, Ono and Lennon’s museum show, etc. coming from a guy named Haritha who was rumored (and most likely was) ex-CIA… David Ross., Whitney Director for years was Lombardi’s classmate under Haritha. ..

    All this art criticism is purely objective having little or nothing to do with the enormous amounts of capital being invested in it? Oh well. .. Think it at least worth looking up Hughes last book where he discusses the insider dealing of art critics.

    You can even read Zola’s “The Masterpiece” to read about rigged auctions and buyer rings and what not. If it was prevalent in late 19th century we can only imagine the scale of it today. I’m not particularly interested in being a sleuth as I really don’t care that much about the details and specifics. But if you just look at all the forgeries, frauds, unregulated account books, money laundering, etc… You know Lombardi’s work… Suspicious death Goldstone is trying to imply was CIA related but comes nowhere close to making it any more plausible than Siegel does Rothko being knocked off.

    But if you read Siegel’s book you can see the tremendous fraud and payoffs to Rothko’s executors to steal his entire state… sending his work up to a warehouse in Toronto (if I recall correctly). You haven’t read about those things?

    Leave off the Osho investigations, as the art world, in my opinion, has far greater hucksterism than that. All he owned was a fleet of Rolls Royces… A single Warhol at auction at 100 plus million is worth how many Rolls Royces. And that’s a single Warhol.

    Yet the integrity of all art critics is unimpeachable? Well, who knows? But I generally believe that where there’s smoke there’s fire. Not to mention the smoke from entire forests going up in flames.

    • Eric Wayne says:

      I agree about critics being cheerleaders for shows. I think I said that in a comment already. And as an amateur, sometimes critic myself, I’m aware I’m not making any friends when I slam some work as “vacuous” or otherwise threadbare. I’m aware that when you denounce an artist’s work, you are also denouncing the quality of the “product” the gallery is selling (which should be irrelevant, but isn’t at all). As you say, art criticism is a business, and a business partnership. Surely critics have promoted work they didn’t even like, for practical reasons. I’m not sure how you could conclude that I think “the integrity of all art critics is unimpeachable”? You must have noticed me saying that Salz and Perl lack visual intelligence. What could I have meant by that if I simultaneously though, somehow, that their integrity is impeachable?

      Everything you said works, until the critic in question attacks the most popular art, and thus business of art. If you denounce Koons to his face, how are you profiting directly by being in cahoots with Koons’ dealer?

      While I did not make a grandiose, all-encompassing defense of art critics in supporting Hughes’ famous denunciations of the excesses of conceptualism and corporate art, you have made a blanket dismissal of all art critics, or at least all art critics who aren’t themselves artists, or rather painters.

      I have wondered if non-artists can really be great critics (for the sake of argument let’s assume it’s possible to be a milquetoast critic), because they don’t really know what it takes to make this or that image. Because I’ve taught myself computer art programs (though not until AFTER I got my MFA), I can often catch an easy technique that impresses the masses and critics alike (ex., someone does something rather simple in a 3D modeling program, and then makes a large painting of it, wooing the world, and boring the living crap out of anyone who is familiar with that program).

      On the other hand, I’m a lover of music, and I can’t play music for shit, and certainly can’t sing. Does that mean my opinions on music are irrelevant, or I couldn’t be a critic.

      And you like Tom Wolfe, and yet he’s a writer and not a painter (as far as I know). Does this not disqualify him from being an art critic, along with the others?

      The way to judge an art critic is through the intrinsic merit or lack thereof of his or her criticism. Seems kinda’ obvious. The same applies to art. Would you then have us eliminate art criticism altogether, and merely have the occasional comments or outbursts of painters exist as commentary on art?

  7. trueoutsider says:

    You got that right. I’d certainly entirely eliminate art criticism altogether. I’ve eliminated it from my own reading other than to study it as a particular form of psychological malady and social pathology in 21st century human beings.

    Tom Wolfe wasn’t an art critic. The Painted Word and his other work at that time was a journalist. Companion to Hunter S. Thompson. It was under the heading Gonzo Journalism. Wolfe grew into a great novelist after that. Thompson declined into drug-addled confusion. Just say “No” to drugs is the takeaway lesson there. Doesn’t sound like you read The Painted Word if you think it’s art criticism of the Hughes, Perl, Salz sales patter variety.

    If you want to write music criticism, literary criticism, art criticism, film criticism, knock yourself out.

    Do you have any definition whatsoever of what art is other than whatever you like or call art or whatever the public consensus is that apparently matters so much to you if I read you correctly.?

    I don’t do art criticism myself. Everything I write is just my own personal opinion and those opinions have changed as I’ve grown more mature and I’ve grown mature from painting and drawing and observing the world around me. I totally disagree with you and the rest of art writerdom that art comes out of art, or what Duchamp and Greenberg foisted on us “art for art’s sake”…. All that comes from that is cultural entropy and repetition. Those who don’t know art history are condemned to repeat it. As Robert Hughes said, in a lucid moment and he did have a few of those, most artists knowledge of art history doesn’t go back prior to Warhol. The really sophisticated few go back to Bacon… But before that? Obsolete and outmoded stuff… Right? I assume that’s what you’re asserting but you’ll need to be more clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s