To continue my relentless examination of the current stage of degradation:
Yes, of course. I understand. No comment. Best not to. Best to just keep moving forward. The works in Ivanka and Jared’s collection are an aberration. It’s an odd coincidence that their tastes in art are an exact fit for the rest of the other art collectors shopping at Saatchi/Gagosian Inc.
No comment, right? Baffling to me as well… Like everyone else I have no idea what any of it means. Fortunately the NY Times article helps:
For those too lazy to read the entire article I’ll pick out two quotes :
Wendy, an art adviser based in London, who was formerly the international head of 19th-century European art at Christie’s, said….
“The issue is that this period is just not sexy any more. So many collectors have moved through Impressionism and now over to contemporary.”
Over to contemporary? I’m glad she avoided the cliché “on to contemporary”… Although I would have preferred the more direct, “So many collectors have moved through Impression downward into the rotten fruit cellar of Contemporary Art.” Who can blame them, really. As we all know, that’s where the money is and after all art is a business. So it’s gotta be taken seriously and only serious art need apply from now on in.
Let the business men handle it. They know what it’s all about. They’ll tell you what to make by buying the stuff they like. Your job is to make the stuff they like. Nice and simple.
Howard, a New York dealer who specializes in traditionalist art, said….
“It’s anemic.” He remembered the Sotheby’s and Christie’s auctions in London in the 1980s and ’90s, which regularly offered 300 paintings from the 19th century. “There’s a domino effect. People see high levels of unsold lots and it becomes difficult to attract works that can carry the market. Where have all the paintings gone?”
There you have it. Traditionalist Art?!?!? Never heard of it. But I don’t like the sound of it. I’m not into traditions. I’m even bored with the latest ap already. Paintings? What are those? Oh, yeah, that’s what artists make on their computers, like David Hockney. It’s way way advanced over painting! Like Dave said, the Old Masters cheated by using “optical devices”. So it isn’t cheating to use computers today. If Rembrandt were alive today he would have painted The Night Watch on it rather than using the old fashioned optical device he was hamstrung by.
Anyway, I’m gonna stick with New Contempo as that’s where the collectors are now. And I want to get their attention with my pompous grandstanding.
Like Lisa and John Yuksavage Currin. As a preview my new art criticism that I hope you will like it and it will make you think about art and the possibilities of art selling to the people who like art the most. The collectors.. And where it might sell best.
The first thing, as Lisa Yuksavage demonstrates in the Times piece above, is to make it wildly inventive, cool pastel colors that are tasteful in the way of the latest Katy Perry video. And Super Sexy. That appeals to the folks of today. Plus the shock of the New that never gets Old, which would make it too traditional.
Unfortunately I’m not as enthusiastic about Lisa’s newer work as I am about her old work, which is quite ironic, don’t you think? I prefer the way she painted breasts in her early work. Her classic period. My expectation is that the early work will hold it’s value much better than her later work, even though the late stuff is much better painted. It’s far too well painted to be really authentically felt like her early work. And all of John Currin’s work. John feels it deeply. I can tell even in the digital image below. In my mind John Currin’s “big tit paintings” (as I believe the critics refer to that particular period) are more satisfying than Lisa’s on a visceral level. The visceral level is where real art hits you. Plus his work is quite political. He’s against Radical Islam. Good. Somebody has to say it, right!?
As John said, when explaining how his later full on porn paintings were fighting the battle against radical Islam.”It’s definitely possible to be better than I am. I don’t know if it’s possible for me to be better than I am, but I hope so. I want to get better.” You bet. Plus show those ayatollah’s what it means to live in a free society and have great artistic masterpieces like the one below in our Art Museums.
Let’s look at an early Lisa so that you can see that my criticism of her handling of breasts is on target and not just being a white male chauvinist pig who always things men do a better job of painting breasts than women do. And don’t get me wrong. Lisa’s stuff is great. And I have never said that a male artist is better and painting boobs than a female artist. And I will never say that because I don’t believe it. I don’t believe anything about art. So why would I believe that? I think all kinds of things about it and that’s what I’m saying. And then I think different things and that’s how art is able to move forward. People thinking new thoughts that are never like the old thoughts, which are pretty stale at this point.
OK? To be clear, and so there aren’t any misunderstandings. I think there are also women artists who paint better breasts than John Currin. Just not as big. And big is important in Art, as the Abstract Expressionists, Richard Serra, Paul McArthy and so many other great ones have made more than clear. Males are better at bigness. Or projecting bigness which is pretty much the same thing. Art is perception and vice versa. And it’s a matter of taste and I’m the one who has the best taste as I’m a real artist! Just like everyone else. I have a degree and everything.
I’m not saying my taste is better than yours. Some of you might have a different opinion, so I am keeping an open mind. If you think Lisa’s painting is better than John’s let’s get into it a bit here. That’s the entire point of art criticism. You establish what is the best work by explaining why one thing is better than another and then everyone votes on it and the person who has the most money to afford it decides.
Well. I could say more but the main thing is how much greater this new art is from the old art how it was back in the old art i mean when they didn’t dress that cool and were pretty smelly and rude. I’ll be the Impressionists didn’t even change their underwear! Or know who Calvin Klein was or wore Armani like Jean-Michel Basquiat. Plus they were against the common man! They were stuck up, man, and didn’t know how to party like John and Lisa do, plus John and Lisa and the other New Artists are hip business guys and know that business guys are pretty hip too once you get to know them and you find out that they’re just regular guys like you and have yachts and things that you like too. Can you imagine trying to party with a guy like Vincent van Gogh? Boring guy. Boring Work. Exciting guys. Exciting work. That’s the rule. Oh yea. I forgot! Ladies too! They’re just as exciting as the guys any day of the week.
Hey. I hope you guys are finding some cool things to copy and make them more contemporary to fit into the tastes of today. I think this guy Paul Rumsey is doing some great new innovative stuff. Penises in a skull. There’s a combination that is really shocking and both penises and skulls are timeless themes that when juxtapozed like this boldly bring out entirely new and more provocative meanings. Plus it’s a lot more newer than women’s breasts and allows the objection of the male body more so that it shows he isn’t a sexist. And he’s also against Islamofascism and for women’s rights and against anti-Semitism. You can’t tell so much from the work except when it’s deconstructed by talking to him like I did a while back. As to what he’s saying in the work, I’m still a little vague on that. Perhaps some of the more informed and thinking artists out there can give me an explanation. Or if they don’t know they can give me some guesses? Anything? A starting point at least? Yes. You’re right. I admit it. I’m way behind the times. I’ve let myself fall behind in the new idea department as I haven’t had any new ideas since I was in the 6th grade.