Exhibitions, Art.

luka

Well-known member
i'll probably see the hockney this weekend. anyone seen it yet? corpsey? idelrich maybe?
 

luka

Well-known member
Think the hockney is at tate Britain. I also think hockney is a better and certainly a more interesting painter. I went to the abstract expressionism show at the RA but as my mate said they really suffer from being all hung up together like a load of laundry on a washing line.
 

droid

Well-known member
Jesus no. Hockney is a graphic designer, Rothko is sublime.

Saw one of his big works in the Pompidou years back. One of the few transcendent experiences Ive ever had in a gallery.
 

luka

Well-known member
The early LA stuff has a strong graphic element yes but there's many more strings to his bow than that. He's a great painter too.
 

luka

Well-known member






If you prefer the experience of standing in front of a rothko to the experience of standing in front of a hockney well fine, but if you can't see the quality in hockney then probably looking at pictures isn't really your thing. The quality, the technique, the flair, the joy is undeniable.
 

droid

Well-known member
Yeah, I like the way he went from doing covers for travel brochures to hipster wine bottle labels. :poop:
 

john eden

male pale and stale
I liked the Hockney exhibition a lot. Wasn't fussed about his later stuff done on iPads but the pools and people paintings are fab.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Obviously the best thing to slag him off for is redoing The Sun logo.

An open goal that Droid missed - disappointing.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
NG_NG_NG2759.jpg


Every time I go to the National Art Gallery I come across something new (which is actually old) like this. (Georges Michel - 'Stormy Landscape with Ruins on a Plain', after 1830.)

Last week I picked this book up for 30 quid in a second hand store: Amazon product ASIN 0847846598
I thought I'd wasted my money a bit until last night, when having smoked a joint I leafed happily through it for hours and hours. The reproductions are often quite large, and of such high quality that you can see the brushstrokes/texture. (I know I sound a bit like someone talking about their HD TV here, but a) that can't be helped and b) I love HD TVs.) It's also great because the explanatory notes are segregated from the pictures, so that you can really look at the pictures without worrying about what this bit represents, what school this painter belonged to, etc. And really looking is the hardest part of all AFAIC (just as really listening can be with music, when you're a music nerd.)

Anyway, factors like this allowed me to become really absorbed in the pictures, like when I was a kid looking at a picture book.

I'm in mortal peril now of spending all my money on massive art books that you could conceivably bludgeon a man to death with.

Definitely want to see that Hockney exhibition before it closes. I've never had the religious experience in front of a Rothko that others describe, but I probably haven't been trying hard enough. A little philistine that lives in my head keeps whispering 'it's just some colourful rectangles' in my mind's ear.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
The Sun's logo SHOULD look like a toddler drew it, actually. Maybe then people would accord it the respect it deserves? The whole thing should be written in crayon. The Mail should be written in shit across Paul Dacre's rubber walls.
 

luka

Well-known member
i went to both the exhibitions at tate britain. the human all to human one i was not interested in, and as an aside i'd never registered before how catoonish bacon is, the war one was the best thing ive seen in some time. crammed with amazing work. highly recommended.
 
Top