Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

Pretty much all of Jack Vettrianos work if you listen to people who claim to know about art. Its popular, sells in its thousands but is it actually any good.
I like it btw.
 
Pretty much all of Jack Vettrianos work if you listen to people who claim to know about art. Its popular, sells in its thousands but is it actually any good.
I like it btw.

I really don't like it.

...but haven't investigated it beyond my initial dislike. I accidentally went to an exhibition of his work. Really not my thing.

But there you go.
 
I really don't like it.

...but haven't investigated it beyond my initial dislike. I accidentally went to an exhibition of his work. Really not my thing.

But there you go.
Fair play. A lot of people do, a lot of people dont. It is hugely simplistic & he cant do eyes or hands very well but it is hugely popular. We went to his exhibition at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery in January & it was jammed. I think its a perfect example of the thread title.
 
Vettriano famously uses stock image catalogues instead of models and it shows, to me his figures look incredibly wooden. But if people like stuff like that then I'd never call it rubbish. It's simple, undemanding and a bit quirky - it's pop really.
 
Pretty much all of Jack Vettrianos work if you listen to people who claim to know about art. Its popular, sells in its thousands but is it actually any good.
I like it btw.
Vettriano famously uses stock image catalogues instead of models and it shows, to me his figures look incredibly wooden. But if people like stuff like that then I'd never call it rubbish. It's simple, undemanding and a bit quirky - it's pop really.

he might still be on the iplayer: what do artists do all day. fascinating series, and made me realise quite how much *painters* have it made :rolleyes: yeah vettriano is supposedly the same as colouring-by-numbers. and tbf it's not hard to replicate - but he did it first - he has that popular success that will always kind of ease the fact he'll never be accepted by the "art school" world. so what?
 
20140926_230916~2~2.jpg

Slightly better pic.
Anyhoo...it's been 5 hours and I don't know how Rothko did it....I mean it was the most boring depressing painting I've been privileged to work on.
The last hour I wanted to splash paint over it. Very restrictive and tight ...
It's totally shite and I'll gladly sell it for a chocolate croissant.
:D
 
Abstract painting is hard.

No..it's not that it was hard..it's just there was no light relief at all as it went on. It was draining and by the time it was "finished" (not sure it is), I was starving.
Anyway. ..... I'm going to try another with a brighter palate today. The telly died last night and I've no new books so it'll be a day of painting.
I'm thinking pinks yellows and whites for today.
:)
 
Last edited:
Ps. ..... a neighbour offered to buy it last night....lol...
"Grand" said I. "What do you want to pay for it?"
"I'll give you €100 and a pavlova", said she.
"Done". Said I. "I'll take the pavlova and you keep the euros".


She makes an excellent pavlova :)
 
I'm calling it "crossing the line". It's an expression of the transcendental movement from life to death...a journey down to the underworld. The red is the horizon splitting day and night, joy and sadness, the journey from the external inward towards the darkest places in the soul.
 
No..it's not that it was hard..it's just there was no light relief at all as it went on. It was draining and by the time it was "finished" (not sure it is), I was starving.
Anyway. ..... I'm going to try another with a brighter palate today. The telly died last night and I've no new books so it'll be a day of painting.
I'm thinking pinks yellows and whites for today.
:)

Well, it sounds hard from your postings!
 
Well, it sounds hard from your postings!

There was nothing hard about any of the work involved. A realist landscape would be "harder" , as in more technically difficult. I spend on average 90 hours on a landscspe of similar size. The Rothko homage was just not as enjoyable to paint...and that's my personal experience and perspective.


What was the point of that exercise?

Fez909 and myself said earlier in the thread that we'd do it...
So I did.
What's the point in you asking that question ?
 
What was the point of that exercise?

Right then you bag of cunts. I'm gonna paint a Rothko.

I have an unused canvas sat in my living room and some paints and an easel (kindly donated by two lovely Urbz) and I've been wondering wtf to paint for ages.

I haven't painted for about 15 years and I was never any good anyway.

But by the end of the week I'm gonna present my £75m painting. No bother :cool:
 
There was nothing hard about any of the work involved. A realist landscape would be "harder" , as in more technically difficult. I spend on average 90 hours on a landscspe of similar size. The Rothko homage was just not as enjoyable to paint...and that's my personal experience and perspective.

Fair enough.

My point I guess is that there's more to the difficulty or "hardness" of painting than technique (or fine motor skills). Y'know all the other, less tangible, stuff that the artist puts into making a work succeed.

I hope you would agree that your Rothko homage isn't a particularly successful piece of Art?
 
Fair enough.

My point I guess is that there's more to the difficulty or "hardness" of painting than technique (or fine motor skills). Y'know all the other, less tangible, stuff that the artist puts into making a work succeed.

I hope you would agree that your Rothko homage isn't a particularly successful piece of Art?

You'd have to see it close up to critique it properly :D

And the neighbour loves it ;)
 
15174795690_cc80c9c7d1_b.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom