Did anyone see this?
I'd be interested in what you guys thought of it and the artist in general.
I had a discussion about him recently with my parents-in-law, who went to see an exhibition as part of the art course they are doing.
I don't have any history-of-art education so I can't make qualified comments, only share my opinion that it all looks wonky to me and that I can't see the expression of great skill in his paintings. It's all very Tate Modern to me, shall we say.
Parents said they liked some of the pieces and his use of colour, but meant that you could only see them from a distance- any closer would "reveal" the mess.
As for his theory, I am not quite sure what he is trying to say. No matter how many mirrors the old masters used, they would still have to paint?
I've always liked 'A Bigger Splash' which is one of his more famous works.
Perhaps his most famous?
I can't exactly say why, I just like the setting, the open space on a clear day...
My sketchbook thread:
I think it's the fame in relation to his work that I have a problem with, rather than the work per se. I wouldn't mind putting an image of him up my wall, but the thought of how much money he gets for it is spoiling it.. now that I know how much long and hard work it needs to master traditional art, I appreciate it even less. (But as I said, I have no background of art history so I might be missing the big picture*)
I think he is a very lucky man to have the status he has.
I dont hate his work. If some of his work was presented to me as illustrations and I didnt know who he was, i would say they are quite nice.
i sort of kind of ish like hockney but wasn't too bothered about cramming myself in to the RA after seeing the queues...
one thing i like about his paintings that you don't often see in reproduction is they're full of odd idiosyncracies in construction. they're all a little off key in general and i like that too.
chris, did you by any chance see auerbach/kossoff/coldstream/uglow etc. at haunch of venison early this year? there were a couple of hockney drawings there too.
I really like his work, especially after seeing a documentary about him and his work a while ago,
He certainly has an eye for detail. His work may look 'simple' from the outset, but a lot of thought and technique is in it. Not everything has to be photo realistic.
David Hockney seems to create how he wants to and that i think makes him an artist.
Learning to see
"...the ideas are what matter most" Doug Chiang
Thanks for all the replies do far...
It seems to me that Hockney is trying to make up for lack of emotional depth by sheer quantity; beit amount, size or intellectual conceit.
He seems to have the view that more is more - bigger picture, multiple viewpoints, inclusion of time.
But these are just quantitative ingredients seen as qualitative by virtue of amount.
A work of art is a concision of experience.
Not a manufacture of it.
Compare the Hockney to the Constable and the Inshaw:
Last edited by Chris Bennett; April 19th, 2012 at 12:09 PM.
I watched his "me draw on iPad" exhibition with my parents. I didn't like his work at all, just seemed like a "bad" illustrator, especially in comparison to some of the people on this site that nobody knows about. Still better than the other random crap I saw there though (but I'm a close-minded simpleton who just doesn't get it when someone literally puts a toilet on a wall, so my opinion on art doesn't matter).
I actually prefer this painting to the Constable and the Inshaw,
I think the paintings still work, I get a lot of enjoyment out of looking at them, despite their imperfectionsAnd no clue about values or proportions.
Some comments make me laugh a bit. Compare him to Constable? Lol, that would make allot of artists look bad. I do like his interpretation of the landscape in this series, I also recommend looking at the doc about this series.
Another thing, art does not equal perfect values + perfect color + perfect proportions + perfect composition, apparently people still judge art only by these values. Anyway his colors are strong and I don't agree with the lack of emotional depth.
I think it is fantastic that he is still working at 74 with so much energy. I do like his use of color and the fact that he is also doing digital painting and bringing it into a gallery setting, although I don't use digital myself I think it is great that such an established artist is versatile. I've seen on other sites a lot of posts asking if digital is actually real art and I think someone like Hockney using it may help to change some peoples outlook on it.
I'm not very keen on the figures in his paintings (not sure why) but do like his work.
I liked his work in the 60s, the sparse California swimming pool stuff, it reminded me of Ed Hopper in a way. Kinda cool, detached, but at the same time "Yay! this is my subject and I think it's great!".
Does that make sense? Hmm.
Haven't really followed his work since to be honest.
i was there for the auerbachs really and wasn't disappointed. i became less of a fan of leon's humans but i'm still happy with his wilesden junctions (i really want to see his drawings face to face). knowing nothing about Richard Hamilton post-This Is Tomorrow i found his stuff a bit of a strange lot - odd sub-Richter photopainting and such. Patrich Caulfield bleh, whatever, but a guy I hadn't heard of (Michael Andrews) caught my attention with a large complex scene mixing photos and painting. there were only two Hockney drawings, nothing too notable.
i think he certainly does have a clue, and that this is half the fun.And no clue about values or proportions.
he knows how to draw ..I like many of his drawings (he has done great female/male nudes, portraits etc)..maybe some portraits too..but he is not my favourite..many can draw but really few can paint..at least he is not a guy who throws paint all over the place and then says he is a painter..
as far as his theory is concerned..I don't know. Old masters certainly knew how to draw but even if it's true it's not that of a problem , is it? I mean..in my opinion, painting is mostly composition and colour. In my artworks I don't even care about the subject. I care about how I am going to deal with it. But, I want to draw things my own, and I do..maybe it's about time management. (the fact that they might have used camera obscura)
IMO he was the best painter in the London Group and is still massively under-rated.
Andrews had a fantastic saying about why he liked to paint:
"It's the best way I know of making up my mind."
I've never heard of him before, and I have little clue about art history and what makes a "good" painting. All I know is that I wouldn't put any of his paintings shown in this thread on my wall. I'm the kind of person that gets irritated by the "small imperfections".