In 1963 Colin McCahon’s painting “Landscape Theme and Variations (Series B),” below, was rejected for inclusion in the collection of the National Art Gallery.
This afternoon, however, the painting entered the collection as a gift of the (taxpayer-funded) Arts Council of New Zealand.
I think they made the better decision in 1963.
[Hat tip Lyndon Hood]
13 comments:
Yeah, we need more photo-realist semi-naked male models surveying manfully the cigarette factory they've just finished building all by themselves. What is it about the art establishment?
I couldn't agree with you more, PC. Colin McCahon's 'art' is pretentios garbage. ... especially the crap with all the writing all over it.
I don't understand why his daubings were ever tolerated, let alone called art.
Dave Mann
I have a problem with some aspects of the visual arts. The written arts are more 'honest', and resistent to wankery.
Regarding McCahon, the fact that, on his death, his mom chucked a stash of his paintings that were in a wardrobe, at the landfill, because she thought they were rubbish, is telling.
Actually, I may be wrong in my first sentence. McCahon mixed both visual and words, and made them both ugly.
Right on, Mark and Dave!
Now this is art: http://www.cordair.com/bokor/beginnings.php
You don't want anything too challenging or abstract! Ugly, pretentious, wankery garbage!
No, I wouldn't call that art either, Spinoza, juat illustration.
But neither would I call McCahon's work challenging. Just underdone rubbish.
I hate art... too difficult.
I do like pretty pictures though.
Dinther,
Agreed. The moment you have to explain why it's beautiful, it isn't.
Cresswell,
McCahon had the same level of technical skill as your buddy Mark Wooller (http://www.markwooller.com/), whose art you've promoted in the past.
J
I only enjoy art when it is paintings of naked women which exposes the female genitals.
@Anonymous (yes, always Anonymous): McCahon had zero technical skill, which is why he had to add to add words to his paintings; he lacked the skill to add meaning any other way.
"...he lacked the skill to add meaning any other way."
Meaning to whom? To an aesthetically limited, brainwashed Objecti-twat like you who thought that AC/DC's You Shook Me All Night Long was about "rage"?
Anyway, as I said, McCahon had the same level of technical skill as your friend Mark Wooller whose art you've promoted here. Why did you promote the work of an artist who has "zero technical skill"? Why the double standards? If McCahon had been your friend, would you be praising his art, and if Wooller were not your friend, would you be calling his art "underdone rubbish"?
You're such a douchebag, Cresswell.
(From the Urban Dictionary: "Douchebag: An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self worth, compounded by a low level of intellegence, behaving ridiculously in front of colleagues with no sense of how moronic he appears.")
J
Well, Anonymous, there's nothing there at all on which I can agree--and everything whith which to disagree.
Mind you, you do seem to know a lot about rage.
"Well, Anonymous, there's nothing there at all on which I can agree--and everything whith which to disagree."
Really? You can't tell that Wooller's technical skill level is the same as McCahon's? Both have very primitive, childlike abilities. Wow, you must be even more aesthetically handicapped and ignorant of visual arts techniques and standards than I had suspected if you actually believe that McCahon's work is "underdone rubbish" but that Wooller's exhibits technical mastery.
"Mind you, you do seem to know a lot about rage."
Yeah, you imagine seeing rage everywhere, don't you? Here's a clue, Cresswell: Just because YOU feel rage when listening to a song or being made fun of for your aesthetic idiocy doesn't mean that the song contains rage or that the person having a laugh at your expense is enraged.
J
Post a Comment