*evil laugh*
I just can't help but feel horribly smug today.
Jack Vettriano - an 'artist' (I use the term very loosely) - that has been the absolute bane of my existence since he 'shot to fame' with his retro misogynisic poorly painted 'masterpieces' has been copying from an old artists manual.
*claps hands and laughs gleefully*
Yes, he's self taught but Jack... you're supposed to take inspiration from sources not just lift images from non-copyright books that are produced to give artists/illustrators pointers on form!
All those years listening to people say how wonderful an artist he is, seeing his images plastered everywhere - posters, mugs, umbrellas! - and now... vindication! He's been tracing and colouring in! Let's face it his paintings contain very little detail, the protagonists take center stage, there is no real background to speak of. Warhol did colour-by-numbers in the 1970's... but he was being ironic. He was taking the mickey out of the artworld, the institutional process, the validity of what is deemed to be Art by the select few.
People can try and defend him all they like, argue that he has taken these lowly, worthless illustrations and made them his own. He hasn't and now everyone knows it.
If I wanted to look at real art (in a similar style) I'd study Edward Hopper.
Funny how none of the Scottish National Galleries have bought any of his works eh?
No, it's deliberate 'cause they think his work is worthless, populist, highly sexist nonsense too.
So ends the ignorAmouse's Art Rant!
Good Evening.
Jack Vettriano - an 'artist' (I use the term very loosely) - that has been the absolute bane of my existence since he 'shot to fame' with his retro misogynisic poorly painted 'masterpieces' has been copying from an old artists manual.
*claps hands and laughs gleefully*
Yes, he's self taught but Jack... you're supposed to take inspiration from sources not just lift images from non-copyright books that are produced to give artists/illustrators pointers on form!
All those years listening to people say how wonderful an artist he is, seeing his images plastered everywhere - posters, mugs, umbrellas! - and now... vindication! He's been tracing and colouring in! Let's face it his paintings contain very little detail, the protagonists take center stage, there is no real background to speak of. Warhol did colour-by-numbers in the 1970's... but he was being ironic. He was taking the mickey out of the artworld, the institutional process, the validity of what is deemed to be Art by the select few.
People can try and defend him all they like, argue that he has taken these lowly, worthless illustrations and made them his own. He hasn't and now everyone knows it.
If I wanted to look at real art (in a similar style) I'd study Edward Hopper.
Funny how none of the Scottish National Galleries have bought any of his works eh?
No, it's deliberate 'cause they think his work is worthless, populist, highly sexist nonsense too.
So ends the ignorAmouse's Art Rant!
Good Evening.