I've heard so many critics say "He's not a painter, he's a poster artist". What the hell do they think poster artists are if not painters? Vettriano's brushwork is very understated... he's not John Singer Sargent but that's okay. Either he consciously avoids texture or he's not particularly drawn to textures but that's okay too. The way he paints hair demonstrates that he's perfectly competent in painting textures. His paintings tend to be a little flat but that's a vital part of the 1940s "noir" scene. He's not out to break boundaries or challenge the viewer. He just likes the atmosphere of film noir. He likes to paint scenarios in which the whole story is not told... just enough clues to make you want (or, indeed, definitely NOT want) to know the whole story. Yes, he's fixated on relationships between men and women... well, so is virtually every song, many movies, many books and many poems because, ultimately, so are we. Hence the popularity of Vettriano's work. Art critics should make good proctologists because they spend so much time with their heads up their own arses, they should know it inside out (don't dwell on that thought... no good will come of it). In the world of pretentious art, popularity is a dirty word. It implies your work is not sufficiently above the comprehension of common people to be of value. I like primarily the atmosphere of his paintings. I like the precision in which he paints, I love the lighting and I love the sense of unsaid things and, if that aint good enough for the Royal Academy then that institution is all the poorer for it. Another criticism I hear is "They may as well be photographs so what's the point?". Well, if I were looking at a photograph of a scene incorporating a puddle in which a detached crane fly wing was floating, I might not even notice the puddle but focus on the main subject. But, if the same image was a photorealistic painting, I would home in on that crane fly wing. Because I know that the camera sees more than even the photographer sees so minor details can be disregarded. But, in a painting, that minor detail has been deliberately painted. That gives it equal importance to the main subject and it grabs my attention. I see more of a painting than I do of a photograph.
Critics are not often artists. I see no credibility in anything because they makeup the most unusual ridiculous comments. Same goes for movie and music critics.
Lots of well known ‘Art Critics’ say that Tracy Emin’s ‘Unmade Bed’ and Pollock’s spots and lines are great art. It’s their opinion. I once heard a description of art as “if you saw something in a skip and would climb in to get it out because you thought it was art, then that WAS art to you.” Who’s right, the few paid Critics or the millions of paying public?
Thanks for posting. I made a video recording of the Jazz on two consecutive Sundays from TV but lost the VHS tapes when moving. I love it so much and missed it for over 20 years.
Well I would like to think Para Handy knows his beloved Vital Spark seen berthed at Crinan at the end (which was the one use in the Gregor Fisher "Tales of Para Handy"), other wise known as Auld Reekie or VIC 27. Is being restored to her former glory at the Crinan boatyard.
Thanks for posting this. I have been a Para Handy fan for years and as a coastal cargo ship seaman myself really enjoy seeing those few surviving episodes of the TV series. And the steam puffers were such cool ships!
If you haven’t already I’d recommend watching the 3rd edition of Para Handy from 1995 with Gregor Fisher it’s filmed aboard the puffer rather than studio filmed !
I cannot thank you enough for uploading this supeb film, Mr. Singleton. I used repeatedly watch my own old VHS copy, taped from live TV, and have searched for it often in the past. It's a great feeling to have it again. Thank you, thank you, thank you! (This Ralph Moore footage is stunning!).
