I think that people who paint and people who do not paint look at and see paintings differently. We daily look at hundreds of images...maybe thousands...printed, online, televised. It is easy, when walking through a museum, to look at paintings, especially representational paintings, as just more 'pictures' as if we were leafing through a magazine. But we are not aware or appreciative of what goes into making a successful painted image. There is more to admire in a painting than just the subject matter. There is more than the "what" to a painting. There is also the "How "! There is much to learn and to master about composition, line, values, color theory, anatomy, brush work, perspective, how to direct the eye, how to hold the viewer's attention.and so much more!!
Great question: what should a painting look like in these ages? And some answers might be: The materiality That the work engage us. That we start to look for a relationship with the work and above all keep curious about the painting. The work keeps a secret, a mystery, a dream. And that it somehow tells something about our time
yeah like i can't remember who said it but it made me think of a quote: "a sculpture is that thing you bump into when you back up to look at a painting"
Those eyes might belong to the viewer, in that we are able to imagine or cultivate a specific scene or mood from what is visible on the other side. Silhouetted treetops, a distant halo-like light, and a crispy, tangled forest which, for me, could represent the toils which precede human awakenings, cranked and evoked by the murky connectivity-dreamworld of pareidolia. I'm also getting signpost vibes, which the tangled world beyond is, itself, reading. Especially the two skeletal trees on either side, where the artist has posted a clue to the meaning of life, and the world beyond is awestruck; fingering at the wonder of what is contained on the other side of that fleshy sign. Then again, I'm also reading (as was mentioned) a crucifixion scene. Maybe the board represents technology. The painting is definitely semiotic rich.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but words like "trends" and "what a painting should look like today" are, from my perspective, art killers! Artists should be free of such terms and not be forced into directions that the market demands.
The Contemporary "art" has nothing to say or offer to ppl, only boring gimmicks, flat observations, and mostly outright charlatanism. But, in a way, that in itself reflects the spiritual life in today's world.
Agreed with most everything. Like any critique, the origination is subjective. I obviously got the mysterious, surreal qualities of the award winner here, but man did he pull a serious amount of conjecture out of his ass. Most paintings these days are made to look mysterious. Not because they are actually mysterious utilizing a purpose in that.
For me, it appears to be an artist struggling to be different because he is not satisfied that he can achieve it with paint only. Where is this style of modern artwork heading? Let's just video the fella throwing his shoe at George W. and claim it great art! This piece lacks the basics of color/shape design for a painting. Claim it as a work of art and I'm fine. A worn shoe on a ledge is art. Except it fails as a painting. Why plywood? Why not the kitchen sink instead? It has 2 holes in it. At least the sink has some depth!
This is obviously a comment on the historicism of nature in the face of classic reiterations of modern humanity. If you truly open your eyes like an intellectual, like me, you will understand the varied metaphor in the work and probably understand life in general.
