ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ม.ค. 2017
- Join Howard Hodgkin in his London studio as he prepares for his upcoming exhibition at Gagosian in Asia. Hodgkin's "In the Pink" exhibition was on view at Gagosian Hong Kong from January 19 through March 11, 2017: on.gagosian.com/33ioWgU. This short film is narrated by Gagosian director and longtime friend to the artist, Robin Vousden.
__________
All artworks © Howard Hodgkin
Directed by Miriam Perez; Produced by PerryDuke - บันเทิง
the show is beautiful... my favorites are the smaller more intimate pieces that ask the viewer to approach them and look. the best contemporary show we presently have in hong kong.. thank you
We may not be seeing Hodgkins full potential but through Hodgkins we see the full potential of paint
Painting on simple panel gives the paintings a tremendous feeling...
After reading and watching numerous documentaries on Howard. I personally feel even he wouldn't
label what he does as "art". "Art" is a man made word just like the words black, white, and red. Based on etymology even those words had nothing to do with color as far as it's origins are concerned and from what I've gathered he wasn't 1 for words and labels regarding the words and labels that society and people create.
I say all this to imply whether it's of beauty or not, appealing or not, ordinarily significant or not, it's simply an expression of emotions, thoughts, and what goes on in one's mental.
If one is genuinely and sincerely expressing what they see in their mental and what they feel, that's considered gold, diamonds, and riches in the spiritual realm. I often wonder when people come across individuals with success like this does 1 ever take into consideration that what these individuals do is mountains beyond what just anyone can do. Like, just maybe he or she was guaranteed success beyond most because they actually remain true to their hearts and what God has puposed them to do. They don't compromise.
Yes, a 2nd grader or anybody could possibly do the paintings of Howard, Pollock, or even Rothko. But, maybe "just maybe" what just anyone can do, may not ever be divinely and successfully blessed if it's not real, true of heart, or purpose. Just my meaningless, lowly, yet humble thoughts.
Since you publicly comment on such things, you arrogantly ride on this man's shoulders to spew such ignorant diatribe. Did you 'god' purpise you to do that or was it an expression of emotion? No thanks, go next door.
Great Master. Bravo!
The work looks amazing.
🌼💐🌼
Hope they come back to London so that we can see them together before they disappear into asset-class-land
I love some of his work, but I do think he's getting away with it
Clever😂😂😂😂
@@99thehighstreet69 I'll show you my work if you're interested. I'm not successful I've always painted though on and off. I'm not sure how to send photos but I could ask someone to show me how to send them . Cy twombly is probably my favourite artist.
The narration is 100% fluff.
For those not understanding, so therefore insulting and dismissing his work - don't worry, perhaps you are just not bright or imaginative enough to open your mind to it? That's ok, don't spend any more time thinking about it. Go look at something else instead. May I suggest Jack Vettriano? He is probably more suited to your taste
I like this work. But to label anyone who doesn't 'get it' as somehow unrefined and low brow is in my opinion vulgar and boorish. To suggest that only Art that has to be explained to the viewer is somehow worthy of our attention is an indication of your own short comings in the appreciation of things visual. And to bring Vettriano into it is just crass.
@@gretchensghost 'For those not understanding, so therefore insulting and dismissing his work'
Seriously? Help me understand the Glorifying of this.
even more poignant now than then
This is what's classed as modern art? This shit looks like something a 3 year old would make in nursery!
Could you possibly have written a more trite comment? When you learn something about 20th century art history and contemporary painting, come back and try again.
@crabhat1: What part is true exactly? The cliché ('A child could do this therefore it shouldn't be taken seriously.') that is repeated ad nauseam by people who have no clue about contemporary art? That all art made today can be lumped into the same category and that it's all worthless?
As for your comment about colour and shape: Yes, that's what painting is composed of. What point are you trying to make? That because painting relies on illusion its impact can't be profound? If so, that's an absurd claim. I suppose music should just be reduced to the term noise?
Also not sure why you refer to painting as a 'limited form of communication' but also state that it can be completely open to interpretation and thus extremely rich in its communicative powers. In addition to this, you don't seem to grasp that paintings (even Hodgkin's) represent things in the world (the titles are a clue). They are not purely abstract. In that sense, your claim that the images have nothing more to offer the viewer than what one brings to them is not accurate. Artists don't create images with absolutely no meaning in mind. They are open to interpretation, yes, but they nevertheless show what the artist wanted to convey: This dialectic is what makes them interesting.
And well done for for including the second most ridiculous cliché favoured by those that denounce contemporary art ('The Emperor has no clothes.'). You must be proud of that one!
Then show us the nursery where painting like this goes on. Stupid ass
Bet you couldn't make it troll.
you call this shit art? and he's getting paid a lot of money for it??
Why is it *not* art?
color and form as a means of expression, how is that not art? just cause hes not painting a specific object. does that make it to hard to comprehend?
I think there should be some actual skill involved in making art. This does NOT require skill. I can achieve this form of 'art' in a couple of days.
One doesn't just suddenly arrive at this form of abstraction; it's a long process. As for your claim that Hodgkin's work in no way requires any skill and understanding of how to handle paint, well, that's nonsense. The colour conveys the subject of the picture. That's not easy. Moreover, the difference between your attempt to make similar work and the real thing is that your would almost certainly lack the conviction or emotional input required to make the painting successful. There's a rich inner world that needs to be present. You producing one in a couple of days proves that you don't understand what Hodgkin's art is about. Stop being so superficial.
Just smoke weed when you see the work and you'll get it
I don’t understand at all why this so called Artist is so famous ?
Painting Meaningless Rubbish is called art ?