As a painter, originally of abstracted landscapes, now of more representational landscapes, I have always been surprised at the earnest need for curators, critics, and biographers (and other viewers) to read meaning into artwork. When I make a painting, I am only concerned with what is on the two-dimensional canvas surface, as I am working. I have never used my paintings to express my emotions or my opinions about anything, ever. Yet, when I have stood as unrecognized artist next to my work, at an exhibition, and listened to comments; I have heard all sorts of opinions about what is in the painting and what "the artist" meant by the images the viewer supposed he saw. (I'm reminded of cloud-gazers who see all sorts of imaginary objects floating by.) As a psychotherapist, I resent the eagerness of some curators to diagnose and label the emotional states of painters on the basis of their own interpretation of the artwork.
yes, I get shot down by my tutors when I point out that artists are often surprised by the meanings attributed to their paintings. they say the artist simply wasn't aware of the meaning and emotion they put into a piece.
Diebenkorn's indebtedness to Bonnard goes WAY beyond the mention of one painting at the end. Bonnard's tables fractured space with their angles, as well as the figures and the still lifes on the tables ( no mention of those and the similarities)and the window landscapes, ALL done from the mind in his studio. Bonnard's handling of paint, his exploration of white in the late paintings, Bonnard carried the torch of opening up possibilities to artists such as Diebenkorn as much as Cezanne did in opening up the possibilities of pointillism for Seurat AND fractured reality to Picasso as his cubism. Bonnard deserves his due but barely gets a mention.
I love this talk. I've watched or listened to this lecture several times and every time I understand both RD and my own process better. And that "body of water over the horizon" impulse might be Bay Area dna. I certainly have it. That train of thought leads right to Ed Said and the sense of being in and out of place, at once.
oh #2.. Bonnard was the artist to carry a brighter torch forward through the viscousness of Picasso's cubism, and Bonnard's torch was the one that lit and illuminated the likes of Diebenkorn AND Rothko AND Park AND in the end the bastardization of all of it all called pop art via Wayne Thiebaud.
I cant find a single page on the world wide web that has any kind of criticism of this guys work and it's leaving me so baffled... some of his art I can appreciate, but some of it just looks so ridiculous that i laugh! Pieces like the Berkeley series and the Day at the Races look like such a complete nonsensical mess that I seriously wonder if he was playing a joke on the art community. I suppose that fans are looking at it at from some special angle that unlocks the beauty of it...?? But what is it???? What is it that you see in such paintings????? Please explain. I honestly feel like if something looks so objectively bad, like any layman would assume a toddler with an eye for color and free reign with a brush and canvas may have done it, then it really must be that bad. Occam's razor... But again, please explain to me and maybe I will understand after all. not trying to be insulting and start arguments here. Like I said, his talent definitely shines through in other paintings
He is destroying Richard Diebenkorn - I spent many years in the Berkeley area and was looking forward to a Sunday morning thoughtful representation - But no, he sounds like he is rushing to catch a bus and really doesn't have time for this but he will give it a quick run through -
If TH-cam did not exist, I never would have seen this... and I love Diebenkorn! What a wonderful talk; well done! Thanks of posting.
As a painter, originally of abstracted landscapes, now of more representational landscapes, I have always been surprised at the earnest need for curators, critics, and biographers (and other viewers) to read meaning into artwork. When I make a painting, I am only concerned with what is on the two-dimensional canvas surface, as I am working. I have never used my paintings to express my emotions or my opinions about anything, ever. Yet, when I have stood as unrecognized artist next to my work, at an exhibition, and listened to comments; I have heard all sorts of opinions about what is in the painting and what "the artist" meant by the images the viewer supposed he saw. (I'm reminded of cloud-gazers who see all sorts of imaginary objects floating by.) As a psychotherapist, I resent the eagerness of some curators to diagnose and label the emotional states of painters on the basis of their own interpretation of the artwork.
yes, I get shot down by my tutors when I point out that artists are often surprised by the meanings attributed to their paintings. they say the artist simply wasn't aware of the meaning and emotion they put into a piece.
That was excellent. Enjoyed it thoroughly.
Diebenkorn's indebtedness to Bonnard goes WAY beyond the mention of one painting at the end. Bonnard's tables fractured space with their angles, as well as the figures and the still lifes on the tables ( no mention of those and the similarities)and the window landscapes, ALL done from the mind in his studio. Bonnard's handling of paint, his exploration of white in the late paintings, Bonnard carried the torch of opening up possibilities to artists such as Diebenkorn as much as Cezanne did in opening up the possibilities of pointillism for Seurat AND fractured reality to Picasso as his cubism. Bonnard deserves his due but barely gets a mention.
I couldn't agree more. but Bonard for some reason is consistently denigrated as a painter
I love this talk. I've watched or listened to this lecture several times and every time I understand both RD and my own process better. And that "body of water over the horizon" impulse might be Bay Area dna. I certainly have it. That train of thought leads right to Ed Said and the sense of being in and out of place, at once.
That was absolutely wonderful...!
oh #2.. Bonnard was the artist to carry a brighter torch forward through the viscousness of Picasso's cubism, and Bonnard's torch was the one that lit and illuminated the likes of Diebenkorn AND Rothko AND Park AND in the end the bastardization of all of it all called pop art via Wayne Thiebaud.
Excellent
Good lecture, if rushed for time, perhaps.
(And as I listen, I keep hearing The voice of Jon Lovitz in The Critic, saying ‘It stinks’.)
I disagree. Diebenkorn's paintings definitely aren't just stage sets. They are scenes of a snapshot of everyday life, but more exaggerated.
oh ... and not to mention David Park's indebtedness to Bonnard AND Matisse...
We are not laughing now, though perhaps a heart felt giggle is needed.
Please what kind of word is seriality.????
Damn, he packed a lot in there!
no really, say CONFLATE one more time
At least he didn’t use “juxtapose”
@@hippopotamusbosch omg!!! I knowwww hahahah. You get it
this is a man who wishes he took the plea
I cant find a single page on the world wide web that has any kind of criticism of this guys work and it's leaving me so baffled... some of his art I can appreciate, but some of it just looks so ridiculous that i laugh! Pieces like the Berkeley series and the Day at the Races look like such a complete nonsensical mess that I seriously wonder if he was playing a joke on the art community. I suppose that fans are looking at it at from some special angle that unlocks the beauty of it...?? But what is it???? What is it that you see in such paintings????? Please explain. I honestly feel like if something looks so objectively bad, like any layman would assume a toddler with an eye for color and free reign with a brush and canvas may have done it, then it really must be that bad. Occam's razor... But again, please explain to me and maybe I will understand after all. not trying to be insulting and start arguments here. Like I said, his talent definitely shines through in other paintings
I think he can hold his own against Hannibal Lector but will eventually get eaten.
He is destroying Richard Diebenkorn - I spent many years in the Berkeley area and was looking forward to a Sunday morning thoughtful representation - But no, he sounds like he is rushing to catch a bus and really doesn't have time for this but he will give it a quick run through -
waste of time....