Josh Smith: does it look good, have any kind of real visual presence? Can he even paint? Is there any noticable rigor? As actual paintings devoid of art market hype are these things worth a shit? Of course not! But these trifles hardly matter, what matters, is SAATCHI BOUGHT ONE!
I was not in any "pleasing mode" --- I mean exactly what I said. Jeff uses photos, but doesn't need them, I think, and should probably stop projecting them; my point is that his real INTEREST is not photos, but that slippery form of painterly handwork to serve in representation. I think his surface is quite interesting. It is NOT like yours, nor mine, but does not have to be. He is coming from a vastly different direction than you. When he's really "sliding" he has passages quite like Frans Hals, not deKooning. There are many forms of painterliness, not just one. I think he should push that, perhaps, --- such concentration was important for your development, Wesley, and I personally am working on that a lot right now --- but most of all the composition development.
The real point, of course, as Bill points out is that the Feebleists avoid all such questions. They have NO painter's problems, only a bureaucrats or apparatchik's problems.
DUDE! Frans Hals is a BIG stretch, no where is that sort of sensibility and painterly expertise in evidence........I agree that this is probably where this work should go -but its hard to do that when a photograph is telling you what the end game is.......I started this thread because I think jaz is way more worthy than any feeblist.....however, real sophistication and skill, cant be PROJECTED! especially not SLIDE PROJECTED!......I watched it destroy my teacher, I'm against it....learn to draw, and learn to SEE FOR YOURSELF! not simply and, mechanically, replicate existing photographic images......this is so much of what painting at its best, is. My point was and is, this kind of billboard realism, started by James Rosenquist early on in the pop art movement -seems kind of played out and hampered by its inherrent limitations- you can only view random imagery, be it franco american spagetti noodles to mylar ballons, splayed out on a arbitrary surface/space so many times before it kind of seems done -and feeble in its own way. I'm not advocating for people to paint like me. All I'm saying is, that the kind of painting we have been discussing seems unable to translate into fine art......that it needs to be more than what it is.
Lets get back on topic-
Shark,
You're totally right about Saatchi's influence. He's the new Clement Greenberg.
I think there is hope for humanity after seeing Josh Smith's work. To think that a village somewhere not only supported their idiot but gave him paints and canvas, it warms my heart. And the effort he had to exert having to spell his name correctly each time. Astonishing. Few art conosiuers realize how difficult it is to paint with you head up your ass. Luckily, Saatchi having a similar perspective, could see Josh Smith's true genius.
But seriously it seems like such a shame that these collectors can't see how these Feeble Painters (good term BTW) have nothing to say or any talent apparent in their work. Celebrating ignorance, lack of basic skill and coddleing the mediocre seem to be the flavor of the day. His work looks like something one would see in an art therapy environment, not a gallery.
Now I have never met Mr. Smith but I have to wonder how much his personality, charisma or force of will has helped him overcome his complete lack of skill? I can only guess that he must be very convincing in person to pass off this BS as serious artwork. So is Salesmanship his true genius? Does talk matter more than talent to these collectors? I doubt it but the examples you have shown make me wonder at his true calling as a conartist.
The only up side to the celebration of these works I see may be future art created by other artists rejecting Feeble Painting. These are dark times.