Jerry Saltz in a quick note on his Facebook page:
"MoMA's dreary Marlene Dumas show establishes that she is a sensationalist with no original ideas about painting, color, or photography; she hasn't developed as an artist; is merely a later day Neo-Expressionist; is more connected to Andreas Serrano than to any painter."
And don't forget this Sharkforum post about Feeble Painting.
I agree with Jerry on Dumas. I don't get the clamor for her work other than it's collector's baksheesh.
Elizabeth Peyton is another vanity vehicle deluxe. Karen Kilimnick
is light years ahead in content and execution.
Paul, Karen Kilimnick is NOT a better painter than Peyton or Dumas- they are all very poor -with Peyton being the most sophisticated- (kind of like the leper with the most fingers)......Karen Kilimnick is by far the LEAST SKILLED of the three -she is a total hack -trendy, vapid, and unbelievably inept- (she, IS FLAT OUT AWFUL!) -as we have discussed numerous times here on sharkforum - the high water mark of specious trash pedaled as having anything to do with serious painting-so third rate that she makes an average to 2nd rate painter like Peyton seem sophisticated in that at least, Peyton can maintain some some semblance of a style from painting to painting- something way beyond Kilimnick's talentless drivel -the absolute bottom of the barrel in the demise of the New York School
Here's a take on Dumas that you might enjoy:
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/finch12-11-08.asp