Artists (non-musicians) you dislike

[ejp626]

Thinking of Allen's list, I thought this might be the place to discuss visual artists you dislike. I should say up front that I like a lot of art, even much contemporary art, but there is also much I can't stand. (Maybe I will make the more positive artists I like list at some other point, though that would be sort of blog-gy given how long it would be.)

For me, bad artists potentially fall into several categories:

1) Artists who make some piece so hideous it overshadows the rest of their work

2) Artists who go through an extremely bad phase and may or may not recover from it (De Chirico)

3) Artists who become extremely successful/over-exposed and in turn start cranking out inferior work (Dali, Warhol) or carbon copies of past work (Frank Gehry - ok so he's an architect)

4) Artists who appear to have no technical abilities whatsoever but are expressing some idea

5) Artists who have no ability and their idea is so lame that I could have come up with it

6) Artists who make ugly, trivial or boring work

I think #4 is a tricky category and it depends on whether I find the idea reasonably interesting and the trade-off with how poor the art is. I can see the point behind most of Cy Twombly's work (taking schoolboy scribbles and turning them into canvases), but I still dislike most of his work intensely except for a few pieces hanging in the MOMA. Not a fan of Tracey Emin either.

I was seriously disappointed when I finally saw Ad Reinhardt's work, but I don't hate him. I was also really disappointed with how trivial most of Richard Tuttle's work was at the Whitney show, but again it doesn't rise to disliking the artist.

I suppose the artists I dislike the most fall into #5 and #6.

Dan Flavin - boring and pretentious - absolutely the worst show of 2004

Jean Dubuffet - ugly art - yes I know it is art brut but I still find it so ugly. There are only a handful of street scenes I find tolerable.

Ed Rushcha's starting to bore me, and will probably move higher on the list of disliked artists.

Well, it's late, and that's all I can think of for the moment.

[clifford_thornton]

Man, I like a lot of the artists you mention quite a bit! To each their own, I guess...

I can see why Jeff Koons exists (critique of the artist as commodity) but I do not like him one bit...

I don't get into the photographer, Jeff Wall, too much though critics I respect seem to enjoy his work. Seems rather dull and flat to me.

De Kooning is a cliche, as is Dali.

Krasner is derivative of the good 40s De Kooning in a lot of her early work; I don't know much of her work after that point.

Frankenthaler seems boring to me compared to Morris Louis; her palette is too gauzy for my taste and the post-painterly abstraction to me works better among more direct work such as Louis and Kenneth Noland (or, for that matter, Larry Poons). Hers is too diffuse for my tastes.

Rothko's palette choices don't move me too much, but a room of them is another thing altogether.

I'm not entirely sure about Joan Mitchell, but being "not entirely sure" for a while tends to lead to liking somebody quite a bit eventually (as I've done with Twombly and Tuttle), so I'll bet she will make it to the top ten at some point.

Rauschenberg and Johns do almost nothing for me, though I "respect" their influence on others whom I do enjoy.

I liked Dubuffet at first quite a bit; now I prefer Burri and Tapies (though I know they are different birds in many respects).

Gorky used to be another preference, though Matta is far superior and now I can't see liking both Gorky AND Matta.

Ruscha's paintings don't do it for me, either, though I really like his books.

Edited February 6, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[ejp626]

I'm with you on Koons. He's a case where at least I can respect the idea but the art is so (purposely) mundane.

While I don't like all of Wall's work, I do like his photo based on Invisible Man and a fairly recent photo taken/constructed of an apartment in Japan (I think).

I do like some of Rauschenberg and Johns work quite a bit. I like John's work in the 1990s, particularly a series based around the Four Seasons theme (ironically the same theme found in some of the only Cy Twombly work I enjoy). Rauschenberg does make ugly color choices for his constructs, but some of them are still very interesting -- and quite witty in an inside art kind of way. I would recommend getting to the Met in New York to see a show of dozens of his constructs. Seeing them all together helped me appreciate them more.

I think I will put together a list of major art exhibits I really liked, but it will take a while.

[Brownian Motion]

About ten years ago, after a serious bout of pneumonia, I found myself recovering in a room at a Catholic hospital in PA that had a pair of painting reproductions on the wall. These two images depicted a world as it might be imagined by the fevered mind of someone suffering the last few hours of terminal syphillis, a world empty of hope, devoid of meaning, and filled with despair. They evoked a response in me akin to nausea.

When my wife came to visit me I had her remove the two prints and turn them to the wall. I had never heard of the "artist". They were by Thomas Kinkade.

[ejp626]

About ten years ago, after a serious bout of pneumonia, I found myself recovering in a room at a Catholic hospital in PA that had a pair of painting reproductions on the wall. These two images depicted a world as it might be imagined by the fevered mind of someone suffering the last few hours of terminal syphillis, a world empty of hope, devoid of meaning, and filled with despair. They evoked a response in me akin to nausea.

When my wife came to visit me I had her remove the two prints and turn them to the wall. I had never heard of the "artist". They were by Thomas Kinkade.

I like a lot of that kind of work - Bacon, Guston - but maybe not right for a hospital room.

[clifford_thornton]

Guston is another one that it took me a while to appreciate, but now I do very much. I'm thinking of his figurative work - the abstract colorist stuff from the '50s is a different story altogether.

I wasn't even going to say anything about Kinkade... not worth it!

I don't know why Rauschenberg and Johns don't do it for me. Johns has a series of works (think they are called Lifelines) with a string drawn across a blue-grey field which are quite beautiful, that were the best thing about his Walker show a few years back. The string was attached at either end to loosely moored wooden planks, thus hanging the string (or cable) an inch or so in front of the canvas. Optically, they were somewhat interesting, but the starkness of the whole effect was really something. As yet, I haven't seen a Rauschenberg that doesn't do anything more than act "cute," but it may happen someday.

The best art exhibition I've ever seen in my life was The Last Picture Show, curated by Doug Fogle at the Walker. It was a study of conceptual artists using photography in the 60s, 70s and 80s - Ruscha, Smithson, Graham, Huebler, Bas Jan Ader, Bernd & Hilla Becher, Eleanor Antin, etc. and it was absolutely stunning. Never seen such a high concentration of multi-leveled (and much of it fairly "underground") work in such a committed setting.

Second to that: Andreas Gursky at MoMA, 2001.

Edited February 6, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[Man with the Golden Arm]

About ten years ago, after a serious bout of pneumonia, I found myself recovering in a room at a Catholic hospital in PA that had a pair of painting reproductions on the wall. These two images depicted a world as it might be imagined by the fevered mind of someone suffering the last few hours of terminal syphillis, a world empty of hope, devoid of meaning, and filled with despair. They evoked a response in me akin to nausea.

When my wife came to visit me I had her remove the two prints and turn them to the wall. I had never heard of the "artist". They were by Thomas Kinkade.

[BruceH]

6) Artists who make ugly, trivial or boring work

That would be MOST artists right there.

[Noj]

I harbor no dislike for over-exposed giants of the past such as Dali or Escher or Van Gogh. They're played out, but their art is still interesting and historically relevant.

Thomas Kinkade is a craftmaker. He makes wall decorations for little old midwestern ladies who relate to his romanticized glowing cozy cottages and don't recognize kitsch with they see it. I dislike his paintings, but if the ends justify the means he's done a good job as a businessman. He's no artist.

I don't consider myself an artist. I contribute nothing to the ongoing dialogue of fine art.

[clifford_thornton]

6) Artists who make ugly, trivial or boring work

That would be MOST artists right there.

It's the above kind of thinking that keeps us in the situation that we are today, culturally.

Edited February 6, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[Man with the Golden Arm]

I don't consider myself an artist. I contribute nothing to the ongoing dialogue of fine art.

i'll have to disagree ... while you may not be "contributing" to the dialogue of fine art you are still plying your craft and your god given talent. don't sell it short that you are "just " a craftsman either.

[Brownian Motion]

Milton Avery has always struck me as an imposter, but perhaps that's his particular genius.

Robert Motherwell was a brilliant man, but his art is lifeless.

Andy Warhol's star is still ascending, but I predict in fifty years he'll be regarded as a commercial artist who somehow got lucky.

[ejp626]

I think in a couple of hours I'll post the far more positive thread about great art exhibits. However, the one I was most excited about seeing (rather than the BEST) was the Max Beckmann at MOMA Queens with the Matisse blockbuster show a bit behind that.

An artist that does very little for me is Gerhart Richter.

[ejp626]

I probably also didn't make it quite clear enough that in my examples 1-6 those were not necessarily artists I disliked personally. I actually really like De Chirico in particular. For me, one bad phase doesn't negate an artist's career. It's really only #4-6 that get me going.

[jazzbo]

Man, I love Pee Wee Russell's clarinet playing . . . with a passion. But I dislike his art.

I'm a George Wettling fan though, drumming AND art!

[jazzbo]

Oh yeah, I don't like Miles Davis' art.

But don't tell him. . . .

[Spontooneous]

Man, I love Gorky. Never got the hang of Matta.

[Guest]

I've never been fond of Paul Klee, Chagall, or de Kooning.

I find Twombley and Frankenthaler wonderful!

If we are sticking with mostly 20th century painters for this topic, I must mention a favorite of mine. Richard Diebenkorn. His San Fransisco City Scapes are amazing.

I got a chuckle from the post about most art being produced being, let's say, not so good. I did an art search on Ebay and oh the awful "art" that is being sold by people who think they can paint. Good luck to them on their endeavors.

After 6 1/2 years of art school I have found it is hard to dislike one artist entirely. I agree that some periods are better than others. And certainly some themes or applications appeal to me and others don't. Lately I feel overwhelmed by cliche paintings...or as I like to call them, "sell paintings". So anything that breaks those boarders is welcoming to me.

[clifford_thornton]

CT, you gotta reconsider on De Kooning, despite his status as Icon/Hero to untold dipshits... i dunno that anyone thinks Dali was all-time but you woulda dug seeing Rova at the Dali Museum in St Petersburg, Fla i think... yes, i fucking despise Gehry (whore, hack & political tool but i won't get into that now) tho' the first time i went to U of Minn. art museum he did i thought OK, this is interesting... have you road tripped to Houston yet? i didn't "hate" Twombly there then but... maybe now i would... all Guston is worthwhile.

photography, on the ++++ list: you know Winogrand taught there, right? you can pick out a # of Austin streets once you know the city well.

xxc (twice married to artists & privy to a lot of funny inside dope prob too obscure for use here but in the world of who gets what grants, etc & the fatuous MFA "emerging young artists" circlejerk... worth a snicker or three)

Man, it's all that "Tenth Street Touch" stuff, but de Kooning did some fine small black paintings in the 40s. I find Hofmann boring for some of the same reasons as I do de Kooning, even though he was the start of a lot of that work and certainly makes a valid case for extending the optical elements of the best Cezanne.

Dunno if my post didn't make it clear (probably not), but Twombly is staggering and I love all of the paintings I've seen. Houston has an amazing collection of his work, though I may take a pass on the sculpture. At first I was very unsure of Twombly, but it is that uncertainty that made me get to know and love the work as I do now. This happens to me often with the artists (and musicians/composers) that I end up being obsessive about - captivating with the question "do you love it or do you hate it?"

Still, I'd rather talk about the artists I love any day: Clyff Still, Judd, Serra, Stella, Twombly, Hesse, Bontecou, Newman, Louis, Noland, Smithson, Guston, Bob Thompson, Tony Smith, Kelly (even if he seems a little short on verve these days)... longer list of names than that, but we're on the subject of hatin'.

Didn't know that about Winogrand. Thanks, clem.

One more to add to the shit-list: Rosenquist is so utterly garish and slick that I just can't look at it. I sort of 'get' his point, maybe, but I cannot deal with his work at all. Funnily enough, I was given the big Guggenheim retro book a couple of years ago for Xmas...

[clifford_thornton]

It's funny that most people (myself included) seem to be bringing up painters.

I really like a lot of concept work - or whatever you want to call it - but there are even a few in that realm whose work I can't deal with. I can't take Kosuth, or Art and Language for that matter - it's almost taking too much of the art content out of the work, which is not the way I feel about most concept art. With Kosuth and A&L, it's just too devoid of aesthetics for me - most concept art seems to have a pretty high aesthetic content, a sense of humor about itself, a DIY rawness to it, etc., that is very engaging.

I guess one could say Kosuth is like the Ad Reinhardt of concept art, but at least Reinhardt had a sense of humor!

[Chuck Nessa]

I like/love most of the painters mentioned.

Lots of (hip) reasons to dislike Dali, but he had amazing technique and he could have used it in destructive ways - he didn't. That counts for a bunch in my book since so many 20th century "artists" did tons of damage with much less.

[marcello]

I like/love most of the painters mentioned.

Lots of (hip) reasons to dislike Dali, but he had amazing technique and he could have used it in destructive ways - he didn't. That counts for a bunch in my book since so many 20th century "artists" did tons of damage with much less.

You have to visit one of the Dali Museums at stand in front of those huge paintings to really expierence his genius. Even the most jaded will come away with at least respect for their power, heart and intelligence.

Edited February 7, 2006 by marcello

[clifford_thornton]

do you mean Mike Kelley, CT?

Ellsworth Kelly - a wonderful and both chameleonic and steadfast painter (and sculptor) of color/form, with a very Cageian sense of keen observation.

I do like Mike Kelley (and Pettibon) as well, though. Heard the name Terry Allen dropped before, but never followed up on why. Thanks for the impetus.

[Jazzmoose]

Roy Lichtenstein is akin to a bad joke. As in "no, I get it; it's just stupid".

[clifford_thornton]

Strangely, I like his later, larger works better than the earlier stuff.

I never would have expected that I would say I "like" him, but he's now "alright" for me.