Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grethe Angen
But is`nt abstract principles and thinking quite impossible in portraiture?
would maybe work like this be setting the standards for the future and be remembered in history for making significant changes to representational portraiture?
I doubt it.
Grethe
|
Grethe,
I think you are absolutely right. No matter how "loose" a portrait of someone (or something) is painted, it is nevertheless a representational work of art. When the viewer fails to be able to identify or name any particular object or thing, it then becomes an abstract image. A painting can be "pushed" to the brink of abstraction, but still be representational; but beyond which, at a certain point, we will not be able to call it representational.
The problem I have with these paintings is not so much how the figures are rendered - (they are actually not that loosely rendered and contain quite a bit of recognizable detail; how
well or not they are painted is a judgement call, and, as I see it a separate issue). The main problem I have with these is all the wild (free), gestural paint smears that seem to exist only for their own sake, that don't relate to or support in the least, the figures themselves, thereby making a unified, complete artistic statement impossible. These paintings (of the King and Queen) look schizophrenic to me.
I did look at some of this artist's other work, and some of it was far superior to these: more unified, consistent and intriguing...they deserve a serious look at least.
But even with these (as with any modern - especially "modernist") paintings, the big question - as you indicated - is always there, lurking in the background:
will this work stand the test of time?
I doubt it.
David