6/27/2006

David Hockney

34 comments:

Painter said...

David Hockney
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
June 11-Sept. 4, 2006

tumbleweed said...

Aww. I am such a sucker for David Hockeny. Love.

no-where-man said...

looks like your not alone!

"Another top lot at Sotheby’s was David Hockney’s The Splash (1966), one of the artist’s classic California swimming pool scenes. It sold for £2,920,000 ($5,407,407),"

what a cutey pic. of him at sean kelly!!!

poppy said...

love him,
i see him everywhere in painting these days and must say i'm glad when i do.

closeuup said...

finally, a real painting!

JD said...

Yeah, there is a freshness about Hockney, even when he does a really traditional commissioned portrait, like this one. It always looks like he's enjoying himself and choosing not to worry about what one should or shouldn't do in contemporary painting.

Cooky Blaha said...

I've always had mixed feelings about this painting, though I've never seen it in person so I can't really judge. Hockney, as in the splash painting mentioned, can be a brilliant colorist and completely on point in his paintings. However I kind of think his genius is as a draftsman.

That being said, whats the consensus on his optic technology theory for the masters? I kind of think he got in way over his head on that one.

.. its also kind of an interesting factoid that the husband in this painting was later murdered by a gay lover.

zipthwung said...

jeeze cooky optics and intrigue in one post.

I didnt read the optics book, but on the topic of technology, they just discovered some stuff about our ancestors that basicly says that almost from day one we as humans were doing stuff with stuff that pretty much is what we are doing now, but not as refined.

"Three shells with holes bored into their centers, excavated from sites in Israel and Algeria, may be the oldest known evidence of personal decoration, according to new research published in Science.

here

what this points to if you follow me, is that before people could do things they could imagine things, and that people have been imagining things almost from day one.

Our ancestors made the pyramids - it wasnt aliens, and it wasnt magic.

I like this painting for a lot of academic reasons - the pos neg space in the railing being one - nothing to cream your pants over but its the stuff of Dali without the fantasy, and thus sophisticated - meaning you dont have to appologize for being adolescent with your poorly printed melting clock poster or whatever - you are an adult with this painting. Isnt it weird how having a painting is more adult than having a poster? Like having your own room, then having your own mini bar, then having your own James bOnd Cat type familiar.

I like the cat - it sits unaturally tabletop-flat right in the groinal region. What is up witht that? Obviously some sort of sign, like when you italicize something that otherwise would have no significance.

Thats where Hockney is using his art history chops, but also making them accessible to the uninitiated but reasonably observant.

What does the cat mean? Well a dog used to mean faithfull, and a cat means pussy right now, to me, sitting here.

I just went to see "Wassup Rockers" - it the best road movie, or rather skate movie, since Repo Man, as far as I'm concerned. Theres a bit of allegory, a bit of dream geography in a "Being John Malkovitch" or "Beetlejuice" kind of scene jumping through the backyards of hollywood- and the soundtrack is punk rock.AWESOME!

I think it relates - theres a bit of the predatory nature of the human species - like this painting , lions zebras and/or hyeenas at the watering hole.

Cooky Blaha said...

yeah I hadn't really studied the cat before, makes one appreciate the painting a little more. To me, it kind of has a displaced, Balthusian air to it which is nice in juxtaposition with the overbearing 70s-ish feeling to the rest of it.

Clark some of his movies are entertaining but I thought seeing his shit in Luhring Augustine sucked

painterdog said...

I like Hockney's work for the most part.
His book on the old master's using the camera obscura is nothing but bunk.
Not sure what his agenda was in producing it but his theory is ridiculous.
That is that Ingre and Jan van Eyck used this contraption to create there work for those who are interested.

They did not. Its been proven by scores of contempory realist painters who claim to be lesser talents than either of the former and yet they can produce very well drawn work with out the need of camera obscura.

epilepticadam said...

i love and respect hockney, but note this scientific american article by david g. Stork called Optics and Realism in Scientific American (dec 2004) order it or try to find it online-a must if you read hockney's book Secret Knowledge.

Stork takes up hockney's claims and specifically proves hockney wrong, one of things analyzed is the chandelier from "Portrait of Giovanni Arnofini and his Wife".

Hockney refused to take any questions at his talks in NYC concerning what he wrote, a huge upset... the people who hosted the talks kissed his ass - it was nothing but a one-side platform to sell his theory and book...one of the hosts was a writer who wrote an article on him and i believe intro to another one of hockney's writings...truly upsetting considering i respect both people overall...

having read hockney's book, there are many holes in it... the unfortunate thing is that hockney is correct in the use of camura obscura and has some good observations/concerns -but then he applies the idea of using the camura obscure to every master that ever existed and doesn't even take into account the 'style' of the artist and his interpretation of objects drawn ( ingres' elongation/ michealangelo's muscles that unhumanly pop out at the same time; the use of a white cloth for religious reasons was not to simplify the textile in paintings when eating -supper at emmaus/ last suppers; and on and on; he whitewashes much cultural/history for his own theory unfortunately ...there is too much to discuss here) there is much 'fact and fiction' mixed up in his book

... hockney is not a master draftsman of the previous century as he cannot understand this; sadly many people cannot tell the difference. as far as i am concerned, the fact that he is not a master draftsman with the skills of those centuries before does not tarnish his 'genius' of this century...

poppy said...

someone mentioned killed by gay lover,
perhaps the pussy is bored with that guy.
it is feeling displaced because he took so long to paint anything, the same feeling you will get with manets breakfast on the grass, i'm not french, - or courbet or whatever. slowly pieced together. I could be wrong but i also think some stuff in the same painting is from photo and some from life. he is definatley the draftsman and he gives his props to picasso and others for that but i think his ability to combine action, expressionistic, type painting with flatter areas in alot of work is most influential. his guys getting a shower together etc.. but we have been using devices to satisfy our wants in representing or exaggerating life way back to the egyptians, they used grids,(math) and had percise measurements for their figures etc. cant see why such an uproar in uncovering these optic devices that some of the master painters sculptors used. even the greeks had formulas for calculating ratios- i say big deal, no real mystery

closeuup said...

yea maybe people should start using that stuff again--michael bevilaqua please note--cus whats missing from most contemporary work is proportion. even yr lowliest graphic designer knows how to work the ratios.

zak smith looks "right" but he traces photos doesnt he?

epilepticadam said...

poppy:

it is "no big deal"; but what hockney states is different than what you are referring to.

he is discounting the individual ability of masters historically who did not use instruments but their human eye/ mind and hand drafting genius...

instruments were used historically but definately by not every master all the time. what people have a hard time understanding (and makes many people feel good today because hockney tries to 'level the playing field' by stating essentially that 'masters always depended on these instruments') is that 'masters' could draw quickly, with with skill and accuracy as so many cannot today- not even hockney.

hockney is a draftsman but not a master draftsman of history's standards, he can convey a very modern drawing by todays standards of just getting an image across(many are wonderful, picasso did this too)...

his guys in a shower is totally different type of drawing than the drawing he discusses in his book... check out the book mentioned in my last posting and the article if you need clarity...

epilepticadam said...

closeup:

why don't people learn to draw better

zipthwung said...

I learned to draw the marvel way, and I have used the grid to size things up or even to make them proportional, be they maps or still lifes...but these are devices, and devices are not just objects, they are ideas - heuristics to use a fancy computer type word.

So when Hockney points to optics, I wonder why, in a more "photography changed everything" kind of way - Saltz has used "photographic perspective" as a criticism - that is the framing/space changes depending on the source material- but its more than just source - its treatment - and we are back to the eye of the beholder, or the lense through which one sees.

no-where-man said...

he didn't really work the fey angle as hard as some of his other boys,. The "optics ?" got everyone talking about him, press, hot lecture series, canonized him in the context of the 'Masters' and ultimately offered us a lense to view his work thru.
Everyone loves classics and tropes, 10 million viewers tuned into Broken Trail, shattering records.

poppy said...

epilepticadam,
i didn't read the book, didn't realize he was trying to discredit everyone. I did figure that some used devices and probably not all the time. My thing was big deal if some did. I am aware that there are very few around skilled in this way today, but that was most of their agenda then. Hockney probably has his own issues, and he was slow .. I don't think he had a complex about this or i hope not. There certainly have been a huge amount of skilled freehand drawers and painters once we got past pure accuaracy - not that you dispute this, just saying. A different skill - A different time. It brings us to a good place. Too bad about that though, needing to sack every old master artist. I still can't get beyond the word devices. Cause everyone used them in one way or another. Not the camera obscura, but sighting with an arm extended is a device, so is a greek axis formula or an egyptian grid. this is why i say big deal who used what, but saying everyone traced, which is what you say Hockney is saying i say is definately false.

epilepticadam said...

zipthwung:

of course it is the treatment by the artist overall and the instrument is ideally just a tool one has control over.

what happens often is there is little control by the artist and the photo used is something the artist becomes too dependent on by which they copy and cannot manipulate/understand the photo; the art ends up being quite 'literal' in a 'bad' sort of way....

it goes beyond blowing something up in proportion... it is limiting... and is why, in my observation, there is so much work out there that looks alike...

perhaps that is what saltz is referring to...

Cooky Blaha said...

a very bad example of the negative effects of using photography in painting would be the jenny dubnau post 3 artists down. this hockney example is perhaps a successful example of its positive uses..(of course I am in no way against photography used in painting)

to add to the argument, Hockney was actually suggesting that an artist like Ingres used a complex contraption to reflect the image onto the paper while drawing a sitter, thereby facillitating his ease and grace at capturing their likeness. A preposterous idea just for the simple reason that there is not one historical reference to the artist using such a contraption in Ingres' case.

painterdog said...

epilepticadam is right Hockney is like some snake oil sales man trying to hawk his book. The thing was utter bs.

Think about it, have any of you seen a camera obsura or camera lucida and know how it works?

It produces the image upside down and in Van Eykes time the thing would have been huge. The optics inferior. I think they used them as a curiosity, a new toy so to speak.

Now lets move forward in time to Ingre's time period(late 18th and early 19 century) the device is still huge but the optics are better, but lets think about the process.

You have to be in this dark room or under a dark cloth to view the image which is upside down and then you can draw it.

Does this sound like something extremly well trained and talented artist of the past would do?

closeuup said...

Training, talent, tricks. The winner uses them all. Artists of the past know how to keep a secret. They had to, to make a living.

Now a days, well who has the time? My brother can draw & paint super well. He is an illustrator, among other things. Lydecker type style. Never made any kinda money on it, tho. Good thing they have rent control in W. Hollywood. Ingres never had rent control.

When I think of proportion--I mean elegance. This Hockney is elegant and glamourous, with just a slight hint of "English" domesticity or picturesqueness. Just a whiff. I love the tension.

But who is really elegant? Just them robots that zips always on about.

no-where-man said...

looks like alot of good openings tonight.

Zwirner, Marks, Lelong looks like maybe Pace, connelly

painterdog said...

No tricks envolved just talent and good training.

There is contempory artist Tony Ryder who can draw like nobody's business.

I know for a lot of people academic drawing is boring but that's what artist used to do.

No tricks, no easy or magic formulas, just talent and hard work.

Now the painting mediums(recipes) that's another story. they (painters)where very secretive about that.

But this gadget nonsense is a lot of baloney.

painterdog said...

sorry for the typo

closeuup said...

seems naive to think that artists of the past didnt use tricks of the trade, seeing how painting was a trade in those days.

epilepticadam said...

read the blog carefully closeup...there is no need to repeat this discussion...

no-where-man said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
no-where-man said...

no one is looking at each other, even the flowers are looking the other way. it looks real nice outside however,

i am sure closeup is flowing the thread, look at her comments again.

closeuup said...

yes no-wear man is rite. I read u adam. I cogitated all u had to say, Thanks!

brent hallard said...

I'm not going to support all you painter illustrative folk out there!

But the painting is good for a number of reasons: And bad, for equal number of them. The figures are these vertical things and as vertical performances should [they not] at their best find themselves grounded, like trees. Humans aren't trees. We move about them, like the Man from Oxley. But in a painting humans aren’t moving, nor is the famous town that named the famous he. So it does make sense to make sense of sense some other way: In Mr. Hokney’s piece--here shows humans-o-rendered-as—petite-dividers of space. There is just the right division that divides them. Phewww! Many of the other phalanges in the picture don't do a lot--Gloomy in the form of glee. Sticky: reiterative our pedestrian derangement, and if spared the minimal completion-the-the failure of this painting, is kind of the painting the.
Another success, less we talk of less, of the artist, redress, is this ‘other’ subtle opening -- 'sliding window’ set to dewy. The place between the two bodies, and this other ‘draw the pane’ is something we well we might know. Uncontained, however, it spells better air than we normally receive—thus a really a good place to plant an olive tree, after-all.

poppy said...

if you were trying to right something that was difficult to read you were successful. so you don't think humans belong in paintings hey? There is a new painting above Hockneys with a tree and a deer in it. Please respond to it.

zipthwung said...

That vertical stuff bugs me too. That and the self conscious spatial play stuff. But what else is there to do once you've answered all the questions about life and death?

Houdini said...

I think Hockney tried to warn us about the dullness in art, when we get too attached to our tools instead of viewing the world with our eyes, minds, souls.
I enjoyed his book, whatever bullshit it might be. But why didn't he just paint it?