Kevin Sharkey Paintings....

Keyzer

I was watching a program last night about the Irish painter Kevin Sharkey and I couldn't help wondering if this guy is taking the piss.

I'm not a huge art buff, but this guy has to be laughing all the way to bank.
Now I know its abstract and the meaning of the painting is different for everyone etc. but his paintings to me are like the work of children, a few squiggles here, throw a bit of paint over there, mess it all up etc.

Either this guy is laughing all the way to the bank or I just don't get abstract art.

The example below is called "Let Bygones be Bygones" and if you told me this is the work of my 3yr old twin nieces I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Merrion

Either this guy is laughing all the way to the bank or I just don't get abstract art.

As is usual in these cases it is probably a mixture of both. The purpose of this kind of art is similar to that of the peacock's tail - it shows how healthy the rest of the organism (or society) is that it can expend a great deal of effort on the creation of something decorative but ultimately pointless.

There is some basic aesthetics in the painting that would differentiate it from the work of a 3 year old (or two of them). It is split into 3 pretty much equal sized bands [the photographers friend, the rule of thirds, is involved] and it has brighter and bluer colours toward the top [which is aesthetically pleasing because we equate it with the savanna-sky environment in which we evolved] ... but if the acid test is would I pay more than a days wages on it the answer would be a resounding NO.

Keyzer

Merrion wrote:

As is usual in these cases it is probably a mixture of both. The purpose of this kind of art is similar to that of the peacock's tail - it shows how healthy the rest of the organism (or society) is that it can expend a great deal of effort on the creation of something decorative but ultimately pointless.

There is some basic aesthetics in the painting that would differentiate it from the work of a 3 year old (or two of them). It is split into 3 pretty much equal sized bands [the photographers friend, the rule of thirds, is involved] and it has brighter and bluer colours toward the top [which is aesthetically pleasing because we equate it with the savanna-sky environment in which we evolved] ... but if the acid test is would I pay more than a days wages on it the answer would be a resounding NO.

Ok, maybe I went a bit ott saying kids could do this.
But I know for a fact, give me a month of mastering making silly shapes and squiggles, I could do the same as this guy.

There was girl on the show who bought a picture, and she's commenting on what It means to her, "Blah blah blah" this and "Blah blah blah" that...
All the time I was thinking "You daft mare, its nonsense and if doesn't look like anything, they must have big windows wherever you bought it cos they seen you coming a mile off"....

Merrion

The biggest shame of modern art is the way art and science have been split to be polar opposites. In the renaisance and even up to the turn of the century artists were also scientits and had an interest and understanding of things such as anatomy, optics and chemistry which complimented their art.
This means that the questions of the nature of perception that modern art should be addressing are left to the scientists and the artists are left vying for attention in the manner of a.d.d. children in pre-school.

Keyzer

Merrion wrote:

The biggest shame of modern art is the way art and science have been split to be polar opposites. In the renaisance and even up to the turn of the century artists were also scientits and had an interest and understanding of things such as anatomy, optics and chemistry which complimented their art.
This means that the questions of the nature of perception that modern art should be addressing are left to the scientists and the artists are left vying for attention in the manner of a.d.d. children in pre-school.

I would agree...
However, abstract painting bamboozles me. They showed the guy painting, he was squirting paint here and there, messing it up and mixing it together and then he says "this is an outlet for my emotions"..
I find this hard to believe. You'd wanna be a complete nutcase if that is so.

I think people who buy into this nonsense do it in effort to appear more "intelligent" or "arty".
I really do think this guy laughs his arse off nevery night on the way to his bed and get up the next day and paint another load of crap to sell to some fool for an outrageous price.

Monkey

This is the same old discussion from someone who isn't interested in art commplaining that a painting isn't a picture of something. whether or not Kevin Sharkey is any good is one question. Whether abstract painting has merits is another.

Shrimp

I think abstract is fine. As long as it actually dipictics something, even if it takes 5-10 minutes to figure it out, but if its not actually showing a definat image well then in that case it's not art as such, rather than a nice colourful design.. I dont really like that type of art though.. but then again I can appriciate it, to a degree..

Metacortex

Its all subjective. I would never dismiss anything that someone has spent their time working on as 'not art' just because i don't happen to like it.
I really hate it when people do that.

jman0

To claim that you only like abstract art that depicts something is a bit silly.
http://abstractart.20m.com/
The painting above while done in a gesture sort way (the manner in which paint is applied) is not so abstract i think; because the blue and white swirly at the top is an obvious sky motif, green and brown for earth, and the middle bit seems suggestive of plants, maybe vegetation stems with purple flowers?
But i suppose it's not impressionist either.
It's not my cup of tea personally, but i don't see the point begrudging the artist for what he does.

You saw the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" right?
What do you think about the painting in that?
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/S/seurat/jatte.jpg.html
While it is apparently depicting real things, this was in reality, of little to no interest in the artist. He doesn't care about that, he's only interested in their form and colour.
By the way if you arent' familiar with this painting the entire thing is done in dots, millions of them. And when you stand up close, you can clearly see each dot, and blank space around it, then another dot.
It's quite incredible really.
This is modern art in the 1880's.
Art has come a long way since then.

Keyzer

Monkey wrote:

This is the same old discussion from someone who isn't interested in art commplaining that a painting isn't a picture of something. whether or not Kevin Sharkey is any good is one question. Whether abstract painting has merits is another.

Don't be so patronising....
I actually liked his some of his work. If you got off your high horse and actually thought about what he is doing then you would understand where I'm coming from. He plonks and squirts paint on a canvas and then makes fancy squiggles and shapes, then gives it a "meaningful" name. I just wonder is he pulling the wool.

One piece of work called "Waiting for Blue" was purchased by a girl in Donegal, she thought it was about the ocean or something. Turned out the painting was about Sharkeys dog, named "Blue" who had gone missing. I find it a bit unfair that someone pays a fortune for a painting because they think its one thing and it actually turns out to be about something else. Anyway, she didn't have to buy it so more the fool is she.

DadaKopf

Shrimp wrote:

I think abstract is fine. As long as it actually dipictics something

Uh, what?

Monkey

Keyzer wrote:

Don't be so patronising....
I actually liked his some of his work. If you got off your high horse and actually thought about what he is doing then you would understand where I'm coming from. He plonks and squirts paint on a canvas and then makes fancy squiggles and shapes, then gives it a "meaningful" name. I just wonder is he pulling the wool.

I'm not on a high horse. I've just had this discussion so many times before and it rarely goes anywhere.

I have spent years thinking about plonking and squirting paint. I don't think he is taking the piss, I also don't think he is very good.

Keyzer

Monkey wrote:

I'm not on a high horse. I've just had this discussion so many times before. I have spent years thinking about plonking and squirting paint. I don't think he is taking the piss, I also don't think he is very good.

Fair enough...
You've had the discussion many times before. I haven't.
Also, I never stated that I expect abstract art to depict something.
You shouldn't tar people with the same brush just because you've had this discussion before and you find it pointless now.

garthv

I like it.

Monkey

Well you seem to have a problem with abstract painting and abstract painting is painting that does not depict anything. So basically you must be that painting should depict things if its going to be any good.