Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: somewhere in Pennsyl-tucky
Bikes: all that I ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Tappets
it's executed well, but i don't think it's anything I haven't seen already.
Is it really? His "fine art" pieces are terrible. The colors are flat and sterile, and the subjects are banal at best if not misogynist. Banality's been done to death already and better (Koons). This guy probably has a gallery along the beach in Wai Ki Ki catering to Japanese tourists and rich white people with no taste.
He's got a hard-on for Dali, but without the fun of the over the top affectation of personality and psycho-sexual imagery. That's why Dali wasn't really a surrealist; he made all of it up consciously. Escher was a really good printmaker but there's a lot of his stuff I would pass over as unimportant artistically. And the Picasso reference is waaaay off; I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this guy doesn't have the mastery of line and composition that Pablo did.
You also might say that he has a penchant for Rene Magritte, but only in a derivative way.
To be fair, his illustration section is kind of cool. Einstein on a track block. It shows a little insight. And the Alien Pregnant by Elvis is funny too. His portrait of Martin Sheen (cropped) is also nice; kind of Chuck Close meets Andy.
So, are there a few pearls in this pile of dreck, but the stuff he's most proud of is the worst.
But hey, as I've told others:
You can like anything you want; it still doesn't make it good.