Once we had the genius of Michelangelo-
Then we came down a bit to Rodin. No Michelangelo but he made us think -
Now we have the monstrous idiocies of Anish Kapoor-
For some reason he is back in India and the various intellectual/mediaasses elites are falling all over to applaud him. What is it about modernist 'art' that freezes all brain activity in otherwise 'normal' people, especially educated elites? Do they not have eyes? Can't they see that Anish Kapoor has no more artistic talent than my pet snail and probably less? What are the mysterious rays that Kapoor and his ilk are giving off that completely fries obsevers' brains? Or are the brains toast already and ready to take the mouldy cheese of Kapoors 'art'?
Is it too much to expect just a bit -a tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of sanity from these people?
Then we came down a bit to Rodin. No Michelangelo but he made us think -
Now we have the monstrous idiocies of Anish Kapoor-
For some reason he is back in India and the various intellectual/media
Is it too much to expect just a bit -a tiny, itsy-bitsy bit of sanity from these people?
Comments
If you look at Rodin as a come down from Michelangelo, I wonder what sort of an imbecile you are. You seem to have no understanding of art and no genuine appreciation. You just seem so caught up and distracted by the money, business and all the down sides of the art world (that exist in all institutions) that you fail to experience anything.
I think a ranting raving fool like you should realize your own work is not that inspiring. Its average, not terrible, but I dint think it justifies your huge pompous head.
Thanks for such immense affection. I love you too.
Anish Kapoor fries brains - your comments proved the point!
Thanks for this blog, I enjoy the art, it takes my breath away.
While there is a certain disconnect with a lot of contemporary art and it's viewers. I believe your blog is quite misleading and does not put things into perspective and also that you have a very superficial surface attachment to art.
At the present there are simply just more artists than there have ever been around on the planet. So you see a lot of work and have to make your own judgements. While a lot of contemporary work might put you off there are artists and works in mediums like installation which have truly engaged the public in recent times, and I dont mean just endorsed by critiques. There have been projects with the TATE etc... that have been very popular, with a lot of lay people visiting them.
Even a lot of the past masters were valued below some of their mediocre contemporaries ( who were into representational work).
When the eiffel tower was first built it was initially considered ugly for a long time, later people began to love it. The impressionists were initially considered degenerate. So time might sort things out.
and like I said : you seem just fixated on the surface. Every artist does not see painting as a means of representing the world as it is seen. If you truly feel for paint then I don't know how you can just write off the abstract power of it. Surely even landscape painters like turner saw it.
The primitive cave paintings in the hall of bulls are not any less striking today, and that was an inspiration to a painter like Picasso (who by the way was quite brilliant at realism too). The funny thing is that he was against the purely abstract too. If elements like lines, colour, texture really move you, then you You may still prefer figurative work but you would not be so stuck up.
By the way your work is mediocre at best. So just focus on that. Your criticisms are childish. You gun down whole institutions and movements and even choice of mediums by pickking on a few pieces. You lack any real involvement with the image beyond the surface.
I can truly imagine how people with an architectural and graphic bent, who are more moved by space as an element of art can genuinely enjoy anish kapoors work.
There is a lot of beautiful contemporary work out there even for people with an inclination towards more traditional and figurative work.
It's pretty obvious that Anish Kapoor's work is designed to elicit an emotional response. It's also pretty obvious that the person commenting here is only assessing what he sees at a surface level: how proficient with their tools was the person who made this artifact?