By Tom Lubbock Art Critic 2008. The Independent Theyre a phenomenon and a puzzle, artists like Robert Lenkiewicz or Jack Vettriano or Beryl Cook – loved and admired by that nebulous entity called The Public, dismissed and disregarded by that equally nebulous entity called The Art World. How can we build a bridge between the two? It wouldnt seem so bad if (as one of the art world) I were to say, outright, that I think Lenkiewicz was a very poor painter, and why; for example, that his technique is just a means to an end, efficiently and repetitively delivering certain effects, with no creative life. Or that his emotional repertoire is absurdly cute and pathos-pumping – inside every Lenkiewicz figure, The Crying Boy is wildly signalling to be let out. And that his young ladies seem all to have stepped coyly from a copy of Brides magazine, circa 1972. And that he hasnt a clue about colour or how to organise a picture. And that everything glistens. If arty people said that kind of thing, reasonably often, then wed know what the issues were, and Lenkiewiczs fans could come back at us. But we dont. That would be to give his art too much recognition, when really we deem it beneath consideration. The most we do is laugh, groan, sigh, and look away. No wonder the public think were snobs. So let me helpfully write down a pecking order for straight figurative painters (no ironists), a sociological record of a current consensus of those more, and less, likely to be shown at Tate. Class 1: Lucian Freud, Paula Rego. Class 2: Maggi Hambling, John Wonnacott. Class 3: Peter Howson, Jonathan Yeo. Class 4: Lenkiewicz... and probably beyond that, still, Vettriano and Cook. This list could be the beginning of a discussion. In art, as in everything, just talking helps.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 06:59:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015