David Hockney - Bigger Picture show at RA.

[Chris Bennett]

Did anyone see this?
I'd be interested in what you guys thought of it and the artist in general.

[arenhaus]

I don't care for his art, and his theories about camera obscura are bunk. Other than that, I hardly ever think of Hockney at all.

[LordLouis]

I had a discussion about him recently with my parents-in-law, who went to see an exhibition as part of the art course they are doing.

I don't have any history-of-art education so I can't make qualified comments, only share my opinion that it all looks wonky to me and that I can't see the expression of great skill in his paintings. It's all very Tate Modern to me, shall we say.
Parents said they liked some of the pieces and his use of colour, but meant that you could only see them from a distance- any closer would "reveal" the mess.


As for his theory, I am not quite sure what he is trying to say. No matter how many mirrors the old masters used, they would still have to paint?

[Star Eater]

I've always liked 'A Bigger Splash' which is one of his more famous works.
Perhaps his most famous?
I can't exactly say why, I just like the setting, the open space on a clear day...

[blogmatix]

Parents said they liked some of the pieces and his use of colour, but meant that you could only see them from a distance- any closer would "reveal" the mess.

Beautiful from afar but far from beautiful? :-)

I like some of his work (at least judged by reproductions on the web) but whether it justifies his fame is another story...

[LordLouis]

Beautiful from afar but far from beautiful? :-)

I like some of his work (at least judged by reproductions on the web) but whether it justifies his fame is another story...

Haha well put!
I think it's the fame in relation to his work that I have a problem with, rather than the work per se. I wouldn't mind putting an image of him up my wall, but the thought of how much money he gets for it is spoiling it.. now that I know how much long and hard work it needs to master traditional art, I appreciate it even less. (But as I said, I have no background of art history so I might be missing the big picture*)

*unintended pun

[peterhurman]

I think he is a very lucky man to have the status he has.

I dont hate his work. If some of his work was presented to me as illustrations and I didnt know who he was, i would say they are quite nice.

[Blackthorne]

I don't care for his art, and his theories about camera obscura are bunk. Other than that, I hardly ever think of Hockney at all.

Are they, though? I don't really have an opinion on his theories one way or another, but it was definitely an interesting watch!

[cro-magnon]

i sort of kind of ish like hockney but wasn't too bothered about cramming myself in to the RA after seeing the queues...

one thing i like about his paintings that you don't often see in reproduction is they're full of odd idiosyncracies in construction. they're all a little off key in general and i like that too.

chris, did you by any chance see auerbach/kossoff/coldstream/uglow etc. at haunch of venison early this year? there were a couple of hockney drawings there too.

[Chris Bennett]

chris, did you by any chance see auerbach/kossoff/coldstream/uglow etc. at haunch of venison early this year? there were a couple of hockney drawings there too.

I'm afraid I could not get down to see this, but I understand it was a good show. I know their work extremely well - Uglow was my teacher and mentor and I met Coldstream a couple of times just before his death.

What did you think of it?

[Hunin]

I really like his work, especially after seeing a documentary about him and his work a while ago,





He certainly has an eye for detail. His work may look 'simple' from the outset, but a lot of thought and technique is in it. Not everything has to be photo realistic.

[Charlie D]

David Hockney seems to create how he wants to and that i think makes him an artist.

[Chris Bennett]

Thanks for all the replies do far...
It seems to me that Hockney is trying to make up for lack of emotional depth by sheer quantity; beit amount, size or intellectual conceit.
He seems to have the view that more is more - bigger picture, multiple viewpoints, inclusion of time.
But these are just quantitative ingredients seen as qualitative by virtue of amount.

A work of art is a concision of experience.
Not a manufacture of it.

Compare the Hockney to the Constable and the Inshaw:

[arenhaus]

He certainly has an eye for detail.

And no clue about values or proportions.

[tobbA]

This painting looks terribly amateurish...



I can sort of see the appeal of the images blogmatrix posted but at the same time they give me the feeling of browsing through a travel agency brochure or an ikea catalogue...

[yochanan]

I watched his "me draw on iPad" exhibition with my parents. I didn't like his work at all, just seemed like a "bad" illustrator, especially in comparison to some of the people on this site that nobody knows about. Still better than the other random crap I saw there though (but I'm a close-minded simpleton who just doesn't get it when someone literally puts a toilet on a wall, so my opinion on art doesn't matter).

[Hunin]

I actually prefer this painting to the Constable and the Inshaw,

And no clue about values or proportions.

I think the paintings still work, I get a lot of enjoyment out of looking at them, despite their imperfections

[Jonas Heirwegh]

Some comments make me laugh a bit. Compare him to Constable? Lol, that would make allot of artists look bad. I do like his interpretation of the landscape in this series, I also recommend looking at the doc about this series.

Another thing, art does not equal perfect values + perfect color + perfect proportions + perfect composition, apparently people still judge art only by these values. Anyway his colors are strong and I don't agree with the lack of emotional depth.

[marion74]

I think it is fantastic that he is still working at 74 with so much energy. I do like his use of color and the fact that he is also doing digital painting and bringing it into a gallery setting, although I don't use digital myself I think it is great that such an established artist is versatile. I've seen on other sites a lot of posts asking if digital is actually real art and I think someone like Hockney using it may help to change some peoples outlook on it.
I'm not very keen on the figures in his paintings (not sure why) but do like his work.

[alesoun]

I saw the doc on bbc lately. Fascinating. He talked with passion and energy about his processes. I like some of his work better than others, but I could listen to him talk for quite a while, especially about how he uses colour...

[Flake]

I liked his work in the 60s, the sparse California swimming pool stuff, it reminded me of Ed Hopper in a way. Kinda cool, detached, but at the same time "Yay! this is my subject and I think it's great!".
Does that make sense? Hmm.

Haven't really followed his work since to be honest.

[cro-magnon]

I'm afraid I could not get down to see this, but I understand it was a good show. I know their work extremely well - Uglow was my teacher and mentor and I met Coldstream a couple of times just before his death.

What did you think of it?

i hadn't knowingly seen any Uglow in the flesh before (though of course i might well have). i saw some little still lifes that i liked in a similar way to ben nicholson's - economy and silence, or quietness. the big historical painting was a bit of an odd one (Massacre of the Innocents).

i was there for the auerbachs really and wasn't disappointed. i became less of a fan of leon's humans but i'm still happy with his wilesden junctions (i really want to see his drawings face to face). knowing nothing about Richard Hamilton post-This Is Tomorrow i found his stuff a bit of a strange lot - odd sub-Richter photopainting and such. Patrich Caulfield bleh, whatever, but a guy I hadn't heard of (Michael Andrews) caught my attention with a large complex scene mixing photos and painting. there were only two Hockney drawings, nothing too notable.

And no clue about values or proportions.

i think he certainly does have a clue, and that this is half the fun.

[ezion]

he knows how to draw ..I like many of his drawings (he has done great female/male nudes, portraits etc)..maybe some portraits too..but he is not my favourite..many can draw but really few can paint..at least he is not a guy who throws paint all over the place and then says he is a painter..

as far as his theory is concerned..I don't know. Old masters certainly knew how to draw but even if it's true it's not that of a problem , is it? I mean..in my opinion, painting is mostly composition and colour. In my artworks I don't even care about the subject. I care about how I am going to deal with it. But, I want to draw things my own, and I do..maybe it's about time management. (the fact that they might have used camera obscura)

[Chris Bennett]

...but a guy I hadn't heard of (Michael Andrews) caught my attention with a large complex scene mixing photos and painting.

You definitely ought to check Michael Andrews out. The painting you saw was possibly calld 'All Night Long' - was it a scene of a night club interior/exterior with a balcony and some people on lilos?

IMO he was the best painter in the London Group and is still massively under-rated.

Andrews had a fantastic saying about why he liked to paint:

"It's the best way I know of making up my mind."

[hu-ha]

Pretty awesome.

[cro-magnon]

You definitely ought to check Michael Andrews out. The painting you saw was possibly calld 'All Night Long' - was it a scene of a night club interior/exterior with a balcony and some people on lilos?

IMO he was the best painter in the London Group and is still massively under-rated.

Andrews had a fantastic saying about why he liked to paint:

"It's the best way I know of making up my mind."

it was apparently called The Lord Mayor’s Reception in Norwich Castle Keep, On the Eve of the Installation of the First Chancellor of the University of East Anglia. i don't know how i've missed this guy for so long after years studying his contemporaries.

[EagleGrove]

I've never heard of him before, and I have little clue about art history and what makes a "good" painting. All I know is that I wouldn't put any of his paintings shown in this thread on my wall. I'm the kind of person that gets irritated by the "small imperfections".