posted by art blogs are fun at 2:39 PM
"Also exhibited are Smith's small "palette" paintings: canvas palettes he's used to make his large paintings and, without any reworking, has deemed "good abstract paintings." They aren't. Badly positioned between his bigger works, they look lost and insignificant."As I said before, I thoroughly disagree.
so true, although in the end it does not matter how much hype smith gets or if major colecters own his work. in the end it will come down to the work that he has done and if that work will stand the test of time. in my opinion it will not. so thats why i do not care about smiths work at all.
There is no such thing as a bad review, any review feeds the machine. Even the commentary on this blog stirs a feed. A more potent way to treat insignificant art is to not review it at all. I wonder why Christina Hill felt compelled to review the work.
not a fan of chris hill in the slightest bit. she's ridiculously snooty.
chris is a swell person, and she was asked to write about the show.and she tried to be as fair as fair can be i think.and to quote one of my heroes as to the palette pieces:"i never thought it was physically possible to both suck and blow at the same time."
Congratulations to the reviewer! Was thinking of writing Metro Times to thank them for actually having a critic review a show at Hillberry Gallery. Usually some hack signs his/her name to a press release written by the gallery.
Of course the review was by an artist who doesn't live here!Finding a fair and balanced review that dared to be critical of a Detroit would be on par with uncovering a long lost endangered species.
My message should have been:"by an artist who does live here!" and "uncovering an extinct" species!"Dumb. God I don't make sense sometimes.I'm going to sleep.
"in an interview, Smith explains during an interview"
yeah weary dream about yourself.
as always nolan your thoughts on things seem "lost and insignificant."
OH SNAP!!!....BLOG DRAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment
View my complete profile