Art does not have to announce itself as being about something to be about something.Do you think Koons' bunny is about rabbits?
In the end, though, this exhibition suffers from far too much ersatz feeling and an overdose of treacly painterly pandering. Back to Rothko: Paintings need something important to say to be convincing, no matter how highly skilled. In the end, what this exhibition illustrates—to anyone really looking—is that Condo's art didn't so much make history as ride its coattails.
Art does not have to announce itself as being about something to be about something.Do you think Koons' bunny is about rabbits?
I was looking to do something, and since I read the artist's post scathing the writer for an inability to be original (citing Rothko) I will go look. Who wouldn't be offended by the bland analogy,
I'm referred to as "dubious" in the Village Voice. At least I'm cited as an influence, along with Velazquez, on George Condo.
its unfortunate that the trolls have to upset my drinking pattern by invoking the words of rothko to justify a moronic critical assessment of my work. why can't you come up with something original? perhaps you are the one depending on historical rhetoric and also the fact that you liked uncle joe one of the world's worst paintings says much about the size of your brainless dick!
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city
