OK, Tatum, let me list the content that I found offensive, point by point.
1) Your headline indicates that the post is about "shopping." OK, not something that interest me, but it was at an artfair.
2) "And sex toys at the Louvre (yes, really)" Granted I should have stopped right there, but I was hopeful.
3) Then there is a series of paintings by women. Some of this work looks a little too familiar, but so what. Then there is the Polish(?) artist rendition of a woman in a bathroom with what appears to be an inflatable man.
4/ Then there is the vulgar quote from Tracy Emin. Followed by sex toys at the Louvre.
Admittedly, I am impatient with the lionization of Kamala Harris, and women in general, for the sake of defeating Trump. It may be necessary, but what appears to me as abuse will be difficult to walk back.
I long for the days when art history, the history of ideas, of "marks" if you will, mattered; those days before market driven work. Where being unable or unwilling to draw competently, or learn, was not considered cool, but disingenuous. (There was a show of early Mondrian years ago. Mondrian was a talented, if conventional artist. The show did not explain sufficiently why he evolved into the artist we know today, or why neoplasticism matters, and I'm not sure that it does. And, of course, no one cares.) Not in our lifetime perhaps, but there will be a post-finance world, where private equity no longer rules and finances war capitalism. Where iconic paintings are not stored in vaults in Switzerland, like gold bars. There was a time when painting was a profession rather than a lifestyle, before artist were a brand. The good ol' days... but I digress and have spent way too much time composing this response.
Do women's paintings offend me? I don't think so. I am disappointed that you think so, however. I understand that adapting what is largely a masculine painting vocabulary for the needs of women can be difficult. I would like to see more work reflecting that struggle. Painting has not been interesting for a long time. Exciting, perhaps, is a better word. Painting is, after all, one of the most conservative of cultural endeavors. It has often been the servant of the rich and powerful for six or seven hundred years. Relieved of these responsibilities, it has struggled to be something other than a precious object, a contemporary relic. These issues were raised a hundred years ago. As yet, painting has only infrequently attempted to deal with this dilemma, with mixed results. Do women care about this? Perhaps, they will develop an alternative vocabulary. Womenspeak or womenpaint that makes painting exciting again. I wouldn't mind.
I don't know how anyone can call that art? The New York one looks like a child did it .. I am an artist and well aware art is in the eye of beholder but to be honest this isn't art.
Hahaha Tracey Emin always knows best!
she's so funny—always spot on
OK, Tatum, let me list the content that I found offensive, point by point.
1) Your headline indicates that the post is about "shopping." OK, not something that interest me, but it was at an artfair.
2) "And sex toys at the Louvre (yes, really)" Granted I should have stopped right there, but I was hopeful.
3) Then there is a series of paintings by women. Some of this work looks a little too familiar, but so what. Then there is the Polish(?) artist rendition of a woman in a bathroom with what appears to be an inflatable man.
4/ Then there is the vulgar quote from Tracy Emin. Followed by sex toys at the Louvre.
Admittedly, I am impatient with the lionization of Kamala Harris, and women in general, for the sake of defeating Trump. It may be necessary, but what appears to me as abuse will be difficult to walk back.
I long for the days when art history, the history of ideas, of "marks" if you will, mattered; those days before market driven work. Where being unable or unwilling to draw competently, or learn, was not considered cool, but disingenuous. (There was a show of early Mondrian years ago. Mondrian was a talented, if conventional artist. The show did not explain sufficiently why he evolved into the artist we know today, or why neoplasticism matters, and I'm not sure that it does. And, of course, no one cares.) Not in our lifetime perhaps, but there will be a post-finance world, where private equity no longer rules and finances war capitalism. Where iconic paintings are not stored in vaults in Switzerland, like gold bars. There was a time when painting was a profession rather than a lifestyle, before artist were a brand. The good ol' days... but I digress and have spent way too much time composing this response.
Do paintings by women offend you, Bill?
Do women's paintings offend me? I don't think so. I am disappointed that you think so, however. I understand that adapting what is largely a masculine painting vocabulary for the needs of women can be difficult. I would like to see more work reflecting that struggle. Painting has not been interesting for a long time. Exciting, perhaps, is a better word. Painting is, after all, one of the most conservative of cultural endeavors. It has often been the servant of the rich and powerful for six or seven hundred years. Relieved of these responsibilities, it has struggled to be something other than a precious object, a contemporary relic. These issues were raised a hundred years ago. As yet, painting has only infrequently attempted to deal with this dilemma, with mixed results. Do women care about this? Perhaps, they will develop an alternative vocabulary. Womenspeak or womenpaint that makes painting exciting again. I wouldn't mind.
Great newsletter as always!
Well, Tatum, if you intended to offend your male subscribers, you succeeded.
what do you mean Bill? never my intention
I don't know how anyone can call that art? The New York one looks like a child did it .. I am an artist and well aware art is in the eye of beholder but to be honest this isn't art.
what kind of art do you make?
Art that you know what you're looking at lol 🤣 I do acrylics