Hmmm... Casting a critical eye over this piece, I feel that Hockney has conceptually activated the ridulous nature of monarchy in a highly accessible piece of work.
The devious simplicity of using what can only be described as a floating prison ship to represent the barbaric conditions of the slave labour bussed in to police the event. Or perhaps it's a metaphor which signifies the cage mentality of the flag-wavers, trapped by their inability to escape from a rose-tinted past?
The image of the Duke turning blue in the cold, spatially undermining the joyous celebrations by being hospitalised, lends a touch of pathos, while the painter's use of vivid grey colours and the formal juxtaposition of rain on flotilla perfectly sums up what a dismal washout the whole event was.
In summary, Hockney has captured the dying nature of a medieval relic, a moment when the monarchy did indeed become history.
I thought it looked like an entry for the under 5' section of a 'Paint the Jubilee' Blue Peter contest.
I've got no problem with artist's like Hockney expressing his art in this way. What I do have a problem with, in these sparten times, is some twonk buying it for £500,000, or some other ridiculous amount!
what's the big blue mountain on the right supposed to be? I must have missed that when driving around London. Is it the Shard
Does slightly annoy me that someone can get away with the childish mess that this "painting" is just because of their name. Sure his prior work might be good but this one certainly isn't!
personally i find a lot of interest here,
far more so than those overblown photo based landscape things and the like
i've never rated hockney as a painter, he's drawings have always been the thing for me
My view is it looks like something a child would produce. Perhaps that was intent, to show the magic of the day (debatable) through the non-cynical, inspired eyes of a child.
Personally, i just think its lazy tat.
He's going to present this to the Queen. Maybe she should chop his head off?
Thoughts?
I am a fan of Hockneys work but that has crap written all over it
About as much artistic talent there as one might find from pupils in an infant school, painting in total darkness, probably far less.
Although of course if Hockney had painted this effort by holding the handle of a 10 cm brush in a place the sun does not shine and squatted over the canvas to paint it one could be described him as having some type of talent:D
I like it. It captures movement, joy and spirit simply. People always say 'I could do that' when they see a painting, but they are not Hockney.
Which is exactly my issue with modern art. It's not about the skills or the imagination used. It's about whose name is on the white label. Ingratiate yourself with the right folk from the art clique and you can get yourself some "awards" and then shift any old crap for a small fortune.
Comments
The devious simplicity of using what can only be described as a floating prison ship to represent the barbaric conditions of the slave labour bussed in to police the event. Or perhaps it's a metaphor which signifies the cage mentality of the flag-wavers, trapped by their inability to escape from a rose-tinted past?
The image of the Duke turning blue in the cold, spatially undermining the joyous celebrations by being hospitalised, lends a touch of pathos, while the painter's use of vivid grey colours and the formal juxtaposition of rain on flotilla perfectly sums up what a dismal washout the whole event was.
In summary, Hockney has captured the dying nature of a medieval relic, a moment when the monarchy did indeed become history.
Ahh thanks. I am not great but I do enjoy it. I have run out of room for them all now though:D
personally its absolute rubbish looks like something a child would send in to the Sun for a competition...
Ladymoanalot, that is amazing! You would definitely win a game of 'draw something' against Hockney
Thank you very much, I wish I could get Hockney money for them lol
I've got no problem with artist's like Hockney expressing his art in this way. What I do have a problem with, in these sparten times, is some twonk buying it for £500,000, or some other ridiculous amount!
Or did I drink too much last night.
Apart from that. I's a no from me.
I really like your painting, ladymoanalot! Showed it to OH and he said he likes it better than Hockney's!
That's amazing, all the small details and the shading is great! And the retro feel of it is so cool, I would love to see more of your work.
Cheers guys. I am a tad obsessed with the 1950s, so I tend to do paintings in a 50s style.
Does slightly annoy me that someone can get away with the childish mess that this "painting" is just because of their name. Sure his prior work might be good but this one certainly isn't!
far more so than those overblown photo based landscape things and the like
i've never rated hockney as a painter, he's drawings have always been the thing for me
in some ways it's looking back to some of (IMO) his best work,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockney,_We_Two_Boys_Together_Clinging.jpg
they may be paintings but the main work is the drawing
there's a bit of http://www.jeandufy.com/en/68.htm and http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/piper-covehithe-church-t03818
trying to find equivalents for what your trying to represent given the restrictions and opportunities of your media of choice
I am a fan of Hockneys work but that has crap written all over it
Looks like dementia has started to kick in.
From that effort i'd say he is still in diapers.
Although of course if Hockney had painted this effort by holding the handle of a 10 cm brush in a place the sun does not shine and squatted over the canvas to paint it one could be described him as having some type of talent:D
Which is exactly my issue with modern art. It's not about the skills or the imagination used. It's about whose name is on the white label. Ingratiate yourself with the right folk from the art clique and you can get yourself some "awards" and then shift any old crap for a small fortune.