| |
|
See, I the the demystification - though I'd rather refer to it in terms of making it more approachable; I think there's good mileage to be had from a bit of mystery in artworks - is a Good Thing. Whether it's in the form of bastardy Robert Hughes, or the nun whose name I've forgotten, I'm all for more people hitting galleries and appreciating the stuff. I don't think it especially dumbs things down; giving synopses of artists' lives isnt' making things dumb, it's just giving broad outlines which'll allow people to investigate what they like. I mean, hell, it's how I started liking art - saw a picture, found out a little bit about the artist, researched more... that's how it goes normally, innit? I think there's a tendency for some art critics (as there is for many strains of criticism, I spose) to forget that everyone does, at some point, have complete ignorance of various parts of art. Becoming au fait as far as in who did what, who was in what movements and what they led to, etc, etc, goes is a long, hard road, and if Rolf's helping people move along that road towards knowledge, then it's a Good Thing.
So in that way, Rolf = good.
But.
I have a real problem with Rolf as a person. Combination of a couple of rumours, of him in general, of childhood terrors. I dunno. I find his persona very difficult to get over, and that colours (oh, ha) my view of his work.
Then again, wasn't it just last year that a poll in the UK found that if asked to name a famous painter, Rolf comes ahead of most others? Ubiquity and cheeriness puts one ahead of the old masters, it appears.
His art? It's OK, I suppose. Colour balance is a bit off for me, and I think he tends to produce stuff that looks like it's been done by an ad company's illo department, you know? Not to denigrate said employees, but it seems a bit... I dunno. Ad campaigny? Done-for-a-client-with-not-much-involvement? A bit drafted, but not detached enough to work like constructivism or some of the Brute! artworks, y'know? |
|
|
