Vettriano hands in his brushes!

[dpedin]

Jack Vettriano died at the weekend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y02wxgrzlo

I shared an office with the then Jack Hoggan in the early/mid 80's for a couple of years. Got on well and my (now ex) wife and I went and stayed with Jack and his then girlfriend in Kirkcaldy a couple of times. He showed us his shed at the bottom of the garden where he did all his painting. He was a bit eccentric but basically a nice guy and loved his painting.

When I moved flat in Edinburgh and we were doing it up and Jack asked if we wanted him to do a couple of paintings for our lounge as a house warming present. All he asked was that we paid for the canvases. However my mother in law had already offered to buy us a couple of prints for the lounge so I turned down his kind offer. A few months later I moved job and gradually lost contact with him. Many years later I caught him on tv being interviewed and then realised just how famous he was and how much the paintings I turned down would be worth! We bought a print of the Singing Butler and hung it on our dining room wall as a reminder of what we could have had!

I like a lot of his paintings, particularly the Bluebird collection. The criticism he got from the Scottish art establishment and others was completely over the top and reeked of snobbery and jealousy. Fame and money resulted in him going off the rails for a while but as down to earth Fifer, ex miner with hearing loss from a working class background then I suppose that isn't too unexpected?

RIP Jack.

[Uncle fester]

Bit of an eye opener into what miserable sods critics are.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... dApp_Other

[fishfoodie]

Bit of an eye opener into what miserable sods critics are.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... dApp_Other

Critics are usually frustrated practitioners, hence their being miserable & resentful of people who can actually do what they can only dream of.

[dpedin]

Bit of an eye opener into what miserable sods critics are.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... dApp_Other

Critics are usually frustrated practitioners, hence their being miserable & resentful of people who can actually do what they can only dream of.

Problem was Jack never came from a 'good family', went to private school, University or Art School, sought advice or help from the art establishment or bowed down to them when commanded. He was working class, worked as a miner in tough area of Fife, started painting in his garden shed, taught himself using models and books and showed a talent and originality they were all envious of. He started showing his work in local Edinburgh charity exhibitions to raise a few bob for beer money and I remember his excitement and pride when he got his paintings accepted by the RSA in mid/late 80s. Worst of all he made money, loads of money through his art - he had to as he had no 'family money' or rich benefactors to fall back on. The critics and the art establishment were just plain jealous and envious of his success and furious he never went to their wine and cheese receptions or pretended to like some of the shite fellow artists paraded as 'art'. Sad to say he struggled with the lack of acceptance and the criticism thrown his way. I aam biased of course but I reckon he was one of Scotlands finest artists.

[Tichtheid]

Bit of an eye opener into what miserable sods critics are.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... dApp_Other

Critics are usually frustrated practitioners, hence their being miserable & resentful of people who can actually do what they can only dream of.

Problem was Jack never came from a 'good family', went to private school, University or Art School, sought advice or help from the art establishment or bowed down to them when commanded. He was working class, worked as a miner in tough area of Fife, started painting in his garden shed, taught himself using models and books and showed a talent and originality they were all envious of. He started showing his work in local Edinburgh charity exhibitions to raise a few bob for beer money and I remember his excitement and pride when he got his paintings accepted by the RSA in mid/late 80s. Worst of all he made money, loads of money through his art - he had to as he had no 'family money' or rich benefactors to fall back on. The critics and the art establishment were just plain jealous and envious of his success and furious he never went to their wine and cheese receptions or pretended to like some of the shite fellow artists paraded as 'art'. Sad to say he struggled with the lack of acceptance and the criticism thrown his way. I aam biased of course but I reckon he was one of Scotlands finest artists.

I think he was definitely looked down upon for the crime of being popular.

[robmatic]

Bit of an eye opener into what miserable sods critics are.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... dApp_Other

Critics are usually frustrated practitioners, hence their being miserable & resentful of people who can actually do what they can only dream of.

Problem was Jack never came from a 'good family', went to private school, University or Art School, sought advice or help from the art establishment or bowed down to them when commanded. He was working class, worked as a miner in tough area of Fife, started painting in his garden shed, taught himself using models and books and showed a talent and originality they were all envious of. He started showing his work in local Edinburgh charity exhibitions to raise a few bob for beer money and I remember his excitement and pride when he got his paintings accepted by the RSA in mid/late 80s. Worst of all he made money, loads of money through his art - he had to as he had no 'family money' or rich benefactors to fall back on. The critics and the art establishment were just plain jealous and envious of his success and furious he never went to their wine and cheese receptions or pretended to like some of the shite fellow artists paraded as 'art'. Sad to say he struggled with the lack of acceptance and the criticism thrown his way. I aam biased of course but I reckon he was one of Scotlands finest artists.

I would like to think that the fame and wealth he gained from his art were some consolation.

[Lobby]

Does anyone remember the Kiwi art snob at the other place who used to regularly post pictures of his latest acquisition of some appallingly ugly and inept, but reassuringly expensive, piece of modern art?

There was a rather odd piece in the Guardian yesterday, which acknowledged that Vettriano was despised by the Art world and that this was at least in part driven by his popularity:

"he wasn’t lauded by the art world. He sure wasn’t celebrated by critics. Vettriano was something else, something almost sinful – he was popular ..... He sold countless thousands of prints of his paintings to “ordinary people” because the images so effectively communicate their ideas and emotions. These are works of nostalgia, lust, aspiration, love. You look at a Vettriano and you understand it. That’s a powerful thing, a good thing. And one of the problems with contemporary art is that it often requires you to be smart enough to “get it”, but all that does is push people away. Vettriano’s work pulls you in."

But having acknowledged all that, the writer couldn't resist still being dismissive of Vettriano's paintings:

"Vettriano’s paintings are like a double cheeseburger wrapped in greasy paper, precision-engineered to scratch a specific aesthetic itch ... I don’t appreciate these paintings as paintings. I actually think they’re pretty heinous and grim. But I appreciate them for their appeal, for their ability to transcend boundaries."

[dpedin]

Does anyone remember the Kiwi art snob at the other place who used to regularly post pictures of his latest acquisition of some appallingly ugly and inept, but reassuringly expensive, piece of modern art?

There was a rather odd piece in the Guardian yesterday, which acknowledged that Vettriano was despised by the Art world and that this was at least in part driven by his popularity:

"he wasn’t lauded by the art world. He sure wasn’t celebrated by critics. Vettriano was something else, something almost sinful – he was popular ..... He sold countless thousands of prints of his paintings to “ordinary people” because the images so effectively communicate their ideas and emotions. These are works of nostalgia, lust, aspiration, love. You look at a Vettriano and you understand it. That’s a powerful thing, a good thing. And one of the problems with contemporary art is that it often requires you to be smart enough to “get it”, but all that does is push people away. Vettriano’s work pulls you in."

But having acknowledged all that, the writer couldn't resist still being dismissive of Vettriano's paintings:

"Vettriano’s paintings are like a double cheeseburger wrapped in greasy paper, precision-engineered to scratch a specific aesthetic itch ... I don’t appreciate these paintings as paintings. I actually think they’re pretty heinous and grim. But I appreciate them for their appeal, for their ability to transcend boundaries."

You don't have to be 'smart' to get a lot of contemporary art, just brainwashed into thinking it is better than it is! I have a degree, a masters, a professional qualification and a long career in well paid jobs - puts me into the top 5% of 'smartness' of UK population and I can say with great confidence I find most of contemporary art is expensive, over valued bullshit masquerading as art. I say this as a lover of Juan Miro!

That last bit sums it up for me! Surely a painting or any piece of art is about appeal, communicating feelings, transcending boundaries, making an impact on the person looking at it? I'm by no means an art aficionado but I do remember looking at a Picasso from his blue period in Toronto art gallery and being hit with real emotion at what it represented. Good art does that to people! His criticism at the end is completely subjective bullshit - what the feck does 'heinous and grim' actually mean in the context of some paint on a canvas? I dont appreciate these paintings as paintings ... I dont appreciate his writing as writing, utter bullshit.

[Tichtheid]

It's a strange thing, this approach towards art. Music doesn't have the same kind of snobbery attached to it, look at the recent Grammy and Brit awards and it is all pretty much accessible music, there is nothing difficult there.

Once the camera was invented, what was the point in landscapes or portraiture? Of course there was point in both, capturing the "essence" of the subject, that's fairly straightforward. A great portrait isn't often photographic in its execution.

What about abstract or conceptual art? Well, to me that is about the idea, there is no point saying that the pile of bricks is shit art because it's about the idea. Sometimes it's deliberately provocative, sometimes it's funny, sometimes just beautiful, sometimes its desired effect is to make you think - putting an everyday object in the absurd environment of an art gallery makes you look at it a different way. I think it's okay to say some conceptual art is the result of a boring or overused idea, but saying a child could do it or it's just shit is approaching it in completely the wrong way.

I accept that the art world does itself few favours in this and, just as with all walks of life, there are preposterous pretentious poseurs, idiots and chancers in there too.

[Slick]

It's a strange thing, this approach towards art. Music doesn't have the same kind of snobbery attached to it, look at the recent Grammy and Brit awards and it is all pretty much accessible music, there is nothing difficult there.

Once the camera was invented, what was the point in landscapes or portraiture? Of course there was point in both, capturing the "essence" of the subject, that's fairly straightforward. A great portrait isn't often photographic in its execution.

What about abstract or conceptual art? Well, to me that is about the idea, there is no point saying that the pile of bricks is shit art because it's about the idea. Sometimes it's deliberately provocative, sometimes it's funny, sometimes just beautiful, sometimes its desired effect is to make you think - putting an everyday object in the absurd environment of an art gallery makes you look at it a different way. I think it's okay to say some conceptual art is the result of a boring or overused idea, but saying a child could do it or it's just shit is approaching it in completely the wrong way.

I accept that the art world does itself few favours in this and, just as with all walks of life, there are preposterous pretentious poseurs, idiots and chancers in there too.

Good post.

My wife used to work in the art scene in London and our group of friends at that time were all either artists or worked in the scene. We probably went to a couple of openings a week and exhibitions all over the place. Walking around those with people who knew and understood what was being presented was absolutely brilliant and opened my eyes to a whole new world.

As you say though, sometimes they don't do themselves any favours and often the descriptions of the art are completely indecipherable and almost as if they are trying to exclude people.

dpedin, Miro is my favourite artist, I think.

[Tichtheid]

dpedin, Miro is my favourite artist, I think.

Favourite artist is like favourite musician to me - there's far too many and it changes all the time.

I do like sculpture though, Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Antony Gormley and Anish Kapoor to name a few Brits.

Rothko and Rembrandt are painters I really like