Visionary artist appreciates Outsider Art (Part II)  Posted In: Art

Tags: ‘before’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’‘after’

images-6.jpegVisionary Art Values

As an artist I find that my interest in “outsider art” is complicated. On the one hand, I am like any other appreciator of the diverse artists who fall in the categories (outsider, visionary, et al) and on the other hand, I am able to use my appreciation to inspire me in certain values. Those values “arise” (if you will) from Outsider Art.
They are: (1) pursue your vision despite what is fashionable and/or going on in the art world; (2) be prepared to sustain yourself in your art without acclaim from the world; (3) listen to the various “voices” that arise, follow them, even when “the world” might be calling you nuts, non-commercial or merely underemployed.
Read More »


add to delicious add to reddit add to stumbleupon
Post a Comment »

R. B. Kitaj and the Tate Gallery Disaster of ‘94  Posted In: Art

Tags: ‘before’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’’separator’‘after’

kitaj1.jpgkitaj2.jpgI’ve seen Kitaj paintings before. I think before I was seriously painting I found them interesting. I even remember marking him down once on a sheet of paper along with Anselm Keifer–people to look up. What a great name, too.
As my own paintings have evolved, the only “modern” artist (besides Magritte, of course) I have allowed “into the family” has been Neo Rauch.

Yesterday I read in THE ECONOMIST that R. B. Kitaj died. At first, I was only mildly interested but nevertheless read the obit. Then it hit me. The story of the “1994 Tate Gallery disaster”–this was something! Without knowing much about it (so far), this is what I know:
(1) Kitaj is considered “illustrative” which means “bad” or “decorative” to many critics;
(2) Kitaj moved around stylistically, realism, surrealism, other forms, this also irritates critics who like people to be stylistically unique, evolving, in a word comprehensible. The idea that artists, perhaps whimsically, move around and try things goes against the image of “serious/obsessed” that critics like. Stylistic whimsy is considered “freshman in art school” sort of work, lost, sans personality, even immature;
(3) The critics finally got an opportunity rather late in Kitaj’s successful career to savage him and they did so with a vengeance at the Tate Gallery show in London in 1994. The shock was so great to Kitaj that he claimed his second wife died (heart attack?) from the impact of all the negativity;
(4) I think it was about this time that Kitaj got more serious about identifying himself as a Jew and even casting the criticism as anti-Semitic and also moved to the United States (ostensibly to punish London). Read More »


add to delicious add to reddit add to stumbleupon
View Comments (1) »