Howard Hodgkin has died aged 84. A decent age, I suppose. I remember viewing his exhibition at the Hayward in 1996 and being absolutely overwhelmed by his use of colour. It was phenomenal, like being plugged into the mains. I had to have a little sit down afterwards. I also like the fact that he didn't give a fuck about staying within the boundaries of the frame. Anyway - RIP.
-
-
Howard Hodgkin
RIP.
Amor de Cosmos speaks for me. -
Howard Hodgkin
And Tubby Issacs speaks for me.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
But seriously. Yes a great painter, and I use the term deliberately — because he was that above all. Like Rothko — to whom he was frequently compared — his work doesn't reproduce worth a damn. Illustration reveals none of its power, you absolutely need to be in it's presence. As VT says he was in a tradition of British colourists with few members, but considerable resonance. RIPComment
-
Howard Hodgkin
He comes across as far more glossy in a book.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
Yes. There's also no sense of scale, nor the three-dimensional aspect of his work.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
I'd never even heard of him until I saw the news last night, and to be honest I thought the entire body of work they showed was absolute shite. Any fucker could have painted them.
Still, if he made a living knocking them out and found enough people to buy them then well done to him.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
Any fucker could have painted them.
Sure, but any fucker didn't paint them. He did. The world is full of woulda, coulda, shouldas. However very few people have the discipline or resolve to stick with their particular, singular vision, in the the face of derision, or worse, neglect. Hodgkin did, and many of us consider ourselves the better for it.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
Like Sean, I'd honestly never heard of him before yesterday. But then, how many contemporary abstract painters have I heard of at all?
And yeah, I can see how people look at some of his work (or any abstract painter's work) and say "come on...you're having a laugh".
Some of the ones I looked at on Google Images are fucking marvellous that would be stunning on a huge wall. Others are a whole lot of nuthin'.
But even if it was a giant sham, it was a sham that he committed to, worked on, and produced for. For that alone, he's an artist. Maybe a con artist; but one with a largely lovely body of work that I certainly didn't commit the time and effort to produce.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
Like I said, kudos to him for knocking them out and finding buyers to take them off his hands, and yes there are some that actually look like they've taken some timer and consideration, but you've got to draw a line somewhere... and he has on many occasions, a squiggly one with a big fat 2" brush dunked in blue paint.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
"Google," "last night's news." Guys, guys, these are material objects that range in size from a few square inches to several feet. They have visual heft, a genuine presence that you need to stand in front of to appreciate... or not. But even if it's the latter at least have grace and consideration to meet them on their own terms before dismissing them.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
If I ever sell the painting I have bought it won't be to Sean or WOM.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
No, no. I don't dismiss them. Not at all. I'm just saying that I can certainly understand how someone might. I mean, to me, that's the danger in abstracts. Someone...many someones in fact...might dismiss them as a bunch of splotches and squiggly lines signifying nothing. Because - and call me a philistine - some of them really do look like just splotches and squiggly lines signifying nothing.Amor de Cosmos wrote: "Google," "last night's news." Guys, guys, these are material objects that range in size from a few square inches to several feet. They have visual heft, a genuine presence that you need to stand in front of to appreciate... or not. But even if it's the latter at least have grace and consideration to meet them on their own terms before dismissing them.
Some of his work is very lovely. Very powerful. But what is it...and what does it mean? Who knows. Does that matter?Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
You're already considering selling it? And you call yourself an art thingy...caja-dglh wrote: If I ever sell the painting I have bought it won't be to Sean or WOM.Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
More an observation on the styles you like. I say that but it has quite a bit more going on design-wise than Hodgkin's works (though I do love what he does).Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
The styles I like? Well, it won't go in the same room as the Trisha Romance works, but still....Comment
-
Howard Hodgkin
Of course, someone (singular or plural) will dismiss anything. What matters is whether it's done with appropriate consideration. If, for example, that someone tosses off Beethoven's 10th after hearing the first three minutes played through the speaker on their iPhone, or another someone reckons Crime and Punishment is a load of shit after reading a couple of paragraphs on page 36, then, so far as I'm concerned no one is required to invest their opinions with much credibility.WOM wrote:
No, no. I don't dismiss them. Not at all. I'm just saying that I can certainly understand how someone might. I mean, to me, that's the danger in abstracts. Someone...many someones in fact...might dismiss them as a bunch of splotches and squiggly lines signifying nothing. Because - and call me a philistine - some of them really do look like just splotches and squiggly lines signifying nothing.
Some of his work is very lovely. Very powerful. But what is it...and what does it mean? Who knows. Does that matter?
If you really think it's lovely or powerful then that should be enough. Look at in a gallery and you'll almost certainly find it even more true.
What is it? Ha! It's the key to the universe or a bunch of paint on wood, or both. What it "means" is for each of us to find out. But, once again, that can only be done by sharing time and physical space with itComment
-
Comment