Went to the new Per Kirkeby exhibit at the Tate with Nadjib. Neither of us were hugely taken by this exhibit?
I think the following comments from the Guardian critical sums this rather negative, pointless (?) art:
"As I picked up a tube and carefully squeezed a little oil paint on to the palette, I felt a huge burden of history weighing down on my shoulders," Per Kirkeby wrote in 1977. I'm sure Rembrandt felt the same every time he looked in the mirror: "There's my mug again, that same old nose, perhaps even a bit fleshier than last time. Must lay off the gin for a while. Maybe a face-lift would help."
If painting really were so burdensome, no one would do it. Every day, the weight of history like a mighty dam behind you; in front of you nothing but a dirty palette curdled with yesterday's colours. In Kirkeby's case, the colours are blackened army greens, earthy browns and ochres, greys from skies that don't move for days; there are snatches of white, dead blues, reds.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jun/17/per-kirkeby-tate-modern
The guardian goes on to be a bit more positive but lacking conviction / support for the exhibition:
- Kirkeby is Denmark's best-known contemporary artist. His recent commissions include works for Copenhagen's Royal Library and Geological Museum.
- The Siege of Constantinople (1995). Kirkeby trained as a geologist. His paintings in the 1960s were inspired by pop art.
- His character as a painter doesn't really come together until the 1970s
No comments:
Post a Comment