Dan Fox - a review

Fox's latest stuff shows that he lacks that special talent needed to create an image which looks any different from the mass of put-ons that fill any art theology magazine and crowds the NY galleries. A fan of fashionable Practically-Nothing-Abstraction, Fox has nothing to offer us in the realm of originality, Fox's latest quest for advancement in the wrong direction reveals a spate of boredom similar to Rothko's. Dan Fox's latest work has certainly come down a notch from the monotony of his last show.

I suspect that the change in quality and direction might be caused by the fact that Fox fired his chimpanzee assistant. His switch in style from chimpanzee-competition to senility-posing-as-childishness-abstraction leaves us with little more to look at then flat chalky schmiery blobs hovering in fog bound Arctic backgrounds.

Fox's titles, as usual are even less inspired than the paintings. This shortcoming reveals that Fox's humor level is on line with that of a boiled snail. Fox fails to realize the importance of humor when trying to impress a really rich patron of Modern Academic bullshit.

On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian value if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of Walmart bedding supply.

Should Fox be lucky and win the Modern Academic Art lottery I predict he'll make a fortune and become very pompous.

I suggest that all here visit Mr. Fox's web site and gage the vast merits of his paintings for themselves.

'No art at all is better than bad art' O. Wilde

Mani DeLi ...no skill no art

Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page! http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/

you are rude, cruel and illiterate. I think you should jump in the lake.

Nope! Mani ~ I have seen miles and miles of bad art no skill and your right on the money here.

The ten most idiotically hyped paintings of the 20th century. Here's my vote. (details can be found in my book)

1-Cezanne's 'The Great Bathers.' This picture is considered by most a foundation for what was to follow, No-skill-Realism.

2-Matisse's 'Dance' anticipated present day abstractifyed recognizeable image. Modernism at the time of these creations considered itself in mortal combat with the academy. It is ironic that this work was executed by the one artist who probably held the unique position of being the worst student the academy ever produced.

3-5 Picasso's 'Dames of Avignion', 'Guernica' and the gigantic 'Night fishermen of Antibes.' These paintings are truly excruciating. The first two have generated a seventy year-long filibuster joined by every art buff sporting the title of intellectual.

In the 'Dames of Avignion,' the color, the drawing, the image and even the hint that the subjects might just be naughty, set a trend for all the preconceived excruciating work which would follow over the years. The 'Dames of Avignion' cleverly invited the questions; are they whores? Is this a Bordello landscape?' It was just the kind of scandal critics loved to chew on. Always remember that a really first class successful painting of this sort has to be scandalous in order that you never even get the opportunity to think that it might really be rather poorly executed.

'Guernica' is the first and great last laugh of the 1930's. It is little more than a giant political cartoon attempting to predict the seriousness of times to follow. The 'fishermen of Antibes' is another story. It marks the high-point of what I call the 'Picasso Bored Period' which followed World War II. By now Picasso was getting creaky much like the Sun King Louis 14th during his later years. Even the critics were becoming a bit bored. They were in fact beginning to yawn and needed to be refreshed.

6-Mondrian's Broadway Boogy Woogy. I've seen better neckties.

7-10 Just about anything by Pollock, Rothko de Kooning, Franz Kline members of the Practically Nothing-ism school of Modern Art where what counts is the steady barrage of verbal hype lest the public forget. Indeed as soon as the verbal hype ceases these saints of Modern Academic Art theology will be reassessed.

Mani DeLi ...no skill no art

Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page! http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/

(pruned)

We have not crossed our antlers yet, as I was mostly always in at least partial agreement with a lot of your opinions. However, hands off 'Night Fishing at Antibes'! It used to interest me a lot in my younger years. I may have mellowed since, but still I could not attach a 'truly excruciating' label to it.

Surely there are more deserving pieces?

Jiri Borsky

i think most of picasso's works are famous because his shit he marketed got into public. i'd like to hear from someone what makes 'guernica' such a great work; visually it's nothing but a nice doodling. everytime i look around i see dozens of if not as well produced semi-abstract paintings, but better ones. moreover, picasso was mostly a ripper who lacked originality. instead of creating his own ideas, he borrowed more or less stuff for his work from outside.