http://artoftimcaton.blogspot.com/


I've never studied art, so I don't know what to say about pieces or movements other than to say, I like it, or I don't.

So, here are some paintings by Tim Caton. Am I to call these paintings Abstract and/or Modern or something else? What does a person with art knowledge see when they view these paintings? Am I suppose to know certain things about art of the artist to "get it"?

I like the pink lady in the green bikini. These pictures remind me of Bob's artwork on Self Portrait.

I am not sure whether they are shit or not. Better ask an expert.

My 1st reaction was that it was for sure the work of Captain Beefheart.
He gets big money for his paintings, so they must be good.

I am also no expert, but I tend to be impressed by artists that have developed their skills as draftsman to a high level. In other words, they can make a painting that looks real. But art lovers seem to look down on that kind of skill.

It makes you wonder why the old masters worked so hard to acquire those skills. I suppose it's because they did not have cameras. Nowadays art-lovers will say "If you want realism, get a camera."

But there is reason to believe (based on his own statements), that Don Van Vliet turned to painting because he couldn't stand dealing with people.

Modern Art takes a lot of flak in the popular press, usually along the lines of, "My 6-year old could do better than that".

And every now and then the work of a talented chimp or dog or (most recently) elephant is submitted anonymously to a range of critics for an opinion of its worth; usually the critcs make fools of themselves by praising the work of these animal artists in high-falutin' term- and we all have a good larf at their expense.

But "popular" opinion isn't always right about painting or theatre or music or any other kind of Art. Riots, for example, greeted the first nights of:

1. The Rite of Spring.
2. The Ginger Man.
3. The Playboy of the Western World.

It's best just to keep an open mind and decide whether the work in question speaks to you on an emotional level or challenges your way of thinking in some way or just leads you to admire the skill/craft involved.

As far as painting goes, I tend to like anything with detail rather than broad blocks of colour because attention to detail sustains my interest longer; so, I prefer Bosch to, say Matisse, but I can see the skill in both.

Come to think of it, my tastes in literature seem to run that way, too.

I have to think your post over and respond later. Yeah, Caton's faces is reminiscent of Self Portrait. Cool.




Mahalo...

[quote="Eddie"]
It's best just to keep an open mind and decide whether the work in question speaks to you on an emotional level or challenges your way of thinking in some way or just leads you to admire the skill/craft involved.

Thanks for you input Eddie. Mahalo to all. I've deleted what I posted here originally. I said too much and asked too much. It was a cyber-hyper moment.

Taken from the Jazz section here: Stan writes: ...There are amateurs (like, oh... um... me) who have no training and only the most marginal understanding of what's really going on in the best paintings by artists like Pollack (for one example) or Kandinsky (for another).


There ya go: One needs knowlege outside of the painting to get the painting. To me, Pollack is just some dude who spilled paint around on a canvas and folks agreed it should be called "art." Don't get it.

Some kind of art appreciation study I'm sure would help with art appreciation.

I often have something to say when it comes to music appreciation, but the visual arts tend to shut me up.

You say art, I say fart. That's my famous rhyming.

Basically, if someone gives me a word, any word, I can rhyme it. That's my famous rhyming. You say King of Poop, I say King of Hoop, that's my famous rhyming.



Thank you, and God Bless Hakeem Olajuwon.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4p98dKJMhcY/StOj2aFzjOI/AAAAAAAAC20/a9iLighUl-I/s1600-h/girl+surf.jpg




I dig it...

Ok, man. Here is the deal. No one really knows. Art isn't one thing. What you find interesting and compelling may or may not be of relevance to someone else. In that sense Art is personal.

But art isn't personal. There is a highly subjective, urban, shallow uber class who take it upon themselves to pronounce what is ART and what is not. It is a Mafia of sorts. There is mucho monies involved. It doesn't have anything to do with talent or subject matter or anything else other than power and money.

Art, has always been prone to propoganda. There is alot of good stuff that isn't included in most 'proper' art history books because it doesn't fit with the narrative of the winners(the winners, whomever they are, write history).

If you like it, and it means something to you, and it engages your imagination, then it is Art. But it may not be worth anything depending on what a few decision makers decide.