Inevitably, a 10 Year Old Painting Resurfaces, and The Guardian publishes a scathing editorial on the decline of British Art. In the editorial, Moss is painted as a symbiotic predator of artists, which leads to her alleged status as an indicator of the sordid relationship between artists and celebrity.
How cynical. Aren’t these adult artists capable of guiding their own decisions on subject matter? Probably moreso than the critic at The Guardian even realizes. Perhaps the artists are even toying with the critics. After all, this Warholian painting by Gary Hume is a critical piece that shows Moss as a rather vacuous object that will accept the message of whomever she’s working for on a given day. I’m not really seeing a reason why this bizarre sculpture would be that much different.
3 comments
Have you seen the new portrait of Daniel Radcliffe in the National Portrait Gallery? Apparently, the hallmark of really classy modern British art is that it looks like the product of a none too talented 12-year-old. The paintings make that sculpture of Kate Moss cleaning her ears with her toes look pretty good.
[After viewing the Radcliffe portrait (and finally registering that it was purportedly done by a professional...)]
Well, maybe a *moderately* talented 12-year-old, anyhoo (although my stepson-and-now-commercial-artist drew better than that when *he* was 12 — and had he back then suggested turning in the above Moss picture for a school assignment, I’ve have [mildly] scolded him for slacking off…)
That Guardian article was SO pompous – and that’s saying something coming from me