Sometimes there can be such a thing as bad art, not the type of thing which is ascetically unpleasing or offensive to a viewer’s sense of propriety but art that fails in every single level of competency, horrific, the type of image that deserves to be transferred onto black velvet. The Forgotten Man by Jon McNaughton is a painting so horrific that conventional explanations fail to convey the level of incompetence behind his artistic expression, the phrase that comes close to describing the scope of its failure is “cultural abortion”.
The personal failures and abhorrent political beliefs of an artist can be absolved from our viewing experience; I can look at a work by Bernini and be in awe at the energy and emotion he is able to create out of stone and not be bothered by the fact that he hired a guy to cut up his mistress’ face when she slept with Bernini’s brother. Caravaggio was a talented beautiful painter who has able to create moody dramatic pieces of art, he also happened to kill a man over a tennis match; does that make his art less wondrous? The answer is no because most artists know how to create drama and maintain the interest of the viewer, they know how to convey a message that will speak through time. A successful painting does absolves the painter from their moral failures. I’ve said this is a bad piece of art, spectacular in its failure but the question that must be asked is it bad because we as the viewer can’t separate the stupidity of the views being expressed or is this painting a failure on a fundamental level.
The likeliest explanation is that this artist’s vast body of work is a failure at a fundamental level. I have taken the time to include a crude drawing that shows the compositions basic shapes.
The biggest and most insufferable of choices made was the decision to keep everything centralized. The first thing our eyes are drawn to is the awkward image of George Washington sort of pointing in the direction of the persecuted white guy sitting on a bench. Behind George Washington is the white house aglow with some unholy light creating a type of halo effect around the figure. Due to this stupid design choice our eyes have no place to go, and we the viewer have to ask ourselves who and what this painting is about. Is this painting about Barack Obama standing on a newspaper, is it about the most persecuted man on the planet earth- dopey white guy on the park bench, or is it about James Madison catching Obama’s wind. There are no strong diagonal lines that lead us to around the painting; it’s a boredom sandwich,-literally. If we look at the crude drawing I have supplied there is the center sandwiched between two slices of vanilla. I took a design I class years and years ago and remember my teacher Julie explaining why you should avoid such a choice because it kills the image. This isn’t to say that you should always follow the rule of thirds, but observe how listless and limp this painting is based on the artist breaking a fundamental rule of design. Our gaze is never lead around each element of the work, we stare at George Washington and move on, there are unintentional lines that divide the painting into three uninteresting parts emphasizing nothing and whatever message was to be imparted is totally lost. This painting could have been stronger if the artist decided what the focus of this painting was; the title says The Forgotten Man but we as viewers hardly notice the dopey white guy on the park bench. If George Washington’s hand was more active, pointing down to the blond jergoff we might be engaged, if more of the presidents were looking at the subject we might begin to understand what asinine message this artist is trying to share. This seemingly bizarre design choice is one that finds its way into the artist’s entire body of work. Another popular painting by McNaughton One Nation under God could also be described as a visual calamity with a figure of Jesus dominating the center of the image and all of the composition again being horizontal in its orientation. Adding to the confusion of his work is that many of the secondary figures in both paintings are looking through the alleged subject, never at him.
Contrast this for a moment with the Crucifixion of Saint Peter by the artist Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio; now some would say it’s not fair to compare the works of an artist form the Baroque with someone contemporary but if we are going to play more than lip service to the idea that McNaughton’s work has merit we have to show that a good design knows no specific age.
A painting is always going to be a static image, but a good artist knows how to imply that there is a vibrancy and life and fool the viewer, that is the magic of painting. If we take a moment and just absorb the Caravaggio painting it quickly becomes apparent how important composition is to a paintings success. The first thing that becomes apparent is how our eyes are immediately directed to the plight of Saint Peter by a strong vertical line running from the left of canvas down to the bottom right. Our eyes then notice Saint Peter looking at the nail that has been drove into his body, our eyes then travel to the mail very slowly lifting up the cross. We know immediately who the subject of the painting is and we get a sense of rising action. I have included another hastily drawn diagram representing just the basics shapes of the composition and one thing that can be become clear is just how interesting a varied the negative space is.
On a fundamental level the Crucifixion of Saint Peter works, that doesn’t mean that every painting made in the past is intrinsically better or anything made in the present is awfully, but good composition is timeless. I use Caravaggio as an example of an artist who knows his craft, knows how to invoke mood, and draw us the viewer into the image.
So many of the elements in this painting just don’t simply work, moving the focus of the image off center would only slightly improve the painting as a whole. The next most glaring problem are the figures themselves. One thing we can determine is that they are stiff and lifeless and despite the awkward pose of James Madison there is a seemingly waxy unnatural veneer to all the figures involved. The entire image has a strange lifted from a photo quality to it, an artist has every right to use photography as an aide but this seems to be made entirely of photo references. I can’t think of someone in modern times who hasn’t taken a photo for reference, but that’s after the image is blocked out on the canvas based on real life observation. Photography flattens an image; it changes our perception and reflection of true colour, and we lose a sense of an objects scale. Real life observation is invaluable to an artist; one can gather a sense of how light in the most controlled of environment plays off a figure, how it ripples on clothing and hair, how light adds temperature and warmth to an object. Observation of a figure can help determine how musculature works, how the body’s anatomy changes depending on the perspective it’s viewed from, words fail to convey just how important figure drawing is to an artist’s skills. Bland and uniform is the best way to describe every figure in this painting. The hands and poses of every full bodied figure are stiff, unnatural, and uninspiring. If the poor composition didn’t slay this beast the lack of care given to the figures would have finished the job. About the only figure who looks reasonably human is President Obama and it’s very clear that this was taken from a photographer, so kudos to whatever photographer from the AP who took the original picture. The lack of care is really disheartening, if you are going to take the time to paint a mass of people take the time to give them weight and the appropriate scale. Abraham Lincoln was one our tallest presidents but this painting makes no attempt to reflect his massive height. In fact all these figures seem to be floating and their shadows, which should anchor them to the image and give them some weight, seems to be unnaturally soft.
That softness leads me to my next point, where is the light source from this painting coming from. Lighting, observation, and composition, aren’t just some dusty rules that people cling to; those rules are what gives a painting their strength, and if you have made it this far it should be clear why this painting just doesn’t work. Asking where the light is coming from isn’t just some smart assed question, a good painting works because you as the viewer don’t have to ask anything so fundamental- it’s all out there on canvas used to create the artists desired effect. Look at poor James Madison, comically catching a huge fart president Obama has ripped, if he is in fact behind the president there should be some alteration of the light on Mr. Madison’s body. Shadows give depth, create changes in temperature, and give dimensionality to a two dimensional object. I suppose a person could make the excuse that men’s suits are drab and boring, but a good artist would understand that colour changes depending on the time of day, where the light is coming from, what other materials are bouncing light onto other objects, there are so many interesting ways to imply shadow that the inadequacies of this artist become even more apparent when just observing his use of shadow. Shadows, like I said are so much more than black over laid on an object, the fact the subjects depicted are all wearing gray tones shouldn’t be an issue if the painter had some skill. The simple fact is this painter has no idea how colour and tone actually works; if he did he would have tried to address how uninspiring his palette is. Every colour choice made is exactly in the middle of that colours value, sapping the work of any sense of dynamism that colour might have added.
This is a painting that fails to engage the viewer on any level, it is a series of creative misfires one after the other that leads to a fiasco of cataclysmic proportions. There is art that is bad on a subjective level, but this is flat out bad on a level that cannot be repaired. It’s one thing to have ambition and the desire to express yourself but when your message is so mealy and poorly delivered one has to ask why say something in the first place. The very fact this gentleman has annotations for this painting where he spells out ever crazy political thought rumbling around his head just proves the point that he knows on some level he failed to convey his message. A painting succeeds or dies by that first look, if there isn’t some small thing that draws us in then it fades forever into obscurity. This will never be art that is remembered and cherished; it’s only spoken about right now because the insane “message” appeals to the logic adverse members of the tea party. This isn’t a message or work of art that is going to speak throughout the ages, it is far to muddled for that; it is a piece like so many others before it painted by men who ambition is outstripped by their lack of skill.
The personal failures and abhorrent political beliefs of an artist can be absolved from our viewing experience; I can look at a work by Bernini and be in awe at the energy and emotion he is able to create out of stone and not be bothered by the fact that he hired a guy to cut up his mistress’ face when she slept with Bernini’s brother. Caravaggio was a talented beautiful painter who has able to create moody dramatic pieces of art, he also happened to kill a man over a tennis match; does that make his art less wondrous? The answer is no because most artists know how to create drama and maintain the interest of the viewer, they know how to convey a message that will speak through time. A successful painting does absolves the painter from their moral failures. I’ve said this is a bad piece of art, spectacular in its failure but the question that must be asked is it bad because we as the viewer can’t separate the stupidity of the views being expressed or is this painting a failure on a fundamental level.
The likeliest explanation is that this artist’s vast body of work is a failure at a fundamental level. I have taken the time to include a crude drawing that shows the compositions basic shapes.
The biggest and most insufferable of choices made was the decision to keep everything centralized. The first thing our eyes are drawn to is the awkward image of George Washington sort of pointing in the direction of the persecuted white guy sitting on a bench. Behind George Washington is the white house aglow with some unholy light creating a type of halo effect around the figure. Due to this stupid design choice our eyes have no place to go, and we the viewer have to ask ourselves who and what this painting is about. Is this painting about Barack Obama standing on a newspaper, is it about the most persecuted man on the planet earth- dopey white guy on the park bench, or is it about James Madison catching Obama’s wind. There are no strong diagonal lines that lead us to around the painting; it’s a boredom sandwich,-literally. If we look at the crude drawing I have supplied there is the center sandwiched between two slices of vanilla. I took a design I class years and years ago and remember my teacher Julie explaining why you should avoid such a choice because it kills the image. This isn’t to say that you should always follow the rule of thirds, but observe how listless and limp this painting is based on the artist breaking a fundamental rule of design. Our gaze is never lead around each element of the work, we stare at George Washington and move on, there are unintentional lines that divide the painting into three uninteresting parts emphasizing nothing and whatever message was to be imparted is totally lost. This painting could have been stronger if the artist decided what the focus of this painting was; the title says The Forgotten Man but we as viewers hardly notice the dopey white guy on the park bench. If George Washington’s hand was more active, pointing down to the blond jergoff we might be engaged, if more of the presidents were looking at the subject we might begin to understand what asinine message this artist is trying to share. This seemingly bizarre design choice is one that finds its way into the artist’s entire body of work. Another popular painting by McNaughton One Nation under God could also be described as a visual calamity with a figure of Jesus dominating the center of the image and all of the composition again being horizontal in its orientation. Adding to the confusion of his work is that many of the secondary figures in both paintings are looking through the alleged subject, never at him.
Contrast this for a moment with the Crucifixion of Saint Peter by the artist Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio; now some would say it’s not fair to compare the works of an artist form the Baroque with someone contemporary but if we are going to play more than lip service to the idea that McNaughton’s work has merit we have to show that a good design knows no specific age.
A painting is always going to be a static image, but a good artist knows how to imply that there is a vibrancy and life and fool the viewer, that is the magic of painting. If we take a moment and just absorb the Caravaggio painting it quickly becomes apparent how important composition is to a paintings success. The first thing that becomes apparent is how our eyes are immediately directed to the plight of Saint Peter by a strong vertical line running from the left of canvas down to the bottom right. Our eyes then notice Saint Peter looking at the nail that has been drove into his body, our eyes then travel to the mail very slowly lifting up the cross. We know immediately who the subject of the painting is and we get a sense of rising action. I have included another hastily drawn diagram representing just the basics shapes of the composition and one thing that can be become clear is just how interesting a varied the negative space is.
On a fundamental level the Crucifixion of Saint Peter works, that doesn’t mean that every painting made in the past is intrinsically better or anything made in the present is awfully, but good composition is timeless. I use Caravaggio as an example of an artist who knows his craft, knows how to invoke mood, and draw us the viewer into the image.
So many of the elements in this painting just don’t simply work, moving the focus of the image off center would only slightly improve the painting as a whole. The next most glaring problem are the figures themselves. One thing we can determine is that they are stiff and lifeless and despite the awkward pose of James Madison there is a seemingly waxy unnatural veneer to all the figures involved. The entire image has a strange lifted from a photo quality to it, an artist has every right to use photography as an aide but this seems to be made entirely of photo references. I can’t think of someone in modern times who hasn’t taken a photo for reference, but that’s after the image is blocked out on the canvas based on real life observation. Photography flattens an image; it changes our perception and reflection of true colour, and we lose a sense of an objects scale. Real life observation is invaluable to an artist; one can gather a sense of how light in the most controlled of environment plays off a figure, how it ripples on clothing and hair, how light adds temperature and warmth to an object. Observation of a figure can help determine how musculature works, how the body’s anatomy changes depending on the perspective it’s viewed from, words fail to convey just how important figure drawing is to an artist’s skills. Bland and uniform is the best way to describe every figure in this painting. The hands and poses of every full bodied figure are stiff, unnatural, and uninspiring. If the poor composition didn’t slay this beast the lack of care given to the figures would have finished the job. About the only figure who looks reasonably human is President Obama and it’s very clear that this was taken from a photographer, so kudos to whatever photographer from the AP who took the original picture. The lack of care is really disheartening, if you are going to take the time to paint a mass of people take the time to give them weight and the appropriate scale. Abraham Lincoln was one our tallest presidents but this painting makes no attempt to reflect his massive height. In fact all these figures seem to be floating and their shadows, which should anchor them to the image and give them some weight, seems to be unnaturally soft.
That softness leads me to my next point, where is the light source from this painting coming from. Lighting, observation, and composition, aren’t just some dusty rules that people cling to; those rules are what gives a painting their strength, and if you have made it this far it should be clear why this painting just doesn’t work. Asking where the light is coming from isn’t just some smart assed question, a good painting works because you as the viewer don’t have to ask anything so fundamental- it’s all out there on canvas used to create the artists desired effect. Look at poor James Madison, comically catching a huge fart president Obama has ripped, if he is in fact behind the president there should be some alteration of the light on Mr. Madison’s body. Shadows give depth, create changes in temperature, and give dimensionality to a two dimensional object. I suppose a person could make the excuse that men’s suits are drab and boring, but a good artist would understand that colour changes depending on the time of day, where the light is coming from, what other materials are bouncing light onto other objects, there are so many interesting ways to imply shadow that the inadequacies of this artist become even more apparent when just observing his use of shadow. Shadows, like I said are so much more than black over laid on an object, the fact the subjects depicted are all wearing gray tones shouldn’t be an issue if the painter had some skill. The simple fact is this painter has no idea how colour and tone actually works; if he did he would have tried to address how uninspiring his palette is. Every colour choice made is exactly in the middle of that colours value, sapping the work of any sense of dynamism that colour might have added.
This is a painting that fails to engage the viewer on any level, it is a series of creative misfires one after the other that leads to a fiasco of cataclysmic proportions. There is art that is bad on a subjective level, but this is flat out bad on a level that cannot be repaired. It’s one thing to have ambition and the desire to express yourself but when your message is so mealy and poorly delivered one has to ask why say something in the first place. The very fact this gentleman has annotations for this painting where he spells out ever crazy political thought rumbling around his head just proves the point that he knows on some level he failed to convey his message. A painting succeeds or dies by that first look, if there isn’t some small thing that draws us in then it fades forever into obscurity. This will never be art that is remembered and cherished; it’s only spoken about right now because the insane “message” appeals to the logic adverse members of the tea party. This isn’t a message or work of art that is going to speak throughout the ages, it is far to muddled for that; it is a piece like so many others before it painted by men who ambition is outstripped by their lack of skill.
No comments:
Post a Comment