Category : sketch book one
Date : 14th November 2017

jean michel basquate loves the jazz music lec a tit utre at the barbican

WARNING VERBAL DIARRHEA

WARNING VERBAL DIARRHEA

WARNING VERBAL DIARRHEA

in the gallery

on the internet

the lecture mainly looked at this painting called kin zulu .

what i want to talk about was the argument i had with mimi after the lecatiture (i was wrong). i feel like i know quite alot about him because he was the artist that got me into art 2 years ago , i spent hours researching him and watched everything i could on him o the internet , due to this i felt a very close relation with him and may have made a few assumptions on him through drawing similarities between us. i was a deliquant when i liked him i smoked too much weed did no work and was a wee bit of a reble if you ask me , so due to ths mind set information i absorbed was that ; he never went to art school, never held a job, hated the art world, graffitied ‘cool’ stuff , painted quickly . i suppose because i also followed those things i felt him and i worked in the same style . basically what im geting at is that left the barbican saying thoes guys had it all wrong , in a short what the critics did was wrince every detail of his paining for their depth and conceptual meaning and it really didnt fit right for the charecter i knew in my head to be a well though out incredably precise artitst .

my origainal argument:

“he doesnt work like that , isnt is suspicious that 6 out of the seven figuars are from the same book ( i was arguing that yes he had a good knowledge of jazz and what not but this paining wasnt maticulisly and painstackingy pulled together in the way they where praising him for , i felt they gave him to much praise of this i felt they where just laying all there knowledge onto the open blanket of jazz hed layed out in a child like brush stroke . my evidence (however thin it was , yet i was blinded by it) was that id heard him say he just puts random sentences and sketches from books in hes painings and small scrambkes of the tv that continoulsy played in his studio this told me that none of which was delibirate just like a marks mans brush stroke he did it because in one stroke many concepts can lay on on it , which now as i think means there was nothing worng with what thoes critics where saying because i suppose wheather he did it delibirtetly or not it doesnt despite the fact that they are their whoch is almost more impressive , for him to do it un contiously , but then i suppose the book was contiuous so of course ots all going to link

  • i feel none of that makes sense it does in my head but im really struggling to get it out the brain and in the bones , next essay i shall attempt to upload a verbal essay i suppose a lecture . i think that would suit me better , i could also make it into a nice video xxx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*


Skip to toolbar