I’m a big fan of the so called “new image painters” so I’m very interested to see how this will look at MoMA. I’m pretty sure it will not be everyone’s favorite – especially since this period is not very fashionable right now. I think its going to be real nice to see a piece of art that deserves a bit of notice. I like Peter Doig too, but I don’t see myself missing his work at the moment.
“Rhapsody” is composed of 987 painted steel panels, each 12 x 12 inches, It is focused many stylistic tendencies of the 1970s, from minimalism to pattern and decoration to conceptualism, in a single work. It is a large and over-reaching piece that I believe is successful in many ways – in my opinion, its well worth a few minutes of your time.
I was just wondering about art that is worth “a few minutes” of your time. Why call something “art” if that’s all it is? I reserve the word for much more than that. This is not in reference to Bartlett — I’m commenting about calling the fashion of the moment “art.”
ok, I here you. However did you know that the average length of time qanyone looks at the mona lisa is 9 seconds? Basically I’m not referring to fashion (since the”New Image” artists are not in fashion) but simply that someone should stop and look at the work.
Maybe I should have said a few minutes…
Please forgive my poor spelling above