You took the words out of my mouth, McT, with your post on the previous page.
Holbein, Rembrandt, Whistler, Boticelli etc etc....., if they were alive today, could produce very similar works of modern "art" provided they were supplied with a protractor, a set square, a compass and a basic set of paints and brushes.
Even I'm sure I could turn out a similar masterpiece, given enough ale.
These works of modern "art" would then only require a snazzy title, a catchy "concept" to "explain" the work, and a good PR person to make sure that the right people got to hear that particular sales pitch.
If the sales pitch and publicity were good enough, the con has been successful.
However, turning the whole thing around....the likelihood that any of the Turner Prize nominees would have the ability and talent to turn out something like this....
Is slim, to say the least....and that's being very charitable.
It may be the case that the lady in the painting looks like she's chewing a wasp, but just the stunning detail in the dress would have me standing in front of this work of art and studying it for ages, just wondering how the feck the artist managed to capture it all so perfectly.
Ms Abts paintings, however, would probably only receive a passing glance from me.
They would look pleasant enough if they matched some corporate decor in the lobby of a swish new building, but I don't think for one minute that this type of "art" should be considered for any sort of prize.
Just my opinion, of course.
The other thing that I always wonder, is just how many people in the "arty" world think the same way, but don't say anything for fear of being branded a philistine by their colleagues and associates?
Signed
Phil E. Stine.
