Charitably not addressed in the article is that the paintings, to judge by the single example provided, are terrible:
Where to start? The application of paint is perfunctory at best, and in a way that's neither charming nor interesting. The composition is clumsily lopsided, with its feeble black vertical struggling unsuccessfully in a losing battle with leaden horizontals.
Let's relieve our eyes and look at a successful abstract painting which uses the exact same color scheme, Clyfford Still's 1948-C, a famous canvas which Mr. Berger may have enjoyed seeing at the Hirshhorn :
Not to imply that a Mr. Berger saw the Still painting and said, incorrectly, "Hey! I could do that!" or anything. Heavens, no!
16 comments:
Thank you for that, Princess.
This guy came to town as Katherine Harris' chief of staff. Bet many of you have forgotten her deep commitment to art, undoubtedly the source of her inspiration:
"She has made several trips to Israel, and it was on the first, in 1992, that her camera broke and she was forced to sketch her way across the country. These days, during meetings on Capitol Hill, she sometimes sketches when she is taking notes. She says she has drawn Alan Greenspan and Donald Rumsfeld."
From "Campaign Gone South
Florida's Katherine Harris Continues Her Senate Race, Shedding Staff Along the Way
By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006"
Gosh, you do have some sick queens there in D.C., don't you?
Meh. I'm with you. I've seen better. In fact, a four-year old could do better. Oh, wait. He's painting with a four-year old. Well, maybe not...
Good or not, it's kind of cool that he's at least giving some creedence to having a creative side. It's like his twisted little stump of a soul is trying to grow back. Maybe he'll even go so far as to get all passionate and give up lobbying for his "art"?
naahh...
Madduane, I kinda thought that at first, but then I decided that his "artistic" instrict probably grew cynically from an attitude of "anybody can do that."
I feel the same way about "art" by animals. It's all rooted in cynicism and ignorance towards art.
I used to be an art director and illustrator and when I studied fine arts in college I was told one must first be acquainted with reality to create good abstracts.
Not a good transition for a lobbyist.
I agree- he's a copycat. Or in artsy fartsy terms, derivative.
That black splotch looks like he redacted a section of his own painting.
That black splotch looks like he redacted a section of his own painting.
Brilliant! There was something about that black area that was bugging me, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Exactly like the crap that shows up in restaurant art exhibits for 300 bucks.
Well, as a long time reader, I think I have identified this lobbyist's problem: He as too much time on his hands.
Oh, you bastard!
It may not be abstract. I think the big multi-rectangular black thingy is a sign post in hell. You can't read what it says, and that's kind of the point.
How would a Republican lobbyist have first hand knowledge of what sign posts in hell look like? Well, obviously, one of his clients won the contract to make them, didn't they?
Actually, I can't tell the difference between the two in terms of fakesmanship.
As often as I can, I wander through the DC National Gallery's Italian collection.
So why, allow me to ask, worry about Republican lobbyists and assorted modernists with artistic aspirattions? Botticelli is enough for me.
I can has cheezee Dan Berger?
This would look nice hanging in the men's room of the Minneapolis Airport.
crap
Post a Comment