I thought I’d be lost for words today, but The Culture Show on TV last night rescued the day.
Some artists and art critics can be so far up their own arses as to be teeth. The presenter, art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon, was commenting on some woman’s vacuous artwork and said it was redolent of Kazimir Malevich’s ‘Black Square’.
Kazimir Malevich’s ‘Black Square’‘Nuff said?
Malevich’s 4th incarnation of this sold for $1m in 2002. I just hope it wasn’t any of my pension schemes that sank money into this modern interpretation of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Actually, I fooled you all. The above is a fake made by my own fair hand. I bet you couldn’t tell the difference though.
5 comments:
And I thought it was an illustration of that other great work by Malevich, the "White Rectangle" . But tell me have you visited Miroslaw Balka's "Box of Darkness" at the Tate Modern yet? If you have, tell me what you thought of it, if you haven't visit it before it closes.
Alan: No. Visited the Tate Modern some years back and stormed through at breakneck speed, in my usual fashion, much to the consternation of my art historian girlfriend of the time.
Hay has the same complaint of me whenever I visit a gallery, such as the one in Port Sunlight we visted a couple of months ago. 10 minutes is enough for me to take it all in.
Sorry Chairman, I saw right through this straight away.. everyone knows Malevich's black is symbolically much darker than this one.
Steve: Drat! Obviously I'll never make the grade as a faker of suprematist or constructivist art. I may as well go back to making chess boards.
Saw through you right away, Chairman. Malevich's brush strokes are horizontal, not vertical.
Post a Comment