BORING

bullwinkle needs to take a pill. proper use of perspective is not a prerequisite for success. works like this don't have to 'convincingly' portray anything. they are about mood and awkwardness and absence. i think this pc has a sublime element to it. it becomes a palette for thoughts and feelings on the part the viewer that most art doesn't allow for.
also, bullwinkle's insults against parents of art students at the end of his rant underscores the tastelessness of his opinions. what a jerk.

I generally disagree with him, but the horizontal bar coming weirdly out of the planter (front left side) that doesn't match up with the one going in on the right does bug the hell out of me.

(snore) Huh? wazzup?

oh.

never mind.

(snores resume)

@4

If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything at all!

Bullwinkle: Hey, Rocky watch me pull a rabbit out of my ass!


Rocky: again?!?

Why all the apology on behalf of the artist?

He got his perspectives glaringly wrong. Obviously wrong. It's a total fuck-up and it ruins everything, along with the flat plants.

The Tabloids piece is more interesting/attractive to me, but I even wonder about its perspective. (That second white box thing is floating in space!)


However, all in fucking all, art criticism is mostly a big fucking bunch of bullshit. Sorry to pile some more on. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The first 3 responses in this thread illustrate everything that is wrong with the art scene. Obviously the artist fucked up and didn't draw the supports on the bench properly. I mean, they're even MISSING. Yes I know, you say it was intentional. It's "deep, man". It "makes you think about the missing support in life", or some bullshit.

Man up and be honest when an artist sucks. Don't get all namby about hurting someone's feelings.

Oh dear. Well, I erm...

*thinks about it*

While I recognize that some might find my comments regarding Mr. Foldesi's "Bench (2008)" to be somewhat less than delicate - having now re-read them (and having looked over the image in question a second time) I will still insist on standing by the content of my post from last week.

Every professional artist - whether illustrator, painter, sculptor, photographer - every one of us has, somewhere deep inside of ourselves a critical voice. We use our critical voices to guide us in our work, to help us realize our artistic visions. Sometimes we are too stringent with ourselves, sometimes we're too self-critical, and this can lead us into needless angst and uncertainty - while at other times, we are too forgiving or lax for our own good.

Let me make clear that I harbour no ill will towards Mr. Foldesi, in fact, I encourage him to persevere. I'd like to think that perhaps my erm... colourful comments might give him pause in future. It's clear that he has talent - I won't dispute that, but where the article was concerned I felt strongly that apart from the work itself being less-than well-realized - the accompanying comments were simply too uncritical to let it all pass by unchallenged.

So... I guess this is me saying "you're welcome", Jen.

Oh, and by the way, that wasn't me posting in the #6 position.

Well, it is always easier to tear something down than to look at it critically. Perhaps "Bullwinkle" could have weighed what is working against what the artist failed to accomplish (in one particular piece or the group of work shown) and even examined where the work falls contextually. Maybe "Bullwinkle" could at least have explored what the artist was attempting to say conceptually instead of dismissing it with a flippant and vapid quip. Ah, but when you don't understand sometime it is always easy just to lash out at it. I seriously doubt "Bullwinkle" went to this opening. (I'd be surprise if "Bullwinkle" has ever been to any openings.) And beyond his nitpicking flaws in perspective, Bullwinkle's comments suggest, no, scream of a fairly limited knowledge of art or art history. If anyone was "lazy" in this exchange between artist and bellicose poster, I would lay that laurel upon the poster. Granted whereas the errors in perspective may denigrate from the one piece, it does not however damn the entire work as a whole.

I do not know the artist or this poster - I just can't stand assholes.

Oh, Bill - haven't you ever found that there's usually just a little too much stock placed (or in this case, leeway given) in "what the artist was attempting to say conceptually" and nowhere near enough in terms of technical skill or merit? Am I really such an unspeakable villain for having had the temerity to call bullshit on this kid-glove treatment of a sub-par painting?

You seem to have latched solely onto my critique of Foldesi's failure as regards his handling of perspective, but I offered more than that in my original post, colourful language and all. But you're right about one thing, Bill: I didn't attend the opening (although that has nothing whatsoever to do with the sort of person you apparently think me to be, and everything to do with the fact that I live on the other side of the continent).

As much as you can't stand an asshole, Bill - I just can't stand seeing shoddy work being passed off as something worthwhile.

And my problem with you assessment is that you call bullshit without proving your case beyond some minor technical flaws. Granted I do think that the flaws do detract from the piece because I think it is making reference to the "commercial" or commercialism. For this aspect to work, it would be best perhaps if the image almost looked as if it was mechanically made. But in your post you do not to seem to be able to move or look beyond surface or technical issues. I do not feel you should call bull shit an artist's show based upon one image out of two posted on the internet.
Boy, if these flaws make you crazy I am sure that conceptual art must make you insane.

Some "minor technical flaws"? "Surface" issues? In any composition that leans heavily on the use of minimal elements in perspective, neither the importance of technical ability nor the necessity for precise execution can be downplayed. To do so would be to reward dilettantism.

Really, Bill. How unduly forgiving of you.

I'm sure Mr. Foldesi is a really nice guy and a good neighbour and all that sort of thing. And hey, if I lived on the west coast well - who knows? Maybe I could have attended his show. But I don't. So I didn't. And this isn't really about Scott Foldesi, anyway. It's about his work. To be specific, it's about one of two reproductions of his work, featured here on SLOG, where comments were invited. And...?

I note that you take umbrage with my seeming inability to "move or look beyond... technical issues". Well Bill, the post that Jen Graves quoted above is indeed focused - it is focused upon the technical aspects of the work. That's entirely due to it having been penned in response to another poster - a poster who had previously written (at no great length) that I was "retarded", apparently for not paying tribute at the altar of Scott Foldesi. Look, it's of no benefit to any artist to be less than brutally honest, or to indulge in some sort of mutual admiration society that precludes objectivity.

Perhaps what I wrote was less than diplomatic - but at least I tried posting thoughtfully, poignantly, and most of all - honestly.

i agree with bullwinkle about the aims of this piece and think that it should be considered a "botched job." there is no room for imperfection in a painting that flaunts it's use of perspective so blatantly. perfection was certainly the goal here.

as for the potential buyers relationship with the piece, i have no comment. this could be someone's apple. who is to say?