Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To me David Hockney is a truly inspirational artist and after my first Hockney exhibition (many many moons ago) the way I saw landscapes was changed forever.


I suddenly remembered at the weekend that I hadn't yet got my tickets for the Hockney Royal Academy exhibition. To my horror, when I went to book I found that almost every date and time slot was sold out. I managed to get tickets for Easter weekend but only just.


If, like me, you'd been meaning to book but hadn't quite got around to it, then can I urge you to click on this link and book whatever you can get. Don't let it be the one that got away.


http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/hockney/

Went a couple of weeks ago I thought it was good he is a clever painter.

I particularly likd what he'd done with the video screens, though had to watch a while to get it.

The stuff done on iPads was good, then I realised it was done on iPads.

Clever bastad.

Went to the Hockney last Thursday. Very impressive. Too much work to be honest; it could have done with a serious edit. However, amid all that vibrant colour, expressive handling and luxurious paint, the best things were the smaller charcoal drawings. Wow, the man can draw.
No Sue, it's based upon the quality of what you get for your money. Whilst I feel for peoples personal circumstances these are never going to be the overriding factor in setting a price for a major exhibition, which they could easily have priced significantly higher, but instead the RA have set a price that is within reach of as many people as possible. Surely.

I wasn't referring to the value or otherwise of the ticket price, I was referring to your statement that it "seems pretty cheap."


I meant, to a lot of people including myself, ?15 isn't "cheap", regardless of how great value for money it might be.


If I misunderstood what you meant, then apologies.

Sue - I dont think its possible to say something is cheap without taking into account what you are getting in return. To me cheap means inexpensive, and value for money. And having been there last night I thought it was excellent value for money, therefore cheap.


I think Brian Sewell is complaining more about a charity charging for entry. But who knows he just seems to want to have a general whinge about the whole exhibition.




This exhibition is at the Royal Academy because it will bring in a multitude of punters and, with the outrageous admission price of ?14, mightily increase the profits of the grand old whore of Piccadilly, masquerading as a charity.


In old age [Hockney is 74] he has acquired a clumsy bravura and he strokes, stabs and dabs the canvas with seeming confidence, but in truth much of this is the stuff of habitual gesture, of industry, repetitive, for he knows no other way of covering such an acreage of canvas. He is surrounded by sycophants, none of whom has the honesty to tell him what he needs to know - that he has fallen far from the saturated brilliance of his last brief fling with quality, the Grand Canyon drawings and paintings of 1998 or so, one of which acts as a benchmark in the scene-setting first room of the exhibition; no one has warned him that in dogged repetition what fire he once had has become a thing of ash and ember; and no one has dared suggest that though all the cocksure recent stuff dashed off for the exhibition works well as braggadocio, it is ultimately dull.


Indeed, half these pictures are fit only for the railings of Green Park, across the way from the Royal Academy, and would never be accepted for the Summer Exhibition were they sent in under pseudonyms.


As for Hockney's rivalry with his master, Claude, this is sickening impertinence, contemptible.


Hockney is not another Turner expressing, in high seriousness, his debt to the old master; Hockney is not another Picasso teasing Vel?zquez and Delacroix with not quite enough wit; here Hockney is a vulgar prankster, trivialising not only a painting that he is incapable of understanding and could never execute, but in involving him in the various parodies, demeaning Picasso too

Probably a designer dress at ?5k or whatever may be considered "value for money" by some people.


That doesn't make it "cheap".


To say ?15 is "cheap" is coming from the perspective of somebody who isn't on a very small income.


I run music gigs, and we give a 33% discount to people who are unwaged, even though we generally have to pay the musicians a lot of money.


It would be nice if galleries did the same. Some of them do.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...