Gerhard Richter

Gerhard Richter: This is Baader-Meinhof



Many works: here.

so great!

they just had an exhibit of his works @ art institute about a year ago.

I still can't believe that shit.

the black and whites are almost more impressive than the colors because of what he's capabale of on the restricted palette.


so great!

Faiz

p.s. Daydream Nation

i love a lot of his stuff

but his abstract works all seem off to me

i mean the truly abstract things. they just don't cohere.

he's not best-known for them, for good reason

not crap

Not Crap. I like him. But I'm still not sure if there's such a thing as non-abstract art. meh. technically amazing.

garble wrote: But I'm still not sure if there's such a thing as non-abstract art..

Huh? I think his photo-realistic work is trying to be as 'non-abstract' as he can be.

He is the real deal... his photo realistic art makes me look at his abstract 'paint smear' work very differently than if it was done by someone else.

There was a great article on him in the NY Times magazine about a year or so ago (wow, maybe two years) when his big show was traveling. It was a very interesting look at how he works and how he operates day to day... very inspiring and sad also.

Mayfair wrote:He is the real deal... his photo realistic art makes me look at his abstract 'paint smear' work very differently than if it was done by someone else.

If he didn't do the photo realistic stuff I might like the abstract work better, but in comparison I don't find his abstract stuff as interesting. If abstract was *all* he did I would probably like it more, but the photo realistic work is what really excites me.

j_harvey wrote:

Mayfair wrote:He is the real deal... his photo realistic art makes me look at his abstract 'paint smear' work very differently than if it was done by someone else.

If he didn't do the photo realistic stuff I might like the abstract work better, but in comparison I don't find his abstract stuff as interesting. If abstract was *all* he did I would probably like it more, but the photo realistic work is what really excites me.

his photorealistic and 'smeared' stuff is awesome

the abstract stuff, it seems like he is playing around in a medium with which he is unfamiliar. certainly he doesn't own it the way he owns the other one, whatever it is. the color palettes neither mesh or clash; the composition is neither balanced or usefully unhinged; the weight of the strokes seems kind of amateurish almost. i'm not a major art brain or anything, but it doesn't seem like accomplished work to me.

i hadn't seen his abstracts before his show here, and my appreciation of his 'good' stuff and my dislike of his abstract stuff were almost equally strong. which surprised me.

maybe you're right, jason--maybe i just wish he spent all his time making more pictures like the ones i love. but i think if the abstracts were done by someone else, i would have no interest in them at all. and i often like 'that kind of thing.'

Mayfair wrote:He is the real deal... his photo realistic art makes me look at his abstract 'paint smear' work very differently than if it was done by someone else.

I feel the same way. When I first saw his abstract paintings in person (at the Art Institute), they were hard to take, so much dissonance in color, geometry, etc. But even then it was clear that here was someone creating a new style for abstract painting. Seeing his abstract paintings now gave me the feeling of what Pollack's paintings must've seemed like in the fifties.

And he's one of the only painters I can think of who hasn't settled into a single particular style.

Me, I dig the landscapes most of all.

My girlfriend is really into that cat.

Her dad has a Candle print (SONIC YOUTH!!!) with original Richter signature.

I like him, too. But he's nothing comared to Milos Richter....

The Baader Meinhof exhibition at the ICA blew my foundation course brain. I like it all. The Atlas idea is smart. I like his writing. I would love to own St John.