Jack Vettriano

Very sad to read just a minute ago of Jack Vettriano's death, at a relatively young 73 - details are scarce right now.   He was never respected by the art establishment in Scotland - I think we could all advance reasons for that: he was very popular with the public, his designs adorned many items from coffee mugs to carrier bags, he took his figure studies from catalogues, books, advertising - the Singing Butler was an odd painting: the sand on which his characters were dancing appeared to be polished wood rather than sand, and quite what, if anything, it meant was not clear. But against all that - that he didn't use oil paint as a trained professional would, that his palette of colours didn't seem to vary (it featured a lot of red, yellow/gold, and black: combinations that can very often convey a hard, polished appearance, very much in accord with the period of US culture to which he felt most drawn) he created a look and style all his own, and one that was centred on people, sexual desire (and fulfilment), that celebrated hedonism (as indeed did he).  I'd like to despise his work - that would put me in line with all the most celebrated critics - but I can't and don't.  He got people interested in and talking about art - his work appealed to those seeking escapism - and what too many art critics (and literary critics) forget is that in this world, there's a very great deal from which one might wish to escape; those who help us to do that for a time are more important than critics seem to realize. He enjoyed great financial success - maybe that's one reason why some got annoyed with him, though it's the art market that's the issue there: it wasn't love of money which inspired him to paint in the first place, so that's a charge that won't stick.  So for all the criticisms, and I've listed only some of them, I think Jack Vettriano was good news for art and artists and regret his passing.  

Do, Paul - there's a lot to choose from.  Among the critics of his work was the Guardian's Jonathan Jones, who went beyond scathing, as he sometimes does, all the way to outright abuse.  It would be idle to pretend that he didn't have a point, but it's not a crime to be popular.  It always gives me some satisfaction to observe that people do respond to paintings - in almost any way; would we rather they didn't?  I've seen his work described as "sleazy", too - and yes, I can see what is meant by that: he was a carnal man and didn't mind showing it.  Anyway - if you do feature him, I expect there'll be a healthy discussion: probably not featuring Jonathan Jones, though if he'd like to chip in it would probably do our viewing figures a bit of good, if only in pained reaction.  

I'd love to see that. I read the Guardian but I think Jonathan Jones typifies everything that is wrong with the art world.