Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Jackson’s Art Prize 2024
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
My reception of abstract art has mellowed over the years. Some leaves me absolutely cold, such as the subject of this thread. Other abstract art can appeal, I've given up trying to understand the whys and wherefores of this, and just enjoy the piece of art concerned. Not understanding the word 'chromesthesia' I followed up on Martin's brief explanation and looked it up. Apparently people with chromesthesia may experience colors, shapes, or movement in response to sounds like a car honking. So this painting is the artist's personal response to the colours she sees when hearing sounds. I doubt you can get more personal than that. Since I don't have chromesthesia I can't relate to this interpretation.
I'm all for artists trying new things, for me, in this case it hasn't worked. That matters only to me.
I'm against 'winners' in art competitions, because another set of judges might well have chosen something else. But if you have 'competitions' I suppose you have to have winners (and 'losers'). That's how it is. Don't like it.
Posted
It's a painting with incident around the edges and nothing in the centre - which also applies to the artist's words describing it. I presume chromesthesia and synesthesia are related, or even the same thing, but either way, I'm not sure it's particularly unusual nor a good explanation of the painting. I don't blame the artist for that, though: we shouldn't be asked, or need, to explain our work - if it doesn't speak for itself, it's failed. Explanations just make excuses for its failure to communicate on its own merits.
I don't hate or even dislike the painting - in fact, I quite like it. But Miró did this a lot better.
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
Posted
I neither like nor dislike it, I don't feel anything for it. As you mention Robert, there are some great examples of very interesting work painted by artists with synesthesia, Hockney included. The judges liked this artwork and that is what matters regardless of what we might think. Artwork at the end of the day does cause controversy, praise or criticism.
Posted
Norette, her website has more of the same and some slightly different, also this
She has an interesting condition which I wasn’t aware of.
As regards the prize award, from experience of watching PAOTY and LAOTY for many years, it becomes obvious that the judges there are always seeking that ‘something new, something different’ and I can appreciate that, and the points made by Martin. In this case, I don’t actually see her work as new, rather it reminds me of painting you might find in most primary schools, so maybe it recaptures the innocence of childhood imagination?
She has an interesting condition which I wasn’t aware of.
As regards the prize award, from experience of watching PAOTY and LAOTY for many years, it becomes obvious that the judges there are always seeking that ‘something new, something different’ and I can appreciate that, and the points made by Martin. In this case, I don’t actually see her work as new, rather it reminds me of painting you might find in most primary schools, so maybe it recaptures the innocence of childhood imagination?
Posted
I wonder who wrote her blurb - and why... and with what hideous translation system from Serbo-Croat into Ancient Greek, wandering through pre-reformed Dutch and into a form of English ... if I said I don't wish to be sarcastic, I should of course be lying. It's a great pity that art schools these days - and some galleries - persuade artists into having this weight of verbal flab around their necks. Always distrust an artist's statement that includes the word "ontological", especially when the grammar in the rest of it is so shaky.
I'm still pondering what "reminiscent of an otherwordly source" is supposed to mean; if it's otherworldly, presumably it's not one with which we're familiar; and if we're not familiar with it, it's going pretty good guns to be reminiscent of anything.
I fear it gets worse from there on - tautological claptrap; if the artist should come here, she'd be very welcome: but I'll respond to her work, not the words that someone has draped like chain-mail around her. If anything is likely to make the general public rebel against art, perhaps especially modern art, this is the sort of language which will turn them off. You can of course take the view that this doesn't really matter, but I think it really does - because it does her no service (quite the reverse) and encourages the use of pompous, vapid gobbledegook - of which the world stands in no further need. Writing is an art, too - unfortunately, whoever wrote THAT screed is a long way from mastering it.
Still - she's got the prize money, and I haven't; entirely incidental to my criticism.
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA