Diebenkorn is one of my all-time top-fav 20th Century American artists -- so good to see that this show was put together focusing, for the first time, on his Ocean Park series!
I did a college seminar paper on Diebenkorn back in 1984, and remember that he described the Ocean Park paintings as "landscapes," so the assertion by the curator that he would not have called them landscapes is specious.
Diebenkorn continues to inspire me in my abstract compositions. He really was wonderful as an Artist. I wish UK would exhibit more of his work rather than the usual David Hockney or Picasso paintings which sell more often than apples at a street market.
Wonderful description of Richard Diebenkorn as a person and painter. I studied under one of his students Bruce MaGaw at SFAI in the middle late seventies. Bruce (as a student) showed in that first group show by that first group of painters. Now known as the Bay Area Abstract Figurative Expressionist. I am very familiar with that style of painting and it’s process. Again this curator is spot on! Wonderful.
I love this artist, almost unknown in Britain but having a small exhibition in London in 2013. Thanks for the video, although it was a bit hard to get the accents (for non US folk) and could the two ladies keep their hands in their pockets next time please?
I really enjoyed the commentary (though the handwaving was distracting). I've always liked Diebenkorn, but the Ocean Park series was my least favorite. It seemed to me a bit sterile and cerebral. Seeing it as a record of his painting process rather than just an end product helps me understand it much better.
Am I missing something? I mean its good art and all, but calling it glorious like 25,000 times and saying that it makes you melt? It's lines, shapes and colors, its not much of anything that requires a lot of skill or forethought. And from the sound of it, this guy wasted blood, sweat and tears trying to get it to where he wanted it and it probably would be just as critically acclaimed and fawned over by these idiots had he left it alone after the first layer of paint. Fill me in if you can, because I just don't get it.
Diebenkorn is one of my all-time top-fav 20th Century American artists -- so good to see that this show was put together focusing, for the first time, on his Ocean Park series!
Great work. Love this guy.
I did a college seminar paper on Diebenkorn back in 1984, and remember that he described the Ocean Park paintings as "landscapes," so the assertion by the curator that he would not have called them landscapes is specious.
Diebenkorn continues to inspire me in my abstract compositions. He really was wonderful as an Artist. I wish UK would exhibit more of his work rather than the usual David Hockney or Picasso paintings which sell more often than apples at a street market.
I always get frustrated when people are standing in front of a painting I'm trying to look at.
Wonderful description of Richard Diebenkorn as a person and painter. I studied under one of his students Bruce MaGaw at SFAI in the middle late seventies. Bruce (as a student) showed in that first group show by that first group of painters. Now known as the Bay Area Abstract Figurative Expressionist. I am very familiar with that style of painting and it’s process. Again this curator is spot on! Wonderful.
I love this artist, almost unknown in Britain but having a small exhibition in London in 2013. Thanks for the video, although it was a bit hard to get the accents (for non US folk) and could the two ladies keep their hands in their pockets next time please?
Who made the black and white paintings behind the host who introduced the film
I wanted to see this work, not listen to people discussing it.
I really enjoyed the commentary (though the handwaving was distracting). I've always liked Diebenkorn, but the Ocean Park series was my least favorite. It seemed to me a bit sterile and cerebral. Seeing it as a record of his painting process rather than just an end product helps me understand it much better.
Am I missing something? I mean its good art and all, but calling it glorious like 25,000 times and saying that it makes you melt? It's lines, shapes and colors, its not much of anything that requires a lot of skill or forethought. And from the sound of it, this guy wasted blood, sweat and tears trying to get it to where he wanted it and it probably would be just as critically acclaimed and fawned over by these idiots had he left it alone after the first layer of paint. Fill me in if you can, because I just don't get it.
Blah, blah, blah. How about just letting us see the paintings?