A wordy entry about painting in general

Rip in Bird Space

This is still a very unfinished thought, but I recently read an interview with Dave Hickey in Zingmagazine (I would place a link to it, but I hate to see dead links in posts and for some reason I just don’t see this particular link having a long shelf life.  Plus a Google search with Dave Hickey and Zing should easily produce it)  where Dave Hickey said one attribute a good painting must have is an ability to be reinterpreted.  He used the example of Jackson Pollock, where if we had to view his paintings the way he wanted us to, we would hate them.  Hickey then goes on to call Pollock an ass who thought he was doing Jung a favor. 

This is pretty funny, but also an important point.  If you cannot look at a painting and interpret it in a way that makes it meaningful to you, it is not a good painting to you.  A painting that is flexible enough to make “sense” to many people seems like it must be a better painting than one that does not.  I think this could be true even if the viewer misinterprets the painting, if there is such a thing as painting misinterpretation.


2 Responses to “A wordy entry about painting in general”

  1. Anna Says:


    This is the managing editor of zingmagazine. If you wouldn’t mind linking the article here, I would appreciate it. The link will not die.


  2. banole Says:

    I will be happy to let the link sit where it is. And I am glad to hear that zingmagazine is not going anywhere. You have some very nice articles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: