Jerry Saltz Has Guts
For a guy to say about any artist he's "dogmatic", but yet not relay one principal of that which would be a given of being dogmatic:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/07/jerry_saltz_on_lucien_freud_wh.html
The answer is there in Saltz's piece.
Saltz said:
"He is so dogmatic and insistent on doing what he does in spite of whatever trends come and go, while at the same time being world-famous and famously consistent, that his art now exists as a champion island in the mainstream for artists."
Freud consistently painted realistic nude figures despite trends in the art world away from that style (abstract expressionism and pop art of the 50s and 60s especially). As Saltz says, Freud was "famously consistent".
Dogma is about a philosophy or technique.
His columns are sentence landfills.
How many times are you going to be wrong in one thread?
merriam-webster.com
dogma
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
1 b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
[deleted]
Yikes. Such a normal response. Look: only someone with an insistently glib eye could deem the technique or aesthetic that gives rise to the dogma found in the work of Freud from the start to the end of his oeuvre “famously consistent”. It borders on insulting, alas, it isn't as it's just mouthbreathingly stupid.
And yet, must say, both Saltz's blather and the very natives are restless duet you two have working here have informed a greater understanding of Freud's work, especially the formal languishing in sadness gazes found in some of his subjects eye lives and histories, a sadness relegated to the terminally incommunicable, and not for lack of lexicon, but a knowing, strange empathy for the assured, bizarrely proud ignorance of the viewer.
For Freud to anticipate that, is, actually, humorously genius.
I'm going to give you some advice. Quit trying so hard to seem intelligent. You're making yourself look like a fool.
Maybe English isn't your first language but your writing is embarrassingly horrible and makes you look stupid.
You're trying to use big words that you obviously don't understand how to use. Your second paragraph is an incoherent run-on nightmare.
I'll just point out one example...
"...especially the formal languishing in sadness gazes found in some of his subjects eye lives and histories..."
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's completely unintelligible.
Looking at your inability to form decent sentences, word usage, and grammar, it's no wonder you didn't understand Jerry's piece on Freud.
The sentence you quote does seem like it was run through Google Translate. Given the Zurich name maybe it was.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]