/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3549163
To illustrate the absurdity of this "I must disprove your idea of quality" mentality allow me to offer a rebuttal.
>>3544482 the word cartoon traces itself back in origin to the symbol. the hieroglyph. thus is the only kind of painting abstract? or do you merely scoff at the simplicity of rendering the figure as if these offer nothing else?
>>3544477
If anyone has an excuse to be edgy is bacon. The dude lived a life of trauma and masochism in the direct aftermath of the greatest conflict known to mankind. Like at what point do you allow yourself to feel an express pain? is there a threshold?>>3547272
He taught at The Bauhaus school, now the model for the majority of art schools. As far as modern academia he receives a lot of praise for his influence and role in art today. You can dislike him, but he still is a key figure in art education.
>>3546540
Auerbach is quite the oddball sure, But a reactionary to the art world at the time? I don't think so. To me, he seems as though he had his own metrics of quality and honed them over time internally. Sure he thought the art world was greatly flawed but he quietly persisted despite that. He was a recluse out of need not spite.
He belonged to a movement insofar as he helped bring back figuration along with his contemporaries. The movement is coincidental of course, but still relevant.
Calling him a Fauvist though is pretty philistine, just as much so as calling them mindless, or ugly. There is a truth to the figures he paints, they are highly considered. You can get a hint at this by looking at how he paints portraits of the same sitter over time, certain abstractions remain as translations of the sitters face to his mode of seeing from piece to piece. That's certainly not mindless. Christ he worked in charcoal for years and years to try and draw the way he intended to paint before arriving at his arguably most successful portraits.

this could go on ad nauseum. lets all just share some art