His work is really great, he had a huge impact on art and pop culture over the handful of years that he was active for. Although he painted in alongside modernists his art is often auctioned now as contemporary, it's crazy how far ahead he was.
Never heard of him before. seems it is just some merica self masturbating pride.
He was black from the hood in the US from what i could see on wiki. I guess modern US critics loves him.
I think youre between 20-120 years off, Basquiat is firmly planted in the contemporary period despite his collaborations with Warhol which are still contemporary paintings.
plus he wasn't really allowed to evolve as an artist while he was alive
he was discovered, hyped, instantly famous, and spent the following years making pretty similar work because that's what's in demand and what he's famous for
definitions of what constitutes "contemporary art" in the 2010s vary, and are mostly imprecise. Art from the past 20 years is very likely to be included, and definitions often include art going back to about 1970; "the art of the late 20th and early 21st century"; "the art of the late 20th cent. and early 21st cent., both an outgrowth and a rejection of modern art"; "Strictly speaking, the term "contemporary art" refers to art made and produced by artists living today"; "Art from the 1960's or 70's up until this very minute"; and sometimes further, especially in museum contexts, as museums which form a permanent collection of contemporary art inevitably find this aging. Many use the formulation "Modern and Contemporary Art", which avoids this problem. Smaller commercial galleries, magazines and other sources may use stricter definitions, perhaps restricting the "contemporary" to work from 2000 onwards. Artists who are still productive after a long career, and ongoing art movements, may present a particular issue; galleries and critics are often reluctant to divide their work between the contemporary and non-contemporary.
His most famous paintings are the worst t b h
This is confusing to me. When I hear "a rejection to modern art" I think post modern. movements and sub movements in visual art are hard to follow compared to literary movements. It's like these fuckers are trying to critic.
>Never heard of him before
learn more art history
you don't have to like him, but you should definitely be aware of an artist as big as basquiat
I don't really like his stuff but I can understand why other people would.
For me he is a little distasteful in that he's paraded around as a "black artist" instead of just being an artist-but that's just my opinion. I'd rather have people be people and learn their story about why they do what they do instead of having them stuck in a box labeled X, Y, or Z.
I hate it when examination of art just involves a literal description of the painting. It's like "ya thanks, I can see it too"
"what are the words from?"
"i saw them in a book so i put them in the painting"
"why'd you put the copyright sign beside the word Pluto?"
"because I don't want to get sued by Disney"
I appreciate the attitude of the interviewer. He's treating Basquiat like a bored father indulging his son, in the way he reacts and poses questions.
I dunno, just seems like lazy work.
All round romantic, he passes.
Some work better than others and this may be due to his dealer selling unfinished work and scraps from under his nose.
I am sceptical of people that invent a style and stick with it for life (Bacon, Warhol, Lichtenstein) , I like to see people progressing through styles and ideas (DeChirico, Freud, Dix, etc)
they're both famous for their art, and their work is totally dissimilar. warhol is famous for making a huge parody of consumerism and the art world, making art in his "factory" and selling it like consumer goods. basquiat brought elements of the grafitti scene to the fine art world by mixing them with neo-expressionist painting.
you can think both of their work sucked, but they're not just famous for being famous. that doesn't even make sense, how can you be famous for being famous before you're famous?