David Lynch Solo Show Opens at Griffin in Santa Monica

I am still hoping for a thoughtful rebuttal or continuation of this conversation. Perhaps a definition/understanding of “employs iconography typical of the macabre Sunday painter,” would help. Additionally, what exactly is the fault of the dread question mark pictured in the above work? Is the criticism the result of viewing that single work, and no others, by Mr. Lynch? The lack of “handling,” that was part of the criticism– was this mistakenly directed at what was pointed out to be photographic?

Lastly, I have been accused of condescension on this blog, for expressing my reaction to what I deem poor criticism. It has been mentioned by another blogger that criticism is something issued “straight from the gut,”– I couldn’t disagree more. That which is straight from the gut, is what is mostly clogging up the ability for an informed discourse on this beast we call the internet. Rather, criticism should always be aimed not at the pure dispersal of “gut-sourced opinion,” but rather driven by a need to educate and then initiate an informed, civil debate. I find that this statement by AFC is not free of an attitude of condescension itself :

“I’m sorry you don’t like the criticism, but I’m not the first to say it, and I’m not wrong. ” Along with the mention that what is stated by AFC is “a fact.” A critic should never come out and plainly announce that something is “a fact,” simply because of the consensus of unmentioned others, without explaining the critic’s own position clearly, or perhaps quoting the aforementioned consensus.

Nor this:

“…I really meant to discuss the paintings. And those don’t look good,” without making mention of which “paintings” are being referred to, or why they don’t “look good.”

What I am trying to do here, is not to simply force my opinion of the work out into the open air, but to illicit a response that follows up on what AFC put forth in the opening salvo. Is this not the role of the blog– to engage in an intelligent call-and-response dialogue? Is it a fault to question and seek more from the initial call? What I seek here is a follow-up that answers the issues raised by your own writing. Is there an expectation not to question the opinion of AFC?

I certainly do not believe that this is a valid response to a reader query of your writing:

“I didn’t write very much about it, because the painting simply isn’t worth discussing at length – certainly not the degree to which has been seen on this thread.” Take note, that the criticism switches back to a single painting, although the criticism was once aimed at painting(s) in the plural, and by suggestion, the dismissal of an entire body of work. Additionally, why is it necessary to dismiss out-of-hand, the opinions posited on this thread, as not worthy?

So to be clear– what is being criticized here, on what specific grounds, and does such criticism apply to a reading of a reproduction of a single work, or more than that work? Is it a criticism of film, or of painting? Is it criticism of paint that isn’t even paint?

I am still hoping for a thoughtful rebuttal or continuation of this conversation. Perhaps a definition/understanding of “employs iconography typical of the macabre Sunday painter,” would help. Additionally, what exactly is the fault of the dread question mark pictured in the above work? Is the criticism the result of viewing that single work, and no others, by Mr. Lynch? The lack of “handling,” that was part of the criticism– was this mistakenly directed at what was pointed out to be photographic?

Lastly, I have been accused of condescension on this blog, for expressing my reaction to what I deem poor criticism. It has been mentioned by another blogger that criticism is something issued “straight from the gut,”– I couldn’t disagree more. That which is straight from the gut, is what is mostly clogging up the ability for an informed discourse on this beast we call the internet. Rather, criticism should always be aimed not at the pure dispersal of “gut-sourced opinion,” but rather driven by a need to educate and then initiate an informed, civil debate. I find that this statement by AFC is not free of an attitude of condescension itself :

“I’m sorry you don’t like the criticism, but I’m not the first to say it, and I’m not wrong. ” Along with the mention that what is stated by AFC is “a fact.” A critic should never come out and plainly announce that something is “a fact,” simply because of the consensus of unmentioned others, without explaining the critic’s own position clearly, or perhaps quoting the aforementioned consensus.

Nor this:

“…I really meant to discuss the paintings. And those don’t look good,” without making mention of which “paintings” are being referred to, or why they don’t “look good.”

What I am trying to do here, is not to simply force my opinion of the work out into the open air, but to illicit a response that follows up on what AFC put forth in the opening salvo. Is this not the role of the blog– to engage in an intelligent call-and-response dialogue? Is it a fault to question and seek more from the initial call? What I seek here is a follow-up that answers the issues raised by your own writing. Is there an expectation not to question the opinion of AFC?

I certainly do not believe that this is a valid response to a reader query of your writing:

“I didn’t write very much about it, because the painting simply isn’t worth discussing at length – certainly not the degree to which has been seen on this thread.” Take note, that the criticism switches back to a single painting, although the criticism was once aimed at painting(s) in the plural, and by suggestion, the dismissal of an entire body of work. Additionally, why is it necessary to dismiss out-of-hand, the opinions posited on this thread, as not worthy?

So to be clear– what is being criticized here, on what specific grounds, and does such criticism apply to a reading of a reproduction of a single work, or more than that work? Is it a criticism of film, or of painting? Is it criticism of paint that isn’t even paint?

@Shedbilder: I really don’t think this post evokes all the questions you’re asking. I connected David Lynch’s background in art and his movies as an entry point to discussing a single reproduction. We’re not looking at an either or scenario, so I’m not sure why it’s being broken down in such binary terms.

I don’t want to flog this horse, but I probably spent 150 words talking about both. There was no attempt to offer an in depth study of the work, and it’s unfair to ask a post that size to offer up 1000 words worth of criticism. Criticism takes many different forms, and a reader who insists it only takes the form they enjoy most will insure they will be disappointed by the blog.

To answer your question about the question mark: The problem with using this punctuation as iconography in art is that both says too much and not enough. What is the question here? If the artist doesn’t know the answer to this, then they either don’t have anything to say or aren’t saying it. Either way, it places an unfair burden on the viewer. In part, that’s the problem I see here, but popular art world ideology tells us the more open to interpretation the art is, the better.

Simultaneously, the question mark also directs the viewer in a way that seems too didactic for it’s own good. The mysteries of the world! What don’t we see? The closed eyeballs on either side of the painting tell me that already — why do I need a question mark there as well. It seems needlessly redundant.

Finally, while I’m fine with being told a tone or statement seems out of line — a commentor did so earlier in this thread and I appreciated it and retracted the statement — it’s unnecessary to drudge this up again as though it had not been addressed, or offer instructions on how I should be doing my job. I find this advice condescending and disingenuous in its supposed end to help the blog. It is also completely lacking in consideration of the work that gets put into AFC and other outlets on a daily basis.

AFC– Thank you for your response. I feel that many of the points I was/am concerned with have been clarified. A great deal of my confusion, arises out of what I see to be a confusion of form on the internet– between that of critical inquiry/evaluation, and that of the bite-size opinion. I, like many others, am struggling to find definition for the platform of the blog– something which seems to be replacing traditional critical journalism. You are correct in indicating that alot of work goes into AFC, which is in part why I was taken aback by a post of this size that raises numerous questions without there seeming to be the necessary balance of analysis and inquiry.

Point taken about the question mark. My own reading: the importance of what is surrounding the question mark– that is, a circle/oval containing seven points. I don’t think this is by chance, as there are also seven points within the halo at the top of the crucifix; seven also being an important number in the Book of Revelation. Dare I suggest what appears simple at first, may be misleading. The question may have everything to do with the question of seven.

AFC– Thank you for your response. I feel that many of the points I was/am concerned with have been clarified. A great deal of my confusion, arises out of what I see to be a confusion of form on the internet– between that of critical inquiry/evaluation, and that of the bite-size opinion. I, like many others, am struggling to find definition for the platform of the blog– something which seems to be replacing traditional critical journalism. You are correct in indicating that alot of work goes into AFC, which is in part why I was taken aback by a post of this size that raises numerous questions without there seeming to be the necessary balance of analysis and inquiry.

Point taken about the question mark. My own reading: the importance of what is surrounding the question mark– that is, a circle/oval containing seven points. I don’t think this is by chance, as there are also seven points within the halo at the top of the crucifix; seven also being an important number in the Book of Revelation. Dare I suggest what appears simple at first, may be misleading. The question may have everything to do with the question of seven.

Everyone’s struggling with making sense of the blog medium I think. It’s hard to present a cohesive body of content when you have so much different stuff all landing in the same spot. It’s a problem I think about a lot.

Anyway, I think a well moderated comment section can really enrich content that can be inconsistent in quality. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve seen a lot of that here. For example, I hadn’t read the question mark as relating to the Book of Seven. That’s something I missed.

I’m late to this one, but perhaps that’s good. All I want to say is that the most relevant comment was made by the story’s author, AFC:

“I really meant to discuss the paintings. And those don’t look good.”

It isn’t wrong or shallow to call a bad visual move a bad visual move. This is visual art. It looks bad. It’s crossover credit and that’s all. We’re looking at them because he made them, had anyone else made them, we wouldn’t look at them. Please to continue to call spades spades.

I’m late to this one, but perhaps that’s good. All I want to say is that the most relevant comment was made by the story’s author, AFC:

“I really meant to discuss the paintings. And those don’t look good.”

It isn’t wrong or shallow to call a bad visual move a bad visual move. This is visual art. It looks bad. It’s crossover credit and that’s all. We’re looking at them because he made them, had anyone else made them, we wouldn’t look at them. Please to continue to call spades spades.