. . . and drew a leaf -- I'm an artist, yay!

It's interesting to me how some art is 'revered' and 'soulful' when it resembles lines and messiness and is categorized as 'abstract' to give it purpose and definition as avant-garde or iconoclastic.

On viewing proof of his 'elegant abstract style' in his slightly squashed circle, I see something that a dog could do better if it smeared its own feces on a canvas and ripped it apart with it's teeth. He may as well have painted a piece of dog crap and called it Sunshine. At least it would have had more character.

I've always held that everyone's drawings are interesting even if they can only draw stick figures, but this artistic pomposity which is the equivalent of the superficial fashionista world which celebrates the audacity of a so-called fashion guru who chooses to wear red when white is 'in' boggles my mind.

You misunderstood the article, and I suspect your ability to look at art with an open mind is as lacking as your ability to read without letting your bullying philistinism drown out what is actually on the screen in front of you.

The entire purpose of the article was to chart Guston's radical change from an artist who paints abstract paintings with a certain elegantly refined line to the deliberately crude caricaturist he became. The "elegant, abstract style" quote refers to the first image, as well as the painting Zone, which one can view by clicking the hyperlink. The squashed circle represents a shift towards his later, crude style, and the author does not describe it as "elegant" but as "having the infinite delicacy of the drunk."

As relevant to the article your words may be, my post was about abstract art and not just his slightly squashed circle.The radical change in his art from abstract to caricature to whatever was not in question. I had no comment on his later work. I'm talking about abstract art, his abstract art, how I saw it and what I think about it. There was no analysis on the article's point at any time.

But yes, I can see that the reference to elegance and style in the context I meant was not attributed to the circle but to the first image. I saw it at the time but had and still do place all crap abstract art into the same bin.

And to reprise Mark Stevens' quote about the circle:

"Guston's crude line has the infinite delicacy of the drunk who tries to pour himself a drink without spilling."

This, to me, should be applied to his whole body of work, not just the circle. But this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. As I said earlier, all art from anyone, with any level of talent can be interesting depending on what it is.

To me it's the pomposity of the analysis of abstract art that's at fault. It seems to seek a profound meaning for the sake of it, to make it something it's not rather than assess it for what it is.

So let's transpose the circle and the first image for the sake of argument and leave the circle as it is. The same reasoning applies. The painting, now unofficially dubbed, "the first image" (no capitals necessary) is shit.

But to be fair, different strokes for different folks, I guess. Some crap looks good on a wall, it's not just a painting it's a decor. So I allow for that. It's a different medium and should be treated as such.

Dude, who are you? I've read most of your posts and I must say I find them incredibly witty, erudite and eloquent.

If you're a professor, do tell, because I'd be interested in studying under you. If you're a writer, do tell, because I'd like to read your stuff rather than getting bits of meta-criticism in the Fray. If you're just some dude, do tell, because we should grab a pint.