Since you publicly comment on such things, you arrogantly ride on this man's shoulders to spew such ignorant diatribe. Did you 'god' purpise you to do that or was it an expression of emotion? No thanks, go next door.

Clever😂😂😂😂

@@99thehighstreet69 I'll show you my work if you're interested. I'm not successful I've always painted though on and off. I'm not sure how to send photos but I could ask someone to show me how to send them . Cy twombly is probably my favourite artist.

I like this work. But to label anyone who doesn't 'get it' as somehow unrefined and low brow is in my opinion vulgar and boorish. To suggest that only Art that has to be explained to the viewer is somehow worthy of our attention is an indication of your own short comings in the appreciation of things visual. And to bring Vettriano into it is just crass.

@@gretchensghost 'For those not understanding, so therefore insulting and dismissing his work'

Why is it *not* art?

color and form as a means of expression, how is that not art? just cause hes not painting a specific object. does that make it to hard to comprehend?

I think there should be some actual skill involved in making art. This does NOT require skill. I can achieve this form of 'art' in a couple of days.

One doesn't just suddenly arrive at this form of abstraction; it's a long process. As for your claim that Hodgkin's work in no way requires any skill and understanding of how to handle paint, well, that's nonsense. The colour conveys the subject of the picture. That's not easy. Moreover, the difference between your attempt to make similar work and the real thing is that your would almost certainly lack the conviction or emotional input required to make the painting successful. There's a rich inner world that needs to be present. You producing one in a couple of days proves that you don't understand what Hodgkin's art is about. Stop being so superficial.

Just smoke weed when you see the work and you'll get it

Could you possibly have written a more trite comment? When you learn something about 20th century art history and contemporary painting, come back and try again.

​@crabhat1: What part is true exactly? The cliché ('A child could do this therefore it shouldn't be taken seriously.') that is repeated ad nauseam by people who have no clue about contemporary art? That all art made today can be lumped into the same category and that it's all worthless? As for your comment about colour and shape: Yes, that's what painting is composed of. What point are you trying to make? That because painting relies on illusion its impact can't be profound? If so, that's an absurd claim. I suppose music should just be reduced to the term noise? Also not sure why you refer to painting as a 'limited form of communication' but also state that it can be completely open to interpretation and thus extremely rich in its communicative powers. In addition to this, you don't seem to grasp that paintings (even Hodgkin's) represent things in the world (the titles are a clue). They are not purely abstract. In that sense, your claim that the images have nothing more to offer the viewer than what one brings to them is not accurate. Artists don't create images with absolutely no meaning in mind. They are open to interpretation, yes, but they nevertheless show what the artist wanted to convey: This dialectic is what makes them interesting. And well done for for including the second most ridiculous cliché favoured by those that denounce contemporary art ('The Emperor has no clothes.'). You must be proud of that one!

Then show us the nursery where painting like this goes on. Stupid ass

Bet you couldn't make it troll.