Mediocre Or Ghosts David Hockney Works Free

David Hockney, born in England in 1937, studied art at London's Royal Academy of Fine Arts for three years since 1958. That was the era of popular pop art, and abstract expressionist painting swept Europe and America. He was tired of this style and complained that the principle of abstract art was too rigid, which had killed the individuality of painting and made all the paintings alike. While others were doing the same thing, he always made himself go the other way. Therefore, he returned to his original painting subjects, returned to his own life, and returned to the people around him and the surroundings as well. For the artists of that era, there was a predicament, that is, to be engaged in modern art or to oppose it. Hockney's predicament was more prominent. He conducted at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts School in the training, drawing sketches, and he had excellent modeling and performance capabilities. However, his images were represented by Plane and abstract. He was also influenced by Picasso, Bacon, Dubuffet and Qi Taqi. Being a British who had lived in America for many years, he showed the rigor of an English gentleman, but the influence of American culture had formed him a maverick style. His paintings were with bright colors and humorous characters, which were comic and also had the charm of ridicule. He was significantly different from the true modern American painters. When the "modern art criticism" described art with "mainstream", especially modern art, Hockney was clearly not part of the mainstream artists. If art could be judged good or bad by the mainstream, some works would become second-class compared to the mainstream, but some "mainstream"works would appear even more mediocre. I think Hockney is an avant-garde "outer edge of the road"artist. We cannot summarize all the works of Hockney just by one style or one genre. He is an artist who is free among the traditional painting, abstract painting, pop art, cubism and other styles. Hockney's paintings are of so many styles that we cannot simply say that he is a painter of figures, or a painter of landscape, or a painter of still things. His works cover almost all that could be painted and those cannot be painted. When we appreciate and analyze his works today, we can only describe them with the scope of the postmodernism.