L S Lowry – Genius or overated chancer?

Followed the Lowry trail round Berwick this evening.

Genius or overated?

Overrated.
Plus that song he wrote about matchstick cats and dogs was shit.

He couldn't do horses either.

He didnt really put the effort in there did he?

Completely overrated IMO.

Overrated.
Plus that song he wrote about matchstick cats and dogs was shit.

Aha! Not so. Because it was written by a different bloke, bet you didn't know that!

Actually I only know because my mates mum was looking after me and my mate and she said she had to visit a friend. We drove for a while and then got to this house in Tintwistle (I think). There were these strange silver and gold disks on the walls and after examining them we asked what they were.

The chap was apparently Kevin Parrot who wrote that song. Me and my mate had to sit downstairs for a long time until his mum was ready to go home. He must have been showing her his guitar.

Absolute genius! If you doubt this then go and see the exhibition at the Lowry in Salford. The seascapes in particular. What a lot of people see as being childlike is normally the artist reverting to expressionism, as by this point in their lives/careers they've absolutely mastered any technical discipline. See Picasso or David Hockney.

Less is more. A lot of artists you have to gauge not just on their output, but on the influence they have on everything that follows.

Plus: Art is the most class-ridden business in the country. You don't get the stature that he did coming from a working class background in Salford without demonstrating that you know your bloody onions

He's rubbish, outside the northwest his work barely sells or registers at al at all. His figurative work was naive, his perspective is all over the place and his anatomical drawing and use of colour was atrocious, it was not expressionism, he was simply a medicre regional artist who got lucky and gained some local poularity because of his populist choice of style and subjects.

Britain has created a many great masters over the years and Lowry was definitely one of them. He had so many subtle techniques and if you look at his early sketches you get an insight into his craftmanship and how this developed into and through his love of paint. He was very good at bringing the too disciplines together. I studied his work in quite a lot of depth when I did a fine Art degree and was lucky enough to go through most of his archive of sketches, letters and paintings available. His gentleness and playfulness while keeping true to his subject was a great credit to him.
To me he is a bit like a Van Gogh of Salford and his work rightfully stands tall with the likes of Turner or Stubbs. The timelessness of his work and popularity speaks volumes too.

And the song was by Brian and Michael I have a copy of it somewhere. 😯

nope sorry, imho he was rubbish. does'nt even come close to Turner or Stubbs,not even the same league, and as for Van Gogh, it's not even the same flipping game. I didnt study his work a lot when I was studying art cos I realised quite early on that he was actually a populist hack and really quite s**t and that much more interesting topics and artists were available for my perusal. mind you I could be wrong. but I doubt it:)

I didnt study his work a lot when I was studying art cos I realised quite early on that he was actually a populist hack and really quite s**t

I don't believe you studied his work at all going by your naive posts. you don't have to like his work to understand what he did or the importance of it. If you still have any interest in Art or British art then it might be worth your while to try and look a little closer again.

I've looked plenty close enough ta' and dint like what I saw at all, whether you choose to believe me or not, I really could not care less 🙂 I have a more than passing interest in art and British art for what it's worth, I Just dont consider him to be any more than a marginally talented Sunday artist, you may like his work,good for you that's fine, I dont.:)

When I look at a picture it needs to show imagination or be accurate to it's subject for me to consider it to be good.

Looking at the top picture it does look like my kid drew it. Now you may say that was intentional as an artistic technique but I'm not so sure.

If you went to see a band, orchestra or play you would not expect the participants to play/act at a childlike level that requires very little talent – so why expect it in art?

And desribing pictures in terms of 'gentlness and playfulness' always reminds me of wine buffs speaking of a white wines ' cheekyness and essential naughtiness, but still with a hint of maturity you would expect from a long established vinyard'.

I may be a bit of a philistine but WTF.

As I said, you don't have to like his work to understand what he did or the importance of it. However you don't see many £120 million buildings holding 350 paint hung in memory of a "marginally talented Sunday artist" built 23 years after their death do you?

That particular example is rather poor – the picture has no boat in it but the picture does…artistic impression/licence?

you do in Salford, but then nothing else ever came out of there did it?:)I do understand the importance of his work, it was by and large parochial. If you want funding for an arts centre you need to name it after somebody people know, so a banal populist hack would be perfect.:)

There seems to be a real flavour on this thread that the worth of the artist has to be measured first and foremost by his apparent technique. My first degree of measurement would be the response that a work of art invokes in the viewer. My second would be the degree to which the painting causes the viewer to reflect.
Art can never really be judged on technique alone because not every work of art is treated by the artist as a show of technical skill and what looks like a lack of skill is often actually genius once the viewer is educated to understand the work( Cezanne, Picasso et al ). You could argue that this makes art elitist and I wouldn't argue against that.

I'm looking at this right now:

and I like it. Isn't that the point?

Its a cartoon

Lichtenstein does cartoons; doesn't mean it isn't art.

You don't have to like something for it to be art; you just need to able to see where the talent has gone.

Which is why Tracey Emin is not an artist, and by quite some margin.

the talent is often in the marketing IMO

Well I don't think Lowry had a team of marketeers behind him! I went to see his exhibition when it was touring round the country many years ago and was very impressed. I think it was fair to say he was a troubled man, but his use of colour was very representative of the times he was painting – there was no coloured clothing (as we know it) for the working classes, and the North West at the time was not a bright vibrant time.

But again it comes down to personal opinion – I like his work, others clearly don't for whatever reason. Simples.

IHN – that's a cracker

Personal favourite:

Genius. But as all art is subjective, that opinion is as valid/worthless as all the others on here.

I preferred looking as his work at the old Salford Art Gallery on the Crescent next to the Uni, rather than in the new place.
The old Art Gallery smelled of school dinners & mould, had hissing and clanking hot water pipes and those old fashioned windows you opened with a loop of cord.

More fitting somehow.

Far from a genius, or technically proficient IMO. But had a real passion for depicting ordinary life. His work is very honest and real. For that, got to give the man his dues.

He was highly technically proficient – you don't get to study art for 20 years, many as a pupil of a world renowned artist, without knowing the rules:

And by knowing the rules, he was then able to subvert them.
Personally, I find that the foreshortened perspective in many of his collage cityscapes gives a very claustrophobic feel.

However, technical proficiency is meaningless in art – as per trailmonkey's thread above.
Bob Dylan can't sing conventionally, but his performances convey much more emotional depth and complexity than say, Rick Astley, who in conventional terms is far more technically proficient.

But as I say, all art is subjective – it's what it means to the individual (the observer, and or course the artist themselves) that really matters.

If he was a cockney you'd all f***ing hate him. The whole Lowry thing has got more to do with Manc pride than Art appreciation. Liverpool gets the Tate, Manchester gets the Lowry museum! Quite frankly, It's embarrassing.

It's in Salford. Not Manchester.

What's embarrassing is that a Mancunian professional photographer such as yourself should get that wrong.

agree with what you're saying Rusty spanner. By not technically proficent, I mean, he couldn't do a proper realistic painting, even if he wanted to. Doesn't mean there's any less meaning in his work. Picasso could knock out fantastic life paintings at the age of 12- that's a genius with proper skills . Lowry isn't anything amaing in my book. But, I know what your saying.

I was waiting for the Salford thing to come up! Well, you know there's only one football team in………..

Not saying He's good or bad [quite open minded actually]. Just annoyed at how he's used as a stick for the purposes of dumbing down.

Only my 2nd post and already I've been unmasked by a rusty tool.

he was simply a medicre regional artist who got lucky and gained some local poularity because of his populist choice of style and subjects.

The Chas N Dave of Salford?

However, technical proficiency is meaningless in art – as per trailmonkey's thread above.
Bob Dylan can't sing conventionally, but his performances convey much more emotional depth and complexity than say, Rick Astley, who in conventional terms is far more technically proficient.

That's an interesting point but one I'm not sure I agree with. Bob Dylan was a very talented and technically skilled Folk Singer/songwriter in a similar way to Guthrie, Lightnin Hopkins, Son House or the likes of SeaSick Steve today. Dylan was not a pop singer (despite what some of his early fans might have thought) but his voice did suit folk although he had a limited range what he did sing he did technically well. Though I would like to hear Dylan sing a few Rick Astley songs, but not for long. I'd imagine Rick Astley would be a pretty poor Folk singer/songwriter too.
My point is I can't think of any artist I like who could not produce their work skilfully.
If you look at George Grosz who was also producing observational drawings around the same time a Lowry. His figures were often distorted and almost caricature like, he played with perspective and colour. Sometimes his work appears flat or lost but these devices are effective to create the mood the artist wants.
Lowry would sometimes stretch and prime a number of canvases, famously in lead white primer but would then leave them for a long period of time. Sometimes years. This process would change the colouration and feel of the paint. He would then choose a primed canvas to fit what he had in mind to paint. This kind of care to detail not only demonstrates his skill technically with his chosen medium but also how important it is to be technically skilful.
Both Grosz and Lowry were artists of their time. Both were influenced buy other artists before them and during productive periods. I think the difference with Lowry was he kept himself away from a lot of the social aspects of modern artists so his work strayed in a slight Lowry direction. I think this could be why he is a marmite to a lot of people.

for Van Gogh

The sunflowers is terrible it looks like it was done by a stroke victim for therapy

One of my customers owns some Lowry originals and I think they are good.Art is very much a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder

When Lowry was painting his work didn't really sell. My grandmother was offered about half a dozen for a very reasonable cost and turned them down. Retrospectively not a good move 🙂

konabunny, Both Chas and Dave were very well respected session musicians who's hobby band got lucky. Nothing mediocre about the musicianship and songwriting ability of those two!

roper, we're in danger of descending into the 'What is Art?' argument, and as I'm in my forties I just don't have enough time left to do it justice. 😀

My point is I can't think of any artist I like who could not produce their work skilfully.

Fair enough, out tastes and perspective on Art differ – world would be a boring place if not!
Personally, I believe Lowry was technically competent, but don't believe that being technically competent is any prerequisite to being a great artist. Certainly helps if you know which rules you are subverting though.

inkster, your original post was just a rant, containing insults but no substance. I'm interested in the 'dumbing down' argument though, would you care to expand?

Personally, I feel that other galleries in our region have benefited from the publicity given to the Lowry and to the man himself:
I used to spend my winter lunch hours in Moseley St Art gallery, which has now been beautifully extended and modernised and always seems to be full. It's like visiting an old friend going back there.

The Lever at Port Sunlight is a wonderful little space in beautiful surroundings and the Walker (yes, both in Liverpool – the media created 'Divide and Conquer' mentality only matters if you're thick enough to let it) is always spectacular.

[/quote]

Let's face it, art is all shite! Van Gogh was a pathetic drunk and poppy addict and mostly painted sunflowers and crooked furniture. Turner just did colourful blotches. Picasso had a perverted grasp of anatomy. Escher had no idea of perspective at all. The best thing a painter can do is lay down a nice magnolia wall or not smudge window frame paint onto the glass!

Let's face it, art is all shite!

🙄

Very poor troll Barnes.
It's a lovely sunny Sunday – shouldn't you be out riding on a footpath or something?

Very poor troll Barnes.

ahem, that wasn't trolling, that was 'reductio ad absurdam' :o) I didn't mean it, but it was obvious 🙂

I may be a bit of a philistine

Nail -> head.

So on the subject of technical proficiency – does that mean that all photography is rubbish? After all, a lot of supposedly great shots are just the press of a button. By some people's logic, this would make it worthless, no?

By the way, it's art if people consider it so. End of.

And further by the way, I do like Lowry. I am not a very good art lover, so a lot is probably lost on me, but I do like what they say to me. They tell me about how the old North would have looked and felt way before I was born.. and IHN's pic above is a good one too. You can see all the buildings perfectly (brings to mind civic pride of the northern cities) and the fact that the people are all faceless is another bit of commentary, is it not?