Emma wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2014 at 6:25pm:
I'd like to read your links etc.. but I'm running old gear,.. and so ... no can see...
However... regarding his 'artwork'... it isn't that particularly worthy IMO.. I didn't realise he was a major recognised artist who had won awards for his 'art'.
In fact I don't actually believe that.. pls show me I'm wrong... very populist no doubt.. but worthy enough to balance his corruption...??
NO WAY JOSE.... !! Get off it...
I admit I was amazed at the time... when the TV show came on about him ...painting a portrait of the Queen..? for goodness sake..
Before any of this came out it was...and I didn't think his work worthy of such opportunity....
But then it seems, does it not,.. that RH was a master of opportunity..??
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty of it.
I have to say I always thought he was a pretty good family entertainer and was very shocked when the allegations first surfaced.
But a top flight artist?
I guess I am not talented that way, so I am no expert judge, but I was also surprised when he was chosen to do a portrait of the queen. I would have thought there were better artists around for that sort of thing.
Having said that, he didn't do a bad job at all, I was surprised.
But it comes back to the basic question of whether the art can stand alone, or was it only valued for the fame of the artist?
Someone mentioned Hitler and his art, and I would imagine his paintings will increase in value in time because of their association (though they will never get the prices of the truly great art), but RH is nowhere near as famous as Hitler.
So it really comes down to.. is his art good enough to stand on its own merits?
I think some of it may be.. or it is as good as some other works hanging in galleries, anyway.