11 comments on “Randy “Biscuit” Turner: Biscuit Retrospective – Gallery Lombardi

  1. yeah. you’re a little out of your element here, salvo. turner and his art was a construction of his entire life. you can’t appreciate his work without knowing about the man. there’s just no context.

    he wasn’t a 78704 boy, he was a pioneer along with the “big boys” and did this stuff when there was a good chance you would get your ass beat down hard for it.

    sometimes i think things are a little too easy now.

  2. Wow. You guys are really digging through the archives here. That’s great. Reading the archives gives you a better sense of what types of art I like and what I consider as Art.

    The visual arts is my element. I form opinions about everything from typography to drawings to dance.

    “I’m not a music guy, so I have no admiration for who he was or what he may have done. All I know is that there was an art exhibit and I went to check it out.”
    “…we are definitely not in the same state of mind.”

    I looked at the art, I formed an opinion, I published it for people to read.

    Thanks for reading. I hope I can have more reviews for you in the near future.

  3. well, it helps to have some context sometimes. this is a perfect example. i mean, what are your thoughts about daniel johnston? i don’t think anyone would give a crap about “hi how are you?” if there wasn’t the context of ‘him’ surrounding it.

    this might also explain why so many artists become known after they pass. once the work of their life is finally complete, it all comes together. then again, it could be that people just need that much time to finally “get it”.


  4. who?

    I’m only half kidding. I’ve heard of him. Haven’t seen his work, though.

    Right now, I’m questioning this need for context. I agree that sometimes it’s needed to ground you or give you an opening into what’s going on in front of you, but just like too much text on the walls of a gallery, it could be overcompensating for the lack of Art.

    It’s not so much I don’t “get it”, as it is I don’t “like it/think its good”.

  5. Yes and no.
    A journalist/critic should do research on an artist before they write about them.

    Fortunately for me, I wasn’t writing about the man or his history. I was writing ’bout the artworks. All I need for that is to spend some face time with the work.

    And just as I thought, that history lesson you provided didn’t convince me to change my opinion. It may have actually strengthened it.
    “…construction with things pieced together and with a psychedelic bent…”

    Those are similar descriptors to what I said. Only difference is, that they liked it and I didn’t.

  6. Bearing (rawr) no animosity, what point is that?

    That the celebrity of an artist should come before the actual work?

    Or that thinking for myself can leave me in *gasp* the minority? or feeling like I’m weird or crazy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s