Further Research: Cy Twombly

 In this research post, I will discussing the work of Cy Twombly and his abstract painting, I will also compare it to my understanding of how artworks should really looks like. First painting I would like to discuss is Untitled (Bacchus). In my opinion his drawing looks like childish scribblings. The technique that he used seems simple. All his painting looks unfinished. His artworks seem without sense just simple lines and shapes. Composition is chaotic. I don't feel Twombly paintings, its very difficult to understand what his painting depict. I'm not the only one who thinks his art is bad, Kozloff thought similarly.  Max Kozloff, saying, “Without an inherent tone of struggle, or pretense of evoking the unconscious, his calligraphy assumes that it was nothing other than what it was.” (ARTDEX ,2023)

Cy Twombly 1928-2011 Untitled (Bacchus) 2008

This painting is painted by Twombly which is related to Roman god of winemaking. As Christie states "In 2003, shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, the then 75-year-old Twombly embarked upon what became known as his Bacchus paintings, named for the Roman god of winemaking, fertility, madness and religious ecstasy."  If I have to say true I would say, my 9 year goddaughter  can do better than that. There is no skill here. 

The second artwork I will discuss is  Cy Twombly: Roman Notes (1970)

Cy Twombly: Roman Notes (1970) 

as Roland Barthes states Twombly’s work “does not derive from a concept (mark) but from an activity (marking). . . .” adding that the viewer sees “the hand’s becoming. . . . With each stroke [Twombly] blows up the museum.” Barthes emphasise that Twombly are focused on process ,not on effect. These “notes” seems simplistic  and like a created by child.  

This only confirms me in my opinion about Cv Twombly and there is nothing artistic, if I have to call everything that is made by human that is a work of art, every word written by me in my notebook could be an art for a few million. But I will see what others have to say about him. I will look deeper. Next critic I found is. Kenneth Baker.

Kenneth Baker, writing in 1972, “A Twombly is only a blackboard insofar as it is a painting, but its claim to being a painting, that is to a certain kind of meaning, is based on the illusion it gives of being a marked-up piece of slate. (Pincus-Witten 2024) 

Baker agree here with my  opinion  that Twomblys art is just piece of slate.For me nothing more needs to be added.

Reference:

 ARTDEX. In Contemplation of Lines and Scribbles – Cy Twombly’s Beautiful Writing – ARTDEX. 21 Sept. 2022, www.artdex.com/in-contemplation-of-lines-and-scribbles-cy-twomblys-beautiful-writing/. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

   Christie's. “Cy Twombly’s Untitled (2005).” Christies.com, Christie’s, 2017, www.christies.com/en/stories/twombly-circle-of-fire-4ea361fc138c4d319a3b193878e8eae8. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

 hazlittblog.wordpress.com. “The Hand’s Becoming: Recent Art Criticism and Cy Twombly.” Universal Hubbub, 8 June 2018, hazlittblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/08/the-hands-becoming-recent-art-criticism-and-cy-twombly/. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

 Pincus-Witten, Robert. “CY TWOMBLY.” Artforum, 1 Apr. 1974, www.artforum.com/features/cy-twombly-2-209788/. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.