It is important to call out shallowness. I was was being unecessarily arguementative. Also, I shouldn’t be posting so much in the comments portion of this post.

I don’t want to be in the position of saying “what you enjoy is stupid.” I don’t see that there’s anything super “problematic” in liking attractive stoners. The way he presents them in this stoic, highly composed sort of way is interesting to me. I mean, I don’t he’s fantastic or anything…

It’s not my job to scoff at someone’s interests or to hold a political yardstick (or a “cool yardstick”) up to a work of art to determine its merrit.

This is not an art post.

I mean, I suppose Peyton’s relationship to her subject is more “sophisticated,” but isn’t it nice when someone can love something unambiguously? Why be critical of that?

I think, Mitch, that you were suggesting that one can look past the subject matter and concentrate on what’s happening with the paint itself. But it’s a pretty big leap to ignore that big, long-haired, stylized mug. I don’t disagree that they refer to earlier paintings, and you ARE right on with the Piero, but I think if you look at someone like John Currin (whom I also have some issues with) in comparison to Calvin you see someone who is considering, critiquing, and invested his subject. Even Elizabeth Peyton, who’s dudes look all the same like Calvin’s, has a much more complicated relationship to who she paints.