David Hockney’s Life in Painting: Spare, Exuberant, Full

What kind of idiot places Hockney in a competition with Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud? Oh, yeah. A prestigious art critic. Leaving alone the American Idol approach to art, which is repulsive, there's the minor inconvenience of Hockney's having lived the bulk of his career in Los Angeles. The color and light in his work is specific to SoCal. He has said so emphatically from the beginning of tenure there and it' easily reflected in the style of art from low to high in the region.

I wish I could see the show. I think I might be one of them that is not so familiar with his work. Everything I've seen I've liked. Now I want to see more. I wonder how he dealt with the AIDS crisis? That's got to be in there.

Hockney, that irascible son of Yorkshire, has never let his eye rest. "Two Boys Clinging," the LA paintings, the photo collages, the brilliant and awe-inspiring Constable-like return to his home, the iPad drawings—Hockney doesn't stop. But let's look at what he is after- surface and affect. He does not plumb deep like Freud. He is not as sensual as Kitaj. He is not has fraught as Auerbach. He was an American from the beginning. He loves surfaces, and everything looks good and clean. Still there is something to his pictures. Will we care about them in 500 years? Who knows. This show sure does sound good for the present!

A month ago I heard a thrilling performance of Die Zauberflote at the Metropolitan Opera, conducted by the great James Levine and musically superb, but it would have perfection if the Met had had the sense to retain their David Hockney production, which gave joy for many seasons. It was magical and naive and charming and profound because, on top of everything else, Hockney's a wildly gifted theatre designer.

Hockney is a delight, but for some reason or other, none of his paintings drop anchor in my mind's eye and remain anchored through the decades. I see his work, and very much enjoy it at the moment, but for the moment. In these times, that is not an insubstantial pleasure.

I have always loved his work. The paintings are so vibrant and full of life. Also impressed that he works on stage sets, collages and other media.

Ok so he did some pretty pictures. Yet to even mention in same context with a Freud and Bacon!? Hockney lacks the power of a Hopper or David for realism fans. Certainly he got captivated by Matisse Blue and Picasso cubism, how nice for him. Bit sweet. I had odd take on George Tooker in "My Parents". All in all Hockney really went after the eye candy route. Me I'd stick with Diebenkorn or the master de Kooning who probably wouldn't have let this guy clean his brushes. But that's another art reality.

"Five of his gimmicky if implicitly Cubist photographic collages beginning around 1982 signal his release from the confines of one-point perspective." Gimmicky really? I guess the author has no idea what David Hockney's work is about. Hockney's photographic explorations are a very important part of his works. It explains how we see things and how different a camera creates a photo. Almost 20 years later, Hockney discovered how the old master painters actually worked with his book: Secret knowledge. Hockney's work connects the dots from master paintings over photography to modern art. He showed us how we look at things and how we should look at things again. He is so much more than just colorful paintings.

Are art museums so cavernous because the people that paint for them only paint big things or do they have to paint so big just to fill the caverns? Reminds me of what art for the blind would look like.

One of the most visually creative minds of the past 100 years.

Thank you, Ms Smith, you've made me like Hockney more.

I have always loved David Hockney's paintings for many reasons but one of which stands out today they are bright and happy; they are not dark and political. They give my eyes, heart and soul a rest. Sorrowfully I can't see such paintings in NC. Everybody in NYC go to the Met for me.

Saw this expo at Centre Pompidou last month. Go! You will not be sorry. I did miss his iPhone and iTablet pieces, but, the collection is so rich and pleasurable, it does not disappoint.

Your review was a piece of art in itself. Enticing us into the depths of the artist, his development, fearless love and joy in life, fearless celebration of color and free form - wow. Having seen only a few reproductions of his work long ago, and admiring them then, this show is a must see. Thanks to the museum and the Times for covering it so generously.

What a throughly joyous, intellectually satifying exhibition, yet leaving one wanting more. Thank you Mr. Hockney, Mr. Alteveer, Ms. Smith.

I remember hearing Mr. Hockney interviewed on public broadcasting while driving many years ago. The interviewer was very interested in having Mr. Hockney discuss his work as "queer art". One could hear the exasperation growing in Mr. Hockney's replies as he tried to explain he wasn't targeting a viewership based on sexual identity, until he finally remarked, "Look, the only thing worse than homosexual art is heterosexual art." Mr. Hockney is a great artist. He happens to be gay. Sometimes his subjects reflect this. But his audience is everyone.

The official designators of "Art" and "value" were never kind to Hockney. I am not sure why: Hockney had all the credentials that art professionals want to see. I suspect time will be very kind to reevaluations of his work in the next century. His figurative work completely holds up and a smart investor would gather these up. His more abstract pieces (like "The Other Side") at least to my eye look a bit derivative.

As a huge fan of Hockney, I was particulary interested in what he created with his new (at the time) iPhone. He would "paint" on his iPhone and send his images to a gallery in Paris where they would wind up on several large-screen monitors on the gallery's walls. And the more he created, the images could change like a slide show. As I recall, early iPhone images would include a vase of flowers on his bedside table as the morning sun streamed in. It only got better when Mr. Hockney took this concept to the new-at-the-time iPad. Quick paintings quickly transferred to the gallery. I believe the app he used as the time was called, "Brushes." At any rate, this story makes me want to head for New York for the show. Living in Westport, Conn 20 years ago,and taking the train to Manhattan, was one of those big advantages when a great exhibition was taking place at one of NYC's museums. I miss that a lot.

Hockney's early landscapes challenge the work in this exhibition. They are painter's paintings, Kitaj his friend and contemporary, stands above him.

''Art'' comes in a myriad of forms and is highly subjective to the viewer. If one can push aside their biases and open their mind and soul to lines, colors and textures, then to take in the progression of Mr. Hockney is to truly go on a journey of discovery and introspection. A Master.

Modern acrylic and vinyl paints are quite brilliant. Kind of garish, but in a sweet and satisfying kind of way, when applied right they become like perpetual nursery school in wide-eyed perspective and innocence.

Altlhough I've seen lots of Hockney over the years, I never understood what the fuss was about. And then I saw this exhibition in London, saw more than 60 years of progression and evolution and now have a much better sense and feeling about his work. It's a brilliant exhibition.

Hockney's work can be described as angular. But the essence of painting is circularity -- forcing the eye to travel 'round and 'round the painting as opposed to be directing out of it. I recall that in the mid-70s, he visited Bell Labs to study computer-assisted art. I showed him various programs and what could be done. I also photographed his face and created a spiraling face composed of tiny squares of each part. From a distance, there was no face; it only formed when viewed close up. But he had no interest in computers until a few years ago. He now wakes, draws flowers, and emails them to his coterie. Flowers alone also avoid circularity unless something more is added: drooping, shadows, a particular vase. There is more to this story, but focusing on technique is sufficient for now.

'not Jasper Johns'. I was able to see exhibitions of both Hockney and Johns this year in London, and in my opinion the latter was a one hit wonder. His flag is brilliant, but the rest was mediocre at best. Whereas with Hockney you can see how his style has developed into something uniquely his. With Johns I could have been looking at work done by any number of other artists, and mostly much better. 'not Jasper Johns' thank goodness!

Roberta, Ive followed your writing for many years, and I have to say, this is the most gratifying discussion of an artist. It speaks to the reason many of us want to make pictures. When an artists life and experiences, through the lens of the history of art, along with a boatload of talent,we get pictures that connect us all and can speak to everyone.His work transcends the personal and becomes universal. Thanks for this review.