Re: Budd Hopkins
From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:14:44 +0100
Archived: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:06:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul>
>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:09:01 -0500
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:47:39 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>>From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:54:35 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins
>>Your answer amazes me again. Of course you talked about Budd
>>Hopkins and you did all you could to destroy his crediblity. You
>>even made a pejorative remark about his artistic career!
>I don't know you and you don't know me.
>But I do hope your UFO work is supported by something
>substantially better than the deductive powers you reveal in
>drawing sweeping conclusions from a single, factual sentence.
>It's like being certain that one light in the sky is The
>Your assumptions about my motives were blatantly emotional,
>personalized and, forgive me, thoroughly ignorant.
>In my Paratopia article, I stated one specific fact you took
>exception to and have raised _twice_ now - that the pinnacle of
>Budd Hopkins' art career occurred many years earlier.
>On the walls of my apartment, by my choice, are many, many of
>Budd's works of art, two of them life-sized and in the living
>room. They are bold, powerful and evocative. I have total
>respect for Budd's art and always have.
>Since you are unaware of the structure of the art world, I'll
>just briefly say that the career trajectory of any aspiring
>artist (who, in this case, began his career in the 1950s) is
>primarily determined by the power brokers in art capitals like
>NYC, London, Paris, etc. They are the major galleries, major
>dealers, collectors and museum curators - as well as the whim of
>the public and its ever-shifting tastes in art. Combined, they
>determine the level of fame, number of one-man shows, and
>auction value of an artist's work.
>I stand by my statement of fact. If you want details, look them
>I hope you enjoy getting to know the art world.
Yes, you don't know anything about me. Just a couple of
informations: I lived three years in New York, from 1967 to 1970. I
went there to better study the art scene, and see if I had any
chance to become an artist myself (after having studied business
administration in France!).
I was a student for a while at the Art Student's League (Stamos
class: do you know him?) and at the School of Visual Arts. I had
some paintings on deposit in a gallery not far from the MOMA
(East Hampton gallery) but the art dealer, and some others (like
Roy Lichtenstein, whom I visited) told me gently that I did not
have a chance there.
I also studied film production at NYU, before going back to
I kept doing painting, had several shows in Paris, but I would
not align myself on the the ruling official "avant-garde" of the
time. So, little success again.
I kept studying modern art and wrote a book on it, published in
1990, with some 450 color plates (entitled The Modern And The
Others). Some good reviews this time, and 6,000 copies all
You see, I do know a bit about modern and contemporary art.
To tell the truth, I am quite aware that Budd Hopkins is not
among the biggest names in the field. But, like many others, he
is a good, serious, almost austere artist. So, I keep thinking
it was quite unfair and out of place to make that pejorative
remark on his artistic career, in your harsh critique of him.
Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast
These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.