I've never made any bones about the fact that I can't stand Georgia O'Keeffe; not the woman, per se, but rather her work. And I've always had a fairly detailed outline in my head of her life and who she was as a human being, despite my dislike of her paintings, so I thought I knew her pretty well. But recently I saw a biographical film of her that was incredibly well-written and beautifully shot, itself a piece of art and not your typical run-of-the-mill, movie of the week type fare. It left me more impressed with the woman than I've ever been before. I thought, 'What the hell, maybe now that I have a deeper perspective on her personality, maybe -just maybe- if I give her art another go, I might find I like it.' Nope. Not a chance! I still despise every last one of those steer skulls, New Mexico pieces and all those hideous labial flowers (though I don't mind some of her earliest drawings). Hell, I tried. I really did.I liken this to Stephen King's book "The Shining" vs Stanley Kubrick's film version of the same. So many people have such strong opinions on this subject (King included) and feel that the book and this movie cannot ever be reconciled with one another. I have no problem with this whatsoever: for me the two are completely separate entities and both can and do stand equally on their own. I can love and admire both. Likewise, Georgia O'Keeffe and her art, can for me be two entirely separate realities fully independent of one another: one I love and admire and the other I utterly loathe.
Blue Flower, 1918
