now you've really done it!! awesome. one of my favorite images off of the sikkema, jenkins and co website. the insane thing about sillman's work is that it is a provocation to trust your instincts when looking at the work. if you do, you're right, you'll see - she is talking directly to your subconscious through your eyes. she is transmogrifying, big time.
Right on. I think she is representing the workings of the unconscious mind somehow - and has created the exactly right kind of painterly nebulous atmospheric tactile space to do so. You know it took many many layers to get to the end product, but the end product looks so in the present, so just happened, like it's coming into being for the first time right in front of your eyes.
Pervasively inspiring painter, always pushing herself. Hey Tough Guy, can we call you Touch Guy now?
did we get a bit too dirty there painter? if i inspired it, i apologize. I JUST LOVE this work.....
and mm, i love the idea of a painting coming into being right before my eyes. in her paintings there is this interlocking where the time in making relates in a hologram or portal like fashion with the time it takes to read the image. it's as if sillman's space contains compressed time.
This is fun! Talking all rapturous about a painter whose work we love. Compressed time, yes. This is the magic of paint - it is goo, it is smearable and it coheres into still images, stationary ideas of space and time. When a painter leaves their process visible as part of the finished product, we are aware of the history of the image, the gooey viscousness of the paint as well as the illusory picture before us. Hearts for painting. Amy makes a lot of people love paint and painting. I hope that all made sense. Sometimes it's hard to articulate, what happens in a painting and why something is appealing. But there is this incredible impulse to try to bring words to it.
mm, i read you loud and clear. i think that it is ineffably difficult to articulate the mechanics of the imagination. but you're right, paint and its viscosity, this special thing (medium) that can become light, flesh, time, space but also - and this is my favorite part - carry emotion and indisputable essences with every move.
so here's to the people who still believe in alchemy and this incredibly optimistic conversation.
For me it's the painterly qualities plus a feeling that the artist is groping, experimenting, pushing to find the image. The image isn't there already, it's found through the process.
Agreed with both of the above stated. I feel like you have to be optimistic in a way to be a painter - to believe that this old historical medium can still be vital. Alchemy, definitely.
I have only one complaint with this Sillman painting, and that's the exclamation mark hanging deadcenter, like a sooty nasal drip off the cloud city. But in other respects, I think the work is pretty good. It is without doubt far superior to the Lambert, or the Meyerson posted a few weeks back, though with obvious visual similarities to both.
No, there is something else, partly caused by that black mark: the painting doesn't quite escape an overpowering quadralateral symmetry. As though each corner was painted simultaneously with its corresponding hand and foot. Ever seen footage (ha) of the guy exhibiting his duplo-ambidexterity by writing on a chalkboard with all four limbs - left hand backwards; right foot upsidedown, left foot upsidedown and backwards?
I can't assign the same glory to this painting that gpd, mountain man and tough guy have, but from this far away I do think it is pretty good, anyway.
Are you familiar with her work in person, Ahab? I can't imagine comparing it to the Meyerson, although the Lambert, yeah painterly abstracted landscape, whatever, but really no comparison when you get down to it. I am curious. Quadrilateral symmetry = not good? Why?
it maybe quadralateral symmetry executed by a five year old but i don't think that there is anything virtuoso about this painting. that scene of someone demonstrating such dexterity does not gel with the the sensitive, doubting hand that makes this work.
also ahab, you gotta see this thing in person cause that "excalmation mark" is the draw string on the window shade. all of the tension that makes the upper world teeter is contained in that mark. because of it, the painting is on the verge of rolling shut. like those 2 worlds could just roll back behind the canvas forever closing the possiblity of returning by sea faring vessel.
but you have a great eye - i'm impressed that you noticed the most important moment in the painting froma jpeg. you gotta a loop or something?
she's so important it's ridiculous but i'm not a fan of this picture to be honest. i really prefer her works on paper and i think the latest work from the triumph of painting show captures more of that drawing magic. seems like there's more unresolved issues in them. the sikkema paintings almost seem painted to death, or too well. i think she made her best paintings in 2005. can't wait to see her show coming up!
No, symmetry of whatever sort does not equal not good. Neither does it equal good.
It just kind of bugs me, here. That dark wedge upper left helps overcome the symmetry to some degree, but not as much as the punctuation in the middle reinforces it. And to its detriment, in my opinion. If you look near the right and left edges, you might understand what I'm getting at - where the ground slopes off, creasing into the corner. Maybe the thing needs to be slightly wider or narrower than it is. Not framed quite so squarely, or more so.
I wish I could up and trip around to all these exhibits just because I want to go for a walk. If this blog is only for those who have certifiably seen the painting or met the artist in person, then I don't qualify and should be blocked like so much spam.
Haven't seen a Sillman in the flesh. Sorry about that.
Painted to death, disagree. And Anon, your description
"that "excalmation mark" is the draw string on the window shade. all of the tension that makes the upper world teeter is contained in that mark. because of it, the painting is on the verge of rolling shut. like those 2 worlds could just roll back behind the canvas forever closing the possiblity of returning by sea faring vessel."
sounds like a pretty interesting idea for a painting to me.
Well maybe not blocked like spam but your criticisms are so formal and Amy Sillman's paintings are about much more than just formal compositional concerns. You would have to see them in person, they are really painted, really surface-rich, esp. the newest ones.
Also looking forward to her show. I thought her last show was a bit overhung at Sikkema - too much work, a lot of it seeming tentative or unfinished. But my favorite works of hers it's that very tentativeness, the awkwardness that wins me over. It's like ab ex but without the muscularity, a driven direct mark that quivers a bit. Gives the best works their character.
I am hoping her show will not be as clotted with works as the last one.
More recent paintings of hers are much different than this. More passages of abstract gesture taking over the canvas, I remember more whiteness in the background and just a hint here or there of a figure or figure-substitute. This painting is from what year?
I respect her because it seems like she could have stuck with her earlier style - calligraphic drawing based line with cartoony figures - they were prettier, more decorative. Instead she pushed to new, I think, more serious places with paint. Instead of trying to make painting-drawings she is really painting.
Ahab, I'm not saying that the composition doesn't matter, just that the physicality of the paint, the object itself, may make you see the composition differently. Why is that specious? Some things look better in jpeg form, some things look worse. If you are judging a large painting on its formal elements that you glean from a 2 inch jpeg, aren't you doing the painting and the artist a disservice?
hey ahab, that whole suspiciousness about seduction is the party line of those who doubt the power of painting. don't let them get inside your head. they should be shat out. LONG LIVE THE PAINT!
There was just an evolution in her work - from works on paper, to linear, stylized drawing with paint to gestural marks that come from the push and shove of paint. Drawing and painting aren't necessarily always separate, but for some artists, discovery and invention comes in drawing first, then in painting - it seems like this was the case for her.
while painting most certainly is about drawing, especially this kind of painting, i think that drawing in the sense that apc is using it is more about a less elevated, less finished, less sexy and succulent incarnation. not that drawing can't be sexy, it sure as all get out is. but drawing as a stage of completeion or incarnation as opposed to activity seems like the essence of the argument.
i have no idea what that means. push and shove/pull or whatever you'd like to call it, it's drawing. shit, even paul mccarthy whiping a wall with paint, or kersels throwing someone is drawing...follow me? i feel like i'm at skowhegan here.
Yeah, sure I follow you...what is your argument? I wasn't talking push pull, as in formal analysis, I was talking pushing paint around. No mystery there. Drawing is in painting. Smearing brown poo on the walls can be painting. What be your point, mister?
like a teacher or student at skowhegan cause if you didn't understand what apc was talking about, i think you might be an undergrad at carnegie mellon or something.
and back to the violence, mm? can't we talk about the sexy feelings? but i'm all for punching someone in the stomach. wanna get hit? wanna hit?
Um ok. I did have a point but that's ok if you didn't get it, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. No need to re-hash it, I am thinking. Mister was not meant as an assumption of your gender. Hey Mayberry, you seem somewhat disgruntled, perhaps you need to get into the Tough Guy/MM punching game. Maybe I'll come too.
re: Sillmanarity with the recently posted Meyerson - okay, it was just an associative likeness that I was refering to. I can't back it up.
re: "You would have to see them in person" and comments of that ilk - yes and yes. I understand. And I will cede the argument to anyone who's stood in front of the work, and who has demonstrated in writing that I should trust their eye. And damn, is writing ever a difficult cannon to bring to accurately bear on art.
re: "specious" - what the painting is actually about has been overrun by the attractive presentation of the same. Diversionary tactics. I didn't say this painting was specious, or that the artist was being so. Just that comments like "really painted, really surface-rich" are not sufficiently qualitative of themselves.
But as mountain man and tough guy cumulatively said, even though it's "ineffably difficult to articulate" "there is this incredible impulse to try to bring words to it."
Good efforts, all. And thanks, painter, for providing the opportunity.
Well, I can't say I'm the biggest fan. But I can see why she's the queen of this genre. Actually she kind of holds the same type of relevancy as dan walsh, but in the realm of post-expressionist language instead of post-minimal/color field stuff. I guess it just depends on your interest. I liked the newer works better than the Biennial era works, which i think this is one of. Too many easter-egg colors. The last show looked a bit rawer in a Joan Mitchell kind of way. I don't think Martin was way off base... that gal does have a few seeds of Sillman in that work. She would be wise to try to take it more in that direction maybe. An interesting dialogue that Painter has set up here this week.
hey bloggers-- I read this! thanks so much for taking me so seriously and talking about me!! i'm incredibly flattered & grateful that you were so nice to me. I have lots of criticisms of my work and I appreciate yours-- though there werent many. i am hoping all my new work is much stronger, and i was only sad i got posted before my show in april. This blog is amazing.
I actually don't think Amy SIllman knows what to do with paint. I think she can draw, but has no concept of how to form an image with paint. Her clumsiness is misinterpreted as invention and I think she is just making Guston-esque paintings that are similar to the kind all undergrad. students make when they first discover him.
"There's no dialogue about this outside of an academic/intellectual construct and that's a big part of the problem isn't it?"
i'm not sure that this blog is exclusively an academic/intellectual context. it seems much more open than that. last time i checked, anon, outside of the art, academic, and intellectual context, people are talking about the superbowl, beyonce's ass, and what eminem's daughter's name is. we here are talking about painting. this is paintersnyc. so in case you mistakingly got here from the republican national party's website, via a brief visit to art soldier because you thought it was a pro war website, you should know, "art" in general tends to attract the same kinds of folks who like to think about and talk about ideas. and the art context IS the context for art. we all know that very well. you seem anti art and so again, what are you on about?
i wouldn't say that sillman is my total favorite painter, consider me a minor fan, i mean i go to her shows but not her openings necessarily, but i've been watching her work for quite a while now and I have to say bart, you know nothing about how to put on paint if you don't know that these are painted well.
i'm definitely NOT anti-art but i AM anti-art LITE. there's plenty of work out there that is dealing with content beyond the insular, masturbatory dialogue around paint handling, painterly space, abstraction, etc. my point is that much of this work and AMY SILMAN'S work in particular are too ensconsed in this hermetic, self-congratulatory world to incorporate anything outside of it. i think to say that someone who is not interested in this dialogue is a republican, superbowl watching asshole is rather extreme. i know plenty of artists who are populists. this doesn't exclude them from the art dialogue, it only means that there's an effort to incorporate a larger audience with varying concerns. so while i may sound like an anti-art, republican, superbowl watching asshole don't you think you sound like a TOTAL FASCIST when you say things like:
"you should know, "art" in general tends to attract the same kinds of folks who like to think about and talk about ideas. and the art context IS the context for art"
i don't think a dialogue based in the narrow, specific, vernacular of painting really counts as "talking about ideas" to anyone outside of the painting arena, OTHER ARTISTS INCLUDED.
i think the best painters enter territory that exists beyond the narrow confines of painting about painting. they exist in the art arena and engage in that world but transcend it as well. i will absolutely defend the notion that "lay people" should be able to enter into the work. and no, i don't mean every idiot off the street but i do mean intelligent people who perhaps haven't been privy to an art education.
actually anon the reason I like her work is exactly that. It is generous painting that is easy to enter into discussion about. there are images, and they are used in an imaginative way. I come from a non-art background, I am a writer, and i find her work imaginative and warm and open, very generously, to a language of image and abstraction. also i am a woman and i find her work strong and subtle and in some ways feminist. so i disagree with you entirely for exactly the reasons you give --these are very communicative and not closed-off.
Hey, Anonymous, that's a tough crit. I guess I can handle it. But I wish I knew what YOU did, or whether you're even an artist, and why you have such vitriol against me. But I guess I'll never know, If you have the nerve, please introduce yourself to me at my next opening.
dear anon, it sounds to me like you have a lot of personal problems and so instead of arguing with you on an internet blog about concerns that are best addressed with your therapist, i'm gonna refocus on some meaningful conversation about painting. i love this blog and i still maintain that sillman;s work is great no matter what the likes of you has to say. i'm not even going to get violent, you're not worth it.
There is nothing worse than cowardly anonymous haters.
Nebulous, atmospheric, tactile - these are the words that come to mind when I look at some of her work. Recently it's changed towards a more muscular, gestural, ambitiousness with her marks. I see a sadness and a lack of understanding of the world, an intense desire to translate and understand her experience of the world, a desire to make fun of herself, to channel her everyday life into an illusionistic picture that is also laden with art history as well as the personal - all this seems inherent in her painting to me. Just because you can't see that or you can't see anything, or you see something different, doesn't invalidate another person's reaction.
I may not be accurate or senseful in talking about her work but MY excitement and interest in it WILL NOT be negated by anonymous meanies.
Some people get it, some don't. Amy's work is open, hard-won, constantly being pushed into new territory. There is no reason why painting can't be about mental space, imagination, invention. That doesn't mean it's painting about painting - it's just using the tools of paint to evoke other worlds, to evoke a psychological state. I just don't understand some of these critiques. I am sure I will get yet another critique of my critique but when it comes to certain artists I just can't shut up.
Last post for me, off to Chelsea to see some shows in the flesh.
I agree about anonymous mice. As for the differing opinions about Sillman.... you should be just as understanding of opinions that are not the same as yours, M. Man.
I think he/she was completely understanding of that. It's just that someone had directly quoted him/her and called it bullshit so there was an understandable need to defend him/herself. IMO. Don't want to step on your toes, MM.
dear "mountain man" - last i looked you weren't using your real name, motherfucker. oh yes, you're so brave because all your pussy ass new york painting friends know your identity and in your world that's all that matters. i don't need a shrink, YOU need a fucking reality check. you're like a horse with blinders on, clueless after years of living in the sheltered, pussified world of pussy ass painting. i understand that all you softies are trying to rationalize making wallpaper for rich people by PROPPING IT UP WITH A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT, EGGHEAD RHETORIC but i know that each of you has to listen to your own conscience and deep down YOU ALL KNOW IT'S LAME TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION THAT MODERNISM WORKED OUT YEARS AGO.
amy, i am an artist, and personally i like you. as painters who do the kind of thing you do go, i think you're actually very good. the paint handling is competent, color, line and composition are thoughtful and arranged in a pleasing manner. but i can't pretend like you're doing anything significant or important. it's nauseating to watch the artworld get it's panties in a collective wad over something that's not pushing the envelope even a tiny bit. what's at stake? where's the confrontation? it's more pretty stuff to be bought and sold. and i'm okay with that too. FORMAL, DECORATIVE stuff is okay but the painters just to need to own that that is what many painters are making and stop trying to convince people that it's IMPORTANT by attaching a bunch of meaningless language to it. that's when it becomes problematic. and of course the artworld participates in this ruse because they want to make the financiers of the operation feel special and smart. i mean, they couldn't really tell someone who plunked 50 grand and up that they were paying for a decorative flourish, could they? that would be refreshing though, wouldn't it?
amy, i'm giving you props for being interested in this dialogue. personally, i couldn't take it. on the other hand, i haven't had the validation that you're getting (though i am known in art circles, i'm far more obscure, cult-ish i guess you'd say) and i definitely don't make any money off my work. i think if i was in your position i'd be in a better place to address some of this stuff. when no one is propping you up i think it's harder to set yourself up to be knocked down.i've done a lot of painting in the past and i still paint occassionally. i also draw and make video, photo and collage. i appreciate your interest and honesty and openness. i DO think there is a danger in existing solely in the insular world of painting. i stand by that 100%. i'd like to see you incorporate some tough narrative content and figuration into your work OR just acknowledge that it's ONLY formal. peace to you, you're alright.
PS: I thought about this some more and I think I’ll post a longer response, NOT because I want to talk more about ME but because I want to talk about the issues here, about being an artist, and about your seething critique of the market. If you know me and like me it's probably because I don't think I've ever personally made any claims about my work's importance or anything grandiose like that. But I'm not sure if your beef is really the work or the market.... so I'll address both, and I hope in a non-personal and productive way.
Re the market: I'm not in charge of the market. I was making my work for many many years before I sold a thing. I consider myself incredibly lucky to show/sell any of it. I don’t make the claims, write the press releases, or the reviews. I just make the paintings. I appreciate your passion against the marketplace, but what should an artist do? Should they take their work off the market until they can reformulate it as... I don’t know what: commodity critique? Or social realism? I mean, I'm not even sure what you think would be a worthy critical form. And about the work: shouldn't an artist be true to themselves as artists, and then do the best job they can w/ what they do? I mean, I'm NOT a social realist. I draw and paint images from my head-- yes, it's lyrical, personal stuff, and yes I’m kind of formal about my work. I try my best to push the work as best I can, and constantly critical of myself and changing. I certainly don’t think my work is like undergrad Guston, like you said-- I thought that was a low blow. But it's Gustony, for sure. He's a hero to me, as an strong AND personal artist who kept on changing and growing-- that alone is bucking the market to some extent.
So what DO you stand for? What DO you like, or advocate? I think you should come out with it, otherwise your critique seems like venting by someone who just hasnt dealt with the market place themselves. I feel your critique of the market is worth expressing in a more more measured and thought-through way. I probably agree with a lot of it. I like your passion. (But you were really over the edge w/ MM. Uncool.)
Anonymous, wow. You are one angry artist type. Do you believe artists can change the world with their art? Do you think painters can get Bush out of office and save this country? Or that painters can end all the violence and hate in the world? Do you think it is less admirable in some way to make something pleasurable and beautiful in this bleak time? So it is an object for sale--big deal. Who looks at your work--who is the ideal audience for what you do? Are you changing minds, changing lives, teaching anyone anything??
Anon, if you are making art, selling or not, you can't expect it to be all "univeral truth" and stuff. That is just bull. The average Joe rarely goes to gallery--if he/she does at all.
actually, i'm a professor and i teach studio and academic classes at a prominent art institution (not tenured so i'm barely making a living). i honestly believe i effect positive change in my students. yes, i'm changing minds, changing lives but it's hard in a world that's gripped by the anodyne. i hope my students will fight for something better. i do think art can change the world and i think the world is so fucked up right now that artists need to be RADICAL. it's time to kick out the jams, not pacify the rich. obvioulsy i exist within the artworld but i do believe that by making aggessive fucked up shit that a seed of subversion can take hold and make slow, incremental change. one, at the very least, has to make an effort.
and i don't want to be pegged as a painting hater (there are many painters i love, particularly in an art historical context) but most of the issues have been decided already. i suppose it's okay to flog a dead horse if that's what you really want to do but what's the point? isn't this art thing about expansion? that's all i'm saying. painters only achieve when they present radical content. it's the only frontier left for them.
I don't think art can change the world...it just makes more tolerable. And I believe I am a positive person. But really, what can an artist do in their work that will actually reach 1% of the population? Video art?? Most of America would rather watch Law & Order. Collage? Is that so radical? I am trying to understand what you think is so radical about these other formats. If you are teaching in an art school, I doubt that those students will operate outside the system you are presently critiquing. They will graduate and try to get into a gallery...and so on.
schnabel, bazelitz, currin, immindorf, krebber, richter, kippenberger, glenn brown, nicole eisenman, cosima von bonim, george dokoupil, george condo, polke, albert oehlen, richard hamilton, richard prince, christopher wool, keith mayerson, yves klein, kirchner, soutine, warhol, pollock, thomas hart benton, sargent, bellows, goya, velasquez, mary heilman, dieter roth, etc.
well your entitled to your opinions but currin: weird choice since he's a rabid republican glenn brown: huh?! is there tough content here?? mary heilman : how is this not formal and what you were sayin before?
p.d. gotta go, but you're missing the point. it's not the forms that are radical. that doesn't matter. it's what you DO with the form. it's all about CONTENT. any form can be imbued with radicality. and i agree with you about the insularity of the system and you're probably right about most of it but i DO believe in the 100th monkey theory. even if i can effect a tiny sliver of change i think it will seep into the larger populace. i really do. a little bit of change is better than no change. and even if there is NO change i will know that i at least tried.
wow, have you been to art school? do you know what the attrition rate is? most of the students eventually end up NOT in the art world. so, hopefully many of my students will take some of this STUFF to the other places they go in the world.
p.s. i agree about video, most of it sucks but people usually gather around to watch my video for the duration. it's got to be ENTERTAINING. totally agreed. i think i usually succeed.
not following your currin critique. who says an asshole can't be a good painter? and i never said i don't like totally formalist stuff. i'm just saying the painters should own that that is ALL that it is. i actually like lots of purely formalist. stuff. again, your missing the point. the problem isn't as much with the work as it is with the DELUSIONAL, INSULAR, CRITIQUE surrounding it.
this has really been fun. peace to everybody here. i'll visit again one day.
I'm not missing the point. Just because a painting has a figure in it, does not mean it's more meaningful. If that is your list of favorite painters--your point seems weak. I did go to art school and I've done teaching gigs, and I make paintings--lots of 'em. I can't think of a better way to spend my time.
Wow that's cool, I'm a pussy, motherfucker for loving painting and being a painter? That's good to know. Sorry you are so enraged.
Pretty much everyone who posts here has not revealed their identity except Amy and Wendy White. I am easily tracked down through my blog, through my own posts where I posted my painting. I have no problem revealing my identity but I didn't think another person's blog, out of context, was the place. But since I am such a motherfucker to you I doubt you would care who I am.
Wow that was fun to read! Keep on reaming new assholes, it makes life exciting.
Radical. What constitutes radicality? Seems to me it's pretty subjective. I am sorry it is so offensive to you that there are so many painters in NY that are not radical enough and like each other's work. I suppose there is an insularity to it, but I happen to love being a part of a community of committed painters who love what they do and love to talk about it and support each other.
I am certainly not expecting to convince anyone with my opinions or descriptions. And at this point there is no reason to participate in a dialogue that is so hateful and bile-filled. You make a lot of interesting points but I wish I understood why anonymous insults are necessary.
One more thing - Amy SIllman's post were really ballsy and honest. Thanks for thinking it through so thoroughly. There is a lot of passion here, I hope it all gets channeled into our work.
anon, you come on cursing and then say you have positive effect on your students? How can you be so angry at someone you don't know? You make all these assumptions about people you don't even know. I think you have some interesting ideas, but they are half-baked and hard to hear because of your rage.
I love your amped-up pussy-saturated feelings, motherfuckitude and cut-off misreadings. It's cute to think that someone wants to cudgel contemporary painting with those hamfisted eighties gentlemen. Your sophmoric sense of the market sounds like it impresses your students.
Anonymous, isn't there any room in your world for anything that isn't "pushing the envelope," whatever that's supposed to mean? You completely miss the boat: art is large and can express a huge range of ideas/thoughts/feelings. Do you only listen to "radical" music? Read "radical" books? You arte very closed-minded, and solipsistic to boot.
P.S. In the weird list of Anonymous' favorite painters, I count THREE women out of 30. That's 10%. Maybe there's more to the Sillman-bashing than meets the eye...?
Anon is mostly pissed at the market, and has good reason to be, it rewards certain kinds of art and punishes others. work with radical content is a harder sell, especially if it isn't prettied up (like jorge pardo). I think the art world can be very frustrating to a certain kind of artist so I'm inclined to give ANon a break... he's venting mostly but also makes good points. Also Anon: a) your list of artists is great. b) shame on you for bashing MM like that, SO unnecessary.
Fawn, I could care less how poor Anon. does in the market. Most of the painters I know are working at boring jobs just to support their art and I don't see them lashing out like this. As for his list--true there are great painters there--most of whom are hanging over the sofa...over the grand piano...and in in the library of the rich and famous.
"Julian Schnabel is NOT making art to hang over rich peoples' couches??"
He may be, (who cares) but he's also doing something radical with paint (thats what matters). Also Anon's list does not depicting a world where only figuration is allowed, he's got 7 painters on that list who dont work with the figure. But if it did, Amy asked anon what kind of work he/she likes and that's just anons preferance, we all have them.
Pd, I think anons lashing out speaks of a real frustration with the art market. Yes anon was rude but we see very powerful emotions, your friends might be at peace with their place in the art world or accept it, but anon is not there... anon is angry and vented, thats all. I do still think anon made many good points and if you can get beyond the vitrol I think you might see much of what he/shes saying is true
Anon is certainly entitled to his preferences, Fawn. I just don't think his preferences fit with his rants so much. I don't care if Schanbel is hung over people's couches, but obviously Anon. does.
Open an art mag from the 80's or even the 90's and see how many "hot" artists have all but faded from the market. Who cares? If you are in it for the money, then sure--you're bound to get angry. (Fawn or Anon)
Amy thanks again for coming on and for your thoughtful response.
I am sad to read the jerks comment to MM. Please do not post here. MM you are one of my favorites and it would be a lost for the conversation without you. I don't understand all the rage towards others opinions.
Congratulations, Amy Sillman, on a measured response that was well reasoned and seemed sincere, if not downright honest.
Congratulations as well to the "seething" anonymous, whose comments were of a Christ-in-the-temple sort: Holy Painting the temple, and blog commentors the marketeers trading cachet amongst themselves for personal gain, if only in their own eyes.
116 comments:
now you've really done it!! awesome. one of my favorite images off of the sikkema, jenkins and co website.
the insane thing about sillman's work is that it is a provocation to trust your instincts when looking at the work. if you do, you're right, you'll see - she is talking directly to your subconscious through your eyes.
she is transmogrifying, big time.
when i think about this work, i touch myself.
Right on. I think she is representing the workings of the unconscious mind somehow - and has created the exactly right kind of painterly nebulous atmospheric tactile space to do so. You know it took many many layers to get to the end product, but the end product looks so in the present, so just happened, like it's coming into being for the first time right in front of your eyes.
Pervasively inspiring painter, always pushing herself. Hey Tough Guy, can we call you Touch Guy now?
sure, just call me.
did we get a bit too dirty there painter?
if i inspired it, i apologize.
I JUST LOVE this work.....
and mm, i love the idea of a painting coming into being right before my eyes. in her paintings there is this interlocking where the time in making relates in a hologram or portal like fashion with the time it takes to read the image. it's as if sillman's space contains compressed time.
This is fun! Talking all rapturous about a painter whose work we love. Compressed time, yes. This is the magic of paint - it is goo, it is smearable and it coheres into still images, stationary ideas of space and time. When a painter leaves their process visible as part of the finished product, we are aware of the history of the image, the gooey viscousness of the paint as well as the illusory picture before us. Hearts for painting. Amy makes a lot of people love paint and painting. I hope that all made sense. Sometimes it's hard to articulate, what happens in a painting and why something is appealing. But there is this incredible impulse to try to bring words to it.
mm, i read you loud and clear. i think that it is ineffably difficult to articulate the mechanics of the imagination. but you're right, paint and its viscosity, this special thing (medium) that can become light, flesh, time, space but also - and this is my favorite part - carry emotion and indisputable essences with every move.
so here's to the people who still believe in alchemy and this incredibly optimistic conversation.
For me it's the painterly qualities plus a feeling that the artist is groping, experimenting, pushing to find the image. The image isn't there already, it's found through the process.
Agreed with both of the above stated. I feel like you have to be optimistic in a way to be a painter - to believe that this old historical medium can still be vital. Alchemy, definitely.
I have only one complaint with this Sillman painting, and that's the exclamation mark hanging deadcenter, like a sooty nasal drip off the cloud city. But in other respects, I think the work is pretty good. It is without doubt far superior to the Lambert, or the Meyerson posted a few weeks back, though with obvious visual similarities to both.
No, there is something else, partly caused by that black mark: the painting doesn't quite escape an overpowering quadralateral symmetry. As though each corner was painted simultaneously with its corresponding hand and foot. Ever seen footage (ha) of the guy exhibiting his duplo-ambidexterity by writing on a chalkboard with all four limbs - left hand backwards; right foot upsidedown, left foot upsidedown and backwards?
I can't assign the same glory to this painting that gpd, mountain man and tough guy have, but from this far away I do think it is pretty good, anyway.
Are you familiar with her work in person, Ahab? I can't imagine comparing it to the Meyerson, although the Lambert, yeah painterly abstracted landscape, whatever, but really no comparison when you get down to it. I am curious. Quadrilateral symmetry = not good? Why?
it maybe quadralateral symmetry executed by a five year old but i don't think that there is anything virtuoso about this painting. that scene of someone demonstrating such dexterity does not gel with the the sensitive, doubting hand that makes this work.
also ahab, you gotta see this thing in person cause that "excalmation mark" is the draw string on the window shade. all of the tension that makes the upper world teeter is contained in that mark. because of it, the painting is on the verge of rolling shut. like those 2 worlds could just roll back behind the canvas forever closing the possiblity of returning by sea faring vessel.
but you have a great eye - i'm impressed that you noticed the most important moment in the painting froma jpeg. you gotta a loop or something?
she's so important it's ridiculous but i'm not a fan of this picture to be honest. i really prefer her works on paper and i think the latest work from the triumph of painting show captures more of that drawing magic. seems like there's more unresolved issues in them. the sikkema paintings almost seem painted to death, or too well. i think she made her best paintings in 2005. can't wait to see her show coming up!
No, symmetry of whatever sort does not equal not good. Neither does it equal good.
It just kind of bugs me, here. That dark wedge upper left helps overcome the symmetry to some degree, but not as much as the punctuation in the middle reinforces it. And to its detriment, in my opinion. If you look near the right and left edges, you might understand what I'm getting at - where the ground slopes off, creasing into the corner. Maybe the thing needs to be slightly wider or narrower than it is. Not framed quite so squarely, or more so.
I wish I could up and trip around to all these exhibits just because I want to go for a walk. If this blog is only for those who have certifiably seen the painting or met the artist in person, then I don't qualify and should be blocked like so much spam.
Haven't seen a Sillman in the flesh. Sorry about that.
Painted to death, disagree. And Anon, your description
"that "excalmation mark" is the draw string on the window shade. all of the tension that makes the upper world teeter is contained in that mark. because of it, the painting is on the verge of rolling shut. like those 2 worlds could just roll back behind the canvas forever closing the possiblity of returning by sea faring vessel."
sounds like a pretty interesting idea for a painting to me.
What's a loop?
Well maybe not blocked like spam but your criticisms are so formal and Amy Sillman's paintings are about much more than just formal compositional concerns. You would have to see them in person, they are really painted, really surface-rich, esp. the newest ones.
Also looking forward to her show. I thought her last show was a bit overhung at Sikkema - too much work, a lot of it seeming tentative or unfinished. But my favorite works of hers it's that very tentativeness, the awkwardness that wins me over. It's like ab ex but without the muscularity, a driven direct mark that quivers a bit. Gives the best works their character.
I am hoping her show will not be as clotted with works as the last one.
Anonymous, does "really painted, really surface-rich" = really good? Sounds seductive, so alluring that composition doesn't matter anymore. Sounds specious to me.
But thank you, whoever you are, for the compliment on my ability to look at a jpeg.
More recent paintings of hers are much different than this. More passages of abstract gesture taking over the canvas, I remember more whiteness in the background and just a hint here or there of a figure or figure-substitute. This painting is from what year?
I respect her because it seems like she could have stuck with her earlier style - calligraphic drawing based line with cartoony figures - they were prettier, more decorative. Instead she pushed to new, I think, more serious places with paint. Instead of trying to make painting-drawings she is really painting.
ahab, you should move to new york. we can't exactly go look at painting EVERY time we feel like a walk but it is almost that good.
a loop is that little magnifying glass thing for looking at slides up close. they have them in fancy photolabs.
i think this blog is for everyone. so you should keep commenting away..... regardsless of who you know,don't know, what you;ve seen, etc
but come to new york in april so that you can see her show.
Ahab, I'm not saying that the composition doesn't matter, just that the physicality of the paint, the object itself, may make you see the composition differently. Why is that specious? Some things look better in jpeg form, some things look worse. If you are judging a large painting on its formal elements that you glean from a 2 inch jpeg, aren't you doing the painting and the artist a disservice?
yeah, apc is right. sillman pushed things to a much more serious place. this piece is from 2003 according to the website.
hey ahab,
that whole suspiciousness about seduction is the party line of those who doubt the power of painting. don't let them get inside your head. they should be shat out.
LONG LIVE THE PAINT!
yeah, we have to be seduced in order to look as long as we need to for a painting to unfold.
This talk is very heightening. Paint makes me tingly.
Succulent paint gives me sexy feelings too. Amy Sillman is good at it. Count me in.
apc- drawing is everything...and she can draw. this is most certainly clear. since when is painting not about drawing?
There was just an evolution in her work - from works on paper, to linear, stylized drawing with paint to gestural marks that come from the push and shove of paint. Drawing and painting aren't necessarily always separate, but for some artists, discovery and invention comes in drawing first, then in painting - it seems like this was the case for her.
while painting most certainly is about drawing, especially this kind of painting, i think that drawing in the sense that apc is using it is more about a less elevated, less finished, less sexy and succulent incarnation. not that drawing can't be sexy, it sure as all get out is. but drawing as a stage of completeion or incarnation as opposed to activity seems like the essence of the argument.
hope i'm not stepping on apc's toes here...
grrrrrrrr
can we talk more about the sexy feelings?
I would agree. And no you are not stepping on my toes!!
i have no idea what that means. push and shove/pull or whatever you'd like to call it, it's drawing. shit, even paul mccarthy whiping a wall with paint, or kersels throwing someone is drawing...follow me? i feel like i'm at skowhegan here.
Yeah, sure I follow you...what is your argument? I wasn't talking push pull, as in formal analysis, I was talking pushing paint around. No mystery there. Drawing is in painting. Smearing brown poo on the walls can be painting. What be your point, mister?
If I punch someone in the stomach that's painting, right?
Yes I think so.
like a teacher or student at skowhegan cause if you didn't understand what apc was talking about, i think you might be an undergrad at carnegie mellon or something.
and back to the violence, mm? can't we talk about the sexy feelings? but i'm all for punching someone in the stomach. wanna get hit? wanna hit?
Um ok. I did have a point but that's ok if you didn't get it, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. No need to re-hash it, I am thinking. Mister was not meant as an assumption of your gender. Hey Mayberry, you seem somewhat disgruntled, perhaps you need to get into the Tough Guy/MM punching game. Maybe I'll come too.
disgruntled...if that's me being disgruntled then i think you're a bit senthsative, this is a blog, not a circle jerk.
Thanks, got it. I thought it was a circle jerk. I am really in the wrong place.
Atelier de Production et de Création? just curious, i work there...
damn, i missed all the fun. you guys really got into it. i hope no one got hurt or pregnant.
i love this painting! can't wait for her show!!!!!
re: Sillmanarity with the recently posted Meyerson - okay, it was just an associative likeness that I was refering to. I can't back it up.
re: "You would have to see them in person" and comments of that ilk - yes and yes. I understand. And I will cede the argument to anyone who's stood in front of the work, and who has demonstrated in writing that I should trust their eye. And damn, is writing ever a difficult cannon to bring to accurately bear on art.
re: "specious" - what the painting is actually about has been overrun by the attractive presentation of the same. Diversionary tactics. I didn't say this painting was specious, or that the artist was being so. Just that comments like "really painted, really surface-rich" are not sufficiently qualitative of themselves.
But as mountain man and tough guy cumulatively said, even though it's "ineffably difficult to articulate" "there is this incredible impulse to try to bring words to it."
Good efforts, all. And thanks, painter, for providing the opportunity.
Well, I can't say I'm the biggest fan. But I can see why she's the queen of this genre. Actually she kind of holds the same type of relevancy as dan walsh, but in the realm of post-expressionist language instead of post-minimal/color field stuff. I guess it just depends on your interest. I liked the newer works better than the Biennial era works, which i think this is one of. Too many easter-egg colors. The last show looked a bit rawer in a Joan Mitchell kind of way.
I don't think Martin was way off base... that gal does have a few seeds of Sillman in that work. She would be wise to try to take it more in that direction maybe.
An interesting dialogue that Painter has set up here this week.
I am pregnant. WW, will you come with me to have an abortion?
hey bloggers--
I read this!
thanks so much for taking me so seriously and talking about me!! i'm incredibly flattered & grateful that you were so nice to me. I have lots of criticisms of my work and I appreciate yours-- though there werent many. i am hoping all my new work is much stronger, and i was only sad i got posted before my show in april.
This blog is amazing.
Hi Amy, Thanks for coming on. I will post you again during your show if you like.
I actually don't think Amy SIllman knows what to do with paint. I think she can draw, but has no concept of how to form an image with paint. Her clumsiness is misinterpreted as invention and I think she is just making Guston-esque paintings that are similar to the kind all undergrad. students make when they first discover him.
Sloan, I was afraid to say it myself, but you're right. She is a little overrated.
You guys are pretty nasty and petty. Especially since Amy appeared on the blog.
Well there was bound to be some flack, I guess, when her fans come out. The hecklers had to come say hello.
I don't think this deserves all the attention it's getting--negative or positive. It is nice enough work.
she's great. just deal with it.
You should be an art critic, w.w.
Clunky.
Is Amy geeeking it out with red hair or did I see a doppleganger?
I agree with you, anon. Besides which, it's not like they're even painted well.
"There's no dialogue about this outside of an academic/intellectual construct and that's a big part of the problem isn't it?"
i'm not sure that this blog is exclusively an academic/intellectual context. it seems much more open than that. last time i checked, anon, outside of the art, academic, and intellectual context, people are talking about the superbowl, beyonce's ass, and what eminem's daughter's name is. we here are talking about painting. this is paintersnyc. so in case you mistakingly got here from the republican national party's website, via a brief visit to art soldier because you thought it was a pro war website, you should know, "art" in general tends to attract the same kinds of folks who like to think about and talk about ideas.
and the art context IS the context for art. we all know that very well. you seem anti art and so again, what are you on about?
you go rirkrit. i;ve always really dug your work. i was going to give this bastard an ass whooping, old school style but you beat me to it.
haters bewhere
i'm about to get my lead pipe.
Oh dear-rikrit?
i wouldn't say that sillman is my total favorite painter, consider me a minor fan, i mean i go to her shows but not her openings necessarily, but i've been watching her work for quite a while now and I have to say bart, you know nothing about how to put on paint if you don't know that these are painted well.
yes?
hey rirkrit,
is it true that you sold editions of plaster woks, back in the day?
Anonymous: I know myself a plenty about paint and just because she use a lot of it, does not mean it is working.
dear rikrit,
i'm definitely NOT anti-art but i AM anti-art LITE.
there's plenty of work out there that is dealing with content beyond the insular, masturbatory dialogue around paint handling, painterly space, abstraction, etc. my point is that much of this work and AMY SILMAN'S work in particular are too ensconsed in this hermetic, self-congratulatory world to incorporate anything outside of it. i think to say that someone who is not interested in this dialogue is a republican, superbowl watching asshole is rather extreme. i know plenty of artists who are populists.
this doesn't exclude them from the art dialogue, it only means that there's an effort to incorporate a larger audience with varying concerns. so while i may sound like an anti-art, republican, superbowl watching asshole don't you think you sound like a TOTAL FASCIST when you say things like:
"you should know, "art" in general tends to attract the same kinds of folks who like to think about and talk about ideas. and the art context IS the context for art"
i don't think a dialogue based in the narrow, specific, vernacular of painting really counts as "talking about ideas" to anyone outside of the painting arena, OTHER ARTISTS INCLUDED.
i think the best painters enter territory that exists
beyond the narrow confines of painting about painting. they exist in the art arena and engage in that world but transcend it as well. i will absolutely defend the notion that "lay people" should be able to enter into the work. and no, i don't mean every idiot off the street but i do mean intelligent people who perhaps haven't been privy to an art education.
actually anon the reason I like her work is exactly that.
It is generous painting that is easy to enter into discussion about. there are images, and they are used in an imaginative way. I come from a non-art background, I am a writer, and i find her work imaginative and warm and open, very generously, to a language of image and abstraction. also i am a woman and i find her work strong and subtle and in some ways feminist. so i disagree with you entirely for exactly the reasons you give --these are very communicative and not closed-off.
illin,
YOU ROCK!
Hey, Anonymous, that's a tough crit. I guess I can handle it. But I wish I knew what YOU did, or whether you're even an artist, and why you have such vitriol against me. But I guess I'll never know, If you have the nerve, please introduce yourself to me at my next opening.
dear anon,
it sounds to me like you have a lot of personal problems and so instead of arguing with you on an internet blog about concerns that are best addressed with your therapist, i'm gonna refocus on some meaningful conversation about painting.
i love this blog and i still maintain that sillman;s work is great no matter what the likes of you has to say. i'm not even going to get violent, you're not worth it.
There is nothing worse than cowardly anonymous haters.
Nebulous, atmospheric, tactile - these are the words that come to mind when I look at some of her work. Recently it's changed towards a more muscular, gestural, ambitiousness with her marks. I see a sadness and a lack of understanding of the world, an intense desire to translate and understand her experience of the world, a desire to make fun of herself, to channel her everyday life into an illusionistic picture that is also laden with art history as well as the personal - all this seems inherent in her painting to me. Just because you can't see that or you can't see anything, or you see something different, doesn't invalidate another person's reaction.
I may not be accurate or senseful in talking about her work but MY excitement and interest in it WILL NOT be negated by anonymous meanies.
Some people get it, some don't. Amy's work is open, hard-won, constantly being pushed into new territory. There is no reason why painting can't be about mental space, imagination, invention. That doesn't mean it's painting about painting - it's just using the tools of paint to evoke other worlds, to evoke a psychological state. I just don't understand some of these critiques. I am sure I will get yet another critique of my critique but when it comes to certain artists I just can't shut up.
Last post for me, off to Chelsea to see some shows in the flesh.
I agree about anonymous mice.
As for the differing opinions about Sillman.... you should be just as understanding of opinions that are not the same as yours, M. Man.
I think he/she was completely understanding of that. It's just that someone had directly quoted him/her and called it bullshit so there was an understandable need to defend him/herself. IMO. Don't want to step on your toes, MM.
dear "mountain man" - last i looked you weren't using your real name, motherfucker. oh yes, you're so brave because all your pussy ass new york painting friends know your identity and in your world that's all that matters. i don't need a shrink, YOU need a fucking reality check. you're like a horse with blinders on, clueless after years of living in the sheltered, pussified world of pussy ass painting. i understand that all you softies are trying to rationalize making wallpaper for rich people by PROPPING IT UP WITH A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT, EGGHEAD RHETORIC but i know that each of you has to listen to your own conscience and deep down YOU ALL KNOW IT'S LAME TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION THAT MODERNISM WORKED OUT YEARS AGO.
amy, i am an artist, and personally i like you. as painters who do the kind of thing you do go, i think you're actually very good. the paint handling is competent, color, line and composition are thoughtful and arranged in a pleasing manner. but i can't pretend like you're doing anything significant or important. it's nauseating to watch the artworld get it's panties in a collective wad over something that's not pushing the envelope even a tiny bit. what's at stake? where's the confrontation? it's more pretty stuff to be bought and sold. and i'm okay with that too. FORMAL, DECORATIVE stuff is okay but the painters just to need to own that that is what many painters are making and stop trying to convince people that it's IMPORTANT by attaching a bunch of meaningless language to it. that's when it becomes problematic. and of course the artworld participates in this ruse because they want to make the financiers of the operation feel special and smart. i mean, they couldn't really tell someone who plunked 50 grand and up that they were paying for a decorative flourish, could they? that would be refreshing though, wouldn't it?
.
Anonymous, what kind of art do you make? I guess it isnt painting??!!
amy, i'm giving you props for being interested in this dialogue. personally, i couldn't take it. on the other hand, i haven't had the validation that you're getting (though i am known in art circles, i'm far more obscure, cult-ish i guess you'd say) and i definitely don't make any money off my work. i think if i was in your position i'd be in a better place to address some of this stuff. when no one is propping you up i think it's harder to set yourself up to be knocked down.i've done a lot of painting in the past and i still paint occassionally. i also draw and make video, photo and collage. i appreciate your interest and honesty and openness. i DO think there is a danger in existing solely in the insular world of painting. i stand by that 100%. i'd like to see you incorporate some tough narrative content and figuration into your work OR just acknowledge that it's ONLY formal. peace to you, you're alright.
PS: I thought about this some more and I think I’ll post a longer response, NOT because I want to talk more about ME but because I want to talk about the issues here, about being an artist, and about your seething critique of the market. If you know me and like me it's probably because I don't think I've ever personally made any claims about my work's importance or anything grandiose like that. But I'm not sure if your beef is really the work or the market.... so I'll address both, and I hope in a non-personal and productive way.
Re the market: I'm not in charge of the market. I was making my work for many many years before I sold a thing. I consider myself incredibly lucky to show/sell any of it. I don’t make the claims, write the press releases, or the reviews. I just make the paintings. I appreciate your passion against the marketplace, but what should an artist do? Should they take their work off the market until they can reformulate it as... I don’t know what: commodity critique? Or social realism? I mean, I'm not even sure what you think would be a worthy critical form.
And about the work: shouldn't an artist be true to themselves as artists, and then do the best job they can w/ what they do? I mean, I'm NOT a social realist. I draw and paint images from my head-- yes, it's lyrical, personal stuff, and yes I’m kind of formal about my work. I try my best to push the work as best I can, and constantly critical of myself and changing. I certainly don’t think my work is like undergrad Guston, like you said-- I thought that was a low blow. But it's Gustony, for sure. He's a hero to me, as an strong AND personal artist who kept on changing and growing-- that alone is bucking the market to some extent.
So what DO you stand for? What DO you like, or advocate? I think you should come out with it, otherwise your critique seems like venting by someone who just hasnt dealt with the market place themselves. I feel your critique of the market is worth expressing in a more more measured and thought-through way. I probably agree with a lot of it. I like your passion. (But you were really over the edge w/ MM. Uncool.)
hey anon; our posts just crossed in the mail..hadnt read yours when i wrote mine...
i wasn't the guy who made the guston comment. definitely another anon.
ok you stand for tough narrative content and or figuration. cool enough. (it's not really what i do but peace to you too.)
Anonymous, wow. You are one angry artist type. Do you believe artists can change the world with their art? Do you think painters can get Bush out of office and save this country? Or that painters can end all the violence and hate in the world? Do you think it is less admirable in some way to make something pleasurable and beautiful in this bleak time? So it is an object for sale--big deal. Who looks at your work--who is the ideal audience for what you do? Are you changing minds, changing lives, teaching anyone anything??
Great responses Amy!
Anon, if you are making art, selling or not, you can't expect it to be all "univeral truth" and stuff. That is just bull. The average Joe rarely goes to gallery--if he/she does at all.
actually, i'm a professor and i teach studio and academic classes at a prominent art institution (not tenured so i'm barely making a living). i honestly believe i effect positive change in my students. yes, i'm changing minds, changing lives but it's hard in a world that's gripped by the anodyne. i hope my students will fight for something better. i do think art can change the world and i think the world is so fucked up right now that artists need to be RADICAL. it's time to kick out the jams, not pacify the rich. obvioulsy i exist within the artworld but i do believe that by making aggessive fucked up shit that a seed of subversion can take hold and make slow, incremental change. one, at the very
least, has to make an effort.
and i don't want to be pegged as a painting hater (there are many painters i love, particularly in an art historical context) but most of the issues have been decided already. i suppose it's okay to flog a dead horse if that's what you really want to do but what's the point? isn't this art thing about expansion? that's all i'm saying. painters only achieve when they present radical content. it's the only frontier left for them.
I don't think art can change the world...it just makes more tolerable. And I believe I am a positive person. But really, what can an artist do in their work that will actually reach 1% of the population? Video art?? Most of America would rather watch Law & Order. Collage? Is that so radical? I am trying to understand what you think is so radical about these other formats. If you are teaching in an art school, I doubt that those students will operate outside the system you are presently critiquing. They will graduate and try to get into a gallery...and so on.
painters i like:
schnabel,
bazelitz,
currin,
immindorf,
krebber,
richter,
kippenberger,
glenn brown,
nicole eisenman,
cosima von bonim,
george dokoupil,
george condo,
polke,
albert oehlen,
richard hamilton,
richard prince,
christopher wool,
keith mayerson,
yves klein,
kirchner,
soutine,
warhol,
pollock,
thomas hart benton,
sargent,
bellows,
goya,
velasquez,
mary heilman,
dieter roth,
etc.
well your entitled to your opinions but
currin: weird choice since he's a rabid republican
glenn brown: huh?! is there tough content here??
mary heilman : how is this not formal and what you were sayin before?
p.d. gotta go, but you're missing the point. it's not the forms that are radical. that doesn't matter. it's what you DO with the form. it's all about CONTENT. any form can be imbued with radicality. and i agree with you about the insularity of the system and you're probably right about most of it but i DO believe in the 100th monkey theory. even if i can effect a tiny sliver of change i think it will seep into the larger populace. i really do. a little bit of change is better than no change. and even if there is NO change i will know that i at least tried.
wow, have you been to art school? do you know what the attrition rate is? most of the students eventually end up NOT in the art world. so, hopefully many of my students will take some of this
STUFF to the other places they go in the world.
p.s. i agree about video, most of it sucks but people usually gather around to watch my video for the duration. it's got to be ENTERTAINING. totally agreed. i think i usually succeed.
not following your currin critique. who says an asshole can't be a good painter? and i never said i don't like totally formalist stuff. i'm just saying the painters should own that that is ALL that it is. i actually like lots of purely formalist. stuff. again, your missing the point. the problem isn't as much with the work as it is with the DELUSIONAL, INSULAR, CRITIQUE surrounding it.
this has really been fun. peace to everybody here. i'll visit again one day.
I'm not missing the point. Just because a painting has a figure in it, does not mean it's more meaningful. If that is your list of favorite painters--your point seems weak.
I did go to art school and I've done teaching gigs, and I make paintings--lots of 'em. I can't think of a better way to spend my time.
Wow that's cool, I'm a pussy, motherfucker for loving painting and being a painter? That's good to know. Sorry you are so enraged.
Pretty much everyone who posts here has not revealed their identity except Amy and Wendy White. I am easily tracked down through my blog, through my own posts where I posted my painting. I have no problem revealing my identity but I didn't think another person's blog, out of context, was the place. But since I am such a motherfucker to you I doubt you would care who I am.
Wow that was fun to read! Keep on reaming new assholes, it makes life exciting.
Radical. What constitutes radicality? Seems to me it's pretty subjective. I am sorry it is so offensive to you that there are so many painters in NY that are not radical enough and like each other's work. I suppose there is an insularity to it, but I happen to love being a part of a community of committed painters who love what they do and love to talk about it and support each other.
I am certainly not expecting to convince anyone with my opinions or descriptions. And at this point there is no reason to participate in a dialogue that is so hateful and bile-filled. You make a lot of interesting points but I wish I understood why anonymous insults are necessary.
PS, I certainly never told you you need a shrink and yes, for certain, we all need reality checks all the time. I'll try to make the best of this one.
One more thing - Amy SIllman's post were really ballsy and honest. Thanks for thinking it through so thoroughly. There is a lot of passion here, I hope it all gets channeled into our work.
Right on MM. You sound nice. I'd like to meet you.
xo,
PD
anon, you come on cursing and then say you have positive effect on your students? How can you be so angry at someone you don't know? You make all these assumptions about people you don't even know. I think you have some interesting ideas, but they are half-baked and hard to hear because of your rage.
Dear Mr. Knows-what-counts,
I love your amped-up pussy-saturated feelings, motherfuckitude and cut-off misreadings. It's cute to think that someone wants to cudgel contemporary painting with those hamfisted eighties gentlemen. Your sophmoric sense of the market sounds like it impresses your students.
Oh, I totally missed that foul stuff he said about MM! How obnoxious and hateful. Just another reason to dislike you, Anon. I agree with the hamster.
Anonymous, isn't there any room in your world for anything that isn't "pushing the envelope," whatever that's supposed to mean? You completely miss the boat: art is large and can express a huge range of ideas/thoughts/feelings. Do you only listen to "radical" music? Read "radical" books? You arte very closed-minded, and solipsistic to boot.
PS. Amy Sillman, I love your paintings!
Ditto!
P.S. In the weird list of Anonymous' favorite painters, I count THREE women out of 30. That's 10%. Maybe there's more to the Sillman-bashing than meets the eye...?
Anon is mostly pissed at the market, and has good reason to be, it rewards certain kinds of art and punishes others. work with radical content is a harder sell, especially if it isn't prettied up (like jorge pardo).
I think the art world can be very frustrating to a certain kind of artist so I'm inclined to give ANon a break... he's venting mostly but also makes good points.
Also Anon:
a) your list of artists is great.
b) shame on you for bashing MM like that, SO unnecessary.
come on, Julian Schnabel is NOT making art to hang over rich peoples' couches??
that list, in addition to being sexist, also depicts a world where only figuration is allowed.
and i would add: if the fifty grand is what is eating at anon, then most of the people on the list should be thrown out--
Fawn, I could care less how poor Anon. does in the market. Most of the painters I know are working at boring jobs just to support their art and I don't see them lashing out like this.
As for his list--true there are great painters there--most of whom are hanging over the sofa...over the grand piano...and in in the library of the rich and famous.
Well-put, PD -- thank you.
"Julian Schnabel is NOT making art to hang over rich peoples' couches??"
He may be, (who cares) but he's also doing something radical with paint (thats what matters). Also Anon's list does not depicting a world where only figuration is allowed, he's got 7 painters on that list who dont work with the figure. But if it did, Amy asked anon what kind of work he/she likes and that's just anons preferance, we all have them.
Pd, I think anons lashing out speaks of a real frustration with the art market.
Yes anon was rude but we see very powerful emotions, your friends might be at peace with their place in the art world or accept it, but anon is not there... anon is angry and vented, thats all. I do still think anon made many good points and if you can get beyond the vitrol I think you might see much of what he/shes saying is true
Anon is certainly entitled to his preferences, Fawn. I just don't think his preferences fit with his rants so much. I don't care if Schanbel is hung over people's couches, but obviously Anon. does.
Our posts crossed.
Sure the market sucks, but I think that is very separate from making art....
Open an art mag from the 80's or even the 90's and see how many "hot" artists have all but faded from the market. Who cares? If you are in it for the money, then sure--you're bound to get angry. (Fawn or Anon)
I may be idealistic, but you can't make art with the market on your mind.
Amy thanks again for coming on and for your thoughtful response.
I am sad to read the jerks comment to MM. Please do not post here. MM you are one of my favorites and it would be a lost for the conversation without you.
I don't understand all the rage towards others opinions.
Thanks Painter...I am glad this ended somewhere good - Hey Mayberry, you crack me up.
Congratulations, Amy Sillman, on a measured response that was well reasoned and seemed sincere, if not downright honest.
Congratulations as well to the "seething" anonymous, whose comments were of a Christ-in-the-temple sort: Holy Painting the temple, and blog commentors the marketeers trading cachet amongst themselves for personal gain, if only in their own eyes.
You are clueless.
Yes, thank you Jesus Anonymous Christ.
Hi just wanted to say I saw team shag last night in chicago. enjoyed the drawings.
Post a Comment