2/16/2006

Julie Heffernan



Opens tonight at P.P.O.W.

38 comments:

Baroque Tumor said...

This work is over the top in its references to art history and ways of the past, but its persistence, its thoroughness and high attention to detail makes it rewarding to look at. Plenitude and decay is everywhere, it seems like entropy and mold, growth and consumption all in one. Looking forward to seeing her show.

Painter said...

Yuh-Shioh Wong opens tonight at Foxy Production I will post that tomorrow.

burrito brother said...

I'm sorry, I can't get into this one. It's mostly just personal preference. I really don't care much about art historical reference - especially 16th century referece. And I'm just not somebody that's impressed with fine art 'skills'. Aside from that I think they're hoky with all they're 'magikal' lighting and poses. For this kind of thing I much prefer Heidi Johnson or Isabella Kirkland. They're work at least seems to have an Eco-slant to it. This work just seems to be made to go with a nice Louis XIV chair or something...

sloth said...

I totally agree, bb. I admire her amazing skills, but the work seems really musty and anachronistic.

sloth said...

It's true MM, they do have their moments.

mountain man said...

I don't care so much about the art historical reference either, but the plenitude and rot interests me. Musty yes, anachronistic, yes, but they excite me from time to time.

sloth said...

(shoot, blogger time warp again...)

JD said...

I agree with MM, Sloth, and bb. But I have had the experience of looking at parts of the paintings and wishing I'd done them. Her way of describing with paint can be so luscious anad beautiful. Much respect for the chops of JH. But the mustiness. . . they've got a patina of "old master-ness," or something.

mountain man said...

The patina of old master, yes....but is there something there to it, I am wondering? Is there something in the anachronism and brown, time-warn skill-driven approach that has anything to do with what is being painted - the women, the fruits, the feathers, the flourishes, all could be read as substitute body parts, I mean is it possible to say that she is reinforcing the idea of a female self that is part youth, part aging? Maybe she is dying into the well-painted symbols and outgrowths, they represent the eventual crusting over and mustiness of a person? I dont' know. This would be the best case scenario. But I like to think that the artist has not taken all her decisions for granted...that they may be off-putting or garish but that there is some narrative sense in there. But this is just how I, as a matter of preference, like to think about paintings. To others this line of thinking is a dead unrewarding end.

Ernie said...

What do you think of JH's work in relation to Sandra Scolnik or even Hilary Harkness...skills plus symbols plus female subject, densely packed with visual information.

Ernie said...

I don't know the work of the 2 artists you mentioned, BB, where do they show?

snacky said...

is it 16th c? seems more like 17th C. to me. isnt the 17th C. the C. of over-the-top rococo stuff? maybe i'm wrong but that's what i thought. this sure looks rococo to me.

chauncey said...

They are too well-done, too finished and skill-laden, stuffy. i like the overwrought quality about them and the chops are admirable I guess, but they don't add up somehow. for me at least. I bet they sell really well though.

Anonymous said...

defnitely roccoco. yes snacky.

snacky said...

i just looked it up. roccoco is 18th C!!

canada said...

this is very boring painting
very boring

burrito brother said...

Yes it is more roccoco. I was thinking 16 C. mannerist which maybe has more to do with her figurative work. I don't mean to be harsh. I think she 'means it' with this work. She's been doing it a long time. Maybe the metaphors she's setting up using old master painting just aren't working on me? I mean, the crocodile looks cool, I guess. I don't see any reference to living in our current time in this painting (I did somewhat in her last body of work though.) And I have to say, I don't really see any feminist critique in this work either...
Isabella Kirkland shows at Feature Inc., i'm not sure where heidi johnson shows...

Regi said...

The Finch protest starts today!

sloth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sloth said...

Funny, when anon wrote "yes snacky," I thought it was in reference to the painting. Kind of applies somehow.

sloth said...

Meaning: "snacky" as an adjective

mountain man said...

I wasn't really saying feminist critique but more female as subject. Anyway, just trying to make a case. But snacky is good, I agree. Snack and think about the mannerists and rococo and then move on.

zipthwung said...

I might open this pandora's box and sniff its cornucopic delights...what mystery awaits behind the atmospheric fog? Sticks and leaves? Or gold? Too sweet for me wodon eye! Whither the green man?

zipthwung said...

baroque tumors - great idea.

Anonymous said...

anyone else here cringe at the expression "painting chops". ??

Baroque Tumor said...

Yes. I do not like that term.

kosher said...

painting with pork chops

Anonymous said...

Painting with mutton chops.

canada said...

the expression painting chops is bad
i can't tell who i am, of the lap top pluggery and the good writing.
sorry

zipthwung said...

Like Steve Vai or Ingwie Malmestein? I got them. I mean I can match colors, substitute local color for a more pleasing but stillnaturalistic tone while at the same time taking into accountthe chnages in weight and balance on the fly and I can do it all while so HOPPED UP on pills and booze my brush barely seems attached to my hand. One time I used TELEKINESIS. No shit.

chop (chp) n.

1. An official stamp or permit in the Far East.
2.
1. A mark stamped on goods or coins to indicate their
identity or quality.
2. Quality; class: first chop.

kosher said...

so is an art skool a chop shop?

silent sapien said...

This is the kind of work that normally would not interest me but it does. I enjoy the offbeat hallucinogenic imagery being placed within a traditional style. The content reminds me of the book 'Artificial Kingdom'. Have not seen the work in person but am curious to know how the actual painting differs from the impression it makes via tiny internet image. Do they have the physical presence of older work?
I think the best way to respond to artnet is to never ever go to their site again.

burrito brother said...

I agree SS. Artnet is NOT for artists. The only thing worth a damn on it is the horoscopes. I'm officially never looking at that site again. Thank god I have painternyc now for my internet fix!!!

canada said...

burrito brother you sound like a real moron sometimes
thank god i have painterNYC now for my internet fix!

burrito brother said...

well played, anon.

switch back said...

I saw this work a while back at Ramis Barquet on 57th and was struck by how she painted women. Particularly these twin portraits. They reminded me of John Currin but more sympathetic.

zipthwung said...

http://normansanders.com/susan/images/Avocado%203.jpg

There's a lady I know
If I didn't know her
She'd be the lady I didn't know.

And my lady, she went downtown
She bought some broccoli
She brought it home.

She's chopping broccoli
Chopping broccoli
Chopping broccoli
Chopping broccoli

She's chopping broccoli
She's chopping broccoli
She's chop.. ooh!
She's chopping broccola-ah-ie!

Anonymous said...

she can paint! in comparison to the slight work at FOXY and wallspace that opened last night.... heffernan is tops, also really good are nozkowski at max protech and berthot at betty cunningham