This is not the image that I wanted to post, but it was the only one I can find from his current show at Leo Koenig. I wanted to post the one with the model eating grapes.
Theres a Kippenberger reference in the show. Im not agianst that sort of thing. But it does point to a sort of academicism that I see mirrored in the Paint.
I''ve been to the edge, and there I looked down. You know, I like it craaaaaazy. And these are not.
"one soon discovers, for example, that added to the mix are explicit or implicit references to significant works of art. Here Rogers expands on a post-modernist approach, conceding to the equanimity of images while suggesting a specific art-historical lineage. Eventually a progression is alluded to, a dynamic, impulsive beauty is revealed, and a distinct visual language becomes evident.
I'll just get my decoder ring out right now. Or ooh, I''l make up my own substitution code. I dunno, I like the sense of humor but the subject matter is trite.
Go back to Jermany. I mean Jersey. What are you running from? Was the spoon wooden plastic or sterling?
This show felt really uneven to me, it has these spaced-out girls that look like photos from 'The Face" or "I-D" then these weird abstracto paintings and they don't really seem to connect. I like the girls a lot though, but they only feel about 90% finished, he could have worked on them more.
They are all of one girl he meet on the internet. She is 18 and from Texas. They flew her out for the opening. I meet her she was beautiful and adorable. I think she sent him all the picutes of herself via email.
and they look great on the invitation and on the jpeg here, but in person they're a bit weaker. Kind of like when you meet somebody online - everyone looks better when their face is shrunk to a 1 x 1 inch square! Then you meet them in person and you're all "AAAhhh... nice to meet you...!"
Most subject matter is trite. Come on! That is completely unfair. If you ask most artist's what their work is about it sounds pretty dumb. There are wordless impulses that make meaning.
they are too hollow and hip. too eighties. too photographic. too perfect. les is a powerful painter but these are methodical and unemotive. maybe he is in love the the girl and it has clouded his judgment. if that is the case, it's ok. paintings made from love are ok with me, i just want to see the love. in these i don't even see a love of painting.
zipthwung are you going to ruin this place like you did artforum.com with your unbearably annoying and obnoxious comments? go home. this is for reading what other people have to say, not re-reading what you had to say yourself with one hand down your pants.
huh, and I thought I was adding to the conversation. You're a Bully.
Anyhoo, I was adressing subject matter. What do these paintings have that other people dont have? There was a painter that did a painting of a Rubiks cube. Jerry Saltz, I think, said something to the effect of "clever" which is what all my teachers said when I was talking about some theory or other. Its a put down. I think theres the need to be "smart" that gets in the way of the "love".
This split is more than just a conceptual-experiential divide.
In closing, hire a good writer to write your statement.
i will go and see them in person, but it looks like one of those situations where someone takes a photo and then turns it into a painting. i dont find that interesting and cant understand the reason people feel compelled to do this. just show the damn photo if you like it so much!
I agree with Ms. L. Granted, all photo-based work is different (slightly) but this really doesn't add to any discussion of his process (by that I mean the way one projects the image and then fills it in.) There's potential for them to be sweet, well painted works, but not much more... I also agree that a conceptual device, whether it instigates the painting or is tacked on afterward, doesn't help the work in a press release, it can only hurt - at best, have no affect.
But look her neck is way too narrow and she looks kind of like a tard. That's something. I agree with the photo-based painting problem...it's all how you handle the medium and the little decisions to distort or leave out information that either make or break that kind of work. There is nothing inherently wrong with using photos as a source, but if you are self-consciously referencing the idea of photography for no apparent purpose, not supporting or constructively undermining the narrative or content of the image, then it's just annoying.
I still think. The lips. The look of the tard. At least in jpeg form it is pleasing to me. On this blog, many things are pleasing that wouldn't be in real life. It's so different from looking at the real thing, it's fun. Sometimes I forget to bring all of my jaded negatory attitude that I normally have in Chelsea.
Alex Katz once said. "It is true, I work from life, but most of the other people who do aren't as interesting as these people. The thing is to make an interesting painting. How you make it doesn't matter much."
i think using photos as source material is very different than what this painting seems to be doing. which is taking a photo and making a painting of it. so her necks a little too whatever. its still just a slight distortion of a photograph and you can tell.
the alex katz quote is great tho. and his paintings dont look like copies of photos, whether they are or not, he transforms them into something else that is, i think, more timeless. anyway, mm, you are right. its completely different to look at art online than seeing it in person. and i havent even seen the show! i tried but they were still installing.
Right, how can you identify anything? What is a hammer?
Good and bad are subjective, you can provide an explanation to back up your opinion. People may agree with you or not and critical mass may or may not be reached.
Timeless? Like a Quartz watch? I don't understand. Timeless like not referring to the trends of the time? It would be cool to have more of an explanation of what ms lb means by it. Maybe you can explain it.
adj : unaffected by time; "few characters are so timeless as Hamlet"; "Helen's timeless beauty"
I just see the adjective applied by MsL as part of an opinion. Maybe you disagree with the opinion or would like her to flesh it out, but I don't see the word as 'problematic'.
There was a time when painting like this was in style. Therefore in the context of that history it is not timeless. This time included such luminaries as Alex Katz on down to Nagel and Peter Max. Why is it that Katz feels "warmer" than Nagel, who leave me cold?
Maybe it's because Alex Katz's paintings feel straightforward that they are warmer or timeless? He isn't commenting on anything, necessarily, he is making deft, economical, sensitive paintings that show the love for his subject, the love that WW wants so badly to feel, that is missing here...but it is kind of mysterious, how some people's paint handling is inherently warmer and more engaging, rather than cool and trendy...
well i just went and checked out this show. i liked it!! but sadly the one posted was not my favorite, no offense at all painter, i know you said it wasnt yours either. but the other works are much more...shit im afraid to use any descriptive words or someone will yell at me!! this site gets pretty mean sometimes! anyway, beautiful paintings. my least fave the two that are most obviously photo-based.
Ms lb, I am glad you went and I am sorry you feel or felt under attack. I agree with you on the Katz and timeless comment. I wonder what artist everyone will get behind. I guess we are getting behind Katz today.
hey i wish everyone would agree to disagree on this site, and not worry too much about hurting people's feelings if they expressing opinions. i dont like the "take your anger elsewhere" comments. for crissakes, the thing that's amazing about this website is that you can thrash it out. keep on going!
Ahh, the figure's left eye in this painting is drifting off all by itself. On its current trajectory it's going to find the Pacific Ocean. Surprised that with 45 comments no one mentioned it.
i'm surprised that w/ 45 comments no one brought up newer painters than alex katz or kippenberger (i dont get that reference at all); what about rogers' connection w/ other photo-painting people such as Richard Phillips or Blake Rayne or even Pieter Schoolwerth, etc? i dont mean the way the paintings look, i mean the painting from a photo thing.
Kippenberger made a sculpture of a "lamp for drunks" that is in one of the paintings in the show. I dunno, these sorts of references are fun, and "part of the conversation" we are all having about you know, stuff.
Anonymous, why do you criticize the thread for not bringing these things up, rather than just bringing them up. Instead of sharing your idea you critique the forum? Very naughty. You may deserve a spanking.
im suprised no one mentions Frank Frazetta...he's the bomb. People used to paint using the palette of Rembrandt. Now its all neon this and cadmium that.
I mean, black straight from the tube - thats where its at.
i don't know anything about this artist personally, but whether or not the image of a "hipster artist type" is actually self-referential to the artist's person or relationship to youth culture, it comes off as that. reggae music lyrics are often inane + useless because the artists often sing about reggae music itself and it creates a loop. this is somehow self referential in that way to me and it renders it meaningless.
50 comments:
This is beautiful. Must see the show. It's kind of disturbing but tender in the lip area.
This is not the image that I wanted to post, but it was the only one I can find from his current show at Leo Koenig. I wanted to post the one with the model eating grapes.
Who is this guy? Is his show still up? Looks pretty nice... would like to see more.
p.s. I like burritos. A lot.
LES ROGERS
Recent Paintings
January 28th, 2006 through March 4th, 2006
Leo Koenig Inc.
23 street.
i am crying.
So it's bad? There's a lot of bad right now, eh?
Theres a Kippenberger reference in the show. Im not agianst that sort of thing. But it does point to a sort of academicism that I see mirrored in the Paint.
I''ve been to the edge, and there I looked down. You know, I like it craaaaaazy. And these are not.
he is from new jersey
From the site:
"one soon discovers, for example, that added to the mix are explicit or implicit references to significant works of art. Here Rogers expands on a post-modernist approach, conceding to the equanimity of images while suggesting a specific art-historical lineage. Eventually a progression is alluded to, a dynamic, impulsive beauty is revealed, and a distinct visual language becomes evident.
I'll just get my decoder ring out right now. Or ooh, I''l make up my own substitution code. I dunno, I like the sense of humor but the subject matter is trite.
Go back to Jermany. I mean Jersey. What are you running from? Was the spoon wooden plastic or sterling?
This show felt really uneven to me, it has these spaced-out girls that look like photos from 'The Face" or "I-D" then these weird abstracto paintings and they don't really seem to connect. I like the girls a lot though, but they only feel about 90% finished, he could have worked on them more.
They are all of one girl he meet on the internet. She is 18 and from Texas. They flew her out for the opening. I meet her she was beautiful and adorable. I think she sent him all the picutes of herself via email.
and they look great on the invitation and on the jpeg here, but in person they're a bit weaker. Kind of like when you meet somebody online - everyone looks better when their face is shrunk to a 1 x 1 inch square! Then you meet them in person and you're all "AAAhhh... nice to meet you...!"
I feel dumb for liking the lips. Must see in person.
Next!
Most subject matter is trite. Come on! That is completely unfair. If you ask most artist's what their work is about it sounds pretty dumb. There are wordless impulses that make meaning.
i hate artist statement. hate.
they are too hollow and hip. too eighties. too photographic. too perfect. les is a powerful painter but these are methodical and unemotive. maybe he is in love the the girl and it has clouded his judgment. if that is the case, it's ok. paintings made from love are ok with me, i just want to see the love. in these i don't even see a love of painting.
Love! Here here!
I think people should reference the KJ bible more often. I'm a HUGE fan of the Apocrypha.
zipthwung are you going to ruin this place like you did artforum.com with your unbearably annoying and obnoxious comments? go home. this is for reading what other people have to say, not re-reading what you had to say yourself with one hand down your pants.
huh, and I thought I was adding to the conversation. You're a Bully.
Anyhoo, I was adressing subject matter. What do these paintings have that other people dont have? There was a painter that did a painting of a Rubiks cube. Jerry Saltz, I think, said something to the effect of "clever" which is what all my teachers said when I was talking about some theory or other. Its a put down. I think theres the need to be "smart" that gets in the way of the "love".
This split is more than just a conceptual-experiential divide.
In closing, hire a good writer to write your statement.
zipthung might be the real bully.
i will go and see them in person, but it looks like one of those situations where someone takes a photo and then turns it into a painting. i dont find that interesting and cant understand the reason people feel compelled to do this. just show the damn photo if you like it so much!
well, i don't think it's quite that simplistic...
I agree with Ms. L. Granted, all photo-based work is different (slightly) but this really doesn't add to any discussion of his process (by that I mean the way one projects the image and then fills it in.) There's potential for them to be sweet, well painted works, but not much more...
I also agree that a conceptual device, whether it instigates the painting or is tacked on afterward, doesn't help the work in a press release, it can only hurt - at best, have no affect.
But look her neck is way too narrow and she looks kind of like a tard. That's something. I agree with the photo-based painting problem...it's all how you handle the medium and the little decisions to distort or leave out information that either make or break that kind of work. There is nothing inherently wrong with using photos as a source, but if you are self-consciously referencing the idea of photography for no apparent purpose, not supporting or constructively undermining the narrative or content of the image, then it's just annoying.
I still think. The lips. The look of the tard. At least in jpeg form it is pleasing to me. On this blog, many things are pleasing that wouldn't be in real life. It's so different from looking at the real thing, it's fun. Sometimes I forget to bring all of my jaded negatory attitude that I normally have in Chelsea.
Alex Katz once said.
"It is true, I work from life, but most of the other people who do aren't as interesting as these people. The thing is to make an interesting painting. How you make it doesn't matter much."
That quote says it all...
i think using photos as source material is very different than what this painting seems to be doing. which is taking a photo and making a painting of it. so her necks a little too whatever. its still just a slight distortion of a photograph and you can tell.
the alex katz quote is great tho. and his paintings dont look like copies of photos, whether they are or not, he transforms them into something else that is, i think, more timeless.
anyway, mm, you are right. its completely different to look at art online than seeing it in person. and i havent even seen the show! i tried but they were still installing.
How can you identify "timelessness"? No doubt Alex Katz is a much better painter but that word is a problem.
How can you identify "good" or "bad"?
Right, how can you identify anything? What is a hammer?
Good and bad are subjective, you can provide an explanation to back up your opinion. People may agree with you or not and critical mass may or may not be reached.
Timeless? Like a Quartz watch? I don't understand. Timeless like not referring to the trends of the time? It would be cool to have more of an explanation of what ms lb means by it. Maybe you can explain it.
timeless
adj : unaffected by time; "few characters are so timeless as Hamlet"; "Helen's timeless beauty"
I just see the adjective applied by MsL as part of an opinion. Maybe you disagree with the opinion or would like her to flesh it out, but I don't see the word as 'problematic'.
There was a time when painting like this was in style. Therefore in the context of that history it is not timeless. This time included such luminaries as Alex Katz on down to Nagel and Peter Max. Why is it that Katz feels "warmer" than Nagel, who leave me cold?
oh and anonymous - take your anger elsewhere
Maybe it's because Alex Katz's paintings feel straightforward that they are warmer or timeless? He isn't commenting on anything, necessarily, he is making deft, economical, sensitive paintings that show the love for his subject, the love that WW wants so badly to feel, that is missing here...but it is kind of mysterious, how some people's paint handling is inherently warmer and more engaging, rather than cool and trendy...
Oops I said inherently twice. That is annoying.
well i just went and checked out this show. i liked it!! but sadly the one posted was not my favorite, no offense at all painter, i know you said it wasnt yours either. but the other works are much more...shit im afraid to use any descriptive words or someone will yell at me!! this site gets pretty mean sometimes! anyway, beautiful paintings. my least fave the two that are most obviously photo-based.
I know. People are scary on blogs. But it's part of the entertainment also.
Ms lb, I am glad you went and I am sorry you feel or felt under attack. I agree with you on the Katz and timeless comment.
I wonder what artist everyone will get behind. I guess we are getting behind Katz today.
Can't wait for tomorrow's artist!
hey i wish everyone would agree to disagree on this site, and not worry too much about hurting people's feelings if they expressing opinions. i dont like the "take your anger elsewhere" comments. for crissakes, the thing that's amazing about this website is that you can thrash it out. keep on going!
Ahh, the figure's left eye in this painting is drifting off all by itself. On its current trajectory it's going to find the Pacific Ocean. Surprised that with 45 comments no one mentioned it.
i'm surprised that w/ 45 comments no one brought up newer painters than alex katz or kippenberger (i dont get that reference at all); what about rogers' connection w/ other photo-painting people such as Richard Phillips or Blake Rayne or even Pieter Schoolwerth, etc? i dont mean the way the paintings look, i mean the painting from a photo thing.
Kippenberger made a sculpture of a "lamp for drunks" that is in one of the paintings in the show. I dunno, these sorts of references are fun, and "part of the conversation" we are all having about you know, stuff.
Husker Du?
http://www.thirdav.com/hd_images/bob_rs.jpg
Anonymous, why do you criticize the thread for not bringing these things up, rather than just bringing them up. Instead of sharing your idea you critique the forum? Very naughty. You may deserve a spanking.
im suprised no one mentions Frank Frazetta...he's the bomb. People used to paint using the palette of Rembrandt. Now its all neon this and cadmium that.
I mean, black straight from the tube - thats where its at.
i don't know anything about this artist personally, but whether or not the image of a "hipster artist type" is actually self-referential to the artist's person or relationship to youth culture, it comes off as that. reggae music lyrics are often inane + useless because the artists often sing about reggae music itself and it creates a loop. this is somehow self referential in that way to me and it renders it meaningless.
vaughn bode and who? frank frazettaaaaa
Post a Comment