I'm not sure how I feel about words in paintings as I think it blocks one of the pleasures of paint ing in that you can achieve a meditative state in which you can walk into and thus escape from and so on and so forth. But then reflected back into reality by a word trampoline and by some rough edges and unfinished bits, flaws, I find coitus interruptus, and thus, no conception. Goddamnit.
What's up with McClelland? I haven't seen her work for a long time, and she's not listed anymore at Kasmin.
I feel kind of neutral about the work. I'm not particularly bothered by text in painting, it just depends how it's used. Love it in Ruscha. Is McClelland's stuff a little tame-feeling? Tasteful? I want more humor, somehow.
JD, She shows now at Larissa Goldston Gallery. She is in a group show right now there. I think some of her other work has more humor in it. That show at Andrea Rosen was on text? It was really big.
Thanks, Painter. I'll check out the Larissa Goldston website. Yeah, I think the Andrea Rosen show was on art that uses text. Unless I'm losing my mind, which is always possible.
people should really see her new painting at Larissa Goldston Gallery. it is very subtle and beautiful. the drip painting method that she has been using for the last year or so, in this painting, looks very twombly-esque. i think she has prints there too.
Rosen was the text, and there was a lot of it, like this thread, and so and then why read it all? But the big picture, and sampling of, gives one the gist, which is why a picture works indexicly - shorthand, and so, these too, work. But on the other hand, I too, am all thumbs.
i wondered about the extraneousnos as well but don't want to get yelled at. i think the swirls are integral here and not extraneous at all.they work for me. i like it a lot
the gestures and mark-making seem mannered to me. non-evocative. i get what ww is saying about the twirlies. Something gets in the way with these paintings. (Caveat: I haven't seen the most recent work so maybe it is different)
mannered says it for me. I do like, as with any painting, the change in scale - here done with the swirlies. Flush! I see a baby, and I see a toilet, now.
kinda reminds me of the wallpaper at starbucks. i am being very mean, but there are a gadzillion of these images in the world and i cannot bear to look at another.
to the person who said the text embarasses them...although i respect and may sometimes agree with you. it helped me to understand their context. i wonder if you understand the context of the words? they are meant to explore the way the meaning of words change according to the speaker's sexuality and intent. and how men use words that demean women to demean, even further, other men.
as rosana rosana danna might say; nevermind! a lot of people here did not get it at all. was it was all in the text and the swirls "l'idiodts"? viva la mcclelland.
When I use words in paintings and I make them difficult to read, as when I write backwards or in scrawling arabesques, I force one to consider the text more fully, consciously. Without preconception. B I T C H ! W H O R E!!!! Preaching to the choir of course?
Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!
Who wants to demean women when we can demean all mankind? Misanthropes of the universe unite!
H A T E ! Who has not been before called names? The only cure, power, thus an S.O.S. to the like minded? YES! But so affected the message...for the cultivated Amazon?
William T Wiley drunk ...botch?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I feel about words in paintings as I think it blocks one of the pleasures of paint ing in that you can achieve a meditative state in which you can walk into and thus escape from and so on and so forth. But then reflected back into reality by a word trampoline and by some rough edges and unfinished bits, flaws, I find coitus interruptus, and thus, no conception. Goddamnit.
ReplyDeleteErik Parker and Brad Kahlhammer do words in paintings well. But mostly I don't like words in paintings it is to distracting.
ReplyDeleteI have never understood the appeal.
ReplyDeletestyle, texture and content are what matter to me and this has it all.i like it a lot
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with McClelland? I haven't seen her work for a long time, and she's not listed anymore at Kasmin.
ReplyDeleteI feel kind of neutral about the work. I'm not particularly bothered by text in painting, it just depends how it's used. Love it in Ruscha. Is McClelland's stuff a little tame-feeling? Tasteful? I want more humor, somehow.
Wasn't there just a group show at Andrea Rosen about text in art? It was overwhelmingly huge, but there was some great stuff.
ReplyDeleteJD,
ReplyDeleteShe shows now at Larissa Goldston Gallery. She is in a group show right now there.
I think some of her other work has more humor in it.
That show at Andrea Rosen was on text? It was really big.
Thanks, Painter. I'll check out the Larissa Goldston website. Yeah, I think the Andrea Rosen show was on art that uses text. Unless I'm losing my mind, which is always possible.
ReplyDeleteHey hey! This stuff don't bring the funny, kid, sorry.
ReplyDeleteThat andrea rosen show on text was awesome and well done text is terrific when it fits in it does not distract
ReplyDeletecan someome tell me why suzanne mcclelland was not in the andrea rosen show(!!!)i think that was an oversight.
ReplyDeletei think i saw some mcclellan prints at villani and one was really funny she has a great touch
ReplyDeletepeople should really see her new painting at Larissa Goldston Gallery. it is very subtle and beautiful. the drip painting method that she has been using for the last year or so, in this painting, looks very twombly-esque.
ReplyDeletei think she has prints there too.
lyrical abstraction paired with a nostalgic palette does not work for me.
ReplyDeleteShe gets better and better and better. I dig this painting. reminds me of the abstraction thats up at preztel gallery
ReplyDeleteno way. von heyl is not making pretty pseudo-abstractions. note the spirals and twirly extraneous thingies in this painting.
ReplyDeletepseudo-abstactions??? twirly extraneous thingies??? slow down i'm getting dizzy!!!
ReplyDeletei can agree with WW about this painting. plus it's boring as hell. if cy twombly had a less quasi tortured, less technically inept sister
ReplyDeleteRosen was the text, and there was a lot of it, like this thread, and so and then why read it all? But the big picture, and sampling of, gives one the gist, which is why a picture works indexicly - shorthand, and so, these too, work. But on the other hand, I too, am all thumbs.
ReplyDeletei was actually talking about the painting at the gallery being twombly-esque...not this one.
ReplyDeletei wondered about the extraneousnos as well but don't want to get yelled at. i think the swirls are integral here and not extraneous at all.they work for me. i like it a lot
ReplyDeletethe gestures and mark-making seem mannered to me. non-evocative. i get what ww is saying about the twirlies. Something gets in the way with these paintings. (Caveat: I haven't seen the most recent work so maybe it is different)
ReplyDeletethe text in her paintings embarasses me. there i said it.
ReplyDeletei saw some suzanne mcclelland lithographs i liked a lot a few years ago but don't know where to find them now
ReplyDeletemannered says it for me. I do like, as with any painting, the change in scale - here done with the swirlies. Flush! I see a baby, and I see a toilet, now.
ReplyDeletei see a toilet too!
ReplyDeletekinda reminds me of the wallpaper at starbucks. i am being very mean, but there are a gadzillion of these images in the world and i cannot bear to look at another.
to the person who said the text embarasses them...although i respect and may sometimes agree with you. it helped me to understand their context. i wonder if you understand the context of the words? they are meant to explore the way the meaning of words change according to the speaker's sexuality and intent. and how men use words that demean women to demean, even further, other men.
ReplyDeleteL'idiot! Monsieur, tu es l'idiot!
ReplyDeleteRight, anonymous at 1:13p. I think this painting says "Bitch" and not "Botch." The apparent "o" is really the dot on the "i."
ReplyDeleteBravo!td Bravo!
ReplyDeleteI love it when you speak French to me but it is Madame if you must know and i love the swirls
ReplyDeletewow i totally missed the text the first time. in that case it makes the swirls slighty more tolerable.
ReplyDeleteas rosana rosana danna might say; nevermind! a lot of people here did not get it at all. was it was all in the text and the swirls "l'idiodts"? viva la mcclelland.
ReplyDeleteha! this blog may be the best review of mcclellan ever written it reads like a faulkner novel
ReplyDeleteWhen I use words in paintings and I make them difficult to read, as when I write backwards or in scrawling arabesques, I force one to consider the text more fully, consciously. Without preconception.
ReplyDeleteB
I
T
C
H
!
W H O R E!!!!
Preaching to the choir
of course?
Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!
Who wants to demean women when we can demean all mankind? Misanthropes of the universe unite!
H
A
T
E
!
Who has not been before called names?
The only cure, power, thus an S.O.S. to the like minded?
YES!
But so affected the message...for the cultivated Amazon?