3/30/2006

Cecily Brown

91 comments:

Anonymous said...

I saw these last year or whenever they were up at Gagosian and there are things about them that I like but there's also a formula to them that took away from the overall impact. I think this one was my favorite. I actually just looked at them on the Gagosian page and I like them much better now than I did then, or maybe they just look better as tiny jpegs. Could be either! I guess as far as the type of work she's doing she's good to me.

w.w. said...

i think she's one of the best painters of our generation. they are beautiful, complex, and modern not just for superficial reasons like palette or hidden imagery, but for the way she has pushed the dekooningesque vision into new territory. i am a fan. i am glad the bunnies are gone, too. at least i can't see them anymore.

zipthwung said...

ample opportunity to read the tea leaves. You know, where are the naughty parts, not all of these have em....or maybe I didnt look hard enough.

Landscapey rather than interior space?

I quite dislike the hype surrounding Cecily - I want a publicist.

no-where-man said...

you can see her daddys hand in alot of the paint.

zipthwung said...

"i think she's one of the best painters of our generation"

AWESOMENESS!

Now go get your criticality out of the bushes and bring it back to the sandbox. I just peed.

Anonymous said...

Simply the Best.

Tina Turner said...

You're the best, better than all the rest
Better than anyone, anyone I've ever met
I'm stuck on your heart, and hang on every word you say
Tear us apart, baby I would rather be dead

Oh, You're the best...

Anonymous said...

People seem to get very upset if you say something nice about a painter here?

Anonymous said...

Yes, lets stick to being rude and make dumb hurtful comments.

Brown is an amazing painter.

triple diesel said...

I'm interested in the paintings more than the publicity.

CB revives heroic AbEx painting. Her heterocentric female view of sex gives the work a female libido, rivalling the supposed masculinity of AbEx painting.

As a female, her lineage is Krasner, Mitchell, and Fishman; although she looks like DeKooning, Rothenberg, and Baselitz.

But does she need the sex/carnality to do the AbEx thing? Charlene Von Heyl's work doesn't have that overt sexuality.

boo said...

this is nice stuff,energetic-we don't have to go insane over it

Anonymous said...

her main formal trait is the ability to make the paint look like it was put on in a quick, ragged, wet-on-wet flash.

in my opinion, this is not all that interesting and produces paintings that look like what happens on a lot of stray items lying around many painters' studios, but certain kinds of people apparently think this is amazing. which is their prerogative.

kelli said...

I never understood the animosity people had towards her a few years ago. Ab Ex as the apotheosis of painterliness seems like received wisdom to me though. Painting for most of it's history was meticulous.

Anonymous said...

ugh kelli for god's sake, paintings by rubens are not meticulous, paintings by tintoretto are not meticulous, paintings by el greco are not meticulous, paintings only started meticulous because they were made of egg tempera and not oily substances, and for a hundred years there have been lots of unmeticulous ones. and come to think of it, oil painting history is only about 500 years old so for a fifth of that painting history is full of messiness.

bb said...

Unlike Hope Atherton, her work lives up to the hype. She's not reinventing the wheel or anything. But her work has gotten so much better over the years. I think she's now up there with Von Heyl in terms of current abstract painting.

zipthwung said...

Dude I think Kelli's def of meticulous id different than yours - to me meticulous means paying attention, but not necessarily to rows and columns.

Anonymous - "Very upset" is hyperbole - how about mildly annoyed?

Hyperbole is a warm turd.

...No, you can't say "something nice" about a painter. Not only does this trivialize the painter in this context (isn't that special) but it also is pointless.

Obviously Cecilly has some fans - so shoot her an email - tell her you can see past the hype. I'm sure she'll appreciate a heartfelt compliment.

You can tell her that despite her famous parents and her bombastic scale, or perhapse because of it, that you enjoy her work and wish her continued success at the top of the heap. Yes, we all aspire to showing at the biggest air conditioned space in Chelsea...and why not? Hubris? Ha! Make the shoes pointier and the coifs more well I say! ANd WIne! We must have wine!

I'm somewhat irked by the WAY Cecily is compared to the past -

"Ab Ex as the apotheosis of painterliness seems like received wisdom to me though."

Is a good argument. The myth that ab-exers were somehow more expressive - or does anyone believe that? I don't.

I do think cecily's paintings are sexier thatn the ab-exers. Macho Macho Man. Prob cus they were closeted and so on and so forth.

w.w. said...

A painter's lineage has nothing to do with gender. That's an offensive and inaccurate way to try to classify the work. And we shouldn't compare Brown and von Heyl just because they're female painters. They are both nonrepresentational and deal with space in a vaguely similar way, but that's it. Does all abstract painting really look the same to you guys? A few more nuanced observations shouldn't be so difficult. I mean, the AbEx insult is so limited. As a comparison it's relevant, but as a criticism of contemporary painting it carries absolutely no meaning. And to the Anon who thinks Brown's work looks like "stray items lying around many painters' studios" - that's beyond retarded. I rarely get nasty on this blog, but that's a completely ignorant comment. You should go stand in the corner.

Anonymous said...

Right on W.W.
Zip is such a guy. Hasn't like a women yet.

kelli said...

I'm looking at painting as a whole going back to Herculaneum. And I also stand by the idea that the idea of the male gaze crumbles if you look at the vast history of art by gay men. Still I wonder if the idea that Brown is claiming a macho painterly lineage is something she believes. Questioning the lineage. Questioning this view of her work. I think she's interesting

zipthwung said...

anon, yes its ture, I have not unreservedly liked any painting here by a woman. Its also true that I havent unreservedly praised a male painter.

Lets see if I am going to lighten up.....hmmm, clouds, clouds..more clouds...nope. Horizon looks pretty filled up.

I dint like the installation of this show in the transept at the Gagosian - a bit bland. THe best I saw this work was propped up against the wall in lower manhattan - forget where, space was huge.

kelli said...

Also oil painting existed in the Middle ages ( Daniel Thompson ) but was only used for woodwork because they didn't prefer it for paintings. Just taking a larger historical view of who made paintings and how.

zipthwung said...

"Still I wonder if the idea that Brown is claiming a macho painterly lineage is something she believes"

Me too.

bb said...

I was only comparing Brown and Von Heyl in that they are 2 of the most interesting abstract painters working today. I really do think that most of the interesting "messy" abstraction now is by women though. Josh Smith is one guy (but he's only borderline interesting.) Does anybody here like Victoria Morton? I see some similarity btwn her and CB especially now that CB is more landscapey.
And I think they're both british.

triple diesel said...

w.w. - I'm sorry to offend you when I consider gender in evaluating work by artists (who have genders). But I think it's common to associate AbEx painting with masculinity - or machismo. In my opinion, there's no necessary connection, but an imagined connection prevails.

So for a woman to join that dialogue, her gender happens to become a factor. It's especially true with CB, because not only is she taking on the mythical "male gesture," but she's also presenting carnal sex from a female perspective.

That's why I compare CB with CVH. They are women; and they are women painting AbEx, which was dominated by male artists and male-ness. I didn't say that their work looks indistinguishable, and I would welcome a discussion about how they differ. I was just on another topic.

You can't evaluate Eminem without considering that he's White.

triple diesel said...

In other words, imagine if CB's paintings were done by a man. We might all laugh and call him a misogynist.

Anonymous said...

again, kelli: do you actually think that sexism stops w/ str8 guys??? i dont think the idea of the male gaze crumbles one bit just cuz those guys are gay. come ON, havent you ever felt the same kind of dismissal from gay men as you have from straight men? in fact even more so. i believe that if it werent for straight men there would be NO hope for women at all to achieve anything like power, cuz it's those guys who actually lay in bed and listen to what women are saying, or get bonked over the head by their wives when they do stupid shit. (if the women are smart.) Gay guys have no clue about women.

Anonymous said...

ps i didnt mean to get off topic about cecily brown. i think she's great.

no-where-men said...

the people closest in my life are all gay /a-sexual men friends and coworkers, with the ‘sexual’ overtones absent one can form a more honest bond.

Anonymous said...

the male gaze is about power, not just lust. patriarchy is male power, not male lust. male lust is simply heterosexuality. patriarchy continues, the male gaze means what it always has, whether the males involved are fucking men or women. all those painters from history, whatever their sexuality, were not only living in but painting pictures of straight-up patriarchy: popes, madonnas, etc.

imageworship said...

i believe that if it werent for straight men there would be NO hope for women at all to achieve anything like power, cuz it's those guys who actually lay in bed and listen to what women are saying, or get bonked over the head by their wives when they do stupid shit. (if the women are smart.) Gay guys have no clue about women.

11:03 AM


That's idiotic, and it's coming from someone who uses the word "cuz" so go figure.

no-where-man said...

agreed about the power. power is sexy.

JpegCritic said...

Don't the most common thoughts about Brown
revolve around 'carnality' -- what triple diesel
just iterated? Whether the idea of carnality
relates to gender, power, DeKooning,lust, the-skin-of-paint
-- is a matter of where wants to go with these
paintings-- And I think to some extent, they
are all related... sure... but to imply her work
might be a critique of the gaze that lacan
outlined, or the power narrative that foucault
outlined is kind of hyperbolic.

Though with brown, I can never get my mind off of déjeuner sur l'herbe. The centrality and the messiness.

zipthwung said...

I'm learning so much about gay people. Thank you.

If my parents had a Celily Brown on the wall at home it would be great - I mean it would mean they had a wall that large, and also, I could stare at it instead of those crappy british mysteries they watch.

Shocking, really.

kelli said...

Christian imagery is not the best example of the male gaze. It was pretty complicated even after the Weberian shift in dynamic when it became an accepted religion. Androgeny, slave mentality, pagan influences, the influence of Eastern mystery cults etc. Gender is a complicated system often involuntary for men and women which masks larger class and historical forces. Sandra Bem postulated that Western culture is an androcentric meritocracy as opposed to a rigid patriarchy and that androgynous people have the most power and flexibility. Just saying it's a complicated soup. Brown's paintings are sort of a complicated soup themselves.

zipthwung said...

I mean lots of rappers live with their moms.

zipthwung said...

I love it when you talk dirty kelly. The weberian shift - is there a book? I've heard some of this stuff from other mouths...
was thinking (off and on on the way to the subway) about the ripple effect of trauma (WW2, the inquisition) and how that impacts current rituals...

JpegCritic said...

kelli, wow. interesting postulation by Bern!! does it extend or support the idea that a 'gaze' is not interently male but comes from a symbolic position rather than a biological position?

kelli said...

Just trying to queer things up a little. The thought is that masculine and feminine people have limited power and androgynous people have power with both groups. Some people might be able to function within a social heirarchy and gender using it to their advantage when they choose but with no loyalty. I'm thinking about Machiavelli, androgyny and the concept of the gentle-man. I'm bringing it up in relation to Brown because I don't think she just inhabits or claims a tradition. I'm all for disloyalty and power.

JpegCritic said...

I agree with you Kelli.

I just like looking at naked bodies in the park,
nude, sometime's fucking. In relation to Brown,
there's this Dionysian thing going on -- a freedom
if you will, that openly plays in the parks of
a sexually repressed culture -- thus, sure, there
is a gaze. But a pretty literal one at that, something
that can hardly be politicized.

shards said...

had an acquaintance who appeared to be gentle man-he really just did'nt like anything,and lacked blood and life-all instinct except for self protection-i want to kill him

daughter of the american revolution said...

Hit me with your mal stick!

Das ist gut, c'est fantastique

passeo said...

Kelli,

There is the narrative of the gaze coming from pre-hellenistic times, I think, in the cult of Diana (a version of the story, i think was made popular by ovid) -- wherein there is a story of the hunter Achteon who peers upon the naked diana in the forest -- diana incensed, turns Achteon into a stag -- the hunter into the hunted.

Perhaps in Brown's milieu, gazers are turned into bunnies!

theodorosmarx said...

hey w.w.
wouldn't know a dekooning if it bit you in the ass and neither would cecily brown
a good painter, but c'mon

JD said...

I'd always felt that CB's work fit too neatly into a gendered take on abstract painting: ie, using a painting language associated with male power to describe female sexual desires. But I also think that her work has been getting more interesting, and her last show was really, really good. The imagery is not as literal anymore: it's sort of arboreal (someone mentioned Manet's "Dejeuner" earlier), with figures (or figurative-looking marks) morphing into paint gesture. One of the most interesting things she's doing, I think, is using abstract space to talk about not just figuration, but maybe illustration, or something more doodly. In a good way!

Anonymous said...

Her newest work has a clunky awkwardness which reminds me of Guston. I think this is a good move, since in my opinion the earlier deKooningesque work held to firmly onto an idea of mastery. What do you all think about the word mastery, how it applies to gender?

daughter of the american revolution said...

Mastery... as in opposition to, say, rosalind krauss's informé? in this application the word applies to symbolic gender, not real gender.

JD said...

anon 5:09, are you saying that mastery is too strongly associated with male painters for women painters to join in?

daughter of the american revolution said...

The master is always the wielder of the phallus.
Mastery, the word, implies this. Krauss tried to
trace an altenative art historical route that did
not end with high modernism (the masters),
but broke off from the narrative of 'mastery'
early last century, starting with the surrealists --
which whom, chance and the informé held more
value than did the idea of mastery.

shards said...

like Lukes point-THIS makes sense-master/slave-

daughter of the american revolution said...

Of course I make sense.
I AM a Jedi.

no-where-man said...

i have been told i have a 'male gaze' and that it makes people uncomfortable.

no-where-man said...

there is for sure something different about a young contemporary female doing these paintings "in the style of DeK" then his work. especially as so much of his early work had to deal with his often aggressive feelings towards 'the female'. her work strikes me as playful and clean, his ruff and aggressive and have seen a ton of both live.

i think regardless of sexual orientation on some level we all search to meet 'our match'. that seems to be how it works to be on the nature channel - an innate urge to be challenged and over powered.

zipthwung said...

Luke, I am your father. It was an accident, story of the I and all that. Sorry. Think of it as the perfect crime.

daughter of the american revolution said...

Don't be sorry pop.
Like I said, thanks for my hot sis.

And yeah, bataille was the first to
coin l'informé but his had more to
do with carnality and not gender.
Krauss seemed to want to bastardize
the original conception with lacanian
jedi mumbo jumbo.

Snickers said...

She's not bad. I really was skeptical until I saw her show at the Hirshhorn. That convinced me, she not bad, a work in progress.

She's not as good as the hype. Painting.com as Saltz called her. And she acknowleged as much on Artforum.com two weeks ago by saying "I used to be Cecily Brown."

But the bunny paintings are good. The ones that Jeffery showed in 98? When she did High Society she was at her best and as a lesson to all, this is a hard F****in' business. Keeping things up at that level is almost impossible.

So her history with Larry has been mixed. Jerry trashed the Wooster Street show and Gluek the uptown one. But Johnson was kind on the 24th street outing. And who really cares what those British pricks wrote in Oxford.

Ms. Brown is essentially an American Girl, and we're rootin' for her!

zipthwung said...

Yeah, lacan -
like casino chips you have to spend at the company store but theres nothing there you want.

Or you own the casino, but you cant tell anyone because then there would be no one to play the role of the dupe.

Or you have delusions of grandeur, and then Donald Trump uses your name to leverage a real estate deal and no one calls him on it.

daughter of the american revolution said...

and don't forget, pop...
that the odds are always with the house!
and yet people keep-a-cumnin!

maybe it's for the buffets(...?)

snickers said...

I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. My blog is just about my day to day life, as a park ranger. So please

Jackpot?

no-where-man said...

Counting Cards? I have only come here seeking knowledge, Things they wouldn’t teach me of in college... all depends on your goals.

daughter of the american revolution said...

I still think informé addresses the question of 'mastery' in relation to brown, in that the idea of informé can be positioned as a direct opposite of the idea of 'mastery'.

Either this opposition comes in the sense of bataille's formlessness, which in his writing he explores in the areas of transgression and carnality -- or this opposition comes in the form of krauss's iteration of informé, which proposes a historical alternative to the narrative of mastery. There is also Barthes who explored informé in a different way, probably more phenomenological.

Snickers said...

Well Luke, look to what no-where-man wants. No one talks like that EXCEPT in college. I mean it's fine and all if you're talking to Buchloh, but beyond that, who cares.

Yeah randomness as opposed to mastery. Luck and improvisational skill as opposed to faith in a deterministic universe.

Cecily is a gambler all right. And who would have thought David Sylvester's illigitamate daughter!

No wonder Larry pounced!

daughter of the american revolution said...

Look Snickers and zip.

Someone asked about this thing about 'mastery.'
Earlier in this string a bunch of people started
talkin 'male-gaze' and shit. I mean come on, with
this 'male gaze' talk. I remember when that term
could only be uttered by Jedis and only with caution!
Where'd they think these ideas came from, anyway --
Jenny fucking Holzer?
Don't talk the jedi talk if you can't walk the jedi walk.

Snickers said...

No where man. I hadn't thought of her work as "clean" before and I suppose it is. That was one of the qualities that attracted me to it in DC. The particular cast of the light on the varnish.

And yes that is different than DeK, His pictures tend (if not entirely are) unvarnished.

Perhaps that does lend Brown's work a hint of "feminine decorativity" (to coin a worthless phrase)

But there's nuttin' wrong wit dat!

zipthwung said...

That kind of talk is why I went to the dark side.

True mastery can be gained by letting things go their own way. It can't be gained by interfering. Lao-tzu

snickers said...

Careful son, keep your inner eye on the painting (s)

To be totally honest I think this thing rocks! sittin' here shootin' the SH** about painting. it's like our own little CEDAR BAR!

But as I've read over chains in the past I've been struck by how easily people get side tracked into silliness.

Jenny Holzer! Who cares! Go tell that to "Cry 'em & Greed"

No but seriously, Luke, this is fun. Zip's blog is knockout. Those photos can be scarily stunning.

Zip is that the Unibomber I see posted in that police rendering?

snickers said...

Zip I totally agree. For me the randomness comes in the concept. I'm a total control freak in the execution. But letting the "content" or "concept" or "bright fu**in' idea" (ala Barney and his stupid tuna boat spectacle) generate itself in randomness is thrilling.

And ultimately reveals the source of all religion, prophecy and etc. etc. etc.

zipthwung said...

dont flatter me or i'll soil my vat.
I have to read death star manuals so my theory is for shit....
...you think nested twirl down menus are conceptually interesting?
Yes, its the TK - unrepentant cuz he di'nt do nuttin wrong.

snickers said...

The TK!

I knew it.

SEE! - I gots an EYE!

peace.

out

Anonymous said...

luke i dont think it's "informe" with the accent (which i cant figure out how to put here) which is an adjective-- i think it's l'informe"-- a noun-- the book is called "l'informe"-- the formless-- w/ the accent it is an adjective meaning "unformed"-- not what is meant by the term. formless is different from unformed. formless is that which is not aspiring to form. unformed is not yet formed.

daughter of the american revolution said...

Good point anon and well taken.
I'll look into my death star manual.
So to the original question above--
do you see this term as having any
usefulness -- in trying to explore
an alternative to the idea of mastery--
which was what the anon poster
seemed to want to explore.... Just trying
to get back onto my original response
to that question.

daughter of the american revolution said...

And alright-alright! I admit it!
I eat spaghetti from the pot, and I
read lacan's seminars from Forrester's
translations! Does that make me a bad Jedi?

Anonymous said...

hey luke
you're not a bad jedi! you're a good jedi!
huh. well yah, i guess i the point of "l'informe" was to get at new criteria and try to establish new ways of reading art history. so yah, of course, to undo the traditional notion of mastery is desirable, i.e., it's great to learn from history, but i dont simply want to attempt to repeat it. meanwhile of course to take this l'informe idea on as some sort of gospel is totally wrong, and not self-reflexively critical to even meet its own critieria!

daughter of the american revolution said...

Thanks anon!
But I hear the dark side callin. l'informe...
I see poppy zip as the master of l'informe...
whereas it seems the October people seemed
to see Broodthaers as the best example of
both l'informe plus the injection of self-reflexivity.
Am I wrong? Cecily Brown's field of strokes --
a ground of possibilities! Perhaps this is a celebration
of l'informe -- but it doesn't need self-reflexifvity.
It is not a gospel, you are right. Perhaps mastery
should not be treated as such, as well -- in painting
and in critiquing -- there are alternatives -- may
the force be with you!!!

no-where-man said...

David Sylvester's illegitimate daughter! - whoa... news flash walter cronkite. - that is where the 'you can see her daddys hand in alot of the paint.' comment originated. in her case i think it is a positive thing, y undermine it. DeK,'s early life would not allow his work to be clean, C.B. nothing but.

ah, to be a master of ones own domain - 'stupid tuna boat spectacle'? and your critiquing my dialect- care to elaborate?

you did get that a portion of that post was a pointer quote right?

I have only come here seeking knowledge
Things they wouldn’t teach me of in college
I can see the destiny you sold
Turned into a shining band of gold

I’ll be wrapped around your finger
I’ll be wrapped around your finger

which made reference to the original thread ...

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me
Vanish in the air you’ll never find me
I will turn your flesh to alabaster
Then you will find your servant is your

"l'informe" indeed. good book. nice soft cover. reading "the anti-aesthetic" right now, off to see what i can boot-leg of the DaDA show. it is warm and sunny in Washington.

no-where-man said...

Then you will find your servant is your master

no-where-man said...

Then you will find your servant is your master

snickers said...

no where man,

Yeah the Police, I got the reference, I remember 1985 like it was . . . 1985.

Washington is nice and suny isn't it?

Do you know Ian. . . or TYLER! (yikes!)

no-where-man said...

read tylers blog.. , i live in NYC just here to see the DaDA show and visit with a cousin in international relations...
care to back up the DR9 comments?

Dennis Matthews said...

the dc show was nice. i like how all these guys on these boards have battles where they drop references to things that are supposed to be super art like and that you should've read or should've seen by now or if you hadn't then don't argue with demipopularartgod me. Come on now guys aren't there bigger issues at hand than throwing books and shows and oneliner artist name (what about Gary whoever?) punches at each other. Whatever cecily gets good with this one but still simple color transitions and bridging from each area in her autumn landscape. You guys never talk about which work's in front of these boards its like the poster just has to put something there to give you fucks more room to ejaculate your egos across the world wide web. most of you suck and i'm still waiting to see links to your work and what you do besides have a computer.

kelli said...

Few things are worse than well-educated middle-class people pretending to be Napoleon Dynamite. There are these funny, rectangular objects made out of wood pulp with characters printed on them. It might be worthwhile to look into it.

Anonymous said...

Right on Dennis Matthews even though I don't follow exactly what you are saying.
These guys are annoying. I miss the smart begaining comments of this blog. WW, Mountatin Man, BB, JD, Ringo to Russia, Kelli are good.
Zipthwung and no where man are okay but need to make less comments.
This is really great painting.
How can we get it back. It is such a great blog and sad that it has been taken over.

kelli said...

I like it when people on these blogs talk about books and ideas instead of gossip. I don't think it's egocentric. Anti-intellectualism is. Luke brought up some interesting ideas. I remembered the concept from Bataille but he took it in his own direction. Thanks, and we should all thank Painter for the effort.

Friend said...

I know Painter and know s/he puts a lot of work into picking what s/he thinks would be the best image for each artist. It is too bad when it gets nasty and pointless because that would never be his/her intention.
Thanks Painter for your effort.

JD said...

Yes, thanks, Painter. You do rock. And I am hating all of the recent Jedi crap, with the fake homie-lingo thrown in. Pardon my snarkiness here, but it's arty slacker boys from Scarsdale trying to be cool by dissing anyone who is intellectually serious. Reminds me of art school, in the worst of ways. Let's keep the dialogue interesting.

zipthwung said...

Whats intellectually serious brah? Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

zipthwung said...

i like bunnies and trees and people. I am 11teen years old. I like fish too.

no-where-man said...

there is a fine line between "intellectually serious" and "conversational" but agreed, topical could be good.

if i want to hear what really goes on in the artworld, a bunch of horny fuckers wafting each others asses over free booze and implyed insider/ academic knowleadge admist a mist of cash i would just go - well 2 a good opening.

Anonymous said...

Damn, in the old days it was just bloggers hating painters and dealers. Now it's bloggers hating bloggers as well! Well I hate nostalgic bloggers. Why don't you guys just let it flow. Art school indeed. It's not the art students one should worry about. How about the desgruntled tenured professors who wax on and on about the old days of good criticism!

zipthwung said...

Above all, Hyde is interested in examining the effect our current immersion in the market economy and the myth of the free market has both on our view of gifts and on our ability to give and receive them. The market economy is deliberately impersonal, but the whole purpose of the 'gift economy' is to establish and strengthen the relationships between us, to connect us one to the other. "It is this element of relationship which leads [Hyde] to speak of gift exchange as 'erotic' commerce, opposing eros (the principle of attraction, union, involvement which binds together) to logos (reason and logic in general, the principle of differentiation in particular). A market economy is an emanation of logos."

Just kidding.

laydownsally said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Cecily brown is an essential iconic female artist.
She turned the traditional concept of the male gaze and the female libido on its head.

She is basically a modern, more gutsy version of georgia o` keefe.
Her work exists somewhere between figurature and abstraction.
The paintings do not depict sex scenes exactly. She implys and suggests.
It is the way in which she applies paint to the canvas that is pure sex itself.
It drips juicily and seductively.
Its hot, vivid, vibrant and unashamed.

It shows the pschology behind sex, how it feels to be in the most exquisite passionate coital embrace. Painted hedonistic, decadant, unbridled and wild sex at its best.

She shows that women can enjoy sex just as much as men and they can be dominatrixes without being sluts. the female libido can match that of a males.

She has done what many female artists have only cautiously dipped their toes into.

How different and refreshing it is to leave a gallery feeling physically hot and nostalgic.
An intellectual version of watching an extremely hot porn movie, i suppose you could say.