I also like this. It's different. I kinda liked his paintings of just the 2 x 4's, but this work seems much better than those. They are so labored looking yet just pictures of detritus. I'm always a sucker for seeing the raw linen too. He probably has smart reasons behind these, but I just like that it looks odd and tactile, inhabiting a wierd non-space of inventory...
he took apart his painting and wrote no no no on the stretcher bars. he works in a studio of rusted corrugated tin, uses red spray paint, and makes preliminary sketches with charcoal on old pieces of cardboard.
i do agree that the painting looks pretty good, but ??
smart doesnt mean its a "critique of painting", there can be just smart visual work, which this is to me. i dont think its a critique of painting, and paintings dont have to be only about ideas to be called smart or interesting. i just like the juxtaposition of fictional objects in space, of real things with abstract things, in a kind of soup of make believe space, which makes sense for the work, it looks like he has fun doing it and thinks at the same time. a lot of work that combine references can look hockey but his doesnt.
Realism, abstraction, kind of like peto mixed with self conscious mark making? Makes me think of Julian Scnabel a little. Illusion bumping up against artifice.
i can see the attraction to this piece, the rawness is appealing - but let me present a provocation - is it really all that different from picasso & braque's cubist collages from 100 years ago? combining real objects with painterly illusion, using a variety of spatial effects, faux finishes, etc - i have no problem with artists recycling themes but when all is said and done this doesn't do much for me
pseudo conceptualism. cheyney and reena spaulins are the masters of putting the conceptual intellectual look on something dumb. then spouting on about 60's french theory so you never have the time to figure out how dumb it really is. his wife eillen is much better, at least her stuff is real. she rocked white columns.
I wonder about that too. It seems easy to make something that uses stringent vocabulary. Reminds me of Gedi Sibony. There is a delicacy of handling, but it seems trumped up.
I'm not familiar with this person's work but I like this painting. The muted colors and linen remind me of Serej Jensen's work - which I also like. Who is the woman that showed at Team a few years ago - one painting had a big spraypainted McDonald's-y logo on it? that comes to mind as well. And the materiality vaguely reminds me of John Bauer's work in it's almost kitschy knowingness of faux illusion. By the way, after reading art blog comments for a while, I have a question: Is everyone so critical about everything else they experience in their lives or is the constant vitriolic commentary within these sites saved up exclusively for art?
ok. just read his last press release on the kreps website, and it was fairly annoying. but whatever, it's still a nice painting. The formal construction doesn't seem to have anything to do with what he's talking about, and after the cubism reference, it does seem less interesting as an object on it's own... but I still like it as a painting (or painted object or whatever...)
To me, his work attempts a larger assault on Painting's role as a commodity for the rich, and what he may be perceiving as constant unaccessability to the "ideal" aesthetic experience (i.e. maybe one where no money changes hands? or a mystical point of view, as his "1998" show referenced, from which all the parts come together and reach back in time to Gericault or Chardin in a glorious beam of social and visual significance). Problem for me is, Anon. from 7:40 am, I don't think fun has anything to with it for this artist, and worse, it feels to me like a system of negation. Painting in deep crisis about painting's worth/potency, from its current state as luxury goods. I see this as a vital issue, yes, but the work seems borne out of remorse, suspicion, and cold, cold irony about the medium, and it leaves me feeling empty inside.
yes silent sapien we are critical of everything. i would like to suggest another artist while your doing your homework for painter: trent doyle hancock at james cohan. he's great.
Hey, if you like Trent's work you HAVE to check out Lee Baxter Davis's show at the Cue foundation. He is T's old teacher, a big influence on many over the decades and an interesting, reclusive guy (check out his artist statement).
Sharky, great comments. There have been so many artists (perhaps starting with Salle and Polke) who have worked with these zones of different "styles" of painting within one painting, usually within an abstract space. At this point, it's starting to feel a wee bit tired to me, and often suggests a kind of doubt or cynicism about painting as a coherent system. I need to see this artist's work in person, though. I mean, different "zones" butting into each other can sometimes be really great, too—Neo Rauch, Beatriz Milahez.
attacking art as a commodity of the rich is a bit like the snake eating it's own tail - truth is art has existed on multiple stratas of society ever since a caveperson stacked one rock on top of another and said it was aesthetically pleasing. someone said it was an affront to the spirits of nature, picked up the rock and bashed the other's skull. this apocryphal tale illustrates two issues - 1) everyone's a critic and 2) andy goldsworthy better buy a helmet.
You know, I believe in grab bags and chance selections, mystery bags and door selections, so when I see shit like this I'mm pretty sure the artist is asking for a sucker punch. Anyone got a pic? I'll be cast a bronze "paperweight" for the occasion.
I think it's about different paintings (as objects) butting up against each other, not really different styles. I think it's actually devoid of style and about symbolism. Also the breaking down and rearrangement of symbols that reference painterly marks but are devoid of real process.
jd: "Working between zones" defines almost all painting (salle and polke were nowhere near the first). I prefer ambiguity over idealism any day. What are you advocating, pure abstraction and pure representation?
What's tired is not the endeavor of painting between methodological or stylistic poles, but the cynical intentions often associated with this strategy. Just because a painting involves seemingly disparate techniques, doesn't necessarily qualify it as projecting doubt or negativity towards painting as a practice.
I enjoyed Thompson's 2004 installation at Kreps entitled 1998 -- although some of his other work does seem annoyingly too "self-aware." From the press release for 1998:
the artist refers to a time during which he "helped establish an artist-run gallery which facilitated the conception of itself as a specifically public and temporary autonomous site which could stand in opposition to the logic of markets." ... While these paintings are purposefully fragmentary, the exhibition itself is offered as a theater in which to consider the incomplete in a temporarily coherent way.
I think his installation fit this description beautifully. In contrast, for an example of pseudo-intellectual meta-painting gone horrifically wrong, see Mike Cloud.
Painter (host blogger): If you're "interested in having a conversation on painting" then why do you rarely participate in this forum? Further, what type of conversation are you seeking?
It seems that you're satisfied with a blog full of mostly lazy, immature, and uncritical comments -- the status quo being exemplified by such witty banter as "this sucks" or "i love it" or "this is lame." Thoughtful, engaging comments are rare, although I'd guess that most who participate here would be capable, if pressed. Is this representative of how NYC painters discuss painting away from this blog? Perhaps this explains why so much bland painting continues to be made.
Why not raise the level of dialogue here by somewhat directing the conversation to a higher critical plane. Or, at the very least, you could set a rigorous, knowledgable example with your own comments that would not only serve as a positive model for others to follow, but would also be a discouragement to navel-gazing blog saboteurs whose only goal is to impress themselves with name calling and circle-jerking (hint: they become bored and tend to go away when ignored).
At least no one is posting song lyrics, selections from the reuters news wire or vintage car/formula one uselessness here - it's a step up from gawkerforum. I think just the act of posting more insightful commentary would be the best way to fight off the less helpful posts.
jeezus christ, critics, it's not SCHOOL-- why does everything have to be an "improving" "higher" conversation? do we ALWAYS have to raise the fucking bar? cant you conceive of something between a circle jerk and a seminar? what i like about this blog is you can get on and say what you'd say to a friend while walking down the street as you leave the gallery. ok it's not the middle or end of the conversation, but just a first hit. havent you left galleries and turned to your friend, and said, that sucks? or wow that was great. this blog is just a first hit. maybe get a small conversation going. i for one dont need an mfa discussion everytime i come on here.
satan, maybe a good way to 'raise the bar' is to ask the group a specific question in reference to the work rather than just criticizing everyone in general. if you are frustrated with the discussion then my suggestion would be to direct the conversation in a way that interests you.
i, for one, like the free for all-ness of this blog - high/low and in-between. and i appreciate that 'painter' is not some moderator-overlord.
agreeing with the previous posts, the great thing about this forum is its diversity. besides, it's not particularly good manners to browbeat people into a discussion - PARTICULARLY our generous host. every person doesn't connect with every painting, no reason to have a temper tantrum.
Dearest satan (the devil), Painter, selects the painting each day, So we know that it is a painting or painter that the Painter finds interesting for some reason. That is really all this blog needs to know. It seems to be working. There are comments from all over the spectrum and you can find new painters and get new perspectives on painters you have already known about. Stick around even you can learn something and inform others. Painter you don't need to change a thing to please the devil.
At least no one is posting song lyrics, selections from the reuters news wire or vintage car/formula one uselessness here - it's a step up from gawkerforum."
No accounting for intelligence. Thing about here is even idiots like me can post. Its an awesome responsibility, but by shifting the weight of the world from shoulder to shoulder I can almost scratch my PRIVATE PARTS.
Satan, you are not the real Satan. The real Satan would pretend to enjoy Mary Heilman's joi de vivre and then undercut it with a devastating bon motte at the appropriate juncture. Are we on the same page? There is no fucking way in team.
In conclusion, darkness, darness and more darkness.
48 comments:
i like. different. smart, interesting for a change.
Please explain why this is smart and interesting.
Homework for next week go see.
Matt Connors, Chris Dorland, Alsion Fox and Marc Handelman at
Sikkema Jenkin & co. 530 W. 22 st.
Charlotta Westergren at Bellwether, 134 10th Avenue
Inka Essenhigh at 303 Gallery, 525 West 22nd Street
Brad Kahlhamer, at Deitch Projects 76 Grand Street
Will do, Sarge.
I also like this. It's different. I kinda liked his paintings of just the 2 x 4's, but this work seems much better than those. They are so labored looking yet just pictures of detritus. I'm always a sucker for seeing the raw linen too. He probably has smart reasons behind these, but I just like that it looks odd and tactile, inhabiting a wierd non-space of inventory...
i've LOVED this painting since the first time i saw it, but i hated the last show at kreps! it's the same person, right?
he took apart his painting and wrote no no no on the stretcher bars. he works in a studio of rusted corrugated tin, uses red spray paint, and makes preliminary sketches with charcoal on old pieces of cardboard.
i do agree that the painting looks pretty good, but ??
stupid question. How do you size the raw linen?
rabbit skin glue is one option
smart doesnt mean its a "critique of painting", there can be just smart visual work, which this is to me. i dont think its a critique of painting, and paintings dont have to be only about ideas to be called smart or interesting. i just like the juxtaposition of fictional objects in space, of real things with abstract things, in a kind of soup of make believe space, which makes sense for the work, it looks like he has fun doing it and thinks at the same time. a lot of work that combine references can look hockey but his doesnt.
Realism, abstraction, kind of like peto mixed with self conscious mark making? Makes me think of Julian Scnabel a little. Illusion bumping up against artifice.
our class has been assigned your blog so thanks for the homework painter
i can see the attraction to this piece, the rawness is appealing - but let me present a provocation - is it really all that different from picasso & braque's cubist collages from 100 years ago? combining real objects with painterly illusion, using a variety of spatial effects, faux finishes, etc - i have no problem with artists recycling themes but when all is said and done this doesn't do much for me
pseudo conceptualism. cheyney and reena spaulins are the masters of putting the conceptual intellectual look on something dumb. then spouting on about 60's french theory so you never have the time to figure out how dumb it really is. his wife eillen is much better, at least her stuff is real. she rocked white columns.
these are nice, but maybe the guy that painted different views of rocks is better? He also let's the linen ground show.
a little too neat,all the elements swept into the middle,reasonably smart ,"smart",in fact-we need this why?
I wonder about that too. It seems easy to make something that uses stringent vocabulary. Reminds me of Gedi Sibony. There is a delicacy of handling, but it seems trumped up.
I'm glad he finally showed this painting. For a long time it was exiled to a corner of his studio. It's one of his best.
No Doze Doze No Doze No Doze
http://rrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnhhhh.blogspot.com/
what inspired criticism bunko boy!
I'm not familiar with this person's work but I like this painting. The muted colors and linen remind me of Serej Jensen's work - which I also like. Who is the woman that showed at Team a few years ago - one painting had a big spraypainted McDonald's-y logo on it? that comes to mind as well. And the materiality vaguely reminds me of John Bauer's work in it's almost kitschy knowingness of faux illusion.
By the way, after reading art blog comments for a while, I have a question: Is everyone so critical about everything else they experience in their lives or is the constant vitriolic commentary within these sites saved up exclusively for art?
ok. just read his last press release on the kreps website, and it was fairly annoying. but whatever, it's still a nice painting. The formal construction doesn't seem to have anything to do with what he's talking about, and after the cubism reference, it does seem less interesting as an object on it's own... but I still like it as a painting (or painted object or whatever...)
To me, his work attempts a larger assault on Painting's role as a commodity for the rich, and what he may be perceiving as constant unaccessability to the "ideal" aesthetic experience (i.e. maybe one where no money changes hands? or a mystical point of view, as his "1998" show referenced, from which all the parts come together and reach back in time to Gericault or Chardin in a glorious beam of social and visual significance). Problem for me is, Anon. from 7:40 am, I don't think fun has anything to with it for this artist, and worse, it feels to me like a system of negation. Painting in deep crisis about painting's worth/potency, from its current state as luxury goods. I see this as a vital issue, yes, but the work seems borne out of remorse, suspicion, and cold, cold irony about the medium, and it leaves me feeling empty inside.
I save the vitriol for issues about painting because I love painting so fiercely it hurts.
yes silent sapien we are critical of everything.
i would like to suggest another artist while your doing your homework for painter: trent doyle hancock at james cohan.
he's great.
Hey, if you like Trent's work you HAVE to check out Lee Baxter Davis's show at the Cue foundation. He is T's old teacher, a big influence on many over the decades and an interesting, reclusive guy (check out his artist statement).
Sharky, great comments. There have been so many artists (perhaps starting with Salle and Polke) who have worked with these zones of different "styles" of painting within one painting, usually within an abstract space. At this point, it's starting to feel a wee bit tired to me, and often suggests a kind of doubt or cynicism about painting as a coherent system. I need to see this artist's work in person, though. I mean, different "zones" butting into each other can sometimes be really great, too—Neo Rauch, Beatriz Milahez.
attacking art as a commodity of the rich is a bit like the snake eating it's own tail - truth is art has existed on multiple stratas of society ever since a caveperson stacked one rock on top of another and said it was aesthetically pleasing. someone said it was an affront to the spirits of nature, picked up the rock and bashed the other's skull. this apocryphal tale illustrates two issues - 1) everyone's a critic and 2) andy goldsworthy better buy a helmet.
Live and Learn
You know, I believe in grab bags and chance selections, mystery bags and door selections, so when I see shit like this I'mm pretty sure the artist is asking for a sucker punch. Anyone got a pic? I'll be cast a bronze "paperweight" for the occasion.
I think it's about different paintings (as objects) butting up against each other, not really different styles. I think it's actually devoid of style and about symbolism. Also the breaking down and rearrangement of symbols that reference painterly marks but are devoid of real process.
I still hated the Kreps show.
jd: "Working between zones" defines almost all painting (salle and polke were nowhere near the first). I prefer ambiguity over idealism any day. What are you advocating, pure abstraction and pure representation?
What's tired is not the endeavor of painting between methodological or stylistic poles, but the cynical intentions often associated with this strategy. Just because a painting involves seemingly disparate techniques, doesn't necessarily qualify it as projecting doubt or negativity towards painting as a practice.
I enjoyed Thompson's 2004 installation at Kreps entitled 1998 -- although some of his other work does seem annoyingly too "self-aware." From the press release for 1998:
the artist refers to a time during which he "helped establish an artist-run gallery which facilitated the conception of itself as a specifically public and temporary autonomous site which could stand in opposition to the logic of markets." ... While these paintings are purposefully fragmentary, the exhibition itself is offered as a theater in which to consider the incomplete in a temporarily coherent way.
I think his installation fit this description beautifully. In contrast, for an example of pseudo-intellectual meta-painting gone horrifically wrong, see Mike Cloud.
personally speaking, it's too much theory and not enough content - the difference between reading a recipe and eating a cake...
Painter (host blogger): If you're "interested in having a conversation on painting" then why do you rarely participate in this forum? Further, what type of conversation are you seeking?
It seems that you're satisfied with a blog full of mostly lazy, immature, and uncritical comments -- the status quo being exemplified by such witty banter as "this sucks" or "i love it" or "this is lame." Thoughtful, engaging comments are rare, although I'd guess that most who participate here would be capable, if pressed. Is this representative of how NYC painters discuss painting away from this blog? Perhaps this explains why so much bland painting continues to be made.
Why not raise the level of dialogue here by somewhat directing the conversation to a higher critical plane. Or, at the very least, you could set a rigorous, knowledgable example with your own comments that would not only serve as a positive model for others to follow, but would also be a discouragement to navel-gazing blog saboteurs whose only goal is to impress themselves with name calling and circle-jerking (hint: they become bored and tend to go away when ignored).
wow satan, you're a drag... i always thought you'd be more fun. go figure.
This won't be the first time I've said this, but..
Hail Satan!
satan, will you go away if we ignore you?
At least no one is posting song lyrics, selections from the reuters news wire or vintage car/formula one uselessness here - it's a step up from gawkerforum.
I think just the act of posting more insightful commentary would be the best way to fight off the less helpful posts.
leave the artists alone, satan - you'll see them soon enough.
jeezus christ, critics, it's not SCHOOL--
why does everything have to be an "improving" "higher" conversation? do we ALWAYS have to raise the fucking bar?
cant you conceive of something between a circle jerk and a seminar?
what i like about this blog is you can get on and say what you'd say to a friend while walking down the street as you leave the gallery. ok it's not the middle or end of the conversation, but just a first hit.
havent you left galleries and turned to your friend, and said, that sucks? or wow that was great. this blog is just a first hit. maybe get a small conversation going.
i for one dont need an mfa discussion everytime i come on here.
satan, maybe a good way to 'raise the bar' is to ask the group a specific question in reference to the work rather than just criticizing everyone in general. if you are frustrated with the discussion then my suggestion would be to direct the conversation in a way that interests you.
i, for one, like the free for all-ness of this blog - high/low and in-between. and i appreciate that 'painter' is not some moderator-overlord.
agreeing with the previous posts, the great thing about this forum is its diversity. besides, it's not particularly good manners to browbeat people into a discussion - PARTICULARLY our generous host. every person doesn't connect with every painting, no reason to have a temper tantrum.
I always thought Satan would turn out to be asexual...
Anyhow, this painting is cheesy. Popory. Avon.
Painter does not decide the quality of the commentary here we do satan. Yours is good if you stick to PAINTING
Dearest satan (the devil), Painter, selects the painting each day, So we know that it is a painting or painter that the Painter finds interesting for some reason. That is really all this blog needs to know. It seems to be working. There are comments from all over the spectrum and you can find new painters and get new perspectives on painters you have already known about. Stick around even you can learn something and inform others. Painter you don't need to change a thing to please the devil.
" microbe said...
At least no one is posting song lyrics, selections from the reuters news wire or vintage car/formula one uselessness here - it's a step up from gawkerforum."
No accounting for intelligence. Thing about here is even idiots like me can post. Its an awesome responsibility, but by shifting the weight of the world from shoulder to shoulder I can almost scratch my PRIVATE PARTS.
Satan, you are not the real Satan. The real Satan would pretend to enjoy Mary Heilman's joi de vivre and then undercut it with a devastating bon motte at the appropriate juncture. Are we on the same page? There is no fucking way in team.
In conclusion, darkness, darness and more darkness.
Hail Dagon!
Look at brucewilhem2.blogspot.com
SATAN! Right on, homes. The commentary here is insular and masturbatory. You are keeping it real. Merci!
Post a Comment