Thanks Painter, funny how artists get ignored until someone else 'steals' (inadvertantly) their entire career. While Shutz makes interesting paintings...I would prefer the weird experience of Linhares anyday. Thorp needs a new gallery...I hate going up there to see a show...
Linhares!! Woo hoo. Yes I prefer Linhares too. I feel very much a part of the weirdness in Linhares' paintings. I can access them in a way I can't access Shutz.
i hope she gets some attention for this show, its a shame its at edward thorp, i also hate going up to that building, depressing. if any big galleries are watching this blog, i think Zwirner would be a great place for her, altho now i expect the dealers will say too much like Shutz, although they know she came first... also few will take on a new artist over 50, a woman at that... thats not alreadey famous..
could somebody who can access a Shutz let me in on how or y? they come off as so done and done better a thousand times, - this is a good example. she seems so a product of the need for a quick 'star' out of the columbia program. the work all reeks of the market and 'large scale' comes off as forced.
It would be great to talk about this artist without mentioning Schutz. Linhares is so much better and it does her a disservice to always be considered as the unknown precursor...
i agree. lets stop this linhares/schutz dialogue, i am sure the artist is so sick of hearing it and would want her art looked at without comparison to another person. i can bet it hurts already.
i like schutz. i like linhares. i think the rawness of schutz may appeal to more young people. they are pretty inaccessible ( so much about the paint) and becoming more self-conscious (maybe not in a good way). i certainly don't think she is a genius or even a better painter... and obviously she was influenced by linhares. with the overwhelming support of the art world, d.s. has gotten bigger and more bombastic. take that for what it is worth. it is a really loud experience. linhares was born in in the 1940's, and her image doesn't precede her work. i think a d.s. going for hundreds of thousands and linhares being relatively unknown points to some of the inequality discussed in recent days. what and why does the market want? i know "image" has long been a part of art marketing, but the art machine (which all would agree is very male) is addicted to schutz like crack. i haven't seen an art magazine or fashion magazine in two years that didn't have her picture or a feature about her work, and i do not say that with bitterness. i am happy for judy linhares. i think she is a great painter who has stuck with it for years. that is something we should all be in awe of and inspired by. most of the names on this blog will be forgotten in months, and many will stop making art. it is sort of like wilhem and elaine, except wilhem is cute, young, and female and not a drunk angry dutchman. not that she, or any of us, can change who we are.
that is all i wanted to say about the comparison. sorry. on with j.l. i think she is great and wierd in a very subtle way. her work seems really personal to me, and less obviously self-deprecating than another unnameable artstar. there is something fresh about that sort of vulnerability. it seems more important than (but not inseperable from) the way they are done, and that seems rare these days.
i think that is why linhares is so good, she is vulnerable and her paintings have room for vulnerability, she is not cramming every inch of the canvas with "feats" of painthandling, it is all felt and in a slow way. look at those flower still lifes, they are so beautiful without looking retro or academic. i want one. they are not cheap but of course cheaper than the unnamed female art star. her work is about contemplation, and restraint, the colors are so authentic, i congratulate her and for someone born in the 40's she is a real babe!!!!!
i would love to kiss her, and i don't swing that way. i bet she looks just as good in tight paint-splattered jeans. this is a very nice painting. it is generous.
This show is interesting, because she's working with the nude figure, whereas the previous work - that I've seen - has been still life, for the most part. She seems more interested in narrative possibilities; each of these paintings carries a loaded, mysterious story.
Agree, and I'm glad she's getting positive comments. The show is beautiful, I'm going back to see it later today. I love her use of color - it's outrageous without being garish - every painting glows.
Theres something Calvin and Hobbes about the way that planet is about to fall and crush the nude figure. Maybe its just me.
The paintings remind me of Santa Fe Chic - can't get past that.
In light of the past work:
http://www.judithlinhares.com/archive_90.html
http://www.judithlinhares.com/archive_70.html
You're going to say the old work doesn't look dated? And then you are going to say she's been doing this for how long? In geological time not at all.
I don't think artists should have to do the same thing year to year, but if Roberta is going to praise this:
"One can imagine Ms. Linhares forging the disparate examples of Marsden Hartley and contemporaries like Richard Bosman and Nancy Mitchnick into a style that is very much her own."
this whole conversation sounds like one we recently had at (i am thinking and i may have gallery wrong and they don't seem to have a website) Klemens Gasser & Tanja Grunert... i will look into that today.
I can't keep track of the anonomi, but to the anonmous who said it is a shame we can't talk about Linhares without talking about Shutz--you're right. I guess we are all responding to what people who don't know linhares' work will say. Nonetheless, I am so happy to have known her work for the last 14 years.
it's a little depressing that even here, a few comments about the artist's physical appearance crept in. this wouldn't come up with a male artist. did anyone say how mike cockrill (or any other guy) looked in his tight paint-splattered jeans?
maybe not hatred. it is just that she has been held up as the visionary of a generation, and it is shocking to see this other work by a respected older artist that has put in some time. we all have influences, but this one is pretty funny considering the sunami of hype. the show is good. sweet.
Both of them ,DS and JL ,are very good painters and there is plenty of room for them both. I think DS propably did not even know JL existed let alone was influenced by...this is such a snarky blog full of jealosy. Any put down of Dana is just a backlash. Is it possible that because of DS's sucess the artworld might just take another look at JR? Just hoping...
i don't think people (or i don't anyway) have anything against dana personally; she seems like a nice and sincere person. the backlash isn't against her, it's against the hype machine. honestly, who among us wouldn't take advantage of the machine if it scooped us up like it did her? go dana and go judith. let's hope a little of the machine can reach out to judith as well.
I say hatred because of the constant complaining about her and Columbia grads in general. She is a nice person and can paint so good for her and the hype around her. There is a lot of hatred on this blog maybe I should have said "jealousy". Sorry
it isn't really jealousy. i think it has more to do with the fact that she is the ONE american artist that has been talked about nonstop for the past 3 years, and her ideas are not so pure or original. she filled a gap in the market at the perfect time. at a moment of backlash. remember all of that masking tape abstraction? i mean really, there is an early baselitz painting at moma that could easily be mistaken for a shutz. many morons are surprised by this- they thought she was doing something entirely new. of course she isn't. i like shutz's work. there are good questions to ask about it, and that doesn't seem to happen at all. there is no doubt that she should be showing in a popular gallery and talked about and collected by tons of people and museums. personally, i feel burned out on it all. i am tired of hearing about prices and collectors and fashion magazines and wild young artists. the times has covered shutz more than the war in iraq. it doesn't make the work any better. backlashes are natural and important. it is good to slow down and think about what we are being fed sometimes. obviously there is room for both.
i think the whole systemic critique is totally valid. it doesn't mean that d.s. is not a great young painter. but as someone said, much dissatisfaction has to do with the hype. if we are going to ask why more women aren't showing on one hand, and on the other hand the most popular young artist in new york is an image conscious woman- don't you think there are some reasonable questions to ask about what the gallery/collector/money machine really wants? it has nothing to do with the quality of her work. if we are going to talk about issues of women in the gallery world, this is totally reasonable to me. it is a critique of the machine.
J.L. has a great sense of light. they remind me of really early italian paintings like duccio or someone. kind of like the light is spiritual. ooooowwwoooo.
Criticism of Schutz just seems like jealousy or misogyny.There are so few people making anything that doesn't involve photoshop or masking tape and isn't farmed out to an army of assistants. I feel like anybody willing to do the job for real deserves to be rewarded. If anyone deserves a backlash it is the fashiony art-girls and to make things fair the trust-fund art boys deserve it too. Valerie Solanas should have shot Edie Sedgewick instead.
i agree with kelly above, the fashiony art girls and the art boys should be disregarded, they get too much power, did anyone see the spead i think in the fashion magazine of the new york times, where they were called something like "the new renegades", should have been called the New Trust funders. i know Dana schutz works hard, and the jealousy or misogny isnt deserved, but its hard not to feel jealous sometimes, even if one has a career, of the inequality and the art machine and what it does. may i remind all of you that jealousy, etc. and what some people call bitter isnt always missplaced. its a real human emotion that we all feel, showing or not showing, selling or not selling, cute or not cute, old or young. the one thing on this blog that always bothers me is that the criticism is called jealousy and bitterness and is assumed that the person writing it has nothing going on. this is not true. what is a blog for if you cant rant on it about stuff like this? it wouldnt be fun to read at all.
power? last time i checked damien loeb had no discernible super man power. and we shud point ou that envy and jealousy are different animals. i envy guston and schutz but am not jealous of their well deserved status. just think how much responbility they had/have for their mediums. i would much rather abandon my career (which i have purposely several times) for new horizons. yes, i am famous and a painter. and would never wish upon someone young and smart what schutz has today. thanks for the blog Painter. and thanks to the young artists out there giving their opinions. it is worth reading.
Kelli, I think some people here are not being misogynist or commenting out of jealousy, rather, they are expressing their personal opinions about her work. I am a woman and I happen to be happy for her. But I am also happy to see an older woman who has been working hard all her life continue to make stellar work. Unfortunately, their work is superficially similar, thereby prompting comparison. If I say I enjoy Judy's work more, it does not mean I am jealous of Shutz.
criticizing this outrageous art market that is fueled by desire (of many kinds), and excludes 90% of women working in new york (and celebrates only a very few) has nothing at all to do with envy or misogyny. this day started with linhares and the simple question 'why?'. both artists are good. that isn't really the point. i could get into it, but anybody with the capacity to understand has already thought through it all.
i tried to go to linhares' opening last night, but the elevator wasn't working and the stairs were closed. very disappointing. sounds like some people got there...
personally, i think linhares and schutz are both extremely talented and deserving of any and all success. they're both badass painters. i love these gumby people chilling out on a mexican blanket thinking of alien abduction. and who hasn't contemplated eating her own face, or attending michael jackson's autopsy?
"many morons are surprised by this- they thought she(DS) was doing something entirely new."
Those 18 year old critics oughta be ashamed of themselves, calling people bitter.
Its all relative, and I'm sure no one ever feels bad for anything when they get a beautifull MFA. For the record aaa Columbia MFA goes for 64 THOUSAND dollars - in living expenses alone - which reminds me of that movie Quiz Show.
Kelli, you are doing a good job of promoting your crew, and just being possitive in general, and the same goes for the anonomi or is that anonimi. I have no idea the mysogyny you have faced, but it must be equal to the general indifference thousands of artists, male and female get? Could I have a show of hands for those that got a studio visit from the WBiennial curators?
I got tons of hits on my profile and you should check out my awesome blog - its totally killer! Rock on!
Oh, I just saw a working stiff who said they would love a house in the Poconos. Who wouldn't? I told them they were just being plain selfish and could we please just stick to the work, because thats al there is.
I have a site specific installation in my apartment where I clip out print out and save every mention of Sissel Kardel and Mike Cockrill and anyone else with hard syllables in their names. Then I also follow them around at openings. One time I was looking at Sissel for almost an hour and I was only two feet away and no one noticed. She wasnt wearing any makeup and I could see every pore.
I know Vito did something simular, and even though he says it was all planned and documented, I think it wasnt.
Sissies! I'd rather have a conversation about my work than anyone elses. What sport! Ah yes, let us glad hand eacher aground the bonfire, you and I. Who among us has not gazed at our own creation and wished for an abortion a murder or a repreive? Tender skinned souls I pray, send me your best cuts!
In the studio people may come and go, but never a Michaelangelo?
It IS annoying when you see an artist getting lots of attention all of a sudden, especially if they are super young, still in grad school, mostly just cute, married to/sleeping with someone famous, etc etc.
But if you've been around for awhile, you've no doubt seen this happen over and over, to no avail for the artists involved. I would say out of every 3 artists who get crazy hype, only one winds up having a great career, AT BEST. It's a mixed blessing. For every John Currin or Julie Mehretu there is a Charles Long, Julian La Verdiere, etc etc, someone whose career took a major downturn after the initial "hot new artist" stuff subsided. Pick up an old issue of ArtForum or look at old gallery guides. What goes up often comes down, HARD.
I can only wait until some of my least-faves hit the floor with a splat!
Charles Long...lol. Essentially, you can go through Boones stable and do the same thing right now. I feel bad for them. Look at the beautiful move by Sachs to leave the gallery. Saved by the bell.
long is a really good artist, best thing that ever happended to him, came down to earth, made good work, solid career not a big star but respected, at least my moi...most of these kids can only hope to have what he continues to have, yes, he was once a huge art star kind of guy, but now he is just a working artist, not a bad thing to be, or to strive for. longevity is the key.
My husband and I had a joke about a painter, Larry Zox. He used to fill the art mags in the 1970s, and we picked his name as a metaphor for the many forgotten successful. But the joke's on us, he has a wonderful painting up right now (I'm spacing on the gallery). At Dana Schutz's second show, the Fred one, I approached her to ask if she knew a painter named Judith Linhares. She absolutely did and loved her work. What is so easy to forget is how necessary it is for painters to extend their lines of influence. The great gift of painting is its applicability, as if it were exactly the way you saw it. This immediacy of communication is probably always pillaged to some degree, that's what moves painting forward. It's hard in NY because everyone is on top of each other, so the lines of influence aren't acknowledged in an analagous way to how they are applied. Judy Linhares is an amazing painter, the real thing, she thinks and dreams and communicates in paint. Her bright subjects pop from neutrals that are thick and chromatic. She sees the world in stripes that become planes, sometimes weird armatures as in women's hips that become almost like boats for skeins of paint swimming between. She uses a lot of white in the paintings, which is now being leveraged for more color--a good move. Her color is always dead-on in the gouaches and flower paintings, on a smaller scale she takes greater chances with the internal light. Her space is always slightly fish-eye lensed and her subjects are irresistable, somewhere between memory and dream. She is great, and this show is great. I hope it puts her on the map. She's not unknown, she's a highly acknowledged painter's painter but it would be great to see her get some major placement. It is a wonderful show--the best ever. I've followed her work for years. Thank you, painter, for coming through!
yes yes to anon 10:22. judy linarhes has been terrific forever. it is particularly important for young women to get to talk about women from previous generations influencing them. we need to hear more of that.
i could not agree more. waaaaay too much emphasis is placed on rocket careers and the here and the now. the quick sell. who did saatchi buy? sandro chia. it is hard to actually want that kind of attention. i don't envy d.s. even a little bit, though i would love her to give me a loan. better to be a long distance runner. i like schutz enough, but i love some painters that have quiet, steady careers. there will likely be a move away from painting soon and all of the recent hipsters and columbia grads. seen the sikkema show? remember ucla? not so hot now. does any of this hype really matter? maybe only when the "intellectual community" is sleeping with a hyper-inflated market. dealers and critics don't even pretend any more. most artists i respect have been doing it a long time and have a deep relationship with their work, which continued to develop in and out of the spotlight. they know their work and themselves well enough to not care what pissy mfa students say about them on a blog.. or what trendy collectors and critics think of them either. that is why you have to have a lot of respect for linhares, no matter what you think of her work.
Kelli, I am just curios what is a fashiony art-girl? Some one with good clothes, good looking? No need to name names but I think it is natural for an artist to have interest in clothing and design. I like to look good and I take myself very seriously as an artist. Do you think we should still have to dress down or a certain way to be taken seriously. I am just not sure what is wrong with fashion and the art world together?
Exactly---longevity is the goal. Wayyy too much attention is placed on what or who is hot, what other people are doing, what your profs at grad school think of your work, etc etc. As an artist you need to have your own ideas and be able to realize them without worrying what everyone thinks all the time and needing so much approval. That's part of what time gives you---it tests your commitment to your own work and ideas, and what other people say or do matters much less. It's not like we're in this for the money.
Consensus is so boring anyway---and never lasts. I'd pick a weird, unique, older artist who is passionate about his/her ideas over a trendy young superstar any day.
In a way I feel sad for the 24-year olds having solo shows. . .where do you go from there? It's like writing a great first novel based on your life and then realizing you don't have any other ideas. . .or life experience to draw from. Or getting a Porsche when you turn 16. Fun in the moment and boring as hell in the long run.
anon: 10:59 that is another whole can of worms, and no there is nothing wrong with nice clothes, good looking, and i remember some years ago i was really pissed, there was an artist, no need for names, who in the press put down "older" artists for not caring about how they looked, it really pissed me off because as an "older" artist, i went for facials, good haircuts, good clothes, but there was this stereotype of an older artist wearing birkenstocks and having frizzy long grey hair that i resented, she somehow thought that she was unique in her liking fashion, most artist women, and men i know love fashion, there is a difference, however, the fashiony art girls who go out all dressed up and ultra sexy to get attention for their work, using that as a tool to get attentio for themselves, because they know it will work. you can be fasionable and not do that. there is a difference. i alsol think the person who posed in the marc jacobs ads made a fool of herself, and as a result is not taken that seriously as an artist, but i know she is serious about herself as an artist. and i also think the long, steady career is starting to look really really good, and unique.
I'd love to hear about other people's Charles Longs and Larry Zoxes, artists who epitomize for you the rollercoaster career buzz. And not because they are bad artists---just because they got caught up in the art world machine. . .
I think Banks Violette and Cory Arcangel might go the same way. . .anybody else?
its true, i remember when i got the call after about 20+ years of working that i was finally to have a one person museum show, it was a HUGE personal deep moment, something i think the 25 year old grad student isnt going to have, because i had those long years, i cried it was for the wait, the reward of doing good work that was really developed etc. and that someone finally recognized it, and it was about the work, not about anything else.
i think it is great that linhares influenced shutz. that happens with everyone, and it should be celebrated and talked about. it should be talked about a lot. it is great that linhares vision has found new life with a painter of a younger generation. i do however, think some criticism of the machine is warranted. and frankly, people shouldn't be so stunned that shutz is borrowing. none of this shit is new. it is funny that linhares exists out there as shutz's dirty little secret, like somehow her fame depends on some kind of pure vision. i think the hype sort of requires that. it would be great if vogue could do a feature on the two of them.
That attractive female artists would allow themselves to be photographed in fasion mags or ads to me can only be a symptom of how we are still socialized to think physical beauty and appearances are the apotheosis of womanhood. Unbelievable that despite Ivy league degrees, deep intelligence and integrity, they don't see that advertising oneself as a fashion It-girl does not inspire respect as an artist. I'm all for having nice clothes and good haircuts, and if I had an $$ I'd have more of both, but there is a big difference between looking good for yourself and being photographed for Vogue. It's 2006, for god's sake---when are we going to stop needing that kind of approval? Isn't career satisfaction, fame and fortune enough?? It only makes it harder for the rest of us to be taken seriously, cute or not.
i'm not going to look so great on the pages of W, vogue, or the new york times style section. i have my mother's hips. still making work. it is totally annoying that young women have to play that up. the art world is no different than the entertainment industry at this point.. there are some clear lines drawn so art people can feel righteous.. but it is no different than hollywood for women. if you aren't a young hottie, you better be making work about your sex drive, drugs, being hip, girlie daydreams, loosey-goosey paint, or abstraction-lite. unfortunately, i'm not interested in any of that crap. all of this talk about underrepresentation is linked to a disconnect between what women actually make or look like.. and what the current system wants to trade money for.
It's all about star-quality baby! Come on Violet. It's not the first time the art world's ever intermingled and has become intertwined or even dependent upon other worlds -- fashion, royalty, even diplomacy, whatever... It was never the bubble you seem to imagine it to be. Get over it.
you don't think there is a problem for women in the art world? you have to play the game. it's like trying to climb the corporate ladder in the 80's. better wear a mini-skirt.
I put all my influences through my brain and it comes out so scrambled that sometimes its like breakfast. Other times its like millennial antinomianism or something.
yessssss. star quality. you've got it. wow. i am totally blown away by the way you poke that ass out. a 10 on the peter meter. so you are into obsessive doodle drawing? that is really fresh. put in more vague references to genitalia and groping. yeah, that's it. you are going to be huuuuuuuuge. i am fascinated by the inner-lives of women. wild thang, you make my heart sang.
It's disturbing to me how many of you seem to yearn for "respect" and a "long career" in the art world.
To me, the ideal art career path is--become well known when you're young, then get more-or-less forgotten so that you can spend the rest of your life teaching and making things you like in peace and occasionally selling them at just high enough prices to finance the roof over your head.
A lot of good artists are attractive or young or fashionable. I'm just criticizing the way artists are marketed. I think some older artists particurally women feel excluded. DS just does not spring to my mind as a good example of the problem. She seems like someone who works hard and is aiming for 40 not 30.
Personal charisma and celebrity has replaced Benjamin's aura -- laments Kuspit, who wrote about this, not as a problem of gender, nor marketing -- rather, as a general state in contemporary art -- or perhaps, as a state of contemporaneity.
kuthpid needth to think about what is charithmatic about women for motht men in power and thpending loths of money. it ith absolutely a problem of gender, and marketing. i agree about the aura ithue, but for women to be charithmatic, they have to play the thex appeal game. thelebrity ith about thex and dethire.
i went to columbia open studos i thought the work was all fairly affected and nothing poped - except perhaps seeing boone dietch finch jer roberta.. just off hand
Hey, me went to Risd too! Maybe we no each other! One time my porfessor said I was a really good tinker! And another time, they took all my money, but still I tink I am a good tinker. And I have a smart ass.
hey anonymous 3:49 Jerry saltz is a visionary thinker with a great deal to say about how the endtimes will occur. Just ask him. He likes snacks. I like snacks. We all like snacks don't we? And that is why we circle the void - because according to some language theorists (ask me I'll tell you) we understand the world through bodily metaphors.
painter i actually think you should shut this blog down. it's just become careernyc.com. there is so little on here about anyone's paintings that it really HAS become like a water cooler at the office of the art career building. i think your intention was good but i'm not coming back here anymore. i can get all this career speculation at a party or a bar with my friends. goodbye, and good luck.
Judith Linhers is what we should be talking about. What has Jerry Saltz ever painted? This is truely an exceptional painter. Thank you for posting her.
I like the signifier quote Joan. Another word I ran across was "polysemic" which might be a branding jargon thing I dunno.
Jerry said some stuff apropos of shutting down this stinking snakepit of actual communication:
I think we need more critics who are willing to write about what they like and what they don't like… I think there needs to be more of that across the board. This is a serious problem. If all criticism is enthusiastic it sells the art world short. I call it "Happy Criticism."
[Negative or mixed criticism] doesn’t happen enough. Which is strange. When you're out there in the art world and talking to people you hear a lot of negative things. But then, the magazines are filled with all this merely descriptive stuff or happy reviews. Newspapers are better than magazines. Magazines need to change.
AND
"First of all, I think spectacle is like pornography: I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it."
I am a brain in a tank. I live for books and other media. My life is a hollow, dreary existence punctuated by exciting malfunctions in my aparatus. Feel for me, because I can't.
Have you ever laid naked on the floor under a mirror ball while hopped up on mescaline like some 1950's abstractionist?
Wow! I just checked out some of Linhares other paintings, and the only one I could find that looked like Dana's is posted by the very passive agressive "Painter" on this blogg. while Linhares painting is beautifully done, it is an extremely boring composition, and doesn't compare with the worst of Dana's paintings. In this fight, Dana is the heavy weight, hands down. Also, your crazy to think that Dana won't have a long career, she's hard working, humble and is just getting warmed up.
she was influenced. it is stupid to attack her for it or to defend the idea that she didn't borrow from linhares. there are paintings from pre-2000 that definitely fed shutz's work. it is clear. WHO CARES. WHOOOO CARES??!! it is part of what we do. it is part of what she does. nobody should be surprised that she isn't some outsider genius freak. she is a great painter that will be doing it for a long time. true. congratulations. i think everyone should applaud shutz for finding an artist nobody else seemed to know about and reinvigorating her language. d.s. seems to be moving away from her earlier influences now like all artists that mature. but all in the art world should be able to discuss the fact that d.s. liked and was influenced by j.l. without having a heartattack. i think they should be mentioned in the same breath, regardless of who you prefer. it would be GREAT if vogue photographed both of them sitting on a couch or if jerry put them in a show together. i suspect that would never happen, and part of why this is such a tense subject is the fact that soooooo much naive money and powerful interest has been invested in d.s. and her image. that is what the existence of j.l. threatens. otherwise this would be a non-issue. it certainly doesn't change her work. calm down people. none of us are pure.
seeing terms like "heavyweight" and "boring composition" make me long for the days when artists actually thought critically about what they made and what such language means. it is a sign of the times. well designed, spectacular, and assertive painting wins in the art fair age. it will change again and again and again..
does jerry curate shows? have any of you been in them? is it true he tells art students he can make them famous and hook them up? has anyone out there had these experieinces?
130 comments:
210 Eleventh Avenue NY, NY 10001
212.691.6565
edwardthorpgallery@earthlink.net
Thanks Painter, funny how artists get ignored until someone else 'steals' (inadvertantly) their entire career. While Shutz makes interesting paintings...I would prefer the weird experience of Linhares anyday. Thorp needs a new gallery...I hate going up there to see a show...
Linhares!! Woo hoo. Yes I prefer Linhares too. I feel very much a part of the weirdness in Linhares' paintings. I can access them in a way I can't access Shutz.
You picked a particularly good one.
i hope she gets some attention for this show, its a shame its at edward thorp, i also hate going up to that building, depressing. if any big galleries are watching this blog, i think Zwirner would be a great place for her, altho now i expect the dealers will say too much like Shutz, although they know she came first... also few will take on a new artist over 50, a woman at that... thats not alreadey famous..
could somebody who can access a Shutz let me in on how or y? they come off as so done and done better a thousand times, - this is a good example. she seems so a product of the need for a quick 'star' out of the columbia program. the work all reeks of the market and 'large scale' comes off as forced.
It would be great to talk about this artist without mentioning Schutz. Linhares is so much better and it does her a disservice to always be considered as the unknown precursor...
One of her best. Brilliant use of color
Is this the same group of people who trash every painter up here, getting behind some one? Wow!
i agree. lets stop this linhares/schutz dialogue, i am sure the artist is so sick of hearing it and would want her art looked at without comparison to another person. i can bet it hurts already.
maybe because painter put up someone good for a change...
i like schutz. i like linhares. i think the rawness of schutz may appeal to more young people. they are pretty inaccessible ( so much about the paint) and becoming more self-conscious (maybe not in a good way). i certainly don't think she is a genius or even a better painter... and obviously she was influenced by linhares. with the overwhelming support of the art world, d.s. has gotten bigger and more bombastic. take that for what it is worth. it is a really loud experience. linhares was born in in the 1940's, and her image doesn't precede her work. i think a d.s. going for hundreds of thousands and linhares being relatively unknown points to some of the inequality discussed in recent days. what and why does the market want? i know "image" has long been a part of art marketing, but the art machine (which all would agree is very male) is addicted to schutz like crack. i haven't seen an art magazine or fashion magazine in two years that didn't have her picture or a feature about her work, and i do not say that with bitterness. i am happy for judy linhares. i think she is a great painter who has stuck with it for years. that is something we should all be in awe of and inspired by. most of the names on this blog will be forgotten in months, and many will stop making art. it is sort of like wilhem and elaine, except wilhem is cute, young, and female and not a drunk angry dutchman. not that she, or any of us, can change who we are.
that is all i wanted to say about the comparison. sorry. on with j.l. i think she is great and wierd in a very subtle way. her work seems really personal to me, and less obviously self-deprecating than another unnameable artstar. there is something fresh about that sort of vulnerability. it seems more important than (but not inseperable from) the way they are done, and that seems rare these days.
i think that is why linhares is so good, she is vulnerable and her paintings have room for vulnerability, she is not cramming every inch of the canvas with "feats" of painthandling, it is all felt and in a slow way. look at those flower still lifes, they are so beautiful without looking retro or academic. i want one. they are not cheap but of course cheaper than the unnamed female art star. her work is about contemplation, and restraint, the colors are so authentic, i congratulate her and for someone born in the 40's she is a real babe!!!!!
The imagery looks like maybe it came from Rousseau's 'Sleeping Gypsy' or something.
i would love to kiss her, and i don't swing that way. i bet she looks just as good in tight paint-splattered jeans. this is a very nice painting. it is generous.
This show is interesting, because she's working with the nude figure, whereas the previous work - that I've seen - has been still life, for the most part. She seems more interested in narrative possibilities; each of these paintings carries a loaded, mysterious story.
I wish her much success. Here work is fantastical, dreamy, introspective, whimsical without being corny. Her themes are generous. I love her work.
Agree, and I'm glad she's getting positive comments. The show is beautiful, I'm going back to see it later today. I love her use of color - it's outrageous without being garish - every painting glows.
Theres something Calvin and Hobbes about the way that planet is about to fall and crush the nude figure. Maybe its just me.
The paintings remind me of Santa Fe Chic - can't get past that.
In light of the past work:
http://www.judithlinhares.com/archive_90.html
http://www.judithlinhares.com/archive_70.html
You're going to say the old work doesn't look dated? And then you are going to say she's been doing this for how long? In geological time not at all.
I don't think artists should have to do the same thing year to year, but if Roberta is going to praise this:
"One can imagine Ms. Linhares forging the disparate examples of Marsden Hartley and contemporaries like Richard Bosman and Nancy Mitchnick into a style that is very much her own."
Really?
This stuff is fresh
GREAT.
this whole conversation sounds like one we recently had at (i am thinking and i may have gallery wrong and they don't seem to have a website) Klemens Gasser & Tanja Grunert...
i will look into that today.
it's a little lite,on second thought-
I can't keep track of the anonomi, but to the anonmous who said it is a shame we can't talk about Linhares without talking about Shutz--you're right. I guess we are all responding to what people who don't know linhares' work will say. Nonetheless, I am so happy to have known her work for the last 14 years.
it's a little depressing that even here, a few comments about the artist's physical appearance crept in. this wouldn't come up with a male artist. did anyone say how mike cockrill (or any other guy) looked in his tight paint-splattered jeans?
don't you think that was an ironic comment about the market? mike cockrill looks great in jeans by the way.
i think this work is great as well. i also think a lot of the love comes from a hatred for schutz.
yes. it is true.
maybe not hatred. it is just that she has been held up as the visionary of a generation, and it is shocking to see this other work by a respected older artist that has put in some time. we all have influences, but this one is pretty funny considering the sunami of hype. the show is good. sweet.
tsunami.
tsorry
it is shocking. i would love to hear what ds has to say. maybe she will chime in.
Both of them ,DS and JL ,are very good painters and there is plenty of room for them both. I think DS propably did not even know JL existed let alone was influenced by...this is such a snarky blog full of jealosy. Any put down of Dana is just a backlash. Is it possible that because of DS's sucess the artworld might just take another look at JR? Just hoping...
i don't think people (or i don't anyway) have anything against dana personally; she seems like a nice and sincere person. the backlash isn't against her, it's against the hype machine. honestly, who among us wouldn't take advantage of the machine if it scooped us up like it did her? go dana and go judith. let's hope a little of the machine can reach out to judith as well.
sissel kardel is better looking
I say hatred because of the constant complaining about her and Columbia grads in general. She is a nice person and can paint so good for her and the hype around her. There is a lot of hatred on this blog maybe I should have said "jealousy". Sorry
it isn't really jealousy. i think it has more to do with the fact that she is the ONE american artist that has been talked about nonstop for the past 3 years, and her ideas are not so pure or original. she filled a gap in the market at the perfect time. at a moment of backlash. remember all of that masking tape abstraction? i mean really, there is an early baselitz painting at moma that could easily be mistaken for a shutz. many morons are surprised by this- they thought she was doing something entirely new. of course she isn't. i like shutz's work. there are good questions to ask about it, and that doesn't seem to happen at all. there is no doubt that she should be showing in a popular gallery and talked about and collected by tons of people and museums. personally, i feel burned out on it all. i am tired of hearing about prices and collectors and fashion magazines and wild young artists. the times has covered shutz more than the war in iraq. it doesn't make the work any better. backlashes are natural and important. it is good to slow down and think about what we are being fed sometimes. obviously there is room for both.
i think the whole systemic critique is totally valid. it doesn't mean that d.s. is not a great young painter. but as someone said, much dissatisfaction has to do with the hype. if we are going to ask why more women aren't showing on one hand, and on the other hand the most popular young artist in new york is an image conscious woman- don't you think there are some reasonable questions to ask about what the gallery/collector/money machine really wants? it has nothing to do with the quality of her work. if we are going to talk about issues of women in the gallery world, this is totally reasonable to me. it is a critique of the machine.
one's a little bit kuuuuuntry... one's a little bit rock and rollllll......
to clarify, by "it has nothing to do with the quality of her work", i meant- the systemic critique has nothing to do with the quality of her work.
too bad this is saturday. i would love to hear what all of the disgruntled working stiffs have to say.
J.L. has a great sense of light. they remind me of really early italian paintings like duccio or someone. kind of like the light is spiritual. ooooowwwoooo.
Criticism of Schutz just seems like jealousy or misogyny.There are so few people making anything that doesn't involve photoshop or masking tape and isn't farmed out to an army of assistants. I feel like anybody willing to do the job for real deserves to be rewarded. If anyone deserves a backlash it is the fashiony art-girls and to make things fair the trust-fund art boys deserve it too. Valerie Solanas should have shot Edie Sedgewick instead.
i agree with kelly above, the fashiony art girls and the art boys should be disregarded, they get too much power, did anyone see the spead i think in the fashion magazine of the new york times, where they were called something like "the new renegades", should have been called the New Trust funders. i know Dana schutz works hard, and the jealousy or misogny isnt deserved, but its hard not to feel jealous sometimes, even if one has a career, of the inequality and the art machine and what it does. may i remind all of you that jealousy, etc. and what some people call bitter isnt always missplaced. its a real human emotion
that we all feel, showing or not showing, selling or not selling, cute or not cute, old or young. the one thing on this blog that always bothers me is that the criticism is called jealousy and bitterness and is assumed that the person writing it has nothing going on. this is not true. what is a blog for if you cant rant on it about stuff like this? it wouldnt be fun to read at all.
power? last time i checked damien loeb had no discernible super man power. and we shud point ou that envy and jealousy are different animals. i envy guston and schutz but am not jealous of their well deserved status. just think how much responbility they had/have for their mediums. i would much rather abandon my career (which i have purposely several times) for new horizons. yes, i am famous and a painter. and would never wish upon someone young and smart what schutz has today. thanks for the blog Painter. and thanks to the young artists out there giving their opinions. it is worth reading.
Kelli, I think some people here are not being misogynist or commenting out of jealousy, rather, they are expressing their personal opinions about her work. I am a woman and I happen to be happy for her. But I am also happy to see an older woman who has been working hard all her life continue to make stellar work. Unfortunately, their work is superficially similar, thereby prompting comparison. If I say I enjoy Judy's work more, it does not mean I am jealous of Shutz.
criticizing this outrageous art market that is fueled by desire (of many kinds), and excludes 90% of women working in new york (and celebrates only a very few) has nothing at all to do with envy or misogyny. this day started with linhares and the simple question 'why?'. both artists are good. that isn't really the point. i could get into it, but anybody with the capacity to understand has already thought through it all.
Painter, are you having the same problem loading images onto your blog as the rest of us? This is driving me crazy!
i tried to go to linhares' opening last night, but the elevator wasn't working and the stairs were closed. very disappointing. sounds like some people got there...
personally, i think linhares and schutz are both extremely talented and deserving of any and all success. they're both badass painters. i love these gumby people chilling out on a mexican blanket thinking of alien abduction. and who hasn't contemplated eating her own face, or attending michael jackson's autopsy?
um -- was 6:04 -- luc tuymans?
Who else quit painting only to resume again?
"many morons are surprised by this- they thought she(DS) was doing something entirely new."
Those 18 year old critics oughta be ashamed of themselves, calling people bitter.
Its all relative, and I'm sure no one ever feels bad for anything when they get a beautifull MFA. For the record aaa Columbia MFA goes for 64 THOUSAND dollars - in living expenses alone - which reminds me of that movie Quiz Show.
Kelli, you are doing a good job of promoting your crew, and just being possitive in general, and the same goes for the anonomi or is that anonimi. I have no idea the mysogyny you have faced, but it must be equal to the general indifference thousands of artists, male and female get? Could I have a show of hands for those that got a studio visit from the WBiennial curators?
I got tons of hits on my profile and you should check out my awesome blog - its totally killer! Rock on!
Oh, I just saw a working stiff who said they would love a house in the Poconos. Who wouldn't? I told them they were just being plain selfish and could we please just stick to the work, because thats al there is.
I have a site specific installation in my apartment where I clip out print out and save every mention of Sissel Kardel and Mike Cockrill and anyone else with hard syllables in their names. Then I also follow them around at openings. One time I was looking at Sissel for almost an hour and I was only two feet away and no one noticed. She wasnt wearing any makeup and I could see every pore.
I know Vito did something simular, and even though he says it was all planned and documented, I think it wasnt.
Form follows fashion
every morning i wake up and hope that my work doesn't show up on this blog. i hate my work more than any of you people possibly could.
Doubtful. These people would probably find new and creative ways to hate it that you hadn't thought of.
I too would not want to see my work up here.
Sissies! I'd rather have a conversation about my work than anyone elses. What sport! Ah yes, let us glad hand eacher aground the bonfire, you and I. Who among us has not gazed at our own creation and wished for an abortion a murder or a repreive? Tender skinned souls I pray, send me your best cuts!
In the studio people may come and go, but never a Michaelangelo?
Soup!
i think it was peter max.
It IS annoying when you see an artist getting lots of attention all of a sudden, especially if they are super young, still in grad school, mostly just cute, married to/sleeping with someone famous, etc etc.
But if you've been around for awhile, you've no doubt seen this happen over and over, to no avail for the artists involved. I would say out of every 3 artists who get crazy hype, only one winds up having a great career, AT BEST. It's a mixed blessing. For every John Currin or Julie Mehretu there is a Charles Long, Julian La Verdiere, etc etc, someone whose career took a major downturn after the initial "hot new artist" stuff subsided. Pick up an old issue of ArtForum or look at old gallery guides. What goes up often comes down, HARD.
I can only wait until some of my least-faves hit the floor with a splat!
Charles Long...lol. Essentially, you can go through Boones stable and do the same thing right now. I feel bad for them. Look at the beautiful move by Sachs to leave the gallery. Saved by the bell.
long is a really good artist, best thing that ever happended to him, came down to earth, made good work, solid career not a big star but respected, at least my moi...most of these kids can only hope to have what he continues to have, yes, he was once a huge art star kind of guy, but now he is just a working artist, not a bad thing to be, or to strive for. longevity is the key.
My husband and I had a joke about a painter, Larry Zox. He used to fill the art mags in the 1970s, and we picked his name as a metaphor for the many forgotten successful. But the joke's on us, he has a wonderful painting up right now (I'm spacing on the gallery).
At Dana Schutz's second show, the Fred one, I approached her to ask if she knew a painter named Judith Linhares. She absolutely did and loved her work.
What is so easy to forget is how necessary it is for painters to extend their lines of influence. The great gift of painting is its applicability, as if it were exactly the way you saw it. This immediacy of communication is probably always pillaged to some degree, that's what moves painting forward. It's hard in NY because everyone is on top of each other, so the lines of influence aren't acknowledged in an analagous way to how they are applied.
Judy Linhares is an amazing painter, the real thing, she thinks and dreams and communicates in paint. Her bright subjects pop from neutrals that are thick and chromatic. She sees the world in stripes that become planes, sometimes weird armatures as in women's hips that become almost like boats for skeins of paint swimming between. She uses a lot of white in the paintings, which is now being leveraged for more color--a good move. Her color is always dead-on in the gouaches and flower paintings, on a smaller scale she takes greater chances with the internal light. Her space is always slightly fish-eye lensed and her subjects are irresistable, somewhere between memory and dream. She is great, and this show is great. I hope it puts her on the map. She's not unknown, she's a highly acknowledged painter's painter but it would be great to see her get some major placement.
It is a wonderful show--the best ever. I've followed her work for years. Thank you, painter, for coming through!
OMG, that was Jerry writing.
yes yes to anon 10:22. judy linarhes has been terrific forever.
it is particularly important for young women to get to talk about women from previous generations influencing them. we need to hear more of that.
i wish that was j.s. writing. he should take a tip from this blog.
Jerry has a husband?
i could not agree more. waaaaay too much emphasis is placed on rocket careers and the here and the now. the quick sell. who did saatchi buy? sandro chia. it is hard to actually want that kind of attention. i don't envy d.s. even a little bit, though i would love her to give me a loan. better to be a long distance runner. i like schutz enough, but i love some painters that have quiet, steady careers. there will likely be a move away from painting soon and all of the recent hipsters and columbia grads. seen the sikkema show? remember ucla? not so hot now. does any of this hype really matter? maybe only when the "intellectual community" is sleeping with a hyper-inflated market. dealers and critics don't even pretend any more. most artists i respect have been doing it a long time and have a deep relationship with their work, which continued to develop in and out of the spotlight. they know their work and themselves well enough to not care what pissy mfa students say about them on a blog.. or what trendy collectors and critics think of them either. that is why you have to have a lot of respect for linhares, no matter what you think of her work.
Kelli, I am just curios what is a fashiony art-girl? Some one with good clothes, good looking? No need to name names but I think it is natural for an artist to have interest in clothing and design. I like to look good and I take myself very seriously as an artist. Do you think we should still have to dress down or a certain way to be taken seriously. I am just not sure what is wrong with fashion and the art world together?
come back jerry, don't go.
Exactly---longevity is the goal. Wayyy too much attention is placed on what or who is hot, what other people are doing, what your profs at grad school think of your work, etc etc. As an artist you need to have your own ideas and be able to realize them without worrying what everyone thinks all the time and needing so much approval. That's part of what time gives you---it tests your commitment to your own work and ideas, and what other people say or do matters much less. It's not like we're in this for the money.
Consensus is so boring anyway---and never lasts. I'd pick a weird, unique, older artist who is passionate about his/her ideas over a trendy young superstar any day.
In a way I feel sad for the 24-year olds having solo shows. . .where do you go from there? It's like writing a great first novel based on your life and then realizing you don't have any other ideas. . .or life experience to draw from. Or getting a Porsche when you turn 16. Fun in the moment and boring as hell in the long run.
anon: 10:59 that is another whole can of worms, and no there is nothing wrong with nice clothes, good looking, and i remember some years ago i was really pissed, there was an artist, no need for names, who in the press put down "older" artists for not caring about how they looked, it really pissed me off because as an "older" artist, i went for facials, good haircuts, good clothes, but there was this stereotype of an older artist wearing birkenstocks and having frizzy long grey hair that i resented, she somehow thought that she was unique in her liking fashion, most artist women, and men i know love fashion, there is a difference, however, the fashiony art girls who go out all dressed up and ultra sexy to get attention for their work, using that as a tool to get attentio for themselves, because they know it will work. you can be fasionable and not do that. there is a difference. i alsol think the person who posed in the marc jacobs ads made a fool of herself, and as a result is not taken that seriously as an artist, but i know she is serious about herself as an artist. and i also think the long, steady career is starting to look really really good, and unique.
can someone who knows linhares give her a heads up on this blog. does she even know about it? she would probably die opf pleasure reading it.
p.s. and extremely gratifying i would think
I'd love to hear about other people's Charles Longs and Larry Zoxes, artists who epitomize for you the rollercoaster career buzz. And not because they are bad artists---just because they got caught up in the art world machine. . .
I think Banks Violette and Cory Arcangel might go the same way. . .anybody else?
its true, i remember when i got the call after about 20+ years of working that i was finally to have a one person museum show, it was a HUGE personal deep moment, something i think the 25 year old grad student isnt going to have, because i had those long years, i cried it was for the wait, the reward of doing good work that was really developed etc. and that someone finally recognized it, and it was about the work, not about anything else.
i think it is great that linhares influenced shutz. that happens with everyone, and it should be celebrated and talked about. it should be talked about a lot. it is great that linhares vision has found new life with a painter of a younger generation. i do however, think some criticism of the machine is warranted. and frankly, people shouldn't be so stunned that shutz is borrowing. none of this shit is new. it is funny that linhares exists out there as shutz's dirty little secret, like somehow her fame depends on some kind of pure vision. i think the hype sort of requires that. it would be great if vogue could do a feature on the two of them.
That attractive female artists would allow themselves to be photographed in fasion mags or ads to me can only be a symptom of how we are still socialized to think physical beauty and appearances are the apotheosis of womanhood. Unbelievable that despite Ivy league degrees, deep intelligence and integrity, they don't see that advertising oneself as a fashion It-girl does not inspire respect as an artist. I'm all for having nice clothes and good haircuts, and if I had an $$ I'd have more of both, but there is a big difference between looking good for yourself and being photographed for Vogue. It's 2006, for god's sake---when are we going to stop needing that kind of approval? Isn't career satisfaction, fame and fortune enough?? It only makes it harder for the rest of us to be taken seriously, cute or not.
was that actually saltz? i hope he sweeps in to protect me when my work is attacked. or whoever that was. spidey? aquaman?
i'm not going to look so great on the pages of W, vogue, or the new york times style section. i have my mother's hips. still making work. it is totally annoying that young women have to play that up. the art world is no different than the entertainment industry at this point.. there are some clear lines drawn so art people can feel righteous.. but it is no different than hollywood for women. if you aren't a young hottie, you better be making work about your sex drive, drugs, being hip, girlie daydreams, loosey-goosey paint, or abstraction-lite. unfortunately, i'm not interested in any of that crap. all of this talk about underrepresentation is linked to a disconnect between what women actually make or look like.. and what the current system wants to trade money for.
It's all about star-quality baby! Come on Violet. It's not the first time the art world's ever intermingled and has become intertwined or even dependent upon other worlds -- fashion, royalty, even diplomacy, whatever... It was never the bubble you seem to imagine it to be. Get over it.
I heard from a reliable source that DS was influenced by Mark Kostabi. He's great.
you don't think there is a problem for women in the art world? you have to play the game. it's like trying to climb the corporate ladder in the 80's. better wear a mini-skirt.
american idol?
I put all my influences through my brain and it comes out so scrambled that sometimes its like breakfast. Other times its like millennial antinomianism or something.
yessssss. star quality. you've got it. wow. i am totally blown away by the way you poke that ass out. a 10 on the peter meter. so you are into obsessive doodle drawing? that is really fresh. put in more vague references to genitalia and groping. yeah, that's it. you are going to be huuuuuuuuge. i am fascinated by the inner-lives of women. wild thang, you make my heart sang.
It's disturbing to me how many of you seem to yearn for "respect" and a "long career" in the art world.
To me, the ideal art career path is--become well known when you're young, then get more-or-less forgotten so that you can spend the rest of your life teaching and making things you like in peace and occasionally selling them at just high enough prices to finance the roof over your head.
Right-on, 11:57!
11:35 may be on to something, Star-quality. It was once said of sasnal by a collector.. and doesn't wear a mini-skirt.
I have the Guerilla Girls "advantages of being a woman artist" poster above my desk---http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/advantages.shtml
Pathetic that it is from 1989 and the only part that truly seems dated is the part about cigars and Italian suits.
Anon 11:48, you make MY heart sing. . .lol!
A lot of good artists are attractive or young or fashionable. I'm just criticizing the way artists are marketed. I think some older artists particurally women feel excluded. DS just does not spring to my mind as a good example of the problem. She seems like someone who works hard and is aiming for 40 not 30.
Personal charisma and celebrity has replaced Benjamin's aura -- laments Kuspit, who wrote about this, not as a problem of gender, nor marketing -- rather, as a general state in contemporary art -- or perhaps, as a state of contemporaneity.
Joan, that was funny.
qv, xo, 11:48.
kuthpid needth to think about what is charithmatic about women for motht men in power and thpending loths of money. it ith absolutely a problem of gender, and marketing. i agree about the aura ithue, but for women to be charithmatic, they have to play the thex appeal game. thelebrity ith about thex and dethire.
Joan? Are you really on this blog? Wow! first tuymans, then saltz, now joan!
But Currin had a bigger mahl stick.
joan who?
I have a charisma of 18. can I be an art star?
depends.
Do you hail from Columbia?
i went to columbia open studos i thought the work was all fairly affected and nothing poped - except perhaps seeing boone dietch finch jer roberta.. just off hand
oh look
oh look
Hey, me went to Risd too! Maybe we no each other! One time my porfessor said I was a really good tinker! And another time, they took all my money, but still I tink I am a good tinker. And I have a smart ass.
why is jerry saltz important and how come this blog always ends up talking about him? do u know that one can nominate oneself for pulitzers?
if you don't know why then you will never be important
cum on over jer we ve got some snacks for u
hey anonymous 3:49 Jerry saltz is a visionary thinker with a great deal to say about how the endtimes will occur. Just ask him. He likes snacks. I like snacks. We all like snacks don't we? And that is why we circle the void - because according to some language theorists (ask me I'll tell you) we understand the world through bodily metaphors.
And finally; you and what army?
painter i actually think you should shut this blog down. it's just become careernyc.com. there is so little on here about anyone's paintings that it really HAS become like a water cooler at the office of the art career building. i think your intention was good but i'm not coming back here anymore. i can get all this career speculation at a party or a bar with my friends. goodbye, and good luck.
judithlinhares@aol.com....found this on the web, maybe a fan can write her....
umm... sounds alot like all gallery talk to me. i think it is realistic at worst. your a student aren't you. or a teacher. or not in new york.
Oh! No! Anonymous has left. With out Anonymous what will we do?
Judith Linhers is what we should be talking about. What has Jerry Saltz ever painted? This is truely an exceptional painter. Thank you for posting her.
according to the lore of jer. he started out a painter. someone should find and post one of those.
I like the signifier quote Joan. Another word I ran across was "polysemic" which might be a branding jargon thing I dunno.
Jerry said some stuff apropos of shutting down this stinking snakepit of actual communication:
I think we need more critics who are willing to write about what they like and what they don't like… I think there needs to be more of that across the board. This is a serious problem. If all criticism is enthusiastic it sells the art world short. I call it "Happy Criticism."
[Negative or mixed criticism] doesn’t happen enough. Which is strange. When you're out there in the art world and talking to people you hear a lot of negative things. But then, the magazines are filled with all this merely descriptive stuff or happy reviews. Newspapers are better than magazines. Magazines need to change.
AND
"First of all, I think spectacle is like pornography: I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it."
Jerry likes porn right? Right?
Well he is the same as everyone on this blog. Started out as painters and ended up as jpeg blog critics.
i started out as a jpeg blog critic not a painter.
I enjoy flow experiences.
i just nail my hand to the canvas. Steady as she gets.
Hit me with your mal stick
Das ist gut, c'est fantastique
Who loved the gouache in the back room, the horse at water, with the pink and aqua?
i like vodka
Luc Skyyewalker?
Commodify your Dissent.
I am a brain in a tank. I live for books and other media. My life is a hollow, dreary existence punctuated by exciting malfunctions in my aparatus. Feel for me, because I can't.
Have you ever laid naked on the floor under a mirror ball while hopped up on mescaline like some 1950's abstractionist?
Me neither.
Wow! I just checked out some of Linhares other paintings, and the only one I could find that looked like Dana's is posted by the very passive agressive "Painter" on this blogg. while Linhares painting is beautifully done, it is an extremely boring composition, and doesn't compare with the worst of Dana's paintings. In this fight, Dana is the heavy weight, hands down.
Also, your crazy to think that Dana won't have a long career, she's hard working, humble and is just getting warmed up.
she was influenced. it is stupid to attack her for it or to defend the idea that she didn't borrow from linhares. there are paintings from pre-2000 that definitely fed shutz's work. it is clear. WHO CARES. WHOOOO CARES??!! it is part of what we do. it is part of what she does. nobody should be surprised that she isn't some outsider genius freak. she is a great painter that will be doing it for a long time. true. congratulations. i think everyone should applaud shutz for finding an artist nobody else seemed to know about and reinvigorating her language. d.s. seems to be moving away from her earlier influences now like all artists that mature. but all in the art world should be able to discuss the fact that d.s. liked and was influenced by j.l. without having a heartattack. i think they should be mentioned in the same breath, regardless of who you prefer. it would be GREAT if vogue photographed both of them sitting on a couch or if jerry put them in a show together. i suspect that would never happen, and part of why this is such a tense subject is the fact that soooooo much naive money and powerful interest has been invested in d.s. and her image. that is what the existence of j.l. threatens. otherwise this would be a non-issue. it certainly doesn't change her work. calm down people. none of us are pure.
seeing terms like "heavyweight" and "boring composition" make me long for the days when artists actually thought critically about what they made and what such language means. it is a sign of the times. well designed, spectacular, and assertive painting wins in the art fair age. it will change again and again and again..
does jerry curate shows? have any of you been in them? is it true he tells art students he can make them famous and hook them up? has anyone out there had these experieinces?
Post a Comment