If that were done in pastels it seems like you could find it at any beach house in Florida, or any art fair. Though I too enjoy the cheesy spirituality. Maybe this is the new art for art sake. I bet Windham Hill does the soundtrack for this, and I bet its really good.
its no kinkade, but does make me want to blaze one on break. is it "faux spirituality" or "fantasy" - in this day and age how would an image of "reel spirituality" present itself?
zip, i see this one as far more 'rock n roll'... And if you feel that you can't go on. And your will's sinkin' low Just believe and you can't go wrong. In the light you will find the road. You will find the road
You've got to pick up the pieces C'mon, sort your trash You better pull yourself back together Maybe you've got too much cash Better call, call the law When you gonna turn yourself in?
These definitely flirt with extreme cheese, in their blendy blissed-out spin-artiness. But having never seen one in person, I'm having trouble parsing them. This is the kind of work that it's particularly hard to judge from a jpeg.
Zip my assistant disliked the job. Humoring my self-delusions and drinking coffee with me (paid). She complained about the depressing music and thought the delusions were contagious.
I don't think the political stuff is that 'political'. I mean, bombs do look really cool! Who wasn't transfixed by the night-time images of the first gulf war? It makes for an interesting painting subject: terrifying beauty.
'terrifying beauty' indeed, bb. Except that you were never terrified, I'll wager. No, I think you were watching from home, doing the US magazine crossword puzzle during commercial breaks.
did anyone see the thomas hirschorn show at gladstone? THAT was the real thing... i think handelman is painting where he's coming from - it's not his fault he lives in a rich aggressor nation.
This image looks fairly good..but Handelman's paintings are much more disappointing in person...they lack any variation of touch or physicality which might help to temper the somewhat heavy-handedness of his ideas and often-times his images which almost always feel too self-conscious. But to give them the benefit of the doubt..perhaps they are about the "spiritual" or "sublime" now only being able to exist in a slick, self-conscious state.....unfortunately, though, the end result may still be failed paintings that offer us no possibility of transcension.
BB, agreed, I think this kind of work just acknowledges its own artifice. It's real in that it's accurate of our experience as Americans living in a bubble - whether or not you're anxious about a bomb being dropped or avian flu, you're still eating well, watching tv and sitting on your fat ass most of the time. Whether this kind of painting is distasteful is another issue.
I am just curious - Have any of you experts commenting seen this painting in real life? Its roughly 10 ft tall. His paintings definately take into account the postition of the viewer in relationship to power and awe, and this paitning definately is not as effective in jpeg. I think what he is exploring is more complex then "feelings" and "politics". it is some realm where effect, sesation, political propoganda and beauty turn around eachother.
i understand anons. point, but for some reason, the large works at Brent Sikkema were not as impressive to me as his smaller works. That could be that it just may take him a little longer to effectively use that scale. what about the Hirschorn? did anyone find that 'spiritual'?
well people say this work is bs and not 'real', so i thought hirschorn is 'real' and political, but i didn't really like the show. yes it was disturbing, but does that make it 'better' than handleman?
No I disagree, this painting disturbs me more than the Hirshorn. I think its the hint of a lens flare - that plussinuses adds up to some serious irritation. Lens flares are bullshit.
Prof. Mouth, I disagree. Handelman serves a blend of kitsch, abstraction, scale, and spirituality/faux-spirituality that elevates him above Hirschhorn's strategy of scatological shock and repetition.
Dear Professor Profanity, Hirshorn dishonoring the dead isn't challenging, and giving the market what it wants to hear about the war isn't bold. It does help to understand marcs work with in an entire show, the content starts to unveil itself, but maybe this work is too reliant on an external context, and when that changes we could be left with what? Kitsch?
Here we have claims: Hirschorn is dishonoring the dead. Fine. How? By showing them? I believe there is a persuasive argument to be made here. You're just not making it.
He gives the market what it wants to hear about the war. Which, as you claim, is not bold. I think it's a matter of debate whether or not 'the market' wants to hear anything about the war. Instability is bad news for most markets, even chelsea art markets, because all markets are intertwined. And from what I can tell, the market would much rather see pretty paintings of unicorns and race cars under the banner of 'new folk' or whatever nonsensical fad is passing through its lower intestine at the moment. I think the market would rather see something like 'Greater New York'. Cardboard assemblages covered in graphic war casualty photos seem rather low on the list of desirable commodities.
I am all for work that is contingent upon content and ephemera, tactics rather than strategy. But Handelman's paintings slip by as plain ol' paintings to me. They might seem more 'reliant' on context if they weren't so diligently worked.
What is interesting about Hirschorn's show is that it presents an unresolvable problematic: One either is disturbed by how easily the 'abstracted' bodies are assimilated into the larger aesthetic of the installation, or one is disturbed by the opposite: they are so deeply aware of the content of the photos that their brain refuses to synthesize the piece into a coherent, visual whole. Which is an incredibly poorly stated defense of the work, but suffice it to say that I think the problems with Hirschorn's recent show are far more compelling than the solutions presented by a painter like Handelman, and it presents a neat summation of the ethical dilemma anyone faces in attempting to depict/express/confront a political crisis.
professor mouth, you almost sound like you're saying something, but on further review, you're just spewing grad school terminology without any actual point. guess what fuckhead, no one uses the term 'unresolvable problematic' in the real world. and it's sufficed to say, not suffice IT to say. and anonymous does make a really great point, for someone with such a high opinion of their own opinion, you sure do make really abysmal 'art'
I like your jesus cartoon, its better than BC, or even some Calvin and Hobbes. But they are syndicated, and you, are not.
Your "either the trees or the forest" statement sets up a straw dog that begs the question. namely:
What is Hirshorn doing making a shitstorm in a commercial gallery when he could be manufacturing educational forms to prime future paladins in the holy war again'st the infidel?
Wars are highly entertaining - a lot moreso than some debate on emotions vs. intellect or some namby-pamby morals exercise. If Bush had realized there would be a disaster to entertain the public TOO, maybe he would have held off on the shock and awe. I really believe they have a class in entertaining the public. Call me paranoid. I am also kinda like Morrisea even though he's a bit fey.
In conclusin, jeeze, I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING! POWERFULL STUFF!!!!
Um, I'm in the real world. But I appreciate the well-chosen moment to deploy 'fuckhead'. And while you might think my arguments are gobbledygook( I think they're rather straightforward), you haven't bothered to answer the questions I asked. How is Hirschorn dishonoring the dead and is it really accurate to say he's 'giving the market what it wants' as regards to the war?
I'm sorry you hate what you see on my site. Especially as I'm such an admirer of yours, anonymous.
in what sort of "real" world do people call others "fuckheads", for making a fairly well-thought out point. Yes, it was an actual point and you did not say anything to contradict it - you lose. Whether or not the phrase "unresolvable problematic" is pretentious or not is actually beside the (prof Mouth's) point. I would call it a paradox. Hirschorn's presentation of it as such and Professor Mouth's analysis do have real consequences with regard to how we think about those images outside of art, in the "real" world.
I'm following along here - amn I right in saying "fuckhead" is colloquial english used by the unwashed masses,whereas "unresolveable problematic" is academic jargon for "puzzle"?
익명 코멘트 내용... this site was fun in the beginning but now feels hijacked by a few people i think i am giving it up.
How would you like the conversation to go? I'm tired of anonymous making vague blanket statements of dissatifaction. Are you a student? Is this your class? Welcome to the real world.
PM, I don't know what the market "wants," but I wonder if art audiences want something that appears politically aware and socially substantial. Mostly, the art world(s) are rarefied, and maybe art viewers feel guilty for being so isolated. So Hirschhorn becomes a champion of the art world's longing to be "tuned in." Then art communities can say, "You see? We aren't just in an ivory tower."
I'm unsure about this position; just throwing it out there.
Ya got me there. Paradox is a perfectly serviceable word for what I was describing. Pretention won out. Mea culpa.
Triple Diesel, You made a decent point, and then went off the rails with 'Hirschorn disguising his fantasy as the 'truth' about iraq'. That's a massive turd you just dropped in the punchbowl. You can't just walk away without backing that up.
I really think Hirschorn confronted the material head-on, and it's the mix of the incendiary(the forensic photography, the wall of headlines) with the clinically removed (The Emma Kunz documents, the linear abstractions) as well as the fact that Hirschorn's subject seemed to be not simply the war itself, but the impossiblility of its ethical depiction, that won me over. The use of actual, gruesome forensics was a good deal more honest than all the easy Bush-caricature that lesser political art traffics in. If an artist feels a duty to deal with the war, it is an abdication of responsibility to settle for merely lampooning ideological straw dogs. Hirschorn decided to work with much more volatile material, material which transferred responsibility directly to the artist. And even if he did so unsuccessfully, I think only a lesser artist would deride him for the attempt.
I prefer "conundrum," but I don't feel any puzzle is unsolvable.
ALphaville!
Why arent "artists" fighting against the intolerant ooze that is militant militarism? Too scary? Not sure what right is? Truth, and its obverse, truth - its a sticky wicket, this ideological game. I prefer not to touch it with my ring finger. I mean we share the same biology and stuff.
i dont see handelman as having much to do w/ hirschhorn. except on the common denominator of war. I loved Hirschhorn's show but that was about the REAL, i think. handelman, it seems to me, is painting the terror of nuclear war, and is dealing w/ our imagination of disaster and w/ the logo-style of corporate advertising, not the real part of it that hirschhorn was. that's why it has that "prettyness" to it, because he's consciously employing the whole 'sublime" thing in what he hopes is a critical way. in a way, if you cut it this way, handelman is about thinking about ideas and hirschhorn just goes for feelings. they're both kind of diagrammatic. to be honest in a discussion about all of these ideas i preferred the show of jon kessler at ps1.
I saw his two works in person at this over-crowded show. I liked 'Raptus', 2006. It is like some corporate Pandora's box begining to disintergrate. Painted in various shades of red including a blood red where the cubes fragmentation is begining. Is this America's inside-the-box mission in Iraq gone awry? The cube is at once 3-dimensional and depthless. Sublime and superficial.
I liked his work that I saw online at http://www.marcselwynfineart.com/artists/handelman/handelman.html. There is some comment on spirituality that resonates from the images. The circles and the blinding white light. I like it.
I remember being dissapointed by the presentation of this group show. Too much in one tiny room. The theme was all over the place. It just didn't work for me. Makes me sad as an artist to see other artists work shoved together in a tiny room like it's some f%$ng Target display. It is just unfair to the artists.
The Kara Walker show at this space is amazing. The drawings are beautiful. Nice to see stuff other than the silhouettes. I'll go back and see the animation soon.
I love the cheesy faux spirituality of his work.
ReplyDeletethis one feels a little empty. i like the ones that look like night bombings. He's good at replicating light.
ReplyDeleteIf that were done in pastels it seems like you could find it at any beach house in Florida, or any art fair. Though I too enjoy the cheesy spirituality. Maybe this is the new art for art sake. I bet Windham Hill does the soundtrack for this, and I bet its really good.
ReplyDeleteits no kinkade, but does make me want to blaze one on break. is it "faux spirituality" or "fantasy" - in this day and age how would an image of "reel spirituality" present itself?
ReplyDeletezip, i see this one as far more 'rock n roll'...
And if you feel that you can't go on. And your will's sinkin' low
Just believe and you can't go wrong.
In the light you will find the road. You will find the road
Whistler goes to California
ReplyDeleteYou've got to pick up the pieces C'mon, sort your trash
You better pull yourself back together Maybe you've got too much cash
Better call, call the law When you gonna turn yourself in?
These definitely flirt with extreme cheese, in their blendy blissed-out spin-artiness. But having never seen one in person, I'm having trouble parsing them. This is the kind of work that it's particularly hard to judge from a jpeg.
ReplyDeleteTrue story
ReplyDeleteI saw an oblong yellow sun
Painted on a gray wall,
With the grey sky behind it
And I Thought to myself,
Yeah, but still.
Painter you find so many things I've never heard of. Always teaching us something new.
ReplyDeleteCan I be your assistant Kelli? I feel like you could teach me me something new.
ReplyDeleteI still prefer Turner, but these are cool. His political paintings, however, potentially jeopardize the abstract work.
ReplyDeleteZip my assistant disliked the job. Humoring my self-delusions and drinking coffee with me (paid). She complained about the depressing music and thought the delusions were contagious.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Triple Diesel about the political stuff.
ReplyDeleteTo me certain examples of faux spirituality in this day and age is in disguise - it's actually real.
that sounds like a dream-job Kelli!
ReplyDeleteI don't think the political stuff is that 'political'. I mean, bombs do look really cool! Who wasn't transfixed by the night-time images of the first gulf war? It makes for an interesting painting subject: terrifying beauty.
ReplyDeleteam depressed by overly educated painter so devoid of genuine feeling he has to turn to...imagine..kitsch-
ReplyDelete'terrifying beauty' indeed, bb. Except that you were never terrified, I'll wager. No, I think you were watching from home, doing the US magazine crossword puzzle during commercial breaks.
ReplyDeleteahh, athertons ragged with eye makeup and one hand behind his back
ReplyDeleteExactly Professor Mouth, hence the distance of "faux" rather than real. We are all too spoiled and coddled to talk about the real thing.
ReplyDeletedid anyone see the thomas hirschorn show at gladstone?
ReplyDeleteTHAT was the real thing...
i think handelman is painting where he's coming from - it's not his fault he lives in a rich aggressor nation.
how about the reel fear of having a bomb dropped on nyc. its just a matter of time. i already made peace with my god.
ReplyDeleteexactly. pretend spirituality and authentic experience is distasteful at this point. I'd prefer a rothko anyday. he believed it.
ReplyDeleteThis image looks fairly good..but Handelman's paintings are much more disappointing in person...they lack any variation of touch or physicality which might help to temper the somewhat heavy-handedness of his ideas and often-times his images which almost always feel too self-conscious. But to give them the benefit of the doubt..perhaps they are about the "spiritual" or "sublime" now only being able to exist in a slick, self-conscious state.....unfortunately, though, the end result may still be failed paintings that offer us no possibility of transcension.
ReplyDeleteBB, agreed, I think this kind of work just acknowledges its own artifice. It's real in that it's accurate of our experience as Americans living in a bubble - whether or not you're anxious about a bomb being dropped or avian flu, you're still eating well, watching tv and sitting on your fat ass most of the time. Whether this kind of painting is distasteful is another issue.
ReplyDeleteThat his work sparks this conversation is a good sign for the artist.
ReplyDeletehe is coming from marshmallow land with shards of glass in it
ReplyDeleteI am just curious - Have any of you experts commenting seen this painting in real life? Its roughly 10 ft tall. His paintings definately take into account the postition of the viewer in relationship to power and awe, and this paitning definately is not as effective in jpeg. I think what he is exploring is more complex then "feelings" and "politics". it is some realm where effect, sesation, political propoganda and beauty turn around eachother.
ReplyDeletegood point,maybe
ReplyDeletei understand anons. point, but for some reason, the large works at Brent Sikkema were not as impressive to me as his smaller works. That could be that it just may take him a little longer to effectively use that scale.
ReplyDeletewhat about the Hirschorn?
did anyone find that 'spiritual'?
i saw the two at sikkema and didn't get any sense of power or awe or spirituality or anything at all. big and blah. sorry.
ReplyDeletethis jpeg looks more interesting than those two.
Hey Professor Mouth are you on your period again?
ReplyDeleteThese paintings are beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI thought Professor Mouth was a dude.
ReplyDeleteFeelings and politics look good in a bright blank spot.
ReplyDeletei saw hirschhorn show, it was very disturbing, no tsure what it has to do with this.
ReplyDeletethis is making me sick.
ReplyDeletewell people say this work is bs and not 'real', so i thought hirschorn is 'real' and political, but i didn't really like the show. yes it was disturbing, but does that make it 'better' than handleman?
ReplyDeletehirshorn didnt disturb me. I thought it was kitch. Radical kitch. Now peel me a grape.
ReplyDeleteP.S.,
ReplyDeleteAre you shitting me? Yes, Hirschorn is much better than Handelman. Duh. Next topic.
No I disagree, this painting disturbs me more than the Hirshorn. I think its the hint of a lens flare - that plussinuses adds up to some serious irritation. Lens flares are bullshit.
ReplyDeletethe art on prof mouths blog is worse than anything on this site
ReplyDeleteProf. Mouth, I disagree. Handelman serves a blend of kitsch, abstraction, scale, and spirituality/faux-spirituality that elevates him above Hirschhorn's strategy of scatological shock and repetition.
ReplyDeleteDear Professor Profanity, Hirshorn dishonoring the dead isn't challenging, and giving the market what it wants to hear about the war isn't bold.
ReplyDeleteIt does help to understand marcs work with in an entire show, the content starts to unveil itself, but maybe this work is too reliant on an external context, and when that changes we could be left with what? Kitsch?
Finally, a conversation.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, anonymous, thanks for the plug.
Here we have claims: Hirschorn is dishonoring the dead. Fine. How? By showing them? I believe there is a persuasive argument to be made here. You're just not making it.
He gives the market what it wants to hear about the war. Which, as you claim, is not bold. I think it's a matter of debate whether or not 'the market' wants to hear anything about the war. Instability is bad news for most markets, even chelsea art markets, because all markets are intertwined. And from what I can tell, the market would much rather see pretty paintings of unicorns and race cars under the banner of 'new folk' or whatever nonsensical fad is passing through its lower intestine at the moment. I think the market would rather see something like 'Greater New York'. Cardboard assemblages covered in graphic war casualty photos seem rather low on the list of desirable commodities.
I am all for work that is contingent upon content and ephemera, tactics rather than strategy. But Handelman's paintings slip by as plain ol' paintings to me. They might seem more 'reliant' on context if they weren't so diligently worked.
What is interesting about Hirschorn's show is that it presents an unresolvable problematic: One either is disturbed by how easily the 'abstracted' bodies are assimilated into the larger aesthetic of the installation, or one is disturbed by the opposite: they are so deeply aware of the content of the photos that their brain refuses to synthesize the piece into a coherent, visual whole. Which is an incredibly poorly stated defense of the work, but suffice it to say that I think the problems with Hirschorn's recent show are far more compelling than the solutions presented by a painter like Handelman, and it presents a neat summation of the ethical dilemma anyone faces in attempting to depict/express/confront a political crisis.
professor mouth, you almost sound like you're saying something, but on further review, you're just spewing grad school terminology without any actual point. guess what fuckhead, no one uses the term 'unresolvable problematic' in the real world. and it's sufficed to say, not suffice IT to say.
ReplyDeleteand anonymous does make a really great point, for someone with such a high opinion of their own opinion, you sure do make really abysmal 'art'
ouch.
ReplyDeleteMr. Mouth,yeah, you sure are verbose.
ReplyDeleteI like your jesus cartoon, its better than BC, or even some Calvin and Hobbes. But they are syndicated, and you, are not.
Your "either the trees or the forest" statement sets up a straw dog that begs the question. namely:
What is Hirshorn doing making a shitstorm in a commercial gallery when he could be manufacturing educational forms to prime future paladins in the holy war again'st the infidel?
Wars are highly entertaining - a lot moreso than some debate on emotions vs. intellect or some namby-pamby morals exercise. If Bush had realized there would be a disaster to entertain the public TOO, maybe he would have held off on the shock and awe. I really believe they have a class in entertaining the public. Call me paranoid. I am also kinda like Morrisea even though he's a bit fey.
In conclusin, jeeze, I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING! POWERFULL STUFF!!!!
Um, I'm in the real world. But I appreciate the well-chosen moment to deploy 'fuckhead'. And while you might think my arguments are gobbledygook( I think they're rather straightforward), you haven't bothered to answer the questions I asked. How is Hirschorn dishonoring the dead and is it really accurate to say he's 'giving the market what it wants' as regards to the war?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you hate what you see on my site. Especially as I'm such an admirer of yours, anonymous.
in what sort of "real" world do people call others "fuckheads", for making a fairly well-thought out point. Yes, it was an actual point and you did not say anything to contradict it - you lose. Whether or not the phrase "unresolvable problematic" is pretentious or not is actually beside the (prof Mouth's) point. I would call it a paradox. Hirschorn's presentation of it as such and Professor Mouth's analysis do have real consequences with regard to how we think about those images outside of art, in the "real" world.
ReplyDeletethis site was fun in the beginning but now feels hijacked by a few people i think i am giving it up.
ReplyDeleteI'm following along here - amn I right in saying "fuckhead" is colloquial english used by the unwashed masses,whereas "unresolveable problematic" is academic jargon for "puzzle"?
ReplyDeleteOr is this a personal thing?
익명 코멘트 내용...
ReplyDeletethis site was fun in the beginning but now feels hijacked by a few people i think i am giving it up.
How would you like the conversation to go? I'm tired of anonymous making vague blanket statements of dissatifaction. Are you a student? Is this your class? Welcome to the real world.
PM, I don't know what the market "wants," but I wonder if art audiences want something that appears politically aware and socially substantial. Mostly, the art world(s) are rarefied, and maybe art viewers feel guilty for being so isolated. So Hirschhorn becomes a champion of the art world's longing to be "tuned in." Then art communities can say, "You see? We aren't just in an ivory tower."
ReplyDeleteI'm unsure about this position; just throwing it out there.
Oh, and to add: that isn't Hirschhorn's fault! Hirshhorn's fault is disguising his fantasy about Iraq as the "truth" about Iraq.
ReplyDeletea puzzle is a problem that you solve. a paradox is problem that cannot be resolved.
ReplyDeleteAre you a student? Is this your class? Welcome to the real world.
ReplyDeleteBlog comments are not the "real world"
wow.
ReplyDeleteharsh and ironic considering the image,
lives of quiet desperation?
Ya got me there. Paradox is a perfectly serviceable word for what I was describing. Pretention won out. Mea culpa.
ReplyDeleteTriple Diesel, You made a decent point, and then went off the rails with 'Hirschorn disguising his fantasy as the 'truth' about iraq'. That's a massive turd you just dropped in the punchbowl. You can't just walk away without backing that up.
I really think Hirschorn confronted the material head-on, and it's the mix of the incendiary(the forensic photography, the wall of headlines) with the clinically removed (The Emma Kunz documents, the linear abstractions) as well as the fact that Hirschorn's subject seemed to be not simply the war itself, but the impossiblility of its ethical depiction, that won me over. The use of actual, gruesome forensics was a good deal more honest than all the easy Bush-caricature that lesser political art traffics in. If an artist feels a duty to deal with the war, it is an abdication of responsibility to settle for merely lampooning ideological straw dogs. Hirschorn decided to work with much more volatile material, material which transferred responsibility directly to the artist. And even if he did so unsuccessfully, I think only a lesser artist would deride him for the attempt.
I prefer "conundrum," but I don't feel any puzzle is unsolvable.
ReplyDeleteALphaville!
Why arent "artists" fighting against the intolerant ooze that is militant militarism? Too scary? Not sure what right is? Truth, and its obverse, truth - its a sticky wicket, this ideological game. I prefer not to touch it with my ring finger. I mean we share the same biology and stuff.
bad boys bad boys watchagonna do?
nice to see professor mouth's girlfriend on here defending him
ReplyDeleteAs always, anonymous, you are a master of rhetoric. I confess I'm curious to see what kind of work that mind produces.
ReplyDeletei dont see handelman as having much to do w/ hirschhorn. except on the common denominator of war. I loved Hirschhorn's show but that was about the REAL, i think. handelman, it seems to me, is painting the terror of nuclear war, and is dealing w/ our imagination of disaster and w/ the logo-style of corporate advertising, not the real part of it that hirschhorn was. that's why it has that "prettyness" to it, because he's consciously employing the whole 'sublime" thing in what he hopes is a critical way. in a way, if you cut it this way, handelman is about thinking about ideas and hirschhorn just goes for feelings. they're both kind of diagrammatic. to be honest in a discussion about all of these ideas i preferred the show of jon kessler at ps1.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I thought Kessler's show was unmatched as an articulation of post-9/11, post-iraq(although we're still in iraq) madness.
ReplyDeleteSorry if that sounds like a rant.
I hope Im not Professor Mouth's girlfriend.
ReplyDeletehandelman vs hirschhorn does not work for me.
ReplyDeletethis seems more to verge on the sublime and the 'after',..
Can someone attach a Hirschorn link.
ReplyDeletei think this is the show
ReplyDeleteand some other stuff
ReplyDeleteand some other stuff
and some other stuff
hey anonymous heres a great site:
ReplyDeletexxx
hey anonymous heres a great site:
ReplyDeletexxx
Re the real world:
ReplyDeleteyes its all true
wow, am i alone here with the handelman evoking the opposite of these other references? (beyond the obvious) is this blog and exercise in duality?
ReplyDeleteProfessor Mouth -
ReplyDeleteThat [your] [posts] spark this conversation is a good sign for [you].
Keep your silly ways or throw them out the window
ReplyDeleteThe wisdom of your ways, I've been there and I know
Daddy??
ReplyDeleteDaddy, is that you???
ReplyDeletePainterNYC, maybe start a new secret site and just tell us good guys about it, we'll come back and play like we used to in the good ol days.
ReplyDeleteif you fall I will catch you
ReplyDeletezip: that new york mag article you linked, when is it from?
ReplyDeleteps that's more mindbending than the thos hirschhorn show! everyone should read it.
ReplyDeleteMarch 27, 2006 issue of New York Magazine
ReplyDeleteWhat it says anyway.
ughh, so scary.
ReplyDeleteI saw his two works in person at this over-crowded show. I liked 'Raptus', 2006. It is like some corporate Pandora's box begining to disintergrate. Painted in various shades of red including a blood red where the cubes fragmentation is begining. Is this America's inside-the-box mission in Iraq gone awry? The cube is at once 3-dimensional and depthless. Sublime and superficial.
ReplyDeleteI liked his work that I saw online at http://www.marcselwynfineart.com/artists/handelman/handelman.html. There is some comment on spirituality
that resonates from the images. The circles and the blinding white light. I like it.
I remember being dissapointed by the presentation of this group show. Too much in one tiny room. The theme was all over the place. It just didn't work for me. Makes me sad as an artist to see other artists work shoved together in a tiny room like it's some f%$ng Target display. It is just unfair to the artists.
The Kara Walker show at this space is amazing. The drawings are beautiful. Nice to see stuff other than the silhouettes. I'll go back and see the animation soon.