Normally I don't respond well to photorealism, but this is different. I saw her work at the SFMOMA and I felt they possesed a sense of confidence without seeming too aggressive or didactic (yes thank you jd). They are solid paintings.
They're pretty nice in person. Enamel on aluminum. Not so tight up close. I don't really get why she does the photos and then the paintings of the exact same image (conceptually at least, I'm sure there's more money involved...) But they can range from gorgeous color and magic image to blah fashion image. This one seems to be kind of in the middle.
The "Why Not Photography?" person has a good point since not only do these pictures look awful from close-up but they are also accompanied, when they're shown, by large photographs that are exactly like the paintings.
Also, she has her assistants do quite a bit of the drawing and painting which, in a project like this, guarantees that they will always look like shit close up and, if they don't, it won't be her doing at all.
It's enamel on aluminum. The flatness of the enamel and aluminum generates shallowness, rigidity, and hard edge: the paintings are intimidating. They thrive as objects in a way that the photographs do not - the materials effectively engender the concept.
I dont think they look like shit in person. Not at all. I also questioned why photos AND paintings but maybe she questions that too and is acting out her impulses. She is deliberately baiting us for this exact discussion.
It may conceptually fit, but I agree with Anon 8:24--if these paintings look bad from close up, then they'd be happier as photos, and if they don't it's not because of anything MM did.
"Is she baiting us for a discussion of why she doesn't paint them herself?"
I was thinking more along the lines of the obvious photo vs. paint. I wasnt aware that her minions painted these. Is that a fact? If so thats a whole other issue....
Yes, her minions paint them--but I think it's deeply connected to the phot v paint issue--why make paintings of your photos if you're not even going to take the time to control the application of paint--which is the only thing which makes the paintings different than the photos.
Why does it matter if her assistants complete the paintings? If the idea is a "photorealist painting in enamel on aluminum," then why not hire extra hands to help? The individual, inimitable gesture isn't part of the concept.
The photos carry the content. But the material presence of enamel on alum. adds another layer (no pun intended) to the concept. If "minions" can apply the paint more efficiently or deftly than MM can, then it's prudential to hire them. MM does control the application - by directing the assistants.
Hi I was the "why not photography" anon. I have not seen these in person. Apparently as many of you say they look painted from close up so thats a good enough reason for me. thanks
One time I saw some lady catch her silver heel in the cattle guard at the guggenheim. She was afraid of breaking off the heel. That's the kind of Schadenfreude I expect from a great architect.
THe photograph thing is a total red herring? I just don't care. It just makes it seem like she lacks confidence in her subject matter or in the colleector. Or the collector lacks the confidence? Like you just cant hang porn on the wall...
To me its about how uptight you can get, which is apparently, very.
Okay, anonymous; thanks for the clever GOP joke. ha ha...
My point was that painting has a long history of artist/assistant teamwork. I was asking the forum if it matters, then, that MM's assistants might do the work.
Just about every painter that has been featured on this blog has assistants. Regardless if they make paintings or coffee they are there because the artist needs help. Why is this always brought up when people make realistic work (Hurst,Koons,Minter...)? I think it helps the artists come across as less of a craftsperson and more of idea maker. What’s wrong with that?
Oh yeah, Warhol is arguably the most important and influential artist ever. The fact that he had so much help is irrelevant. If you were to ask any of his assistants they would say to this day that he helped shape them and there art. Why is that a negative?
I think that there's something about the degree to which Minter exaggerates the photographic blurs and glints that goes beyond a mere reiteration of the photograph. It's an over-the-top rendition of the sumptuousness of color photography, re-imagined in paint. The space is also created by the paint and the color, and refers to photo space, but doesn't feel the same.
I think the question "why not a photograph" is almost always a red herring when applied to photo-based painting. We never say, "why not just live your life" when we talk about a painting made from life, right? There are an infinite number of legitimate ways to make a painting that talk about "what reality looks like." It's all paint metaphor, no matter what it looks like. And it all boils down to the same thing: is the painting interesting and wonderful to look at, or not? Lots of photo-based paintings fall into some bad, bad tropes, but so do lots of paintings made from life (Forum gallery, anyone?)
I’m not comparing. I’m just hoping we can discuss getting away from artist as a craftsperson. The assistants really allow the artist to be just that, rather than nose to the canvas only thinking about "skill" that will impress the masses. Let someone else work through that.
I saw these paintings at SFMoMA, and my impression/memory is that the way these are painted (or maybe, more importantly, finished) is that they are from a single hand- the build up of paint, the areas smeared with fingers, the highlights are all very beautiful. As flat photographs the images are compelling, but as lavishly painted images they take the whole glamour/crud dichotomy to a whole other level. It does matter tremendously that they are painted, and the degree of finish and consistency from one painting to another gives the entire body of work, for me, a higher level of meaning and credibility.
Fantasy, well, it certainly does reflect modern living in general, doesn't it. Production or manufacture of anything, from food, to paintings -- are ever increasingly being moved to the hidden back rooms of sweatshops, kitchens, fields and IT farms in developing countries.... The farming out of production, in service of some greater state of living.
Im the one who brought up Warhol because its ridiculously obvious a comparison. That wasnt the end of the conversation (what about Ruebens? etc.) just a starting point. I also never said it was a negative thing. Its not a black/white issue because most artists need assistants. Anyone on here wanna be my assistant? Cant pay you though, sorry. I just question the motives of an artist if they stop getting their hands dirty and delegate instead. Where is the passion? I just couldn't work that way and cant imagine the mindset.
On this particular image I love the cubist confusion in the foreground--where exactly is the chain coming from? How is it coming out of her mouth? the geometires are marvellous
One thing I love about MM is that I just thought this kind of imagery was dead--I couldn't believe that someone managed to make one more kind of glamorous/sexy fashion magazine photo that actually DIDN'T look stale and canned. Photo or painting, it's edifying to see that she makes the subject live again.
but what does that say about an assistant who willing works for an artist who is less talented than they are? just do something else, you know? if you're in it for the money, why are you an artist anyway?
but what does that say about an assistant who willing works for an artist who is less talented than they are? just do something else, you know? if you're in it for the money, why are you an artist anyway?
yeah and it's already been determined that she paints most of it herself. there's probably a lot more artist that have their assistants do a lot more of their work than MM than you realize...
no respect for "artists" who take shit jobs hoping that it will lead to a better job - if it's not what you want to be doing, DON"T DO IT - there are other ways to get by without whoring yourself out
It's nice to see an artist who has been doing the same thing forever finally get some credit for it rather late in their career. Same thing with DiBenedetto.
Music is different, obviously. For a live performance, there is no way, physically, that one person could do everything. For a painting, it's a choice,not a necessary constraint.
"no respect for "artists" who take shit jobs hoping that it will lead to a better job - if it's not what you want to be doing, DON"T DO IT - there are other ways to get by without whoring yourself out" 2:37 PM
Are you serious? Easier said that done. I consider any job that takes me away from my painting a shit job. I have to do it though, until the day comes where I can make a living off my artwork. (excuse me while I gaze upwards and into the clouds for a moment) Most artists have to work shit jobs. End of story. What do you anonymous 2:37 do for a living? Just curious.
3:35 - retail. yeah it's a shit job too. but i'm not doing it hoping that maybe one day i'll get to do the WHOLE window display instead of just my tiny portion of th ewindow display - forunately i dont have to work much because i dont buy a lot of stuff, so i have lots of time to spend on my own work.
all i'm saying is that you dont have to sell yourself to another artist just so one day you can have people sell themselves to you
3:43- agreed. but you have to wonder which artists would still choose to be artists even if they knew without a doubt that they would never sell a single piece...
3:35 - retail. yeah it's a shit job too. but i'm not doing it hoping that maybe one day i'll get to do the WHOLE window display instead of just my tiny portion of th ewindow display - forunately i dont have to work much because i dont buy a lot of stuff, so i have lots of time to spend on my own work.
all i'm saying is that you dont have to sell yourself to another artist just so one day you can have people sell themselves to you 3:42 PM
I see what you're saying and obviously your goal wouldn't be to do the whole window display. I assume we're all artists and we all have similar goals which includes not working on ANY window displays. Ever. Thats a bit different than working as an artist's assistant because your private/artist life is being entangled with your day job which is a tricky thing to balance. I personally don't do it and I'm not sure if I could. I work in a crappy 'gallery' that sells prints of Tuscan landscapes and decorative wooden boxes. That job has nothing to do with my artistic endeavors. I like that seperation. Ya know?
As a working tranvestite, I prefer to delegate the majority of my work to my assistants. This allows me to concentrate on conceptual issues rather than waste my time on shows of skill and craftsmanship.
hhmmmm- you have a very good point about needing to separate your own work from the work you do for money. i don't think i could work as an assistant either. it sounds like you have a good balance, cheers to you and hopefully one day none of us will have to sell tuscan landscapes anymore
I have totall seamless and harmonious flow between my work and personal life, art and commerce. I am so happy. I don't know what I am going to do with all my joy.
has anybody ever seen that book by the photographer hellweig--The Sacred Heart--it's photos of organs and doctors during surgery. He uses only the light available in the operating room and it gives the pictures a sort of golden glow not unlike the painting here.
I don't think Minter "explores" anything. Certainly she depicts the "gritty physicalities" that underlie fashion editorials, etc. but I'm sick and tired of people talking about "exploring" and "questioning" when that's neither the intent nor the product of the simple rendition of an striking image
The isolated mouths, feet, body parts...it's as if they were disembodied, and the presence of foreign objects does suggest the invasive aspects of surgery
Is vogue feral? Is Dolce and Gabbana feral? what the hell?
maybe not the product itself but the means by which it's produced are, well, maybe not feral, but definitely not quite humane.
don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but i'm reading what people were saying about MM's use of assistants above and it seems like a lot of people consider relying on assistants to be exploitative.
i'm sensing parallels between how MM produces her work and how the genre she paints produces its own products. i wouldn't dare say that she's doing this intentionally-i don't think there's much here conceptually-but it's an interesting echo.
anon 5:17, the "flip" totally works here, imo, and also look at how detailed and realistic the jewellery is compared to the mouth...another "flip" there too
I meant the Aliens thing, really, not as a snarky thing-it's glossy and toothy and dangerous and evokes a sort of bio-horror, just like giger and winston's monster
Again, I like Iona, but I just noticed that the gallery copy about her is a jewel of artspeak bullshit, observe:
iona rozeal brown’s most recent paintings are an unprecedented mixture of anonymous courtesans, geisha and other Japanese subjects. She explores the theme of afro-asiatic allegory, addressing the global influence of african american culture as fetish. Brown’s work signals the energy, critical direction and complexity of contemporary practice that is engaged in a tenuous marriage of commerce and resistance.
In her paint, Brown intertextually juxtaposes color and texture, a technique that parallels her artistry as a DJ. Both practices emerge from a process of self-sampling and remixing, devices employed by media to create its own endless permutations or representations and meanings. Throughout her work, Brown brings a subversive reading to her art, and manipulates hyper self-conscious imagery to articulate contemporary concerns regarding race, gender and class.
ok, back to Marilyn Minter--seductive image, lifeless surface, maybe that's the point, who's next?
I had Marylin as a teacher. She was great. Not to merely kiss her bootay but she introduced me to Richter and Richard Prince. All the dark motha/fathaf**ckers. I have a soft spot for her. She isn't all theory and blah blah. Thanks Marylin and I'm glad you got your joints up in the Whitney.
Style fits subject perfectly.
ReplyDeleteNormally I don't respond well to photorealism, but this is different. I saw her work at the SFMOMA and I felt they possesed a sense of confidence without seeming too aggressive or didactic (yes thank you jd). They are solid paintings.
ReplyDeletei love these paintings! was the whitney bi a poor mans Venice Biennale? are they hookers feet?
ReplyDeletedon't miss these
just curious why not photography?
ReplyDeleteway better than Patrick Mimranisms. Sheesh.
ReplyDelete"just curious why not photography?"
ReplyDeleteShe does both.
Trampism
ReplyDeleteI hope people will not bad mouth this painting!
ReplyDeleteoh, I thought this was a photograph...sorry. Richard Estes is awesum!
ReplyDeleteThey're pretty nice in person. Enamel on aluminum. Not so tight up close. I don't really get why she does the photos and then the paintings of the exact same image (conceptually at least, I'm sure there's more money involved...) But they can range from gorgeous color and magic image to blah fashion image. This one seems to be kind of in the middle.
ReplyDeleteIt is a painted photo? Right?
ReplyDeleteThe "Why Not Photography?" person has a good point since not only do these pictures look awful from close-up but they are also accompanied, when they're shown, by large photographs that are exactly like the paintings.
ReplyDeleteAlso, she has her assistants do quite a bit of the drawing and painting which, in a project like this, guarantees that they will always look like shit close up and, if they don't, it won't be her doing at all.
Appalling.
apples and oranges sort of but put these up against Monica Majoli and they wither and die.
ReplyDeleteIt's enamel on aluminum. The flatness of the enamel and aluminum generates shallowness, rigidity, and hard edge: the paintings are intimidating. They thrive as objects in a way that the photographs do not - the materials effectively engender the concept.
ReplyDeleteI dont think they look like shit in person. Not at all. I also questioned why photos AND paintings but maybe she questions that too and is acting out her impulses. She is deliberately baiting us for this exact discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt may conceptually fit, but I agree with Anon 8:24--if these paintings look bad from close up, then they'd be happier as photos, and if they don't it's not because of anything MM did.
ReplyDeleteIs she baiting us for a discussion of why she doesn't paint them herself?
ReplyDeleteIt's strange but I can TELL this one's a painting and not one of her photos just from the JPEG--something about the richness of the color.
ReplyDelete"Is she baiting us for a discussion of why she doesn't paint them herself?"
ReplyDeleteI was thinking more along the lines of the obvious photo vs. paint. I wasnt aware that her minions painted these. Is that a fact? If so thats a whole other issue....
Yes, her minions paint them--but I think it's deeply connected to the phot v paint issue--why make paintings of your photos if you're not even going to take the time to control the application of paint--which is the only thing which makes the paintings different than the photos.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter if her assistants complete the paintings? If the idea is a "photorealist painting in enamel on aluminum," then why not hire extra hands to help? The individual, inimitable gesture isn't part of the concept.
ReplyDeleteMonica Majoli? yawn! yawn! yawn! yawn!
ReplyDeletedeath to baby brush watercolors potentially subversive content gag me on a recipe
so the painting NOT looking like shit isn't part of the CONCEPT--ok, I see.
ReplyDeleteI envy the skills somewhat,but over-get the cold hard glam-not a brilliant concept,since its the reality of magazines already-too obvious
ReplyDeleteThe photos carry the content. But the material presence of enamel on alum. adds another layer (no pun intended) to the concept. If "minions" can apply the paint more efficiently or deftly than MM can, then it's prudential to hire them. MM does control the application - by directing the assistants.
ReplyDeleteHi I was the "why not photography" anon. I have not seen these in person. Apparently as many of you say they look painted from close up so thats a good enough reason for me. thanks
ReplyDelete"then it's prudential [sic] to hire them. MM does control the application - by directing the assistants"
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing you're a GOP man, triple diesel, am I right?
Ever read "Wage, Labor, and Capital"?
One time I saw some lady catch her silver heel in the cattle guard at the guggenheim. She was afraid of breaking off the heel. That's the kind of Schadenfreude I expect from a great architect.
ReplyDeleteTHe photograph thing is a total red herring? I just don't care. It just makes it seem like she lacks confidence in her subject matter or in the colleector. Or the collector lacks the confidence? Like you just cant hang porn on the wall...
To me its about how uptight you can get, which is apparently, very.
Majoli is hoky.
ReplyDeleteOkay, anonymous; thanks for the clever GOP joke. ha ha...
ReplyDeleteMy point was that painting has a long history of artist/assistant teamwork. I was asking the forum if it matters, then, that MM's assistants might do the work.
Call me old fashioned but I think it matters. Here comes Warhol.....
ReplyDeleteIt's not teamwork if MM gets all the money and the credit--which is what happens. It's exploitation.
ReplyDeleteOkay, anyms, if it matters - then why? Here comes Warhol, yes, but also here comes, say, Rubens.
ReplyDeleteOther anyms: if the assistants agree to the work, and get paid for it, then is it really exploitation?
Just about every painter that has been featured on this blog has assistants. Regardless if they make paintings or coffee they are there because the artist needs help. Why is this always brought up when people make realistic work (Hurst,Koons,Minter...)? I think it helps the artists come across as less of a craftsperson and more of idea maker. What’s wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, Warhol is arguably the most important and influential artist ever. The fact that he had so much help is irrelevant. If you were to ask any of his assistants they would say to this day that he helped shape them and there art. Why is that a negative?
I think that there's something about the degree to which Minter exaggerates the photographic blurs and glints that goes beyond a mere reiteration of the photograph. It's an over-the-top rendition of the sumptuousness of color photography, re-imagined in paint. The space is also created by the paint and the color, and refers to photo space, but doesn't feel the same.
ReplyDeleteI think the question "why not a photograph" is almost always a red herring when applied to photo-based painting. We never say, "why not just live your life" when we talk about a painting made from life, right? There are an infinite number of legitimate ways to make a painting that talk about "what reality looks like." It's all paint metaphor, no matter what it looks like. And it all boils down to the same thing: is the painting interesting and wonderful to look at, or not? Lots of photo-based paintings fall into some bad, bad tropes, but so do lots of paintings made from life (Forum gallery, anyone?)
It's not exploitation it is a job
ReplyDeleteFantasy,
ReplyDeleteWarhol is merely an extension of Duchamp ---
Both have very little to do with rubens.
The Rubens camp uses an
assitantship-as-mentorship model,
wherein there is a supposed transfer
of artisanship.
The Duchmp camp negates artisanship
altogether by relegating it, as manual
labor, under service of a supposedly
'higer form of work', the Idea.
I'm pretty sure Minter does or has done most of the drawing and painting in her work, especially the finer details.
ReplyDelete..and therefore qualifies as a master craftsperson as well as a conceptual coordinator.
ReplyDelete11:13
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great take.
I’m not comparing. I’m just hoping we can discuss getting away from artist as a craftsperson. The assistants really allow the artist to be just that, rather than nose to the canvas only thinking about "skill" that will impress the masses. Let someone else work through that.
I saw these paintings at SFMoMA, and my impression/memory is that the way these are painted (or maybe, more importantly, finished) is that they are from a single hand- the build up of paint, the areas smeared with fingers, the highlights are all very beautiful. As flat photographs the images are compelling, but as lavishly painted images they take the whole glamour/crud dichotomy to a whole other level. It does matter tremendously that they are painted, and the degree of finish and consistency from one painting to another gives the entire body of work, for me, a higher level of meaning and credibility.
ReplyDeleteI used to work in a silkscreen place making large scale silkscreens and I allays felt really greatfull to be earning 7.50 and hour.
ReplyDeleteI wish Walter Benjamin would just dematerialize from the conversation.
Fantasy, well, it certainly does reflect modern living in general,
ReplyDeletedoesn't it. Production or manufacture of anything, from food,
to paintings -- are ever increasingly being moved to the hidden
back rooms of sweatshops, kitchens, fields and IT farms in developing
countries.... The farming out of production, in service of some greater
state of living.
ya cain't stop progress...
ReplyDeleteOh and I didn't mean to sound moralizing. I don't
ReplyDeletehave a conclusive thought of what this means --
to progress. I certainly don't grind my own paints.
A picture's not good unless every inch of it is good.
ReplyDeleteI grind my own bones. Fe Fi Faux.
ReplyDeleteShe paints almost all of them herself. the assistants do mosty prep. stuff. Also she never paints a replica of one of her photos. Just sayin'...
ReplyDeleteI don't know what's more damning then--that she didn't paint them herself or that she did but they still look so lifeless from closer than five feet.
ReplyDeleteI think the touch is incredibly deft and not lifeless at all--much more impressive than the original photorealists
ReplyDeleteOh but you gotta love Hilo Chen...
ReplyDeleteHe painted butts.
ReplyDeleteHilo Chen painted butts. He was an old photorealist. I wonder if they know each other--Marilyn and Hilo...
ReplyDeleteMarilyn Minter uses a number of erotic images, but never butts, so far as I know.
ReplyDeleteShe subverts our received expectations of butts.
ReplyDeleteIm the one who brought up Warhol because its ridiculously obvious a comparison. That wasnt the end of the conversation (what about Ruebens? etc.) just a starting point. I also never said it was a negative thing. Its not a black/white issue because most artists need assistants. Anyone on here wanna be my assistant? Cant pay you though, sorry. I just question the motives of an artist if they stop getting their hands dirty and delegate instead. Where is the passion? I just couldn't work that way and cant imagine the mindset.
ReplyDeleteDitto--why be an artist if you don't like to make art? There are lots of jobs that pay better.
ReplyDeleteyeah--if you just want to "make statements about art" we've got this blog...
ReplyDeleteI paint butt. I paint boob. He give me five dollar an hour. Hilo very good man.
ReplyDeleteOn this particular image I love the cubist confusion in the foreground--where exactly is the chain coming from? How is it coming out of her mouth? the geometires are marvellous
ReplyDeleteOne thing I love about MM is that I just thought this kind of imagery was dead--I couldn't believe that someone managed to make one more kind of glamorous/sexy fashion magazine photo that actually DIDN'T look stale and canned. Photo or painting, it's edifying to see that she makes the subject live again.
ReplyDeleteand this is the best blog EVER
ReplyDeleteIt's because of
ReplyDelete"She subverts our received expectations of butts."
isn't it?
I liked her old goopy drippy stuff better.
ReplyDeleteYeah why would anyone paint ice cream and then STOP painting ice cream?
ReplyDeleteMaybe because she couldn't explain to her asistants how to make all the goopy drippy paintings look like the same person did them.
ReplyDeleteBILLBOARDS ALL SURROUNDING CHELSEA OF DIRTY HOOKER FEET???
ReplyDeleteam i the only one who finds that cool?
all assisting is some form of mentorship
ReplyDeleteI thought everyone was giving Mountain Man a hard time I just figured out that it was Marilyn Minter.
ReplyDeleteMM. Duh.
hooker billboards in chelsea - perfect neighborhood for it, right? they might as well be ads!
ReplyDeleteassisting is only mentorship if the artist is actually more talented than the assistant.
ReplyDelete"talent" doesn't exist
ReplyDeletebut what does that say about an assistant who willing works for an artist who is less talented than they are? just do something else, you know? if you're in it for the money, why are you an artist anyway?
ReplyDeletebut what does that say about an assistant who willing works for an artist who is less talented than they are? just do something else, you know? if you're in it for the money, why are you an artist anyway?
ReplyDeletehooker billboards in chelsea - perfect neighborhood for it, right? they might as well be ads!
ReplyDeletethank you! i was starting to feel like i had taken crazy pillz!
"talent doesn't exist"?
ReplyDeleteplease explain ...
ok
ReplyDelete...more "good at making paintings that are interesting to look at" than the assistant.
yeah and it's already been determined that she paints most of it herself. there's probably a lot more artist that have their assistants do a lot more of their work than MM than you realize...
ReplyDeletere: 2:32
ReplyDeletesometimes in the real world people take shit jobs so they can eat and stuff and hope maybe the shit job will lead to a better job.
this image is kinda compelling, but that might just be the rocky horror talking
ReplyDelete1st 2:34
ReplyDeleteno respect for "artists" who take shit jobs hoping that it will lead to a better job - if it's not what you want to be doing, DON"T DO IT - there are other ways to get by without whoring yourself out
regardless of who makes it, it seems like we all agree that this one is actually pretty good
ReplyDeletefrom >5 feet away at least
It's nice to see an artist who has been doing the same thing forever finally get some credit for it rather late in their career. Same thing with DiBenedetto.
ReplyDeleteartist with assistants = musicians with bands
ReplyDeletenothing wrong with that
Music is different, obviously. For a live performance, there is no way, physically, that one person could do everything. For a painting, it's a choice,not a necessary constraint.
ReplyDeleteMM should be doing magazine spreads. I dont understand why she makes paintings out of images that look better as small-scale high-res photos.
ReplyDelete1:53- there's great stuff in magazines that makes the same subject matter "live"
ReplyDeletebands split the money
ReplyDeletegood point
ReplyDeletegood point
ReplyDeletethe upper lip looks a little like an earthworm
ReplyDeleteSo painting a photograph is a good thing or no? Its a living?
ReplyDeleteit's a living. i guess. not very inspired, but if she gets away with it more power to her
ReplyDeleteat least her paintings of photographs have delicacy, unlike, say, damien loeb
ReplyDeleteDL doesn't do his own work either.
ReplyDeletedon't say Damien Loeb, it hurts my earrs
ReplyDeleteHer paintings of photos would work better if they were PHOTOS of her paintings of photos
ReplyDeleteI dont get why shes the cover of the whitney bi catalogue...political maybe?
ReplyDeletewell-political or not, whatever reason she's IN the biennial at all is probably the same reason she's on the cover.
ReplyDeleteHer images (paintings or photos, whatever work you want to actually credit to her) are feral. Love that.
ReplyDeletesure, but there's not much going on beneath the surface. take it or leave it, just don't think about it.
ReplyDelete"no respect for "artists" who take shit jobs hoping that it will lead to a better job - if it's not what you want to be doing, DON"T DO IT - there are other ways to get by without whoring yourself out" 2:37 PM
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? Easier said that done. I consider any job that takes me away from my painting a shit job. I have to do it though, until the day comes where I can make a living off my artwork. (excuse me while I gaze upwards and into the clouds for a moment) Most artists have to work shit jobs. End of story. What do you anonymous 2:37 do for a living? Just curious.
photorealism is dead.
ReplyDeletedead dead dead.
3:35 - retail. yeah it's a shit job too. but i'm not doing it hoping that maybe one day i'll get to do the WHOLE window display instead of just my tiny portion of th ewindow display - forunately i dont have to work much because i dont buy a lot of stuff, so i have lots of time to spend on my own work.
ReplyDeleteall i'm saying is that you dont have to sell yourself to another artist just so one day you can have people sell themselves to you
hhmmmmmm...
ReplyDeleteis right and several decades worth of labor statistics bear him/her out.
what planet does 2:37 live on where there's no capitalism?
Is it just me, or is the whole Biennial exceptionally lame this year?
ReplyDelete(or should I say...la-MAY?)
like every other biennial, most of it sucks and any given person will find 2 or 3 things they like.
ReplyDelete3:43-
ReplyDeleteagreed. but you have to wonder which artists would still choose to be artists even if they knew without a doubt that they would never sell a single piece...
I'm actually really excited for the Bi this time...it's gonna be seedy!
ReplyDelete3:35 - retail. yeah it's a shit job too. but i'm not doing it hoping that maybe one day i'll get to do the WHOLE window display instead of just my tiny portion of th ewindow display - forunately i dont have to work much because i dont buy a lot of stuff, so i have lots of time to spend on my own work.
ReplyDeleteall i'm saying is that you dont have to sell yourself to another artist just so one day you can have people sell themselves to you 3:42 PM
I see what you're saying and obviously your goal wouldn't be to do the whole window display. I assume we're all artists and we all have similar goals which includes not working on ANY window displays. Ever. Thats a bit different than working as an artist's assistant because your private/artist life is being entangled with your day job which is a tricky thing to balance. I personally don't do it and I'm not sure if I could. I work in a crappy 'gallery' that sells prints of Tuscan landscapes and decorative wooden boxes. That job has nothing to do with my artistic endeavors. I like that seperation. Ya know?
As a working tranvestite, I prefer to delegate the majority of my work to my assistants. This allows me to concentrate on conceptual issues rather than waste my time on shows of skill and craftsmanship.
ReplyDeletehhmmmm- you have a very good point about needing to separate your own work from the work you do for money. i don't think i could work as an assistant either. it sounds like you have a good balance, cheers to you and hopefully one day none of us will have to sell tuscan landscapes anymore
ReplyDeleteI have totall seamless and harmonious flow between my work and personal life, art and commerce. I am so happy. I don't know what I am going to do with all my joy.
ReplyDeletei like the lower teeth
ReplyDeleteThere is more light in this painting than in anything I've seen in years-the black gives wway to an almost Giotto-like golden color.
ReplyDeleteI agree--and I totally want to believe in these paintings for a million reasons--but then I get up close to them and they just completely fall apart.
ReplyDeleteI guess you could call that a conceptual statemtn, but to me it's just depressing.
Yeah, fr the first ten minutes I want to take these paintings home and nhang them over my bed, then i'm turned off by the surface
ReplyDeleteThere's something really eerie about the spatial "flip" in MMs paintings--like how can you be that close and yet use such a detatched style?
ReplyDeletethis is my favorite of everyhting I 've seen by her--it looks scaly--kinda rmeind me of alien
ReplyDeletebut i agree about the assistant thing.
"Alien" the movie?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can see that--for this painting.
ReplyDeletesomeone up there said it was "feral".
Is vogue feral? Is Dolce and Gabbana feral? what the hell?
ReplyDeleteOh no!!! Feral Vogue!!!! AAAAAAAAHH!!!
ReplyDeleteI'll never go into another doctor's waiting room again.
Actually, I think the "feral vogue" idea isn't so bad--Minter explores the gritty physicalities underneath the slick images in magazines
ReplyDeletehas anybody ever seen that book by the photographer hellweig--The Sacred Heart--it's photos of organs and doctors during surgery. He uses only the light available in the operating room and it gives the pictures a sort of golden glow not unlike the painting here.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Minter "explores" anything. Certainly she depicts the "gritty physicalities" that underlie fashion editorials, etc. but I'm sick and tired of people talking about "exploring" and "questioning" when that's neither the intent nor the product of the simple rendition of an striking image
ReplyDeleteoooh yes! I love that book
ReplyDeletereally beautiful, disturbing stuff
"surgical brutality"
ReplyDeleteThat is MM to me.
huh?
ReplyDeleteThe isolated mouths, feet, body parts...it's as if they were disembodied, and the presence of foreign objects does suggest the invasive aspects of surgery
ReplyDeletejewelry as scalpel?
ReplyDeleteSomething like that.
ReplyDeletesee, it is like "Aliens"
ReplyDeleteIs vogue feral? Is Dolce and Gabbana feral? what the hell?
ReplyDeletemaybe not the product itself but the means by which it's produced are, well, maybe not feral, but definitely not quite humane.
don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but i'm reading what people were saying about MM's use of assistants above and it seems like a lot of people consider relying on assistants to be exploitative.
i'm sensing parallels between how MM produces her work and how the genre she paints produces its own products. i wouldn't dare say that she's doing this intentionally-i don't think there's much here conceptually-but it's an interesting echo.
Where did the civil conversations between known bloggers go? Oh well, this is better than nothing I suppose.
ReplyDelete7:24-
ReplyDeleteyou actually kind of have a point with the "aliens" comment
are you snarking or do you really mean it?
Yes, save us passeo!
ReplyDeleteanon 5:17,
ReplyDeletethe "flip" totally works here, imo, and also look at how detailed and realistic the jewellery is compared to the mouth...another "flip" there too
I meant the Aliens thing, really, not as a snarky thing-it's glossy and toothy and dangerous and evokes a sort of bio-horror, just like giger and winston's monster
ReplyDeleteI want to hate her but I can't. I feel weird about that.
ReplyDelete"bio-horror" gets at it better than the whole "gritty fashion magazine" angle. i agree that this is way more giger than dolce
ReplyDeletedont feel weird 7:43! just give in to the power of the gloss!
ReplyDeleteYAY! Heteroglossia!!
ReplyDeleteHow about a real painter next time? Someone new and fresh. Someone no one has heard of or seen yet but is real good. someone like me!
ReplyDeleteOr, me?
ReplyDeleteI like her.
ReplyDeleteIona Roseal Brown
Iona Brown is fantastic.
ReplyDelete...but for some reason that link doesn't lead to her...
ReplyDeleteAgain, I like Iona, but I just noticed that the gallery copy about her is a jewel of artspeak bullshit, observe:
ReplyDeleteiona rozeal brown’s most recent paintings are an unprecedented mixture of anonymous courtesans, geisha and other Japanese subjects. She explores the theme of afro-asiatic allegory, addressing the global influence of african american culture as fetish. Brown’s work signals the energy, critical direction and complexity of contemporary practice that is engaged in a tenuous marriage of commerce and resistance.
In her paint, Brown intertextually juxtaposes color and texture, a technique that parallels her artistry as a DJ. Both practices emerge from a process of self-sampling and remixing, devices employed by media to create its own endless permutations or representations and meanings. Throughout her work, Brown brings a subversive reading to her art, and manipulates hyper self-conscious imagery to articulate contemporary concerns regarding race, gender and class.
ok, back to Marilyn Minter--seductive image, lifeless surface, maybe that's the point, who's next?
STREET WALKERS FEET HUGE ALL OVER CHEALSEA
ReplyDeletenot unlike the bottom of jesus'; feet in that painting in the vatican
ReplyDeleteI think Passeo's gone underground somewhere. Like back to Maryland with his/her mom. Or maybe Passeo's gettin' on with Yoda.
ReplyDeleteBrown intertextually juxtaposes color and texture, a technique that parallels her artistry as a DJ.
ReplyDeleteso beautiful
somehow the brown string strikes me, now, as PR.
ReplyDeleteWhat's with the bolded text?
Slimy!
ReplyDeleteBrown intertextually juxtaposes color and texture, a technique that parallels her artistry as a DJ.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully glossy like a brown on brown rainbow. Unpacks like a turd from the centerfold.
What DOESN't her work do? Compete with Laylah Ali?
But back to minter - what if she used the green filter?
About Brown --- 'Got It!'
ReplyDeleteI had Marylin as a teacher. She was great. Not to merely kiss her bootay but she introduced me to Richter and Richard Prince. All the dark motha/fathaf**ckers. I have a soft spot for her. She isn't all theory and blah blah. Thanks Marylin and I'm glad you got your joints up in the Whitney.
ReplyDelete