Gina Magid@FEATURE INC 530 W 25TH ST NY NY 10001
Awesome! Only partially a "painting", but it's a great object.
Is this a joke by way of a dream journal? Nights in white satin?I feel like I know what shes going for because Ive been there and I've seen a lot of work like this. In art school.Positive-negative, figure-ground, loose-tight detailed-open - these are some but not all of the painters bag of tricks. Anyone who goes to art class is taught these. There is nothing stylisticly new in this work, especially in Chelsea.SO what is unique about this particular painting? The hypnopompic/hypnogogic state between waking and dreaming? The narrative? Pretty thin. Objectness - tell me more. For me luann or birch plywood is old hat. Paint clowns with sand glued to the board with sugar. Or something.
I like the movement-depth though. I allways like space. I love flying dreams.
what kind of paint does she use?
Good Question W.W.Ocean DuskOil paint, acrylic, pastel, charcoal & collage on Wood Panel60" x 48"
My criteria is for art that invites me to think beyond brushwork, positive/negative space, etc...;skills that one only hopes an artist can attain and 'speak ' with (!). I agree with zipthwungs first comment...I need more... I'll check it out to see if there is quality to the brushwork/technical and if it even hits me on that level.
feature is so stylized
i enjoy the materials in gina's work. it's very direct. the mix of the decorative/pretty with a kind of forcefulness - unfussiness. Her paintings feel like talismens to me - searching for just the right juncture.
just went to see but the gallery was closed for photography. bummer.
something seems to be missing ,in this one,at least
oh, i don't know...i think there was a bird (yes, another bird), but the bird's head and torso are missing...that's kinda cool. the wing detail is nice...and I like how the various details work with the grain of the wood...yes, yes, styled well...but content... where's the content? something IS missing...maybe there DOES need to be more... maybe that's the point... the torso and head are missing? course, how that relates to ocean, dusk, dreams, etc... not sure. kinda new age-ish, right?
If there's spraypaint in this one, I'm gonna be wicked pissed.
I was at the opening and have to say that the paintings work better as a group than on their own, and also (of course) that they look much better in person than in this jpeg. I found Magid's works to be really interesting to look because the process seemed so oddly formulated when you see them. She has (on her canvases), strange areas of open stitching and an apparently anarchistic method of mixing and layering different materials that serves to naturalize the objects that are made. This may be very self conscious, but it reads effectively, lending a subtle feeling of spiritual struggle to the works - as though they were created via a process of ritual rather than constructive logic.I was kind of distracted at the opening, so I couldn't get in a good long look, but Gina's overriding theme seemed, at first glance, to be about spirit animals. There was a feeling (as has been noted by other posters) that Gina was struggling to bring these animals out of dream, and leaving traces of their non-temporality along side them. She may be trying to create a painting that can give us that same sense awe that we would feel in the face of an animal like an owl in real life - a feeling that the animal is at once alien and very close to us. Many primitive cultures thought of animals as belonging to the spirit world, and I think that Magid is trying to find a way to connect this feeling to us.
i was going to say something snarky having walked thru the show, until i went thru ur blog wod zar xam, and realized i must be on a different page, what is the The concept of the failure of "nature art? are photography, LCD screens and digital printing not emotive medium?
well... no-where-man, I'm not saying they (LCD screens and digital printing) are not emotive... but I don't think that they are on the same level as drawing and painting (yet) in terms of accessing certain possibilities of the mind... As for your question on the failure of nature art.. that one I'll need my notes for... ;) I have to leave "work" now and get on the road to Boston for some R&R, but if you post those questions on my blog I'll def. answer more completely. Or at least try!
I like your work, w.z.x., and can see why you like Magid b/c of the amimals totems (even though they come from different aspects of surrealism.)
hey wod I hope you arent suggesting art fashion is going to turn from ironic detatchment and adolescent posturing.I fear the day when the uncanny sublime becomes the rule again. It was bad enough the last time you know? And the time before that. I've been pulling stakes from the hearts of fashion victims for years...grunvilde - yeah, art is a lump of putty that fills the gap in the logs between you and the wendigo.OwwwwooowwwoooOOOOOOO!Its a fine wine.
here is her websiteIt seems like Magid has some really interesting technical things happening, but I'm really put off by the paint by numbers/drawn from a photograph stylized animals and faces. I applaud her desire to show the connections between things, to find a connection to nature, etc, but the figures are so lifeless and contrived, it feels more like she's trying to find a connection to a coloring book.This is going to sound so old school, but if you want to make work about animals, whether they are sad pink deer or ferocious lions, would it be so wrong to go to the friggin zoo and draw some from life? Why this dependence on photography? If the animals and faces had some sense of being from the natural world instead of the cartoon world, the paintings would be much more powerful.Even if one wants to show alienation from the natural world, I think it's more interesting to create stand-ins that feel real, even if they don't look real. These do not feel real to me.
I think what she's doing with materials & technique & figure/ground is pretty inventive & imaginative. If she reaches into the standard art class bag of tricks (couldn't we say that about any painter on earth?), what she pulls out is a version of each one that is so uniquely f***ed up that it is unrecognizable. I like how it's hard to get a grip on any of her paintings as a whole - they don't let you relax - and I like how little discrete brilliant parts within the paintings totally surprise me. But you may have to see them in person to experience how beautifully weird they are.
i am interested in the ambiguity of the image...however i feel the choice of groung is somewhat arbitrary and ill considered. in all of the images i can find it is difficult to get a handle on the paint quality so i will refrain from commenting on that. again as an image it is somewhat compelling. oh, the text...feels a bit timid...neither here nor there, if she is using the phrase 'ocean dusk' as the title it need not be in the piece? or it need be there in force.
"so uniquely f***ed up that it is unrecognizable."If its unrecognizeable how come I can name it, hit it into the far court and still blow a kiss to the ball boy? more talent in my little finger than...
I love them. Stuttering half thoughts layered and colliding. There is a haphazard idealism - an acknowledgement of the failure of coherence while still striving for something beautiful and transcendent. I don't mind the photographic reference - it makes sense within her collage-like juxtapositions of imagery.
would it be so wrong to go to the friggin zoo and draw some from life?I'm tired .. but let me at least try before the next peice goes up...In trying to capture the modern experience of our relationship with these animals, for most of us, drawing from life would be antithetical. We city folk don't see owls and deers face to face any more. Our experience with them is tempered by cartoons, google searches, album covers, Urban Outfitters and Animal Planet. If Magid is trying to define the space between us and these animals (as I think she is), it seems more appropriate to draw from a source one step removed than to draw from life.
goble, you might as well talk about the paint quality. wood panel, stylized nature renderings, nature words... dunno. can we or should we or are we ready to really chuck the irony for outright obvious? i don't know how ambiguous this really is. I mean, a part of a bird is still a bird......and that one step removed bit is interesting, but I personally wished that she could have been more investigated more...course, don't know about the other work, since I can't see the show (admittedly)...which brings me to this piece to whole series situation... i have to admit I many times make something knowing it will be a part of a series...sometimes not. (good thing to poin out, wod) This piece obviously doesn't stand alone in getting the full impact of her artistic queries...should it?
has anyone seen Pamela Anderson's work on paper ?...:)http://marchanddusel.blogspot.com/
ugg these looked utterly like student work to me, i was very disappointed. mfa, mfa, mfa.
Post a Comment