maybe it would have made more sense when there was a strong 'feminist' sensibility in the Art world, i am feeling guidden color consultant and notions of 'female' that scream my summer home is bird is a gilded cagey.
I wish I had a bathroom like that. Beautiful light and the red chair. I heard someone say once that she made all those wedding cake paintings because she never thought she would get married and then she got engaged, that year. Maybe she will win the lottery after making these paintings.
This painting is about hygiene. Notice there is no dirty underwear hanging on the doorknob. The red chair represents the unpredictable world outside, and how easily we can be tempted to sit in it.
i like this image.is it because it is an upper-middle class, semi-gloss, Kohler fixture crystal dangling upholstered making-me-wish-i-had-more-money type of thing? i don't know. reminds me of that photographer who shoots images of wealthy aristocratic types in their natural environs. but here without the people.
Some suggestions: If you must trash some artist don't use their full name. Because when you google someone it comes up in the first couple lines of google. And no one needs that. This happened to a friend of mine on here. He got many good comments on his work but the worst one used his full name so that is what comes up when you google him.
If you find work so unremarkable don't remark that day.
Open dialogue is great but when it is on the internet it is no longer a passing discussion. I think people should just be more sensitive about that issue. Or at least speak the way they would in public. It is shameful how people abuse this forum.
it would helpful for Art and culture at large if people spoke in a more honest mode, the reader should be able to discern between a credible comment or not. Haven’t you ever been at a show, dinner party, gala, lecture what have you and mused as to what people were really thinking? I know the internet is discomforting because it breaks down the hierarchy of who is allowed to speak, and the reader should always have this in mind, but maybe – just maybe we are at a time right now where it could be valuable to re-evaluate. The center cannot hold.
This work is boring. It would make a fantastic illustration for House and Garden or one of those magazines. The red couch or sofa at the far right corner is drawing too much attention. Whatever psychological drama the artist hopes to achieve is undermined by the obviousness of the placement. She should study Vermeer more for how to paint rooms and create dazzling gemoetric beauty and sense of light. But the illustrative technique here is pretty decent. But that's as far as you can go painting from a photograph -- it ends up being a painting of a photograph.
these are symptoms of the epidemic. no one wants to say anything truthful because they're afraid of ruining a connection or burning a bridge. that story is as old as the hills and still totally dysfunctional. there is a great big grey area between "oh, wow, that's AMAZING" and "what a piece of shit." we should investigate.
I know this is really lame but when I am mad at my boyfriend I put his name in google and then write is a big jerk after it and see what comes up. Nothing does but I just want to know if anyone else out there shares my feelings about him at that time.
i think people would be MORE honest and wouldnt make such ignorant blank statements if they were forced to use their OWN name. own up to your comments, take a stance, and then say whatever you want and use the persons full name if you wish...but dont 'hide' while doing it.
This jpg creeps me out. Its like a grandmas wet dream. The taste -beveled mirror blech. Ersatz in a way upper middle class yearning for the finer things and yet settling for a decadent robber barron past, but anachronisms abound. Painted over walls - that were once fashionably green.
The house of usher fell, and the hemoglobin stain has been thrown out with the white shag carpet.
A chair symbolizes the murder of taste and soul.
I'd reveal my identity but then I'd have to deal with people. God the masses are so filthy.
It takes so much effort towrite, so I'm going to go polish the stainless steel. Ring. Ring.
I take issue with the above that 'painting from a photograph just ends up being a painting of a photograph'--and I don't think I really need to elaborate except to say--Close, Richter, Estes and a bunch of other painters who I like about 1 out of every 25 paintings they make(including richter/close/estes).
There are lots of people who use really cool palettes - this onehere - well its a case where palette is tres importante.
Fort those of you who dont know, the light really is different in different places.
Dust in the air, the declination of the sun, the size of your cateracts...all of this plays havoc with the colorspace on my monitor.
One time I was in New Mehico (I misspelled that so the santa fe people dont find us)and the "Watermellon mountains" looked like watermellon. Sort of. Sandias.
ANother time I was sleepin on the beach at Big Sir and the sun woke me up, all yellow.
Another time I was up norht and the blue nearly killed me.
There are lots of painters - there was a big discussion about light one time. ANd another time too.
Its like talking about travel. If you've never travelled, it can be a real fucking bore. Unless you like living vicariously.
I said "people who paint from photographs"based on the above caeruleum comment and listed said artists b/c they do indeed paint from photographs(Celmins another good example btw.)
Alex Katz paints from photographs. I am not calling him a photorealist. But I am calling him a better painter than anyone mentioned in this comment box today.
The fact that the afore mentioned artists distance themselves from photorealism is neither here nor there for me. Hell, I would too if I painted in ANY of these styles based on mimick-ing photographs.
everything is either white or reflective or transparent...only paying attention to the red chair is being surface and falling into the very trap julia has set up. this is about light, surface (also the depth of transparent surface) and subversion, focusing on the chair is easy...the easy chair. oooo.
Alex Katz is a fantastic painter. Ditto Richter and Clemins, and Peyton and Tuymans, as well. I've never liked Chuck Close, though. I respect the guy, but I find his paintings hideously ugly. These people do something interesting with the photographs that they use. If you can do something interesting, like transform the photographic image in some new way, then kudos to you. But if you're just copying the photograph, then it's pretty boring. Unfortunately, many painters lack the imaginative leap to transform the photographs they use into something more substantial and visionary.
EXACTLY what I was tring to point out about people who paint from photographs, caeruleum.
there is a (I hate saying this...)je ne sais qua that must be present when painting from photographs.
a bit of a stretch but...
Gursky made a gynormous photo of a Pollock painting that hangs @ MOMA. I do not respond to the Pollock painting as it hangs in the gallery. I respond GREATLY to the PHOTO of the Pollock painting by the photographer Gursky.
There's nothin more or less present in that photo, really. Go figure.
Is anyone here on this board wearing the t-shirt I saw yesterday that says...
clearly we have all had grid 101, - in this instance parallels between "early Pop art with a more overt sexual agenda, with a dash of Magriette" comes across as big a stylistic stretch (looks like Art, Art) and as forced as JS’s - A.S. article this week, like the writers are (amid corpse fucking) ‘artists’ in there own reich. And I have no problem saying that to anyone’s face.
Here we go again with plain ol' realism to save the day. "Wow that's a painting? That artist must of suffered to paint this. So since it's labor intensive, obsessive, perfectly composed, and the imagery is straight out a Scarsdale estate catalogue (nothing against the monetarily well-endowed btw) it must be high-art." Puhleaze. Who would put this crap in their house? If there was a molotov flying across these scenes it would be better. These works say absolutely nothing. "Oh the red chair to charge the space..." what is this interior design 101? This is like the Damian Hirst realism paintings except these show the opposite of his theme. They are perfectly serenely vacant.
yes imagewarship...im sure these questions have passed through her mind which is why i think that the comments about whether or not this should have remained a photo or not are not that interesting (the photo is merely a filter/tool to be used by the artist to whatever end they wish)...not to mention tragically dated. fact is, she painted them. this makes me think what is it about this image that made her labor over it? there is something fetishized and devotional about this odd practice...but, that is not interesting to me either...what is it about this image that is important. i say, transparency, surface, reflection. what? say, superficial upper-class narcissism. no! what?
exactly pc- if you read her press release she admits that she is dealing with her guilty fascination with these places...
"These paintings are my own confession that I am dazzled and drawn to images of overstated luxury; they are a self-indictment of my own coveting of the material, and an admittance of an abashed desire that refuses to be constrained by good taste." -julia jacquette (from her press release.
"These paintings are my own confession that I am dazzled and drawn to images of overstated luxury; they are a self-indictment of my own coveting of the material, and an admittance of an abashed desire that refuses to be constrained by good taste." (-julia jacquette (from her press release.)
whatever.... It says I'm materialistic. Congratulations good taste is constraining and luxury is dazzling. Is she for real? NEXT!
I have no problem with paintings that represent tasteful interiors. I also have no problem with paintings based on photos. Matisse painted rocking images of tasteful interiors; they were about what he found to be beautiful. Celmins, Tuymans and Richter make poetic, edgy and visionary paintings from photos. The problem here for me is that J.J.'s paintings seem merely to illustrate the ideas put forth in her artists statement: the paint is workmanlike, perfectly skillful, but it has no life to it. These feel too didactic for me, unfortunately. Her earlier work self-consciously used sign-painters' language (I think they were enamel on wood) to represent objects of desire (jewelry, food), and the paint at least had a funkiness to it. It could be that she is still using an illustrational style to signify commodification, but it reads as "fine art," so the overt advertising reference is lost.
ok ok ok...im confused, someone please explain why everyone who enjoys this forum loved alexis rockman but stongly dislikes J.J.'s work. rockmans work (i compare them because of blog proximity) is so booring and easy and to the point and illustrative AND TALK ABOUT SIMPLY ILLUSTRATING WHAT ONE SAYS IN THEIR ARTISTS STATEMENT. does julias work make you all uncomfortable because you all also secretly desire a nice warm facewash in this sink? its damn complicated...there is a (i think) a concious subtlety here that is dificult to put a finger on. rockman is selling his work to rich people.
Goble, Rockman and Jaquette are completely different painters. I didn't comment or rip into Rockman because I liked his earlier work and hope he finds his transition which I don't think he has in a convincing way yet. I am tired of that repetitive illustrative style. It gets overused in his work. But I understand the use of the crutch. His subject matter, nonetheless, is interesting. I like that apocolyptic edge in work. That darkside. If J.J.'s were realistic paintings of Trump, Hilton, and Gates would it be any more interesting? It's just that they are so realistic and clinical. Photo-realism for photo-realism's sake. Why not just do photography? There is nothing new in these paintings. It's just the seduction to material things that I find disturbing. In a world where people are tying bombs to their chests and rummaging through garbage cans for food, it is much to be celebrating expensive things. It saddens me but doesn't surprise me that people want to escape into these paintings and into aristocratic lifestyles. I don't mind light subject matter but here it is so dead it has no oxygen. The work is missing a heartbeat. Painting solely light things doesn't present the world in a realistic light. There's darkness out there and it is not validated here. That's what's missing for me and that omission I find, sorry, intentional and conveniant. Courting rich collectors is one thing but what about the people looking at your work? What do they take home with them? Here I doubt there's much. I'm not at all impressed by photo-realism cause I paint that too. I know the tricks and the process rather well. It is a technical achievement and not always an imaginitive one. That is the problem with JJ's current crop of work. Very boring subject matter and a cold delivery. A lot of critics ripped into Damian Hirst's show for his assistant painted photo-realism paintings of crack heads, bleeding football hooligan, car bomb victims, and skulls. That was an anemic display of imagination and the focus on morbid subjects was exploitive. He is one of the richest artists in the world and he still got ripped. Lets stop the sexism accusations everytime a woman gets criticised unfavorably. There is sexism out in the art world and men do get shown more often than women and I find that disgusting and depraved. But not ALL of us are being critical of their gender. We are talking about the work. At least I am.
47 comments:
Julia Jacquette @
Michael Steinberg Fine Art
526 West 26th Street
Suite 215
New York, NY 10001
maybe it would have made more sense when there was a strong 'feminist' sensibility in the Art world, i am feeling guidden color consultant and notions of 'female' that scream my summer home is bird is a gilded cagey.
I say Yes.
curious about the dims.
That red chair is an exclamation point to a wonderfully observed moment.
I wish I had a bathroom like that.
Beautiful light and the red chair.
I heard someone say once that she made all those wedding cake paintings because she never thought she would get married and then she got engaged, that year. Maybe she will win the lottery after making these paintings.
This painting is about hygiene. Notice there is no dirty underwear hanging on the doorknob. The red chair represents the unpredictable world outside, and how easily we can be tempted to sit in it.
I'm with BB, work is looking fun today.
i like this image.is it because
it is an upper-middle class, semi-gloss, Kohler fixture crystal dangling upholstered making-me-wish-i-had-more-money type of thing? i don't know. reminds me of that photographer who shoots images of wealthy aristocratic types in their natural environs. but here without the people.
Some suggestions:
If you must trash some artist don't use their full name. Because when you google someone it comes up in the first couple lines of google. And no one needs that.
This happened to a friend of mine on here. He got many good comments on his work but the worst one used his full name so that is what comes up when you google him.
If you find work so unremarkable don't remark that day.
nothing seems to be a level of critic that is 'trashy' at all. should this fourm serve as a marketing tool or platform for an open dialogue?
remarkable things go on in the market.
Open dialogue is great but when it is on the internet it is no longer a passing discussion. I think people should just be more sensitive about that issue.
Or at least speak the way they would in public. It is shameful how people abuse this forum.
it would helpful for Art and culture at large if people spoke in a more honest mode, the reader should be able to discern between a credible comment or not. Haven’t you ever been at a show, dinner party, gala, lecture what have you and mused as to what people were really thinking? I know the internet is discomforting because it breaks down the hierarchy of who is allowed to speak, and the reader should always have this in mind, but maybe – just maybe we are at a time right now where it could be valuable to re-evaluate.
The center cannot hold.
This work is boring. It would make a fantastic illustration for House and Garden or one of those magazines. The red couch or sofa at the far right corner is drawing too much attention. Whatever psychological drama the artist hopes to achieve is undermined by the obviousness of the placement. She should study Vermeer more for how to paint rooms and create dazzling gemoetric beauty and sense of light. But the illustrative technique here is pretty decent. But that's as far as you can go painting from a photograph -- it ends up being a painting of a photograph.
i agree w/no-where-man
these are symptoms of the epidemic. no one wants to say anything truthful because they're afraid of ruining a connection or burning a bridge. that story is as old as the hills and still totally dysfunctional. there is a great big grey area between "oh, wow, that's AMAZING" and "what a piece of shit." we should investigate.
I know this is really lame but when I am mad at my boyfriend I put his name in google and then write is a big jerk after it and see what comes up. Nothing does but I just want to know if anyone else out there shares my feelings about him at that time.
you should try "*insert your boyfriends name*is a totally hardcore lesbian slut lookin' for 2-way action."
that might reveal better "results"
i think people would be MORE honest and wouldnt make such ignorant blank statements if they were forced to use their OWN name. own up to your comments, take a stance, and then say whatever you want and use the persons full name if you wish...but dont 'hide' while doing it.
flesheater99 tried it still no results. some people just aren't that googlable.
This jpg creeps me out. Its like a grandmas wet dream. The taste -beveled mirror blech. Ersatz in a way upper middle class yearning for the finer things and yet settling for a decadent robber barron past, but anachronisms abound. Painted over walls - that were once fashionably green.
The house of usher fell, and the hemoglobin stain has been thrown out with the white shag carpet.
A chair symbolizes the murder of taste and soul.
I'd reveal my identity but then I'd have to deal with people. God the masses are so filthy.
It takes so much effort towrite, so I'm going to go polish the stainless steel. Ring. Ring.
when did google get all tame? I tried, miss pony.
I take issue with the above that 'painting from a photograph just ends up being a painting of a photograph'--and I don't think I really need to elaborate except to say--Close, Richter, Estes and a bunch of other painters who I like about 1 out of every 25 paintings they make(including richter/close/estes).
fles heater calm down...there are kids (grad students) reading this.
ooh oooh ooh call on me!
There are lots of people who use really cool palettes - this onehere - well its a case where palette is tres importante.
Fort those of you who dont know, the light really is different in different places.
Dust in the air, the declination of the sun, the size of your cateracts...all of this plays havoc with the colorspace on my monitor.
One time I was in New Mehico (I misspelled that so the santa fe people dont find us)and the "Watermellon mountains" looked like watermellon. Sort of. Sandias.
ANother time I was sleepin on the beach at Big Sir and the sun woke me up, all yellow.
Another time I was up norht and the blue nearly killed me.
There are lots of painters - there was a big discussion about light one time. ANd another time too.
Its like talking about travel. If you've never travelled, it can be a real fucking bore. Unless you like living vicariously.
Fuck that.
Which is to say, GREEN.
Or is it the jpg?
Because that is the most interesting thing about this.
jpg.
chrisjag,
who said anything about "photorealism"??
not me.
I said "people who paint from photographs"based on the above caeruleum comment and listed said artists b/c they do indeed paint from photographs(Celmins another good example btw.)
Alex Katz paints from photographs. I am not calling him a photorealist. But I am calling him a better painter than anyone mentioned in this comment box today.
The fact that the afore mentioned artists distance themselves from photorealism is neither here nor there for me. Hell, I would too if I painted in ANY of these styles based on mimick-ing photographs.
everything is either white or reflective or transparent...only paying attention to the red chair is being surface and falling into the very trap julia has set up. this is about light, surface (also the depth of transparent surface) and subversion, focusing on the chair is easy...the easy chair. oooo.
i forgot to mention that quoting photography is also an allusion to surface.
Alex Katz is a fantastic painter. Ditto Richter and Clemins, and Peyton and Tuymans, as well. I've never liked Chuck Close, though. I respect the guy, but I find his paintings hideously ugly. These people do something interesting with the photographs that they use. If you can do something interesting, like transform the photographic image in some new way, then kudos to you. But if you're just copying the photograph, then it's pretty boring. Unfortunately, many painters lack the imaginative leap to transform the photographs they use into something more substantial and visionary.
EXACTLY what I was tring to point out about people who paint from photographs, caeruleum.
there is a (I hate saying this...)je ne sais qua that must be present when painting from photographs.
a bit of a stretch but...
Gursky made a gynormous photo of a Pollock painting that hangs @ MOMA.
I do not respond to the Pollock painting as it hangs in the gallery.
I respond GREATLY to the PHOTO of the Pollock painting by the photographer Gursky.
There's nothin more or less present in that photo, really.
Go figure.
Is anyone here on this board wearing the t-shirt I saw yesterday that says...
Explanation
Kills
Art
I am. in spirit.
This should have remained a photograph.
clearly we have all had grid 101, - in this instance parallels between "early Pop art with a more overt sexual agenda, with a dash of Magriette" comes across as big a stylistic stretch (looks like Art, Art) and as forced as JS’s - A.S. article this week, like the writers are (amid corpse fucking) ‘artists’ in there own reich. And I have no problem saying that to anyone’s face.
privileged? take out the loans and go. anyone can welcome to generation debt.
Here we go again with plain ol' realism to save the day. "Wow that's a painting? That artist must of suffered to paint this. So since it's labor intensive, obsessive, perfectly composed, and the imagery is straight out a Scarsdale estate catalogue (nothing against the monetarily well-endowed btw) it must be high-art." Puhleaze. Who would put this crap in their house? If there was a molotov flying across these scenes it would be better. These works say absolutely nothing. "Oh the red chair to charge the space..." what is this interior design 101?
This is like the Damian Hirst realism paintings except these show the opposite of his theme. They are perfectly serenely vacant.
yes imagewarship...im sure these questions have passed through her mind which is why i think that the comments about whether or not this should have remained a photo or not are not that interesting (the photo is merely a filter/tool to be used by the artist to whatever end they wish)...not to mention tragically dated. fact is, she painted them. this makes me think what is it about this image that made her labor over it? there is something fetishized and devotional about this odd practice...but, that is not interesting to me either...what is it about this image that is important. i say, transparency, surface, reflection. what? say, superficial upper-class narcissism. no! what?
preferable
or not? For me, yes.
exactly pc- if you read her press release she admits that she is dealing with her guilty fascination with these places...
"These paintings are my own confession that I am dazzled and
drawn to images of overstated luxury; they are a self-indictment
of my own coveting of the material, and an admittance of an
abashed desire that refuses to be constrained by good taste."
-julia jacquette (from her press release.
. I’m a Barbie girl, in my Barbie world. Life in plastic, it’s fantastic.
there is no growth with out crit.
"These paintings are my own confession that I am dazzled and
drawn to images of overstated luxury; they are a self-indictment
of my own coveting of the material, and an admittance of an
abashed desire that refuses to be constrained by good taste."
(-julia jacquette (from her press release.)
whatever.... It says I'm materialistic. Congratulations good taste is constraining and luxury is dazzling. Is she for real?
NEXT!
she is for real. why question her sincerity and not alexis rockmans?
Off the top of my head I can think of 5 women who got it really bad on here. I can't think of any men who got it even half as bad.
there's no crying it art world suck it up. while you have been doin what ever i just opened an awsome disco at sacthii's . hot like me
I have a nice diamond studded leopard print thong- by Prada. Wanna smell it? It smells luxurious....
I don't care about sincerity - only vision. There is no vision in painting soley bourgeois excesses.
I have no problem with paintings that represent tasteful interiors. I also have no problem with paintings based on photos. Matisse painted rocking images of tasteful interiors; they were about what he found to be beautiful. Celmins, Tuymans and Richter make poetic, edgy and visionary paintings from photos. The problem here for me is that J.J.'s paintings seem merely to illustrate the ideas put forth in her artists statement: the paint is workmanlike, perfectly skillful, but it has no life to it. These feel too didactic for me, unfortunately. Her earlier work self-consciously used sign-painters' language (I think they were enamel on wood) to represent objects of desire (jewelry, food), and the paint at least had a funkiness to it. It could be that she is still using an illustrational style to signify commodification, but it reads as "fine art," so the overt advertising reference is lost.
ok ok ok...im confused, someone please explain why everyone who enjoys this forum loved alexis rockman but stongly dislikes J.J.'s work. rockmans work (i compare them because of blog proximity) is so booring and easy and to the point and illustrative AND TALK ABOUT SIMPLY ILLUSTRATING WHAT ONE SAYS IN THEIR ARTISTS STATEMENT. does julias work make you all uncomfortable because you all also secretly desire a nice warm facewash in this sink? its damn complicated...there is a (i think) a concious subtlety here that is dificult to put a finger on. rockman is selling his work to rich people.
Most artists sell their work to rich people, no?
i think bio-engenering and man vs. nature is more inclusive then that bathroom
baba, thx for the e-mail i will read it as soon as a get to my next computer! for the record - the CS site, not so much any Artist. we were removed.
Goble, Rockman and Jaquette are completely different painters. I didn't comment or rip into Rockman because I liked his earlier work and hope he finds his transition which I don't think he has in a convincing way yet. I am tired of that repetitive illustrative style. It gets overused in his work. But I understand the use of the crutch. His subject matter, nonetheless, is interesting. I like that apocolyptic edge in work. That darkside.
If J.J.'s were realistic paintings of Trump, Hilton, and Gates would it be any more interesting? It's just that they are so realistic and clinical. Photo-realism for photo-realism's sake. Why not just do photography? There is nothing new in these paintings. It's just the seduction to material things that I find disturbing. In a world where people are tying bombs to their chests and rummaging through garbage cans for food, it is much to be celebrating expensive things. It saddens me but doesn't surprise me that people want to escape into these paintings and into aristocratic lifestyles. I don't mind light subject matter but here it is so dead it has no oxygen. The work is missing a heartbeat. Painting solely light things doesn't present the world in a realistic light. There's darkness out there and it is not validated here. That's what's missing for me and that omission I find, sorry, intentional and conveniant. Courting rich collectors is one thing but what about the people looking at your work? What do they take home with them? Here I doubt there's much.
I'm not at all impressed by photo-realism cause I paint that too. I know the tricks and the process rather well. It is a technical achievement and not always an imaginitive one. That is the problem with JJ's current crop of work. Very boring subject matter and a cold delivery.
A lot of critics ripped into Damian Hirst's show for his assistant painted photo-realism paintings of crack heads, bleeding football hooligan, car bomb victims, and skulls. That was an anemic display of imagination and the focus on morbid subjects was exploitive. He is one of the richest artists in the world and he still got ripped.
Lets stop the sexism accusations everytime a woman gets criticised unfavorably. There is sexism out in the art world and men do get shown more often than women and I find that disgusting and depraved. But not ALL of us are being critical of their gender. We are talking about the work. At least I am.
Ive read most of the crits on this blog...for the record I definitely think Zak Smith got it worst
Post a Comment