another explosion. this one far more dynamic than Grassos. the symmetry enhances the motion expressed by explosions and, when viewed at 60in. on center it gives us the feeling that our head is next. the black and white of this symmetrical blast is representative of life...and death.
the best part of this painting (most important part) is not the painting at all, neither the left panel, nor the right but the space in between. the synapse, the node, the pause....the calm before the painting. what will happen when this explodes?
Well, Goble, that's a sign that it works for you, then. Interesting the two canvases, expect that's what they are, function as one so well simply via the repeated motif each side and how they join. As you say the empty space is filled up and is quite structural.
even if you dont see it as an explosion, the black 'arrows' point to the fulcrum that is the absence. the key to this painting lies within its absence.
it is called spider. with other paintings like 'connecting dots' and 'thin tv' here in the same show i feel there is some sort of tension in the titles,
Although I get the feeling that this show as a whole goes beyond what we are given with this one piece, I think it interesting the way that discussion on this piece has progressed so far. As it seems, all that can be culled from this painting, is formal matters. The aforementioned "fulcrum of absence", the "tremendous openness". We are reduced to surveyors in the shadow of this shape. The title, I think, hints at the artist's own struggle with propping this painting up with words; "it looks like a spider, kinda, I'll call it that."
In another era, this painting would be a applauded and certified immediately as further affirmation of the triumph of modernism over the old ways of art. Painted in 1964, it breaks down academic traditions with the force of a fission reaction - escape the electron of figuration, escape the neutrino of the picture plane. But that bomb was detonated long ago, and today, thank the lord, we can't fall back on that crutch nor dispense those tired accolades.
The destruction is done, the rebuilding has started. What, then of Spider, who skitters here like a lost critter in the cool, tiled, lossy bathtub of our current, nameless era? Just formalist critique. That’s all we got. Close her up early, there’s a long week ahead. And is that enough? For design, perhaps. For painting, not hardly.
Just to note, having now looked at the Thorpe website (thanks N-W-Man for the link above), I do think that these paintings are pushing the envelope and saying something interesting, I was wrong to say that they can't go beyond formalist crit. In my opinion, Spence is using the language of modernist American painters, saying something about the oxymoronic idea of painting "something" in a manner that historically was devoted to painting "nothing".
Again, this ties into some information age worries - the real is sublimated to the second level presentation of the real in media like TV, Internet, etc. There is a strain of fallacy and futility in presenting something real in a language established to present the abstract, and this is addressed in Spence's works succinctly.
I think Spider struggles to paint that "real something" the most out of the pieces on the website, where as in Flicker he finds a familiar looking modern painting style to be quite able to capture the image and essence of the flame. Spence certainly seems cognizant of what he is trying to do, using the TV metaphor to reinforce the supposition of the meta-image in his works, I was wrong to think his titles were stumbled upon. I think he does a good job of saying something that is not easy to say, even if he does it in a way that is somewhat insular to the art world. As is often the case, it takes the whole show to get the idea, looking at one piece does not tell the story
spiderman, batman, kissing pencils, touching umbrellas. i like this one a lot. like one of those shape things where you look at the positive/negative space and first see a vase and then see two faces - i have a hard time focusing on this. first it is something bursting outwards, then it is two somethings touching. i like the formalist stuff, and also think of pop art and superheroes and roy lichtenstein and ellsworth kelly.
jerry saltz included spence in his 10/1993 AiA look at painting -
Sub-Section 2. Abstractionism
"this may be the kind of work that is helping to give painting a bad name", "these artists make rules rather than break rules. It's amazing that something that started out as bold and open as abstract painting should in their hands end up so obvious and lifeless"
Juan Usle John Zinsser David Row Cary Smith Andrew Spence
Seems like edward thorp gallery is just another of those retail galleries. I hope the work that comes from galleries such that one isn't covered in the future here. I might have to find an another blog to purge into.
14 comments:
Andrew Spence
edward thorp gallery
210 Eleventh Avenue NY, NY 10001
Spider eh.
another explosion. this one far more dynamic than Grassos. the symmetry enhances the motion expressed by explosions and, when viewed at 60in. on center it gives us the feeling that our head is next. the black and white of this symmetrical blast is representative of life...and death.
the best part of this painting (most important part) is not the painting at all, neither the left panel, nor the right but the space in between. the synapse, the node, the pause....the calm before the painting. what will happen when this explodes?
Not about space or the line weight would vary.
This would be a good painting if it had a naked chick in it Vargas Style. I've allways been a fan of Dark Side of the Moon, too.
Not an explosion but a transmission and refraction?
But thats if I'm stoned.
Well, Goble, that's a sign that it works for you, then. Interesting the two canvases, expect that's what they are, function as one so well simply via the repeated motif each side and how they join. As you say the empty space is filled up and is quite structural.
even if you dont see it as an explosion, the black 'arrows' point to the fulcrum that is the absence. the key to this painting lies within its absence.
it is called spider. with other paintings like 'connecting dots' and 'thin tv' here in the same show i feel there is some sort of tension in the titles,
the key to this painting lies within its absence.
i am hurling in a plastic bag.
does air have calories?
I think I blew some transistors in my abstraction circuits.
Spiders can tell if there is tension on the line.
Alternate titles:
Flies.
The Planes of Flatland have a clusterfuck.
Time, doesn't it?
Ill communication.
Obtuse and acute, and also perpendicular.
Discordian Accordian.
Crunch!
Wiskersive.
Although I get the feeling that this show as a whole goes beyond what we are given with this one piece, I think it interesting the way that discussion on this piece has progressed so far. As it seems, all that can be culled from this painting, is formal matters. The aforementioned "fulcrum of absence", the "tremendous openness". We are reduced to surveyors in the shadow of this shape. The title, I think, hints at the artist's own struggle with propping this painting up with words; "it looks like a spider, kinda, I'll call it that."
In another era, this painting would be a applauded and certified immediately as further affirmation of the triumph of modernism over the old ways of art. Painted in 1964, it breaks down academic traditions with the force of a fission reaction - escape the electron of figuration, escape the neutrino of the picture plane. But that bomb was detonated long ago, and today, thank the lord, we can't fall back on that crutch nor dispense those tired accolades.
The destruction is done, the rebuilding has started. What, then of Spider, who skitters here like a lost critter in the cool, tiled, lossy bathtub of our current, nameless era? Just formalist critique. That’s all we got. Close her up early, there’s a long week ahead. And is that enough? For design, perhaps. For painting, not hardly.
Just to note, having now looked at the Thorpe website (thanks N-W-Man for the link above), I do think that these paintings are pushing the envelope and saying something interesting, I was wrong to say that they can't go beyond formalist crit. In my opinion, Spence is using the language of modernist American painters, saying something about the oxymoronic idea of painting "something" in a manner that historically was devoted to painting "nothing".
Again, this ties into some information age worries - the real is sublimated to the second level presentation of the real in media like TV, Internet, etc. There is a strain of fallacy and futility in presenting something real in a language established to present the abstract, and this is addressed in Spence's works succinctly.
I think Spider struggles to paint that "real something" the most out of the pieces on the website, where as in Flicker he finds a familiar looking modern painting style to be quite able to capture the image and essence of the flame. Spence certainly seems cognizant of what he is trying to do, using the TV metaphor to reinforce the supposition of the meta-image in his works, I was wrong to think his titles were stumbled upon. I think he does a good job of saying something that is not easy to say, even if he does it in a way that is somewhat insular to the art world. As is often the case, it takes the whole show to get the idea, looking at one piece does not tell the story
spiderman, batman, kissing pencils, touching umbrellas. i like this one a lot. like one of those shape things where you look at the positive/negative space and first see a vase and then see two faces - i have a hard time focusing on this. first it is something bursting outwards, then it is two somethings touching. i like the formalist stuff, and also think of pop art and superheroes and roy lichtenstein and ellsworth kelly.
jerry saltz included spence in his 10/1993 AiA look at painting -
Sub-Section 2. Abstractionism
"this may be the kind of work that is helping to give painting a bad name", "these artists make rules rather than break rules. It's amazing that something that started out as bold and open as abstract painting should in their hands end up so obvious and lifeless"
Juan Usle
John Zinsser
David Row
Cary Smith
Andrew Spence
more here -
http://anaba.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-1993-ii.html
Seems like edward thorp gallery is just another of those retail galleries. I hope the work that comes from galleries such that one isn't covered in the future here. I might have to find an another blog to purge into.
Post a Comment