I'm not sure I understand the current state of painting. This appeals to me but that is because of the color, but what does the color do here? To me, it is a pretty piece composed of pinks, whites, reds, etc but that is it. There is nothing else to look at, there is nothing to study or figure out. Sure, you could talk about the space but the conversation wouldn't last long.
this looks like a painting of a photosop image, in line with Chelsea's ironeptual nod towards digital imaging. Snoozefest.
If you dont get that, open up 72 ppi photoshop somehwere and:
Flood the background layer with brown using the paint bucket tool. Create a new layer and grab the paint tool or the pencil tool - no feather - 5 to 10 pixel size. follow the motion here - drawng up and down or in arcs. Grab the smudge tool and do the same thing, pressure around 50, covering your strokes. Create a new layer and repeat the drawing action, letting the layer underneath show, but keeping the line sharp.
As stated above this sets up a very basic spatial tension. In photography it is known as "depth of field" - its a great tool, but you might as well make a color wheel, too, while you are at it. Do it in three point perspective. Use only tertiary colors. And so on. Get your GAME on. This painting has no GAME.
Speaking of game I woke up this morning and did my daily reading from the bible. In the Bible Max Kozloff tells us:
"We have had styles in art for man excellent reasons, chief among which is the artists desire to engender [to conjure] for us his view of the world. Not only does the advanced artist programmatically fail in this view, he categoricly opposes any synthesis or cross referencing of ideas. He prefers instead:
[1] deliberately undigested acretions of data [2]documentations without comment [3] the purveying of information for its own sake [4] and the measuring of meaningless quantities or changes in location of some abstract phenomenon.
Max Kozloff Adforum, '72
In this article he also talks of "a school of legitimized nihilism" of which I believe, this is an example.
Not a painters painting, but rather, a conceptual snoozefest. Current mood: Disgruntled.
This artist's work has raised a question for me. How much weight should the entire body of an artist's work contribute to the judgement of a single piece? I'll try to explain. This painting looks to me like a well painted close-up of a hair knot, not particularly interesting. But since I can only see the jpeg I visited the artist's website, thewholearchive.com. The general body of work is technically skilled but emotionally repulsive. If associations to "abstract" images are appropriate, many of the early works suggest scabs, tumors, peeled flesh or weeping wounds (beautifully realised, often in bas relief). Some later pieces are straight forward severed heads or mutilated portraits. The handling of the media is talented, professional, but the use to which its has been put is depressing. The more recent pieces (if the website's arrangement is chronological) are more suggestive of the landscape and are therefore more emotionally neutral; but since the website states that all the pieces are linked, all coequal parts of the whole, I can't ignore the vile to contemplate the attractive (or at least, not aggressively repulsive). How you suggest we view this artist's work?
jpegcritic, I appreciate the suggestion and I understand your point but do you really see a relationship? I get the strong feeling from this artist's work that he is a misanthrope, Soutine wasn't. Art is (if you'll forgive me the presumption) a contribution to the human spirit or condition, even if it is chastening. Damien Hirst's Chapel can be seen as a nilist's view of the human condition but many of this artist's works look like a torturer's view. It disturbs me and makes me feel that this man's talent is being applied to an aesthetic of brutality and its enjoyment.
Bsch, point well taken. I was inspired to recall Soutine because of your evocation of this threshold in which the beautiful, the repulsive and the painterly quite effectively comingle. That's all. But let's not forget that many an artist in history were acutal misanthropes and even murderers. Better to sublimate than to practice it for real? dunno... Still I find this threshold titillating, a threshold rarely inhabited by painting (well.. there's Hermann Nitsch, whose paintings seem too markety and dandified to really exist on this threshold). Remember Joel Peter Witkin? Remarkably, he came and went BEFORE Photoshop. Though not a painter, he haunted this dmz.
Joel Peter Witkin... thank you so much for that. I take your point, I've seen but didn't dwell on these forms. I see a continuing and increasing focus upon the carnal (meat) nature of human existence. It's a point and many are making it but once it's acknowledged where do you go from there? Is Art a way forward or an illumination of the end of the road?
One time in youth soccer I had a hippy coach (anti reagan, pro sandinista). I didn't get any better, and we didn't win any fucking games, either. The other coaches yelled and stuff. "THink GOAL!!!!!" they would say. Maybe it doesnt help. I don't know.
Did the vikings use nerf swords? FUCK NO. Was theirs a utopian paradise? No. Would they have voted for Reagan? Probably.
In conclusion, this painting merely scratches the surface.
Also, look up shows like Helter Skelter, Bad Painting, 10 people to watch in 92...stuff like that. Then read the reviews. Who wants to be damned with faint praise? Raise your hand so I can take my machete to it.
Got it. Life's tough, it hurts, we die. It's true but there's more than that and this guy's stuff isn't interested. Thanks for the discussion though, it's been enlightening.
Reminds me of stuff like Arrikha where the person makes tons of work and everything oozes out. I remember reading an interview with Ross Bleckner where he said the time he spent depressed with the shades drawn was as important as time spent working. The artist's statement on the wholearchive.com reminds me of the rules of the black veil. kinky.
Helter Skelter! Was that the year the underground went blockbuster, or the blockbuster went underground? I forget. The year the phrase 'that's the ticket' resurfaced from the 1800's? The year collectors started throwing money at MFA grads while GulfWar 1.0 swung in full force... Hmmm. I'm having a stewart smiley moment, for nostalgia's sake.
i always like paintings that are trying to get at a feeling rather than a specific idea. it's not this guy's fault that photoshop has ruined our lives. i made a similar series with my digital camera - at night. i like that he achieved it through painting. the fact that he'd bother at all interests me.
did you know that cysts can grow hair, teeth, and nails?
Reminds me of "Silent Hill" - the nurse makeup is pretty good. You can find an example on the newstand -I think it was Fangoria.
Yeah, photoshop kindof sucks, so when I see someone who has just JUST! discovered it earnestly or archly presenting their findings I like to rip them a new erase to background. Not that this IS that - (see above). Its 2006, people.
yeah, it's '06 - time to recreate old stuff rather than riff off the world we actually live in. duh. losers. i say this painting should be put in a time capsule, to be opened in 2050. it's just not relevant......YET.
25 comments:
again with the saatchi...
I'm not sure I understand the current state of painting. This appeals to me but that is because of the color, but what does the color do here? To me, it is a pretty piece composed of pinks, whites, reds, etc but that is it. There is nothing else to look at, there is nothing to study or figure out. Sure, you could talk about the space but the conversation wouldn't last long.
this looks like a painting of a photosop image, in line with Chelsea's ironeptual nod towards digital imaging. Snoozefest.
If you dont get that, open up 72 ppi photoshop somehwere and:
Flood the background layer with brown using the paint bucket tool.
Create a new layer and grab the paint tool or the pencil tool - no feather - 5 to 10 pixel size.
follow the motion here - drawng up and down or in arcs.
Grab the smudge tool and do the same thing, pressure around 50, covering your strokes.
Create a new layer and repeat the drawing action, letting the layer underneath show, but keeping the line sharp.
As stated above this sets up a very basic spatial tension. In photography it is known as "depth of field" - its a great tool, but you might as well make a color wheel, too, while you are at it. Do it in three point perspective. Use only tertiary colors.
And so on. Get your GAME on.
This painting has no GAME.
Speaking of game I woke up this morning and did my daily reading from the bible. In the Bible Max Kozloff tells us:
"We have had styles in art for man excellent reasons, chief among which is the artists desire to engender [to conjure] for us his view of the world. Not only does the advanced artist programmatically fail in this view, he categoricly opposes any synthesis or cross referencing of ideas. He prefers instead:
[1] deliberately undigested acretions of data
[2]documentations without comment
[3] the purveying of information for its own sake
[4] and the measuring of meaningless quantities or changes in location of some abstract phenomenon.
Max Kozloff Adforum, '72
In this article he also talks of "a school of legitimized nihilism" of which I believe, this is an example.
Not a painters painting, but rather, a conceptual snoozefest.
Current mood: Disgruntled.
Addictive blog Painter, thanks for doing it.
This artist's work has raised a question for me. How much weight should the entire body of an artist's work contribute to the judgement of a single piece? I'll try to explain. This painting looks to me like a well painted close-up of a hair knot, not particularly interesting. But since I can only see the jpeg I visited the artist's website, thewholearchive.com. The general body of work is technically skilled but emotionally repulsive. If associations to "abstract" images are appropriate, many of the early works suggest scabs, tumors, peeled flesh or weeping wounds (beautifully realised, often in bas relief). Some later pieces are straight forward severed heads or mutilated portraits. The handling of the media is talented, professional, but the use to which its has been put is depressing. The more recent pieces (if the website's arrangement is chronological) are more suggestive of the landscape and are therefore more emotionally neutral; but since the website states that all the pieces are linked, all coequal parts of the whole, I can't ignore the vile to contemplate the attractive (or at least, not aggressively repulsive).
How you suggest we view this artist's work?
...start with Soutine, perhaps?
By the way Master, I hate to point it out to you but you are reading this blog too.
For the record, I have not and will not trash another artist on this site. I only post in support of artists that I like.
jpegcritic, I appreciate the suggestion and I understand your point but do you really see a relationship? I get the strong feeling from this artist's work that he is a misanthrope, Soutine wasn't. Art is (if you'll forgive me the presumption) a contribution to the human spirit or condition, even if it is chastening. Damien Hirst's Chapel can be seen as a nilist's view of the human condition but many of this artist's works look like a torturer's view. It disturbs me and makes me feel that this man's talent is being applied to an aesthetic of brutality and its enjoyment.
Bsch, point well taken. I was inspired to recall
Soutine because of your evocation of this
threshold in which the beautiful, the repulsive and
the painterly quite effectively comingle. That's all.
But let's not forget that many an artist in history
were acutal misanthropes and even murderers. Better to
sublimate than to practice it for real? dunno...
Still I find this threshold titillating, a threshold
rarely inhabited by painting (well.. there's Hermann
Nitsch, whose paintings seem too markety and dandified
to really exist on this threshold). Remember Joel Peter
Witkin? Remarkably, he came and went BEFORE Photoshop.
Though not a painter, he haunted this dmz.
Joel Peter Witkin... thank you so much for that. I take your point, I've seen but didn't dwell on these forms. I see a continuing and increasing focus upon the carnal (meat) nature of human existence. It's a point and many are making it but once it's acknowledged where do you go from there? Is Art a way forward or an illumination of the end of the road?
One time in youth soccer I had a hippy coach (anti reagan, pro sandinista). I didn't get any better, and we didn't win any fucking games, either. The other coaches yelled and stuff. "THink GOAL!!!!!" they would say. Maybe it doesnt help. I don't know.
Did the vikings use nerf swords? FUCK NO. Was theirs a utopian paradise? No. Would they have voted for Reagan? Probably.
In conclusion, this painting merely scratches the surface.
Also, look up shows like Helter Skelter, Bad Painting, 10 people to watch in 92...stuff like that. Then read the reviews. Who wants to be damned with faint praise? Raise your hand so I can take my machete to it.
Got it. Life's tough, it hurts, we die. It's true but there's more than that and this guy's stuff isn't interested. Thanks for the discussion though, it's been enlightening.
Reminds me of stuff like Arrikha where the person makes tons of work and everything oozes out. I remember reading an interview with Ross Bleckner where he said the time he spent depressed with the shades drawn was as important as time spent working. The artist's statement on the wholearchive.com reminds me of the rules of the black veil. kinky.
Helter Skelter! Was that the year the underground went blockbuster, or the blockbuster went underground? I forget. The year the phrase 'that's the ticket' resurfaced from the 1800's? The year collectors started throwing money at MFA grads while GulfWar 1.0 swung in full force... Hmmm. I'm having a stewart smiley moment, for nostalgia's sake.
I dont see that it's misanthropic to show the disgusting with the transcendent. I mean I see it as honest and therefore positive.
If you really loved humanity, you'd be able to lick someone's sores, right?
I think about subway car scrachitti.
And corned beef hash from a can.
With a negative egg over the top.
Actionists painting with blood and guts.
Brains splattered by a 50 caliber machine gun and
I saw your mommy and your mommy's dead
I saw her lying in a pool of red.
Sweet lovely death
I am waiting for your breath
Come sweet death, one last caress
i find the timeline part of this website http://www.thewholearchive.com/# pretentious but fun
over easy
like when you have a picture of someone that you come to hate so you scratch out their face with a safety pin
i always like paintings that are trying to get at a feeling rather than a specific idea. it's not this guy's fault that photoshop has ruined our lives. i made a similar series with my digital camera - at night. i like that he achieved it through painting. the fact that he'd bother at all interests me.
did you know that cysts can grow hair, teeth, and nails?
Reminds me of "Silent Hill" - the nurse makeup is pretty good. You can find an example on the newstand -I think it was Fangoria.
Yeah, photoshop kindof sucks, so when I see someone who has just JUST! discovered it earnestly or archly presenting their findings I like to rip them a new erase to background. Not that this IS that - (see above).
Its 2006, people.
yeah, it's '06 - time to recreate old stuff rather than riff off the world we actually live in. duh. losers. i say this painting should be put in a time capsule, to be opened in 2050. it's just not relevant......YET.
I read the article on bucky fuller in the NYT Today - the medium is the message and stuff. Love the telegram pic.
its 2006?
yes, its 2006
Post a Comment